# Williams v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · June 12, 1990 · 61 O.B.A.J. 1659

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9565901

## Case

- **Full name:** Larry Alex WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** June 12, 1990
- **Citations:** 61 O.B.A.J. 1659; 794 P.2d 759; 1990 OK CR 39; 1990 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 34; 1990 WL 82222
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Parks
- **Judges:** Lumpkin, Lane, Johnson, Brett, Parks
- **Cited by:** 8 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/9565901

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding an accused is not entitled to a bifurcated trial when the former conviction is an essential element of the firearms charge

## Opinion text

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 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9565901. Public record. Not legal advice.