LOCKETT v. STATE

OSCN Found Document:LOCKETT v. STATE

OSCN navigation

Home

Courts

Court Dockets

Legal Research

Calendar

Help

Previous Case

Top Of Index

This Point in Index

Citationize

Next Case

Print Only

LOCKETT v. STATE

2014 OK CR 3

Case Number: D-2000-1330; D-2003-829

Decided: 04/18/2014

CLAYTON LOCKETT and CHARLES WARNER, Appellants, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.

Cross Reference with Oklahoma Supreme Court Case No. 112741

Cite as: 2014 OK CR 3 , __ __

ORDER DENYING STAYS OF EXECUTION

¶1 The Oklahoma Supreme Court has again transferred to this Court a joint

request for stay of execution filed in connection with a civil appeal involving

Appellants currently pending before that Court. Lockett, et al. v. Evans, et

al., Case No. 112,741 (April 11, 2014). The recent procedural history of

this case is lengthy and requires repeating for clarity. This Court set

execution dates in January 2014 for Lockett and Warner after both death row

inmates had exhausted their state and federal appeals.

1 Both sought and were

denied executive clemency from the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board. On February

26, 2014, Lockett and Warner filed a civil declaratory judgment action in the

District Court of Oklahoma County against the Oklahoma Department of Corrections

(ODOC). Lockett, et al. v. Evans, et al., Case No. CV-2014-330. That

lawsuit challenged, among other things, the constitutionality of the

confidentiality provision in 22 O.S.2011, § 1015(B). 2 The complaint was

accompanied by a motion for injunctive relief seeking a stay of their respective

executions. Because the complaint challenged § 1015(B) on both state and federal

grounds, ODOC removed the case to federal court. Appellants amended their

complaint, deleting all federal constitutional claims, and the federal district

court declined jurisdiction and remanded the case back to state court.

Appellants filed an amended complaint along with their motion for stay of

execution. The Honorable Patricia G. Parrish of the District Court of Oklahoma

County held a hearing on March 10, 2014, and denied Appellants' request for stay

of execution, finding that "jurisdiction for such matters properly lies with the

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals." Judge Parrish did not otherwise rule on the

declaratory judgment action.

¶2 On March 11, 2014, Appellants filed with the Oklahoma Supreme Court a

petition in error and designation of record to initiate an appeal of Judge

Parrish's ruling denying the requested stay of execution. See Lockett, et al.

v. Evans, et al., Case No. 112,639. Appellants also filed with the Oklahoma

Supreme Court an "Emergency Application for Stay of Execution Pending Outcome of

Appeal." The next day ODOC filed a response in opposition to Appellants' motion

for stay of execution. On March 13, 2014, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that

Judge Parrish had jurisdiction to hear the merits of Appellants' declaratory

judgment action. That Court declined, however, to grant a stay of execution,

citing Maynard v. Layden,

1992 OK CR 31 , 830 P.2d 581 , 3 and transferred to this Court Plaintiffs' Emergency

Application for Stay of Execution Pending Outcome of Appeal. That same day, this

Court directed briefs from the parties addressing the applicability of

Malicoat v. State 4 and 22 O.S.2011, § 1001.1 to the application for

stay. In the supplemental briefing, the State announced its inability to procure

the necessary execution drugs for the impending executions. Based on the State's

revelation that it lacked execution drugs and could not obtain them, this Court

on March 18, 2014 vacated Lockett's and Warner's execution dates and reset

them. 5 On March 26, 2014, Judge Parrish ruled from the bench

that the portion of § 1015(B) making confidential the identity of execution

participants and those who supply the execution drugs violated Appellants' state

constitutional right to access to the courts. 6 A written order memorializing Judge Parrish's ruling

was entered on April 1, 2014. Appellants filed in this Court an application for

stay of execution on April 7, 2014, but did not file an action challenging their

convictions, death sentences or the constitutionality of the execution protocol.

