Anderson v. State

1989 OK CR 9, 772 P.2d 1329, 1989 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 93, 1989 WL 44490
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma·Decided April 27, 1989·No. No. F-86-466·Published

Opinion

ORDER CORRECTING OPINION

On April 25, 1989, it was discovered that Judge Parks’ dissenting opinion in Anderson v. State, 765 P.2d 1232, 1234 (Okla.Crim.App.1988), relied upon an incorrectly recorded vote in stating in relevant part:

Two prior unanimous decisions of this Court have held that a new trial is required under such circumstances. See Kelly v. State, 735 P.2d 566, 567 (Okla.Crim.App.1987); Scott v. State, 730 P.2d 7, 9 (Okla.Crim.App.1986)....

Although Judge Bussey’s vote in Scott, 730 P.2d at 9, was recorded as a “CONCUR,” the original records show that his vote should have been officially recorded as “NOT PARTICIPATING.” Thus, Scott was in fact not unanimous.

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that Judge Parks’ dissenting opinion in the above-styled cause shall be corrected to reflect the foregoing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Anderson v. State, 1989 OK CR 9, 772 P.2d 1329, 1989 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 93, 1989 WL 44490 (Okla. Ct. App. 1989).

1989 OK CR 9 (Anderson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Scott v. State
1986 OK CR 179 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1986)
Anderson v. State
1988 OK CR 291 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1988)
Kelly v. State
1987 OK CR 58 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1987)