# Clayton v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · September 24, 1992 · 63 O.B.A.J. 2803

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9632708

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert William CLAYTON, Appellant, v. the STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** September 24, 1992
- **Citations:** 63 O.B.A.J. 2803; 840 P.2d 18; 1992 OK CR 60; 1992 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 77; 1992 WL 236611
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lumpkin
- **Judges:** Parks, Lane, Lumpkin, Brett, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 51 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/9632708

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding booking questions did not require Miranda warning because "questions certainly were not the kind which the detective should know were reasonably likely to elicit incriminating statements"

## Opinion text

LUMPKIN, Vice Presiding Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the Court’s decision in this case, however, I do not agree with the Court’s implication that a Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 , 108 S.Ct. 1860 , 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988), analysis is required in this case. The Court should simply note that Mills is not applicable to the Oklahoma capital sentencing procedure. The Maryland sentencing procedure is distinctly different from the procedure applied in Oklahoma. Therefore, the Court should refrain from creating a misconception that *36 Mills addresses the sentencing procedure utilized in Oklahoma.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9632708. Public record. Not legal advice.