# Worthen v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · August 11, 1998 · 69 O.B.A.J. 2893

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9794045

## Case

- **Full name:** Sidney Allen WORTHEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** August 11, 1998
- **Citations:** 69 O.B.A.J. 2893; 964 P.2d 904; 1998 OK CR 37; 1998 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 44; 1998 WL 463158
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Johnson
- **Judges:** Chapel, Strubhar, Lumpkin, Lane, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 2 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/9794045

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- applying Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 118 S.Ct. 488, 139 L.Ed.2d 450 (1997)

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9794045. Public record. Not legal advice.