LOCKETT v. STATE
2014 OK CR 3
Case Number: D-2000-1330; D-2003-829
Decided: 04/18/2014
CLAYTON LOCKETT and CHARLES WARNER, Appellants, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.
Cross Reference with Oklahoma Supreme Court Case No. 112741
Cite as: 2014 OK CR 3, __ __
ORDER DENYING STAYS OF EXECUTION
¶1 The Oklahoma Supreme Court has again transferred to this Court a joint
request for stay of execution filed in connection with a civil appeal involving
Appellants currently pending before that Court. Lockett, et al. v. Evans, et
al., Case No. 112,741 (April 11, 2014). The recent procedural history of
this case is lengthy and requires repeating for clarity. This Court set
execution dates in January 2014 for Lockett and Warner after both death row
inmates had exhausted their state and federal appeals.
1 Both sought and were
denied executive clemency from the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board. On February
26, 2014, Lockett and Warner filed a civil declaratory judgment action in the
District Court of Oklahoma County against the Oklahoma Department of Corrections
(ODOC).
Lockett, et al. v. Evans, et al., Case No. CV-2014-330. That
lawsuit challenged, among other things, the constitutionality of the
confidentiality provision in 22 O.S.2011, § 1015(B).
2 The complaint was
accompanied by a motion for injunctive relief seeking a stay of their respective
executions. Because the complaint challenged § 1015(B) on both state and federal
grounds, ODOC removed the case to federal court. Appellants amended their
complaint, deleting all federal constitutional claims, and the federal district
court declined jurisdiction and remanded the case back to state court.
Appellants filed an amended complaint along with their motion for stay of
execution. The Honorable Patricia G. Parrish of the District Court of Oklahoma
County held a hearing on March 10, 2014, and denied Appellants' request for stay
of execution, finding that "jurisdiction for such matters properly lies with the
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals." Judge Parrish did not otherwise rule on the
declaratory judgment action.
¶2 On March 11, 2014, Appellants filed with the Oklahoma Supreme Court a
petition in error and designation of record to initiate an appeal of Judge
Parrish's ruling denying the requested stay of execution. See Lockett, et al.
v. Evans, et al., Case No. 112,639. Appellants also filed with the Oklahoma
Supreme Court an "Emergency Application for Stay of Execution Pending Outcome of
Appeal." The next day ODOC filed a response in opposition to Appellants' motion
for stay of execution. On March 13, 2014, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that
Judge Parrish had jurisdiction to hear the merits of Appellants' declaratory
judgment action. That Court declined, however, to grant a stay of execution,
citing Maynard v. Layden,
1992 OK CR 31, 830 P.2d 581,
3 and transferred to this Court Plaintiffs' Emergency
Application for Stay of Execution Pending Outcome of Appeal. That same day, this
Court directed briefs from the parties addressing the applicability of
Malicoat v. State4 and 22 O.S.2011, § 1001.1 to the application for
stay. In the supplemental briefing, the State announced its inability to procure
the necessary execution drugs for the impending executions. Based on the State's
revelation that it lacked execution drugs and could not obtain them, this Court
on March 18, 2014 vacated Lockett's and Warner's execution dates and reset
them.
5 On March 26, 2014, Judge Parrish ruled from the bench
that the portion of § 1015(B) making confidential the identity of execution
participants and those who supply the execution drugs violated Appellants' state
constitutional right to access to the courts.
6 A written order memorializing Judge Parrish's ruling
was entered on April 1, 2014. Appellants filed in this Court an application for
stay of execution on April 7, 2014, but did not file an action challenging their
convictions, death sentences or the constitutionality of the execution protocol.
The State filed a response that same day, attesting that ODOC had the necessary
drugs to lawfully carry out Appellants' scheduled executions and had advised
Appellants of ODOC's newly adopted execution protocol. This Court denied
Appellants' request for stay of execution on April 9, 2014, on the basis that we
had no authority to enter a stay under 22 O.S.2011, § 1001.1(C) because there was no
pending case in this Court. With their executions approaching and their request
for stay of execution denied by this Court, Appellants filed on April 11, 2014,
an application for stay of execution in the Oklahoma Supreme Court in connection
with their appeal of Judge Parrish's adverse ruling of March 26, 2014.
