Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 976 (2026)

Concurrent sentences

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If the defendant has been convicted of two or more offenses, before judgment on either, the judgment may be that the imprisonment upon any one may commence at the expiration of the imprisonment upon any other of the offenses. Provided, that the sentencing judge shall, at all times, have the discretion to enter a sentence concurrent with any other sentence. R.L. 1910, § 5957. Amended by Laws 1985, c. 20, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 1985; Laws 1997, c. 133, § 68, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 1999, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 5, § 19, eff. July 1, 1999. NOTE: Laws 1998, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 2, § 23 amended the effective date of Laws 1997, c. 133, § 68 from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 29 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Bever v. State, 2020 OK CR 13 (Okla. Crim. App. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bever v. State, 2020 OK CR 13 (Okla. Crim. App. 2020). · cites it 6× “22 O.S.2011, § 976. However, whether the trial court's ruling is consistent with the current state of the law is an issue this Court reviews de novo .”

Moss v. Oklahoma Dep't of Corr., 2016 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “Moss argued that 22 O.S.2011, § 976 allows a sentencing judge discretion to enter a sentence concurrent with any other sentence.”

Wall v. State, 2020 OK CR 9 (Okla. Crim. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “22 O.S.2011, § 976. See also Neloms, 2012 OK CR 7, ¶ 35, 274 P.”

Dennis v. Poppel, 222 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “Even if his actions constituted separate offenses, he contends the state court should have merged his offenses together at sentencing under Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 976 , 9 and thus sentenced him to concurrent instead of consecutive sentences.”

Huckaby v. State, 804 P.2d 447 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). · cites it 3× “1989, § 991a and § 991c, respectively, nor concurrent sentences according to 22 O.S.Supp.1985, § 976. The trial judge sentenced appellant according to the jury's recommendation following the submission of a presentence report from the Department of Corrections, which report…”

Walker v. State, 780 P.2d 1181 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989). · cites it 3× “At the hearing on petitioner's application to withdraw his guilty pleas, there was a discussion as to whether the trial judge had the authority under 22 O.S.Supp. 1985, § 976 to run all of petitioner's sentences concurrently.”

Logsdon v. State, 2010 OK CR 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010). “2d 530, 534 ; 22 O.S.2001, § 976. 9. Sentencing Racketeering (Count 17) ¶ 23 Logsdon claims that his fifteen-year sentence on Count 17 for racketeering should be modified because the jury was not instructed that he would be required to serve 50% of his sentence before becoming…”

Riley v. State, 947 P.2d 530 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “22 O.S.1991, § 976; Harris v. State, 772 P.”

Warnick v. Booher, 2006 OK CR 41 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). “22 O.S.2001, § 976. In a case with multiple sentences, the judgment and sentence which is first received at the penal institution shall commence and be followed by those sentences which are subsequently received at the institution, in the order in which they are received by the…”

Day v. State, 784 P.2d 79 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989). “1989) (now in circulation), held that 22 O.S.1981, § 976 permitted the judge to “enter a sentence concurrent with any other sentence.”

Wooten v. State, 702 P.2d 59 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985). “1 See also 22 O.S.1981, § 976. *62 Appellant’s fourth assignment argues that it was error to permit the prosecutor to cross-examine appellant about a former felony conviction not enumerated in the information, without demonstrating the conviction was constitutionally proper.”

Olvera v. State, 2024 OK CR 28 (Okla. Crim. App. 2024). “State , 2019 OK CR 17, ¶ 66 , 448 P.3d 1134, 1154 . ¶22 The State proved Appellant committed the crimes of first degree felony murder, first degree burglary, and desecrating a human corpse.”

Show all 29 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.