Anderson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Anderson v. State

1989 OK CR 9, 772 P.2d 1329, 1989 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 93, 1989 WL 44490

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 27, 1989

DocketNo. F-86-466

StatusPublished

This text of 1989 OK CR 9 (Anderson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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