Case law

Berry v. Anderson

499 P.2d 959 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 19, 1972

Chase v. Page, Okl.Cr., 456 P.2d 590 (1969). In Murray v. Page, 429 F.2d 1359 (10 Cir.1970), it was held that such a revocation hearing was necessary in all cases in which parole revocation was sought. In Brown v. … Under the facts in the instant case, it is apparent that since petitioner was recommitted to the penitentiary for a parole violation after the effective date of Chase v. Page, supra, he was entitled to a hearing.

Profit v. City of Tulsa

617 P.2d 250 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 21, 1980

Compare Brown v. Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska, 584 P.2d 35 (1978), with City of Detroit v. Bowden, supra. … Hayes v. Municipal Court of Oklahoma City, Okl.Cr., 487 P.2d 974 *252 (1971); Switzer v. City of Tulsa, Okl.Cr., 598 P.2d 247 (1979).

Jones v. State

632 P.2d 1249 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 12, 1981

It was sealed at the top with silver duct tape, and all that could be observed through the base was a plastic bag containing a brown substance. … Kinsey v. State, 602 P.2d 240 (Okl.Cr.1979); State v. Baxter, 528 P.2d 347 (Okl.Cr.1974).

Rice v. State

93 Okla. Crim. 86 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 29, 1950

The prior convictions shown were all appealed and are reported as: Rice v. State, 60 Okla. Cr. 398 , 64 P. 2d 1240 ; Ex parte Rice, 75 Okla. Cr. 307 , 131 P. 2d 131 ; Rice v. State, 80 Okla. … He cites the case of Barnett v. State, 75 Okla.

Meeks v. State

540 P.2d 584 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 5, 1975

In the case of Ward v. … In tehe case of Jarrard v.

Fowler v. State

14 Okla. Crim. 316 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 25, 1918

Brown, who appears to be the complaining witness. … In Tucker v.

Davis v. State

514 P.2d 1195 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 3, 1973

Reynolds v. State, Okl.Cr., 511 P.2d 1145 (1973); Lloyd v. State, Okl.Cr., 505 P.2d 1364 ; and Battles v. State, Okl.Cr., 459 P.2d 623 . … In Carroll v.

Stamper v. State

25 Okla. Crim. 324 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 16, 1923

Robbins v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 294 , 155 Pac. 491 ; Stone v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 313 , 155 Pac. 701 ; Roebuck et al. v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 241 , 170 Pac. 277 . … Henson v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 201 , 114 Pac. 630 ; Hughes v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 117 , 122 Pac. 554 ; Brown v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 383 , 132 Pac. 359 . Upon careful examination, we discover no error in the record.

Harris v. State

27 Okla. Crim. 405 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 2, 1924

Reeves v. Territory, 2 Okla. Cr. 351 , 101 Pac. 1039 ; Brenton v. Territory, 15 Okla. 6 , 78 Pac. 83 , 6 Ann. Cas. 769; Johnson v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 4 , 112 Pac. 760 . … Allen v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 55 , 134 Pac. 91 ; Douglas v. State, 19 Okla. Cr. 257 , 199 Pac. 927 .

Hatch v. State

924 P.2d 284 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 26, 1996

.”); Brown v. … Brown , 50 Miss, at 479. We also observe that the Constitution does not require the States to follow any particular federal model in enacting its post-conviction proceedings.

Holmes v. State

13 Okla. Crim. 113 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 27, 1917

Wilson v. Territory, 9 Okla. 331 , 60 Pac. 112 ; Perkins v. Territory, 17 Okla. 82 , 87 Pac. 297 ; Brown v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 442 , 106 Pac. 808 ; Kelly v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 175 , 117 Pac. 887 ; Nowlin v. … Cr. 27 , 115 Pac. 625 , 121 Pac. 791 ; Weinberger v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 441 , 128 Pac. 160 ; Teer v. State, 10 Okla, Cr. 651, 135 Pac. 1198 .

Hamilton v. State

79 Okla. Crim. 108 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 27, 1944

In the case of Cook v. State, 36 Okla. … See, also, Appleby v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 284 , 146 P. 228 ; Watson v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 590 , 124 P. 1101 ; Weitz v. State, 70 Okla. Cr. 35 , 104 P. 2d 445 .

Ex Parte Pebsworth

26 Okla. Crim. 181 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 23, 1924

Davenport v. State, 20 Okla. Cr. 253 , 202 Pac. 18 . The amended information was in legal effect a substitute or new information within the meaning of section 2612, supra. Brown v. State, 5 Okla. … Cr. 567 , 115 Pac. 615 ; Sellers et al. v. State, -Okla. Cr. -, 226 Pac. 109 . Petition dismissed.

Kearney v. State

539 P.2d 1383 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 13, 1975

Brown v. State, Okl.Cr., 487 P.2d 963 (1971). As in Brown , the Court allowed the prosecutor to offer rebuttal testimony on this matter of why defendant was at the convenience store and the shotgun. … See Maiden v. State, Okl.Cr., 273 P.2d 774 (1954).

City of Nichols Hills v. Richardson

68 O.B.A.J. 1685 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 6, 1997

); Berk v. … Wilkinsburg Zoning Hearing Board, 48 Pa.

Akers v. State

90 Okla. Crim. 160 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 9, 1949

In Freeman v. State, 72 Okla. … Other cases to the same effect are Tacker v. State, 72 Okla. Cr. 72 , 113 P. 2d 394 ; Sparks v. State, 72 Okla. Cr. 330 , 116 P. 2d 219 .

Gooden v. State

617 P.2d 248 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 5, 1980

O’Brien v. State, Okl.Cr., 540 P.2d 579 (1975). … Brown v. State, Okl.Cr., 541 P.2d 242 (1975).

Long v. Allen, Dist. Judge

10 Okla. Crim. 182 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 18, 1913

In the case of Kelly v. Ferguson, 5 Okla. … called to said action by said board by a member of the hoard of county commissioners, and requested the Pión.

Pruitt v. State

62 Okla. Crim. 38 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 25, 1937

See Brown v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 442 , 119 P. 447 . In the instant case, there was no attempt to give the notice required by the statute. … Lewis v. Russell, Judge, 4 Okla. Cr. 129 , 111 Pac. 818 , supra; State ex rel. etc. v. Lockridge, Judge, 6 Okla. Cr. 216 , 118 Pac. 152 , 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 525, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 251; State v. Brown, Judge, 8 Okla.

Stout v. State

62 O.B.A.J. 2749 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 11, 1991

Petitioner relies on Parks v. Brown, 860 F.2d 1545 (10th Cir.1988) rev’d. sub. nom.; Saffle v. … The petitioner’s argument that the holding of the Tenth Circuit in Parks v. Brown is nevertheless still viable is not persuasive, even though the holding of the Supreme Court is not based on the merits of this issue.