# Jackson v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · November 2, 2006 · 146 P.3d 1149

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9787318

## Case

- **Full name:** Shelton Dewayne JACKSON, Appellant v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** November 2, 2006
- **Citations:** 146 P.3d 1149; 2006 OK CR 45; 2006 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 48; 2006 WL 3097401
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lumpkin
- **Judges:** Chapel, Johnson, Lewis, Lumpkin
- **Cited by:** 39 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/9787318

## Opinion text

LUMPKIN, Viee-Presiding Judge:
Coneurs in Results.
T1 I concur in the Court's decision to affirm the judgment and sentence in this case. However, as referenced in Proposition V by Appellant, I continue to believe the law dictates that material placed in s is mere dicta and cannot be a holding of the Court. See Cannon v. State, 1995 OK CR 45 , 904 P.2d 89, 108 (Lumpkin, J., Concurring in Result) (citing Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 422 , 105 S.Ct. 844, 851 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985)). In this case I recognize the stylistic error in the previous opinion, but recognize at the same time that decision was a holding of the Court. Confusion on these issues can be extinguished by properly placing the holding of the Court in the body of the opinion, where it belongs.
12 Further, I am pleased to see the Court recognized in Proposition V that under the label of "de novo review," the Court is bound by the facts already adjudicated in the case, and must apply the correct legal standard of review to those facts.
18 As it relates to the issue raised in Proposition II, concerning the scope of the *1169 "great risk of death to more than one person" aggravator, I believe the application of that aggravator will always be determined by the facts in each individual case. In that regard, I believe the facts in this case fully support the aggravator, and the Court should not sidestep the issue of expanding the analysis to validate the aggravator as to this Appellant.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9787318. Public record. Not legal advice.