The State filed a response that same day, attesting that ODOC had the necessary

drugs to lawfully carry out Appellants' scheduled executions and had advised

Appellants of ODOC's newly adopted execution protocol. This Court denied

Appellants' request for stay of execution on April 9, 2014, on the basis that we

had no authority to enter a stay under 22 O.S.2011, § 1001.1(C) because there was no

pending case in this Court. With their executions approaching and their request

for stay of execution denied by this Court, Appellants filed on April 11, 2014,

an application for stay of execution in the Oklahoma Supreme Court in connection

with their appeal of Judge Parrish's adverse ruling of March 26, 2014. 7 The State filed a

response. The Oklahoma Supreme Court transferred the application for stay of

execution to this Court on April 17, 2014 to decide whether a stay of execution

should be issued pending the resolution of Appellants' civil appeal before the

Supreme Court. 8 The Supreme Court retained jurisdiction of Appellants'

appeal of Judge Parrish's adverse ruling.

¶3 The Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction in

criminal cases and may exercise such other and further jurisdiction as may be

conferred by statute. Okla. Const. art. 7, § 4;

20 O.S.2011, § 40. Our authority to grant a

stay of execution is limited by 22 O.S.2011, § 1001.1(C). 9 The language of §

1001.1(C) is clear. This Court may grant a stay of execution only when: (1)

there is an action pending in this Court; (2) the action challenges the death

row inmate's conviction or death sentence; and (3) the death row inmate makes

the requisite showings of likely success and irreparable harm. The Supreme

Court's opinion transferring Appellants' application for stay of execution finds

that this Court "ignored" subsections (D), 10 (E), 11 and (F) 12 of § 1001.1 in denying Appellants' April 7th application for stay of execution filed in this Court. We

respectfully disagree based on rules of statutory construction. The primary task

in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the

Legislature. Johnson v. State , 2013 OK CR 12, ¶ 10 , 308 P.3d 1053, 1055 ; Starkey v. Oklahoma Dept. of

Corrections , 2013 OK

43, ¶ 34 , 305 P.3d

1004, 1017 . To discern that intent, we look first to the language of the

statute itself, giving the statutory terms their commonly accepted and

understood meaning. Johnson , 2013 OK CR 12, ¶ 10 , 308 P.3d at 1055 ; W.R. Allison

Enterprises, Inc. v. CompSource Oklahoma , 2013 OK 24, ¶ 15 , 301 P.3d 407, 411-412 ( citing State ex rel. Oklahoma

State Dept. of Health v. Robinson , 2006 OK 99, ¶ 6 , 152 P.3d 875, 877-78 ). In construing statutory

provisions, specific provisions govern over general ones. See State v.

Hall , 2008 OK CR

15 , ¶ 29 , 185 P.3d

397, 404 ( citing Lozoya v. State , 1996 OK CR 55, ¶¶ 17-18 , 932 P.2d 22, 28-29 ); Jones v. State ex rel. Office

of Juvenile Affairs , 2011 OK 105, ¶ 14 , 268 P.3d 72, 76 .

¶4 It is evident from the plain language of § 1001.1 that the Legislature

prescribed this Court's authority to grant stays of execution in Subsection (C).

Although Subsections (D), (E), and (F) refer to stays of execution issued by

"any state or federal court," these subsections do not specify the conditions

under which "any state or federal court" may grant a stay, nor do they

specifically vest authority to do so. These subsections identify this Court by

name and task us with setting execution dates upon the dissolution or vacation

of stays issued by other state or federal courts. Subsection (C) vests authority

in this Court to grant stays of execution and prescribes the conditions under

which we may do so. It is controlling. While the Oklahoma Supreme Court has

authority to deem an issue civil and so within its jurisdiction, it does not

have the power to supersede a statute and manufacture jurisdiction in this Court

for Appellants' stay request by merely transferring it here. Therefore,

Appellants' application for stays of execution is DENIED.

¶5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

¶6 WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 18th day of

April, 2014.

/S/DAVID LEWIS, Presiding Judge

/S/CLANCY SMITH, Vice Presiding Judge

/S/GARY L. LUMPKIN, Judge

/S/CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Judge

/S/ARLENE JOHNSON, Judge

ATTEST:

/s/Michael S. Richie

Clerk

1 Lockett's original execution date was set for March 20,

2014 and Warner's original execution date was set for March 27, 2014.

2 The confidentiality provision of § 1015 (B) states:

"The identity of all persons who participate in or administer the execution

process and persons who supply the drugs, medical supplies or medical equipment

for the execution shall be confidential and shall not be subject to discovery in

any civil or criminal proceedings."

