holding an accused is not entitled to a bifurcated trial when the former conviction is an essential element of the firearms charge
How later courts described this case
- holding an accused is not entitled to a bifurcated trial when the former conviction is an essential element of the firearms charge
- relying on Oklahoma statutory law permitting “a single stage trial when the former felony conviction is an essential element of the offense”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PARKS, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part/dissenting in part:
The majority herein overrules of a number of cases, including Hoover v. State, 738 P.2d 943 (Okl.Cr.1987). As previously set forth, we held in Hoover that an information which simply states that a defendant had in his possession and under his control certain firearms, without alleging a prior felony conviction, does not show a violation of a separate statute. Because such a “case falls directly under the provisions of 22 O.S. 1981 , § 860,” a defendant’s “prior conviction [is] properly presented in a single stage information.” Id. at 946. I find that the Hoover opinion set forth the identical rule of law advanced by the majority herein. Accordingly, I concur with the majority that the trial court properly overruled appellant’s motion for a bifurcated trial. However, I must respectfully dissent to overruling our prior decision in Hoover .