7 The State filed a
response. The Oklahoma Supreme Court transferred the application for stay of
execution to this Court on April 17, 2014 to decide whether a stay of execution
should be issued pending the resolution of Appellants' civil appeal before the
Supreme Court.
8 The Supreme Court retained jurisdiction of Appellants'
appeal of Judge Parrish's adverse ruling.
¶3 The Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction in
criminal cases and may exercise such other and further jurisdiction as may be
conferred by statute. Okla. Const. art. 7, § 4;
20 O.S.2011, § 40. Our authority to grant a
stay of execution is limited by 22 O.S.2011, § 1001.1(C).
9 The language of §
1001.1(C) is clear. This Court may grant a stay of execution only when: (1)
there is an action pending in this Court; (2) the action challenges the death
row inmate's conviction or death sentence; and (3) the death row inmate makes
the requisite showings of likely success and irreparable harm. The Supreme
Court's opinion transferring Appellants' application for stay of execution finds
that this Court "ignored" subsections (D),
10 (E),
11 and (F)
12 of § 1001.1 in denying Appellants' April 7th application for stay of execution filed in this Court. We
respectfully disagree based on rules of statutory construction. The primary task
in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the
Legislature.
Johnson v. State, 2013 OK CR 12, ¶ 10, 308 P.3d 1053, 1055;
Starkey v. Oklahoma Dept. of
Corrections, 2013 OK
43, ¶ 34, 305 P.3d
1004, 1017. To discern that intent, we look first to the language of the
statute itself, giving the statutory terms their commonly accepted and
understood meaning.
Johnson, 2013 OK CR 12, ¶ 10, 308 P.3d at 1055;
W.R. Allison
Enterprises, Inc. v. CompSource Oklahoma, 2013 OK 24, ¶ 15, 301 P.3d 407, 411-412 (
citing State ex rel. Oklahoma
State Dept. of Health v. Robinson, 2006 OK 99, ¶ 6, 152 P.3d 875, 877-78). In construing statutory
provisions, specific provisions govern over general ones.
See State v.
Hall, 2008 OK CR
15, ¶ 29 , 185 P.3d
397, 404 (
citing Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, ¶¶ 17-18, 932 P.2d 22, 28-29);
Jones v. State ex rel. Office
of Juvenile Affairs, 2011 OK 105, ¶ 14, 268 P.3d 72, 76.
¶4 It is evident from the plain language of § 1001.1 that the Legislature
prescribed this Court's authority to grant stays of execution in Subsection (C).
Although Subsections (D), (E), and (F) refer to stays of execution issued by
"any state or federal court," these subsections do not specify the conditions
under which "any state or federal court" may grant a stay, nor do they
specifically vest authority to do so. These subsections identify this Court by
name and task us with setting execution dates upon the dissolution or vacation
of stays issued by other state or federal courts. Subsection (C) vests authority
in this Court to grant stays of execution and prescribes the conditions under
which we may do so. It is controlling. While the Oklahoma Supreme Court has
authority to deem an issue civil and so within its jurisdiction, it does not
have the power to supersede a statute and manufacture jurisdiction in this Court
for Appellants' stay request by merely transferring it here. Therefore,
Appellants' application for stays of execution is DENIED.
¶5 IT IS SO ORDERED.
¶6 WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 18th day of
April, 2014.
/S/DAVID LEWIS, Presiding Judge
/S/CLANCY SMITH, Vice Presiding Judge
/S/GARY L. LUMPKIN, Judge
/S/CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Judge
/S/ARLENE JOHNSON, Judge
ATTEST:
/s/Michael S. Richie
Clerk
1 Lockett's original execution date was set for March 20,
2014 and Warner's original execution date was set for March 27, 2014.