3 In Layden , this Court referenced an Oklahoma

Supreme Court order that denied a death row inmate's application to assume

original jurisdiction and petitions for writs of prohibition and mandamus

because "the punishment, and the amount thereof, is an essential part of the

judgment in a criminal case and that the carrying out, prohibiting, or staying

such a judgment is within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of [the Court of

Criminal Appeals]." Layden , at ¶ 3 , 830 P.2d at 582 . Layden dealt

with statutes (22 O.S.1991, §§

1012 & 1013) that have been repealed but the rule enunciated above

remains valid.

4 2006 OK CR 25 , 137 P.3d 1234 .

5 Lockett's execution date is set for April 22, 2014 and

Warner's execution date is set for April 29, 2014.

6 Judge Parrish denied the balance of Appellants' claims

in the amended petition.

7 Appellants appeal Judge Parrish's rulings that (1)

Section 1014 of Title 22 is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative

authority; and (2) the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act was not violated

by ODOC when it enacted its new execution protocol. The State filed its petition

in error appealing Judge Parrish's ruling finding 22 O.S.2011, § 1015(B) unconstitutional on

April 18, 2014.

8 The Supreme Court's opinion urges us "to be cognizant

of the time restraints associated with the submission of the appeal(s) to this

Court along with the gravity of the first impression constitutional issues this

Court will be charged with in addressing the civil appeal, or appeals."

Lockett et al. v. Evans et al ., 2014 OK 28, ¶ 4 . ODOC has furnished Appellants with

the names, dosages and expiration dates of the three drugs it will use for

execution. Armed with this information, Appellants have failed to challenge the

new protocol on Eighth Amendment grounds and insist only that the identities of

the drug suppliers and manufacturers may lead to a basis to challenge

their death sentences.

9 Section 1001.1(C) states:

When an action challenging

the conviction or sentence of death is pending before it, the Court of Criminal

Appeals may stay an execution date, or issue any order which effectively stays

an execution date only upon a showing by the defendant that there exists a

significant possibility of reversal of the defendant's conviction, or vacation

of the defendant's sentence, and that irreparable harm will result if no stay is

issued.

10 Section D provides:

Should a stay of execution be

issued by any state or federal court, a new execution date shall be set by

operation of law sixty (60) days after the dissolution of the stay of execution.

The new execution date shall be set by the Court of Criminal Appeals without

necessity of application by the state, but the Attorney General, on behalf of

the state, shall bring to the attention of the Court of Criminal Appeals the

fact of the dissolution of a stay of execution and suggest the appropriateness

of the setting of a new execution date.

11 Section E provides:

After an execution date has been

set pursuant to the provisions of this section, should a stay of execution be

issued by any state or federal court, a new execution date shall be set by

operation of law thirty (30) days after the dissolution of the stay of

execution. The new execution date shall be set by the Court of Criminal Appeals

without necessity of application by the state, but the Attorney General, on

behalf of the state, shall bring to the attention of the Court of Criminal

Appeals the fact of the dissolution of a stay of execution and suggest the

appropriateness of setting a new execution date.

12 Section F provides:

After an execution date has been

set pursuant to the provisions of this section, should a stay of execution be

issued by any state or federal court and then vacated by such court, the

sentence of death shall be carried out as ordered prior to the issuance of such

vacated stay of execution. If the prior execution date has expired prior to the

vacation of the stay of execution, a new execution date shall be set by

operation of law thirty (30) days after the vacation of the stay of execution.

The new execution date shall be set by the Court of Criminal Appeals without

necessity of application by the state, but the Attorney General, on behalf of

the state, shall bring to the attention of the Court of Criminal Appeals the

fact of a vacation of the stay of execution and suggest the appropriateness of

the setting of a new execution date.

SMITH, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE, DISSENTING:

¶1 The majority has set forth an erudite and accurate analysis of this

Court's jurisdictional restraints. However, I find that whether or not a stay is

an appropriate exercise of this Court's authority under

22 O.S.2011, § 1001.1., I would grant a stay to

avoid irreparable harm as the appellants face imminent execution. I would do so

in consideration of the appellants' rights, to avoid the possibility of a

miscarriage of justice, and in comity with the Supreme Court's request for time

to resolve the issues pending before it.

¶2 I am authorized to state that Judge Charles Johnson joins me in this

dissent.

Lumpkin, J., Specially Concurring:

¶1 I join in the order entered by the Court but write separately to point out

Appellants' repeated failure to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court prevents

the Court from reaching any other result.

