applying Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 118 S.Ct. 488, 139 L.Ed.2d 450 (1997)
How later courts described this case
- applying Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 118 S.Ct. 488, 139 L.Ed.2d 450 (1997)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JOHNSON, Judge,
specially concurs.
¶ 1 I specially concur -with the majority herein as it relates to the finding that the Legislature intended that the sanctions under 21 O.S.1991, § 443a, could be punitive in nature and therefore, in violation of the double jeopardy clause of the Oklahoma and U.S. Constitution. I therefore would disagree with the concur in part/dissent in part opinion of Judge Lumpkin that the double jeopardy clause does not apply to prison disciplinary proceedings.
¶ 2 The majority opinion and the concur in part/dissent in part (Lumpkin, J.) are both well-reasoned and have meaningful statements. I agree with the majority but noting that the punishment provisions authorized by 21 O.S.1991, § 443a, are punitive in nature, they are not “per se” double jeopardy. Prison authorities may punish the appellant for escape by altering the conditions of his original sentence or changing the level of confinement or revoking good-time credits or other administrative type matters, but they could not lengthen the time of the sentence without running afoul of the double jeopardy clause.