Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 353 (2026)
Repealed by Laws 1997, c. 133, § 607, eff. July 1, 1999
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NOTE: Laws 1998, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 2, § 23 amended the effective date of Laws 1997, c. 133, § 607 from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases, 1967–2006 · leading case: Anderson v. State, 2006 OK CR 6 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).
Anderson v. State, 2006 OK CR 6 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). “[2] ¶ 2 Be that as it may, I agree that the Oklahoma Legislature's enactment of the 85% rule has "changed the rules," relating to sentences imposed for a certain term of years.”
Bowman v. State, 789 P.2d 631 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). “At that hearing, the trial court found that Petitioner’s indeterminate sentence of ten (10) years to life was improper under 57 O.S.Supp.1986, § 353 and that pursuant to 22 O.”
State v. Hamlin, 499 A.2d 45 (Vt. 1985). “); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 57, § 353 (West 1969); Tenn.”
White v. State, 774 P.2d 1072 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989). “Appellant contends that this sentence is not valid because the imposing of a maximum sentence of not more than life violates the provisions of title 57 O.S.1981, § 353. This section provides: In all cases where a sentence of imprisonment in the penitentiary is imposed, the court…”
Application of Anderson, 803 P.2d 1160 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). “December 1, 1989 — Sequoyah County District Court, citing authority that 10 year to life sentences imposed pursuant to 57 O.S.1971, § 353 are impermissible, granted Petitioner’s application for post-conviction relief and modified Petitioner’s sentence in Case No.”
Stafford v. State, 800 P.2d 738 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). “Indeterminate sentences are permitted under 57 O.S.Supp.1987, § 353. This section, which is a verbatim reenactment of 57 O.”
Kupiec v. State, 493 P.2d 444 (Okla. Crim. App. 1972). “Title 57 O.S., § 353, provides as follows: "In all cases where a sentence of imprisonment in the penitentiary is imposed, the court in assessing the term of the confinement may fix a minimum and a maximum term, both of which shall be within the limits now or hereafter provided…”
Howell v. State, 632 P.2d 1223 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981). “The jury’s sentence in the present case was an indeterminate one of three to five years; and that was an acceptable sentence under 57 O.S.1971, § 353. Suits v. State, 507 P.”
Suits v. State, 507 P.2d 1261 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973). “” Title 57 O.S.Supp.1970, § 353 provides: “In all cases where a sentence of imprisonment in the penitentiary is imposed, the court in assessing the term of the confinement may fix a minimum and a maximum term, both of which shall be within the limits now or hereafter provided by…”
Anthamatten v. State, 506 P.2d 959 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973). “Witness Kennedy testified that he identified the defendant at the police line-up and that his identification was not based upon the mug shots he observed but rather “identified him from the man that attacked me.”
Snake v. Page, 486 P.2d 762 (Okla. Crim. App. 1971). “He urges that since he was sentenced to serve an indeterminate term of from five to ten years imprisonment, his sentence is illegal in that it violates the provisions of 57 O.S.Supp. § 353, the same providing: “In all cases where a sentence of imprisonment in the petitentiary is…”
Swenson v. State, 525 P.2d 1395 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974). “More particularly the defendant urges that under the provisions of 57 O.S.Supp.1970, § 353 the trial court should not have placed a minimum limit in its indefinite sentence instruction to the jury.”
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.