¶2 On March 13, 2014, the Oklahoma Supreme Court determined only the Court of

Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to enter a stay of execution in a death

penalty case and transferred to this Court part of the matter pending in

Oklahoma Supreme Court Case No. 112,639. That portion transferred addressed the

issue of whether a stay should be issued prior to the District Court of Oklahoma

County considering the pleadings that have been filed in the above cited civil

matter. This Court ordered the Appellants and the State to provide this Court

with supplemental briefs and directed the parties to this Court's controlling

precedent in Malicoat v. State ,

2006 OK CR 25 , 137 P.3d 1234 and 22 O.S.2011, § 1001.1. Appellants refused the

opportunity to lawfully file an application for post-conviction relief and

proceeded with their "civil" claim. Within its supplemental brief, the State

acknowledged that it did not possess the drugs needed to carry out the lawful

sentence of death for Appellants. On March 18, 2014, this Court vacated and

reset the scheduled executions for both Appellants. Appellant Lockett's

execution was reset to April 22, 2014, and Appellant Warner's execution was

reset to April 29, 2014.

¶3 On April 7, 2014, Appellants filed their joint Emergency Application for

Stay of Execution Pending The Appeal From The District Court's Decision with

this Court but did not file an action challenging their convictions, death

sentences, or the constitutionality of the execution protocol. Instead, they

continued to only raise "civil" claims. The State filed a response that same day

and attested that it had the necessary drugs to lawfully carry out Appellants'

execution and had advised Appellants concerning the Department of Corrections'

new execution protocol. On April 9, 2014, we denied Appellants' request for a

stay and explicitly informed Appellants that this Court was without authority to

issue a stay without an action pending in this Court.

¶4 Despite this Court's notice to the Appellants of the need to invoke the

jurisdiction of this Court by filing the appropriate pleadings, and the Oklahoma

Supreme Court's opinion that only the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction

to enter a stay of execution in a death penalty case, on April 14, 2014,

Appellants, again, sought a stay of execution before the Oklahoma Supreme Court

in Oklahoma Supreme Court Case No. 112,741. Appellants' appeal only involves

"civil" claims. On April 17, 2014, the Oklahoma Supreme Court transferred to

this Court that portion of the issue of whether a stay of execution should be

issued for both Appellants during the pendency of their appeal before the

Oklahoma Supreme Court.

¶5 Counsel for Appellants are members of the Oklahoma Bar licensed to

practice in the state. They are well aware that Oklahoma has a bifurcated

civil-criminal system of justice. Carder v. Court of Criminal Appeals ,

1978 OK 130, ¶ 1 , 595 P.2d 416, 417 . The jurisdiction of the Oklahoma

Court of Criminal Appeals is set forth in Article VII, § 4 of the Oklahoma

Constitution. The Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction

in criminal cases and may exercise such other and further jurisdiction as may be

conferred by statute. Id .; 20 O.S.2011, § 40 ("The Court of Criminal

Appeals shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction, coextensive with the limits

of the state, in all criminal cases appealed from the district, superior and

county courts, and such other courts of record as may be established by law.").

This Court has the authority to determine when it has the power to proceed.

Duvall v. State , 871 P.2d 1386, 1387-88 ; 20 O.S.2011, § 42 ("Said Court shall have

power, upon affidavit or otherwise, to ascertain such matters of fact as may be

necessary to the exercise of its jurisdiction."); 22 O.S.2011, § 1051 ("The procedure for the

filing of an appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeals shall be as provided in the

Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals . . . which will have the force of

statute . . . ."). It is the exclusive province of the Oklahoma Court of

Criminal Appeals to construe state criminal statutes. State v. Tolle ,

1997 OK CR 52, ¶ 5 , 945 P.2d 503, 504 . The Court of Criminal Appeals

decisions are governed by the United States Constitution, the Constitution of

the State of Oklahoma, duly enacted statutes, and controlling precedent

concerning these authorities. See Carder , 1978 OK 130, ¶ 20 , 595 P.2d at 420 ("There is no

appeal or proceeding in error from the Court of Criminal Appeals to this

Court."). The Court of Criminal Appeals is respectful of the Oklahoma Supreme

Court's well-reasoned opinions, in all instances, but as the state appellate

court with exclusive jurisdiction in criminal matters, the Court of Criminal

Appeals must announce and apply principled rules to guide the state's citizens,

trial courts, and criminal litigators as to criminal matters. Young v.

