# Ferguson v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · August 30, 2006 · 143 P.3d 218

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9795974

## Case

- **Full name:** Timothy Lee FERGUSON, Appellant v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** August 30, 2006
- **Citations:** 143 P.3d 218; 2006 OK CR 36; 2006 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 37; 2006 WL 2506490
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Lumpkin
- **Judges:** Vice-Presiding, Chapel, Johnson, Lumpkin, Lewis
- **Cited by:** 7 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/9795974

## Opinion text

LUMPKIN, Vice-Presiding Judge:
dissent.
¶ 11 dissent to the granting of certiorari in this case. A valid plea does not require notice of parole eligibility. Further, while the 85% Rule settles some of the speculative nature concerning the right to parole, starting down the path of advising defendants about parole is a slippery slope that does not have a stopping place. Parole is a subjective decision made by the constitutionally established Pardon and Parole Board and is based on subjective criteria. Trial judges cannot and should not be expected to be able to advise defendants of all of the different aspects of parole. The present case was a no contest plea based on solid evidence in the form of a valid confession. Petitioner should not now be able to “play the system” or be allowed to be the vehicle for requiring judges to advise of matters even inferentially touching on parole.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9795974. Public record. Not legal advice.