# Bayliss v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · July 30, 1990 · 61 O.B.A.J. 2146

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9790331

## Case

- **Full name:** Jeffery Channing BAYLISS, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** July 30, 1990
- **Citations:** 61 O.B.A.J. 2146; 795 P.2d 1079; 1990 OK CR 51; 1990 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 50; 1990 WL 107085
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Parks
- **Judges:** Lane, Vice-Presiding, Parks, Brett, Lumpkin, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 4 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/9790331

## Opinion text

PARKS, Presiding Judge,
specially concurring:
While I concur with the majority, I would also vote to reverse due to the trial court’s failure to hold a post-examination competency hearing. The record reveals that upon defendant’s application, the court determined there was doubt as to the defendant’s competency to stand trial. The court ordered a psychiatric examination in accordance with the procedure specified in 22 O.S.1981, § 1175.1 — 1175.8. However, there is no evidence in the present record that the court then held a post-examination competency hearing as required by 22 O.S. 1981 , § 1175.4.
Once the examination has been completed, a “hearing on the competency of the person shall be held.” Title 22 O.S.1981, § 1175.4(A) (emphasis added). The statutory language clearly provides that a post-examination hearing is mandatory in every case in which a competency examination is conducted. See Scott v. State, 730 P.2d 7, 9 (Okl.Cr.1986); Kelly v. State, 735 P.2d 566, 567 (Okl.Cr.1987). Accordingly, failure to hold a post-examination competency hearing dictates reversal as well.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9790331. Public record. Not legal advice.