State , 1999 OK CR

14, ¶ 17 , 989 P.2d

949, 953 .

¶6 Appellants' litigation is intended to take advantage of our bifurcated

system of justice. However, I note that the Justices of the Oklahoma Supreme

Court work hand-in-hand with the Judges that serve on this Court. Over 35 years

ago, Justice Simms writing for the Oklahoma Supreme Court noted the relationship

between the two courts:

It speaks well of our bifurcated civil-criminal appellate system that there

has not been a jurisdictional conflict between this Court and the Court of

Criminal Appeals for more than fifty years. This scarcity of conflict is a

testament to both the clarity of jurisdictional boundaries between the two

Courts and the constant willingness of the members of each Court to observe and

comply with their jurisdictional restrictions.

Carder,

1978 OK

130, ¶ 1 , 595 P.2d at 417-18 .

¶7 Both the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Oklahoma Supreme Court have

determined how issues like these should proceed. As a general rule, a civil

order will neither interfere to prevent the enforcement of a valid criminal

judgment of conviction nor restrain or relieve the execution of a valid criminal

sentence. Maynard v. Layden ,

1992 OK CR 31, ¶¶ 7-10 , 830 P.2d 581, 583 . In Maynard , this Court

stated:

Brewer has the right to file a civil rights action and, if his complaints are

valid, to obtain an injunction in such an action. However, the breadth of such

an action, including the remedies available thereunder, is not unlimited and, as

a general rule, cannot affect or apply to criminal actions, including the

imposition of criminal punishment. See Rogers v. Douglas ,

72 P.2d 823, 825 (Okla.1937) Such is

true especially where the criminal law provides a statutory remedy to prohibit

the wrong or injury for which redress is sought by injunction. See Id .;

Independent School District No. 9 of Tulsa County v. Glass ,

639 P.2d 1233, 1237 (Okla.1982).

Id.,

1992 OK CR

31, ¶ 7 , 830 P.2d at 583 . In Rogers , the Oklahoma Supreme Court held

that a district judge was without jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining

order enjoining enforcement of a criminal statute that had not been shown to be

invalid. Maynard, 1992 OK CR 31 , ¶ 7 n.1, 830 P.2d at 583 n.1, citing

Rogers v. Douglas , 1937 OK 569 , 72 P.2d 823 . Where there is a forum and a remedy for a

capital defendant to prohibit the execution of a judgment of death, an

injunction emanating from an alternative forum is not necessary to effectuate

such relief and is an impermissible intrusion upon criminal proceedings.

Maynard, 1992 OK CR

31, ¶ 8 , 830 P.2d at 583 .

¶8 Appellants have a forum to challenge the validity of their convictions,

sentences and the execution protocol. In no way, have Appellants been denied

access to the courts. Excluding a timely direct appeal, any challenge to a

sentence of death is governed by the Capital Post-Conviction Procedure Act,

22 O.S.2011, § 1089. See

22 O.S.2011, § 1080. This Court has

previously determined that the proper method to object to the setting of an

execution date or request a stay of execution is to file an application for

post-conviction relief with the Court of Criminal Appeals. Malicoat v.

State , 2006 OK CR

25 , 137 P.3d

1234 ; Torres v. State , 2002 OK CR 35 , 58 P.3d 214 ; Valdez v. State , 2002 OK CR 20 , 46 P.3d 703 . This includes any challenge to the

execution protocol. Id . The Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals apply

to all appeals and proceedings before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.

Rule 1.0(A), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals , Title 22,

Ch. 18, App. (2014). Both § 1089 and Rule 9.7, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of

Criminal Appeals , Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2014), set forth the requirements

for a properly filed application for post-conviction relief. Our rules and

decisions permit discovery in capital post-conviction proceedings. Bland v.

State , 1999 OK CR

45, ¶ 3 , 991 P.2d

1039, 1040 . The Court of Criminal Appeals has the authority to grant a stay

of execution of a sentence of death pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, § 1001.1.

¶9 However, Appellants have repeatedly refused to invoke the jurisdiction and

power of the Court to act. It is a fundamental axiom of jurisprudence that a

party must first file an action to have access to the court. Buis v.

State ,

1990 OK CR

28, ¶ 4 , 792 P.2d

427, 429 (holding court may only exercise jurisdiction of justiciable matter

through filing of pleadings sufficient to invoke power of the court to act).

