finding no Section 11 violation where the defendant was convicted of larceny from a house for stealing car keys, and then using those keys to steal the vehicle from the premises
How later courts described this case
- finding no Section 11 violation where the defendant was convicted of larceny from a house for stealing car keys, and then using those keys to steal the vehicle from the premises
- holding offenses requiring different elements of proof are not the same for purposes of the double jeopardy proscriptions
- failure to give OUJI-CR 2d 9-12 harmless in light of the entire record
- relying on Mooney v. State, 990 P.2d 875, 883 (Okla.Crim.App.1999)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LUMPKIN, Vice-Presiding Judge:
Specially Concurs.
¶ 1 I complement my colleague for taking the time to enunciate what I perceived the original holding of this Court’s decision in Hale v. State, 888 P.2d 1027 (Okl.Cr.1995), to be. While I sought to apply Hale in accordance with what I understood was the original intent, Carter v. State, 922 P.2d 634 (Okl.Cr.1996), I have at the same time been concerned with what appears to be an unsupported expansion beyond that original intent. See Hammon v. State, 898 P.2d 1287 (Okl.Cr.1995) (Lumpkin, J., Concur in Part/Dissent in Part); Le v. State, 947 P.2d 535 (Okl.Cr.1997) (Lumpkin, J., Concur in Part/Dissent in Part); Jones v. State, 899 P.2d 635 (Okl.Cr.1995) (Lumpkin, J., Concur in Part/Dissent in Part). Judge Lile has succeeded in providing a more objective criteria for analyzing the double punishment prohibition set forth in 21 O.S.1991, § 11. Hopefully, this objective criteria will bring about more reasoned and consistent applications of the provisions of Section 11.