Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 982a (2026)

Judicial review

✓ current as of July 2026

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

A. 1. Any time within sixty (60) months after the initial sentence is imposed or within sixty (60) months after probation has been revoked, the court imposing sentence or revocation of probation may modify such sentence or revocation by directing that another sentence be imposed, if the court is satisfied that the best interests of the public will not be jeopardized; provided, however, the court shall not impose a deferred sentence. Any application for sentence modification that is filed and ruled upon beyond twelve (12) months of the initial sentence being imposed must be approved by the district attorney who shall provide written notice to any victims in the case which is being considered for modification. 2. The court imposing sentence may modify the sentence of any offender who was originally sentenced for a drug charge and ordered to complete the Drug Offender Work Camp at the Bill Johnson Correctional Facility and direct that another sentence be imposed, if the court is satisfied that the best interests of the public will not be jeopardized; provided, however, the court shall not impose a deferred sentence. An application for sentence modification pursuant to this paragraph may be filed and ruled upon beyond the initial sixty-month time period provided for in paragraph 1 of this subsection. 3. This section shall not apply to convicted felons who have been in confinement in any state or federal prison system for any previous felony conviction during the ten-year period preceding the date that the sentence this section applies to was imposed. Further, without the consent of the district attorney, this section shall not apply to sentences imposed pursuant to a plea agreement or jury verdict. B. The court imposing the sentence may modify the sentence of any offender sentenced to life without parole for an offense other than a violent crime, as enumerated in Section 571 of Title 57 of the Oklahoma Statutes, who has served at least ten (10) years of the sentence in the custody of the Department of Corrections upon a finding that the best interests of the public will not be jeopardized. Provided; however, prior to granting a sentence modification under the provisions of this subsection, the court shall provide notice of the hearing to determine sentence modification to the victim or representative of the victim and shall allow the victim or representative of the victim the opportunity to provide testimony at the hearing. The court shall consider the

testimony of the victim or representative of the victim when rendering a decision to modify the sentence of an offender. C. For purposes of judicial review, upon court order or written request from the sentencing judge, the Department of Corrections shall provide the court imposing sentence or revocation of probation with a report to include a summary of the assessed needs of the offender, any progress made by the offender in addressing his or her assessed needs, and any other information the Department can supply on the offender. The court shall consider such reports when modifying the sentence or revocation of probation. The court shall allow the Department of Corrections at least twenty (20) days after receipt of a request or order from the court to prepare the required reports. D. If the court considers modification of the sentence or revocation of probation, a hearing shall be made in open court after receipt of the reports required in subsection C of this section. The clerk of the court imposing sentence or revocation of probation shall give notice of the judicial review hearing to the Department of Corrections, the offender, the legal counsel of the offender, and the district attorney of the county in which the offender was convicted upon receipt of the reports. Such notice shall be mailed at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the hearing date and shall include a copy of the report and any other written information to be considered at the judicial review hearing. E. If an appeal is taken from the original sentence or from a revocation of probation which results in a modification of the sentence or modification to the revocation of probation of the offender, such sentence may be further modified in the manner described in paragraph 1 of subsection A of this section within sixty (60) months after the receipt by the clerk of the district court of the mandate from the Supreme Court or the Court of Criminal Appeals. Added by Laws 1983, c. 37, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1983. Amended by Laws 1997, c. 133, § 69, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 1999, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 5, § 20, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 2007, c. 358, § 6, eff. July 1, 2007; Laws 2009, c. 240, § 1, emerg. eff. May 21, 2009; Laws 2010, c. 2, § 8, emerg. eff. March 3, 2010; Laws 2012, c. 228, § 3, eff. Nov. 1, 2012; Laws 2015, c. 127, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2015; Laws 2016, c. 160, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2016; Laws 2018, c. 128, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2018. NOTE: Laws 1998, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 2, § 23 amended the effective date of Laws 1997, c. 133, § 69 from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999. NOTE: Laws 2009, c. 275, § 1 repealed by Laws 2010, c. 2, § 9, emerg. eff. March 3, 2010.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 57 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: McHam v. State, 2005 OK CR 28 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

McHam v. State, 2005 OK CR 28 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “22 O.S.2001, § 982a. We cannot say the resulting sentence is shocking to the conscience.”

Mitchell v. Dowling, 672 F. App'x 792 (10th Cir. 2016). “Mitchell then filed a “request for judicial review,” pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 982a (2011), on June 24, 2015.”

Moss v. Oklahoma Dep't of Corr., 2016 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “¶7 On August 5, 2009, pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.2009, § 982a, Moss filed a Motion for Sentence Modification in Tulsa County Case No.”

Randall v. Allbaugh, 662 F. App'x 571 (10th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “During the relevant period, Randall filed a motion for judicial review pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 982a, which was pending for 49 days, 3 and an application for state post-conviction relief, which was pending for 139 days.”

Fields v. Driesel, 941 P.2d 1000 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “" Title 22 O.S.1991, § 982a does allow the District Court to modify a sentence within one hundred twenty (120) days after the sentence is imposed or after probation is revoked.”

Doby v. Dowling, 632 F. App'x 485 (10th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “On December 23, 2013, he filed in state court a petition for judicial review and sentence modification under Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 982a, which was denied on February 3, 2014.”

Metoyer v. State, 2022 OK CR 27 (Okla. Crim. App. 2022). “1 22 O.S.2021, § 982a 22 O.S.2021, § 991a inter alia "[s]uspend the execution of sentence in whole or in part, with or without probation"); 22 O.”

Leech v. State, 2003 OK CR 4 (Okla. Crim. App. 2003). “2001 , § 982 (to aid in its sentencing determination, a trial court must require a presentence investigation upon conviction of certain violent felonies); 22 O.”

Meyer v. Engle, 2016 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). “2011, § 953 (time for applying for new trial); 22 O.S.2011, § 982a (time limit for modification of sentence).”

Nicholson v. Higgins, 147 F. App'x 7 (10th Cir. 2005). “22, § 982a, which allows state sentencing courts to modify parole revocation within twelve months after revocation, but as the district court properly noted, such motions seek discretionary review, their denial is not appealable, and they therefore do not constitute…”

Williams v. Beck, 115 F. App'x 32 (10th Cir. 2004). “Williams argues that because Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 982a allows a state district court to modify a sentence within twelve months after imposing it under certain circumstances, no judgment and sentence is final in Oklahoma until the twelve-month period has run.”

Todd v. Miller, 192 F. App'x 731 (10th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “Todd filed a petition for judicial review under Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 982a. This petition was denied by the state district court judge on October 15, 2002.”

Show all 57 citing cases →

— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 982a(1) — 1 case

State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Lance, 2023 OK 98 (Okla. 2023).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 982a(A) — 2 cases

Hairrell v. Crow (E.D. Okla. 2022).

Smith v. O'Connor (E.D. Okla. 2022).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 982a(A)(3) — 4 cases

Green v. Harding (E.D. Okla. 2024).

Urive v. Crow (10th Cir. 2023).

Hairrell v. Crow (E.D. Okla. 2022).

Begay v. Bridges (E.D. Okla. 2025).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 982a(B) — 1 case

Brown v. Parker, 771 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2014).

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.