# Sattayarak v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · November 29, 1994 · 65 O.B.A.J. 4053

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541937

## Case

- **Full name:** Sarinrak SATTAYARAK, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** November 29, 1994
- **Citations:** 65 O.B.A.J. 4053; 887 P.2d 1326; 1994 OK CR 64; 1994 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 88
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Chapel, Lumpkin, Johnson, Lane, Strubhar
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541937

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that because State's case against murder defendant was overwhelming, error in improperly admitting other crimes evidence was harmless

## Opinion text

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
Sarinrak Sattayarak was tried by jury and convicted of First Degree Manslaughter (21 O.S.1983, § 711) before the Honorable Donald L. Worthington in the District Court of Payne County in case number CRF-90-69. She was sentenced to twenty-five years incarceration.
By its September 30, 1994, published opinion, this Court reversed Sattayarak’s conviction and remanded the case for retrial The State is now before the Court on a Petition for Rehearing, Rule 3.14, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, 22 O.S.Supp.1993, Ch. 18, App. According to Rule 3.14, a Petition for Rehearing shall be filed for two reasons only:
(1) That some question decisive of the case and duly submitted by the attorney of record has been overlooked by the Court, or
(2) That the decision is in conflict with an express statute or controlling decision to which the attention of this Court was not called ¡either in the brief or in oral argument. 1 In its Petition for Rehearing the State raises one proposition which fails to meet the criteria set forth in Rule 3.14. 1 Accordingly, this proposition will not be addressed.
IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE COURT that the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gary L. Lumpkin GARY L. LUMPKIN Presiding Judge
/s/ Charles A. Johnson CHARLES A. JOHNSON Vice-Presiding Judge
/s/ James F. Lane JAMES F. LANE Judge
/s/ Charles S. Chapel CHARLES S. CHAPEL Judge
/s/ Reta M. Strubhar RETA M. STRUBHAR Judge
. The State argues that the Court's decision conflicts with Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2350 , 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994). Although Davis was not decided when the case was briefed, this Court was aware of and considered that decision in determining the issues in Satta-yarak's appeal. This Court's opinion is not in conflict with Davis or any other express statute or controlling decision.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541937. Public record. Not legal advice.