2 The confidentiality provision of § 1015 (B) states:
"The identity of all persons who participate in or administer the execution
process and persons who supply the drugs, medical supplies or medical equipment
for the execution shall be confidential and shall not be subject to discovery in
any civil or criminal proceedings."
3 In
Layden, this Court referenced an Oklahoma
Supreme Court order that denied a death row inmate's application to assume
original jurisdiction and petitions for writs of prohibition and mandamus
because "the punishment, and the amount thereof, is an essential part of the
judgment in a criminal case and that the carrying out, prohibiting, or staying
such a judgment is within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of [the Court of
Criminal Appeals]."
Layden, at ¶ 3, 830 P.2d at 582.
Layden dealt
with statutes (22 O.S.1991, §§
1012 & 1013) that have been repealed but the rule enunciated above
remains valid.
4 2006 OK CR 25, 137 P.3d 1234.
5 Lockett's execution date is set for April 22, 2014 and
Warner's execution date is set for April 29, 2014.
6 Judge Parrish denied the balance of Appellants' claims
in the amended petition.
7 Appellants appeal Judge Parrish's rulings that (1)
Section
1014 of Title 22 is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative
authority; and (2) the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act was not violated
by ODOC when it enacted its new execution protocol. The State filed its petition
in error appealing Judge Parrish's ruling finding 22 O.S.2011, § 1015(B) unconstitutional on
April 18, 2014.
8 The Supreme Court's opinion urges us "to be cognizant
of the time restraints associated with the submission of the appeal(s) to this
Court along with the gravity of the first impression constitutional issues this
Court will be charged with in addressing the civil appeal, or appeals."
Lockett et al. v. Evans et al., 2014 OK 28, ¶ 4. ODOC has furnished Appellants with
the names, dosages and expiration dates of the three drugs it will use for
execution. Armed with this information, Appellants have failed to challenge the
new protocol on Eighth Amendment grounds and insist only that the identities of
the drug suppliers and manufacturers
may lead to a basis to challenge
their death sentences.
9 Section 1001.1(C) states:
When an action challenging
the conviction or sentence of death is pending before it, the Court of Criminal
Appeals may stay an execution date, or issue any order which effectively stays
an execution date only upon a showing by the defendant that there exists a
significant possibility of reversal of the defendant's conviction, or vacation
of the defendant's sentence, and that irreparable harm will result if no stay is
issued.
10 Section D provides:
Should a stay of execution be
issued by any state or federal court, a new execution date shall be set by
operation of law sixty (60) days after the dissolution of the stay of execution.
The new execution date shall be set by the Court of Criminal Appeals without
necessity of application by the state, but the Attorney General, on behalf of
the state, shall bring to the attention of the Court of Criminal Appeals the
fact of the dissolution of a stay of execution and suggest the appropriateness
of the setting of a new execution date.
11 Section E provides:
After an execution date has been
set pursuant to the provisions of this section, should a stay of execution be
issued by any state or federal court, a new execution date shall be set by
operation of law thirty (30) days after the dissolution of the stay of
execution. The new execution date shall be set by the Court of Criminal Appeals
without necessity of application by the state, but the Attorney General, on
behalf of the state, shall bring to the attention of the Court of Criminal
Appeals the fact of the dissolution of a stay of execution and suggest the
appropriateness of setting a new execution date.
12 Section F provides:
After an execution date has been
set pursuant to the provisions of this section, should a stay of execution be
issued by any state or federal court and then vacated by such court, the
sentence of death shall be carried out as ordered prior to the issuance of such
vacated stay of execution. If the prior execution date has expired prior to the
vacation of the stay of execution, a new execution date shall be set by
operation of law thirty (30) days after the vacation of the stay of execution.
The new execution date shall be set by the Court of Criminal Appeals without
necessity of application by the state, but the Attorney General, on behalf of
the state, shall bring to the attention of the Court of Criminal Appeals the
fact of a vacation of the stay of execution and suggest the appropriateness of
the setting of a new execution date.
