# Norton v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · February 28, 2002 · 73 O.B.A.J. 689

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9795737

## Case

- **Full name:** Louis Harold NORTON, Appellant, v. the STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** February 28, 2002
- **Citations:** 73 O.B.A.J. 689; 43 P.3d 404; 2002 OK CR 10; 2002 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 9; 2002 WL 287529
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Chapel
- **Judges:** Johnson, Viee-Presiding, Lumpkin, Strubhar, Lile, Chapel
- **Cited by:** 9 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/9795737

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that "superfluous definition" of term that "was not enumerated as an element of the offense" was "harmless"

## Opinion text

*410 CHAPEL, J.,
Dissenting:
{1 In 1987 this Court considered whether denial of counsel at preliminary hearing could be harmless error. In Cleek v. State, 1 we determined that, as the Oklahoma constitution provides for preliminary hearing, this was a critical stage of trial and a defendant must be afforded counsel. We considered the corresponding United States Supreme Court case law holding a denial of counsel potentially harmless, 2 and determined that the provisions of our state constitution differed significantly enough to compel a different result. We decided that, under the Oklahoma constitution, denial of counsel at preliminary hearing was reversible error. 3 Although nothing has changed in the intervening years, the majority proposes we revisit Cleek and reach the opposite conclusion.
[2 I believe Cleek is correctly decided on state constitutional grounds. I see no inconsistency in saying that a defendant may not be denied counsel at preliminary hearing, but may waive preliminary hearing under certain cireumstances. Indeed, one may waive counsel at preliminary hearing. However, a defendant's choice to waive either counsel or preliminary hearing itself cannot be compared to denial of the right to representation at a critical stage of criminal proceedings. I might go along with an argument that Norton waived his right to counsel, but the majority finds no waiver, and I will not disagree In that case I 'think reversal is required.
. 1987 OK CR 278 , 748 P.2d 39 .
. Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 , 90 S.Ct. 1999 , 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1970).
. Cleek, 748 P.2d at 41 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9795737. Public record. Not legal advice.