Despite repeated invitations from this Court for Appellants to file pleadings to

invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, Appellants have failed to do so.

¶10 I have the utmost faith that if Appellants had a meritorious challenge to

their convictions, sentences of death or the execution protocol, that the

Oklahoma Indigent Defense System would ably represent them pursuant to §

1089(B). I note that in each of the Appellants' cases, the District Court

appointed the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System to represent them in seeking

post-conviction relief. Attorneys from the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System have

previously appeared in each of the Appellants' post-conviction proceedings.

Lockett v. State , unpub. dispo. PCD-2002-631, (Okl. Cr. October 22,

2002); Warner v. State , unpub. dispo. PCD-2003-897 (Okl. Cr. December 20,

2006). Those attorneys understand and follow the procedure the Oklahoma

Legislature has established for the review of sentences involving the death

penalty. The District Courts' orders appointing the Oklahoma Indigent Defense

System remain valid. In light of Appellants' repeated refusals to file an action

in this Court I am forced to conclude that Appellants' "civil" pleadings are

nothing more than an attempt to cause a delay in their lawful execution. Since

the jurisdiction of this Court has not been properly invoked, this Court cannot

issue a stay of execution.

Citationizer © Summary of Documents Citing This Document Cite

Name

Level

None Found.

Citationizer: Table of Authority Cite

Name

Level

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Cases

Cite Name Level

1990 OK CR 28 , 792 P.2d 427 , BUIS v. STATE Discussed

1992 OK CR 31 , 830 P.2d 581 , MAYNARD v. LAYDEN Discussed at Length

1994 OK CR 19 , 871 P.2d 1386 , DUVALL v. STATE Cited

1996 OK CR 55 , 932 P.2d 22 , Benjamin Lozoya v. State Discussed

2002 OK CR 20 , 46 P.3d 703 , VALDEZ v. STATE Discussed

2002 OK CR 35 , 58 P.3d 214 , TORRES v. STATE Discussed

2006 OK CR 25 , 137 P.3d 1234 , MALICOAT v. STATE Discussed at Length

2008 OK CR 15 , 185 P.3d 397 , STATE v. HALL Discussed

2013 OK CR 12 , 308 P.3d 1053 , JOHNSON v. STATE Discussed at Length

1999 OK CR 45 , 991 P.2d 1039 , Bland v. State Discussed

1997 OK CR 52 , 945 P.2d 503 , 68 OBJ 3135, State v. Tolle Discussed

1999 OK CR 14 , 989 P.2d 949 , 70 OBJ 1076, State v. Young Discussed

Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases

Cite Name Level

1937 OK 569 , 72 P.2d 823 , 181 Okla. 32 , ROGERS v. DOUGLASS Discussed at Length

2006 OK 99 , 152 P.3d 875 , STATE ex rel. OKLA. STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH v. ROBERTSON Discussed

2011 OK 105 , 268 P.3d 72 , JONES v. STATE Discussed

2013 OK 24 , 301 P.3d 407 , W.R. ALLISON ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COMPSOURCE OKLAHOMA Discussed

2013 OK 43 , 305 P.3d 1004 , STARKEY v. OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Discussed

2014 OK 28 , LOCKETT v. EVANS Cited

1978 OK 130 , 595 P.2d 416 , CARDER v. COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Discussed at Length

1982 OK 2 , 639 P.2d 1233 , Independent School Dist. No. 9 of Tulsa County v. Glass Cited

Title 20. Courts

Cite Name Level

20 O.S. 40 , Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction Discussed

20 O.S. 42 , Power to Ascertain Jurisdictional Facts Cited

Title 22. Criminal Procedure

Cite Name Level

22 O.S. 1001 .1, Time for Execution of Judgment Imposing Death Sentence - Stay of Execution Discussed at Length

22 O.S. 1012 , Repealed by Laws 1992, HB 2268, c. 106, § 3, eff. September 1, 1992 Cited

22 O.S. 1015 , Execution of Judgment of Death - Location - Procedure Discussed

22 O.S. 1051 , Right of Appeal - Review - Corrective Jurisdiction - Procedure - Scope of Review on Certiorari Cited

22 O.S. 1080 , Post-Conviction Procedure Act - Right to Challenge Conviction or Sentence. Cited

22 O.S. 1089 , Post-Conviction Relief for Death Penalty Conviction - Grounds for Appeal Cited