SMITH, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE, DISSENTING:
¶1 The majority has set forth an erudite and accurate analysis of this
Court's jurisdictional restraints. However, I find that whether or not a stay is
an appropriate exercise of this Court's authority under
22 O.S.2011, § 1001.1., I would grant a stay to
avoid irreparable harm as the appellants face imminent execution. I would do so
in consideration of the appellants' rights, to avoid the possibility of a
miscarriage of justice, and in comity with the Supreme Court's request for time
to resolve the issues pending before it.
¶2 I am authorized to state that Judge Charles Johnson joins me in this
dissent.
Lumpkin, J., Specially Concurring:
¶1 I join in the order entered by the Court but write separately to point out
Appellants' repeated failure to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court prevents
the Court from reaching any other result.
¶2 On March 13, 2014, the Oklahoma Supreme Court determined only the Court of
Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to enter a stay of execution in a death
penalty case and transferred to this Court part of the matter pending in
Oklahoma Supreme Court Case No. 112,639. That portion transferred addressed the
issue of whether a stay should be issued prior to the District Court of Oklahoma
County considering the pleadings that have been filed in the above cited civil
matter. This Court ordered the Appellants and the State to provide this Court
with supplemental briefs and directed the parties to this Court's controlling
precedent in Malicoat v. State,
2006 OK CR 25, 137 P.3d 1234 and 22 O.S.2011, § 1001.1. Appellants refused the
opportunity to lawfully file an application for post-conviction relief and
proceeded with their "civil" claim. Within its supplemental brief, the State
acknowledged that it did not possess the drugs needed to carry out the lawful
sentence of death for Appellants. On March 18, 2014, this Court vacated and
reset the scheduled executions for both Appellants. Appellant Lockett's
execution was reset to April 22, 2014, and Appellant Warner's execution was
reset to April 29, 2014.
¶3 On April 7, 2014, Appellants filed their joint Emergency Application for
Stay of Execution Pending The Appeal From The District Court's Decision with
this Court but did not file an action challenging their convictions, death
sentences, or the constitutionality of the execution protocol. Instead, they
continued to only raise "civil" claims. The State filed a response that same day
and attested that it had the necessary drugs to lawfully carry out Appellants'
execution and had advised Appellants concerning the Department of Corrections'
new execution protocol. On April 9, 2014, we denied Appellants' request for a
stay and explicitly informed Appellants that this Court was without authority to
issue a stay without an action pending in this Court.
¶4 Despite this Court's notice to the Appellants of the need to invoke the
jurisdiction of this Court by filing the appropriate pleadings, and the Oklahoma
Supreme Court's opinion that only the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction
to enter a stay of execution in a death penalty case, on April 14, 2014,
Appellants, again, sought a stay of execution before the Oklahoma Supreme Court
in Oklahoma Supreme Court Case No. 112,741. Appellants' appeal only involves
"civil" claims. On April 17, 2014, the Oklahoma Supreme Court transferred to
this Court that portion of the issue of whether a stay of execution should be
issued for both Appellants during the pendency of their appeal before the
Oklahoma Supreme Court.
¶5 Counsel for Appellants are members of the Oklahoma Bar licensed to
practice in the state. They are well aware that Oklahoma has a bifurcated
civil-criminal system of justice. Carder v. Court of Criminal Appeals,
1978 OK 130, ¶ 1, 595 P.2d 416, 417. The jurisdiction of the Oklahoma
Court of Criminal Appeals is set forth in Article VII, § 4 of the Oklahoma
Constitution. The Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction
in criminal cases and may exercise such other and further jurisdiction as may be
conferred by statute.
Id.; 20 O.S.2011, § 40 ("The Court of Criminal
Appeals shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction, coextensive with the limits
of the state, in all criminal cases appealed from the district, superior and
county courts, and such other courts of record as may be established by law.").
This Court has the authority to determine when it has the power to proceed.
Duvall v. State, 871 P.2d 1386, 1387-88; 20 O.S.2011, § 42 ("Said Court shall have
power, upon affidavit or otherwise, to ascertain such matters of fact as may be
necessary to the exercise of its jurisdiction."); 22 O.S.2011, § 1051 ("The procedure for the
filing of an appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeals shall be as provided in the
Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals . . . which will have the force of
statute . . . ."). It is the exclusive province of the Oklahoma Court of
Criminal Appeals to construe state criminal statutes.
