# Davis v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · December 14, 1999 · 70 O.B.A.J. 3763

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9542806

## Case

- **Full name:** Jerry Lee DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** December 14, 1999
- **Citations:** 70 O.B.A.J. 3763; 993 P.2d 124; 1999 OK CR 48; 1999 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 78; 1999 WL 1138547
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lumpkin
- **Judges:** Lile, Vice-Presiding, Johnson, Lumpkin, Strubhar, Chapel
- **Cited by:** 42 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/9542806

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9542806. Public record. Not legal advice.