State v. Tolle,
1997 OK CR 52, ¶ 5, 945 P.2d 503, 504. The Court of Criminal Appeals
decisions are governed by the United States Constitution, the Constitution of
the State of Oklahoma, duly enacted statutes, and controlling precedent
concerning these authorities.
See Carder, 1978 OK 130, ¶ 20, 595 P.2d at 420 ("There is no
appeal or proceeding in error from the Court of Criminal Appeals to this
Court."). The Court of Criminal Appeals is respectful of the Oklahoma Supreme
Court's well-reasoned opinions, in all instances, but as the state appellate
court with exclusive jurisdiction in criminal matters, the Court of Criminal
Appeals must announce and apply principled rules to guide the state's citizens,
trial courts, and criminal litigators as to criminal matters.
Young v.
State, 1999 OK CR
14, ¶ 17, 989 P.2d
949, 953.
¶6 Appellants' litigation is intended to take advantage of our bifurcated
system of justice. However, I note that the Justices of the Oklahoma Supreme
Court work hand-in-hand with the Judges that serve on this Court. Over 35 years
ago, Justice Simms writing for the Oklahoma Supreme Court noted the relationship
between the two courts:
It speaks well of our bifurcated civil-criminal appellate system that there
has not been a jurisdictional conflict between this Court and the Court of
Criminal Appeals for more than fifty years. This scarcity of conflict is a
testament to both the clarity of jurisdictional boundaries between the two
Courts and the constant willingness of the members of each Court to observe and
comply with their jurisdictional restrictions.
Carder,
1978 OK
130, ¶ 1, 595 P.2d at 417-18.
¶7 Both the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Oklahoma Supreme Court have
determined how issues like these should proceed. As a general rule, a civil
order will neither interfere to prevent the enforcement of a valid criminal
judgment of conviction nor restrain or relieve the execution of a valid criminal
sentence. Maynard v. Layden,
1992 OK CR 31, ¶¶ 7-10, 830 P.2d 581, 583. In
Maynard, this Court
stated:
Brewer has the right to file a civil rights action and, if his complaints are
valid, to obtain an injunction in such an action. However, the breadth of such
an action, including the remedies available thereunder, is not unlimited and, as
a general rule, cannot affect or apply to criminal actions, including the
imposition of criminal punishment. See Rogers v. Douglas,
72 P.2d 823, 825 (Okla.1937) Such is
true especially where the criminal law provides a statutory remedy to prohibit
the wrong or injury for which redress is sought by injunction.
See Id.;
Independent School District No. 9 of Tulsa County v. Glass,
639 P.2d 1233, 1237 (Okla.1982).
Id.,
1992 OK CR
31, ¶ 7, 830 P.2d at 583. In
Rogers, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held
that a district judge was without jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining
order enjoining enforcement of a criminal statute that had not been shown to be
invalid.
Maynard, 1992 OK CR 31, ¶ 7 n.1, 830 P.2d at 583 n.1,
citing
Rogers v. Douglas, 1937 OK 569, 72 P.2d 823. Where there is a forum and a remedy for a
capital defendant to prohibit the execution of a judgment of death, an
injunction emanating from an alternative forum is not necessary to effectuate
such relief and is an impermissible intrusion upon criminal proceedings.
Maynard, 1992 OK CR
31, ¶ 8, 830 P.2d at 583.
¶8 Appellants have a forum to challenge the validity of their convictions,
sentences and the execution protocol. In no way, have Appellants been denied
access to the courts. Excluding a timely direct appeal, any challenge to a
sentence of death is governed by the Capital Post-Conviction Procedure Act,
22 O.S.2011, § 1089.
See
22 O.S.2011, § 1080. This Court has
previously determined that the proper method to object to the setting of an
execution date or request a stay of execution is to file an application for
post-conviction relief with the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Malicoat v.
State, 2006 OK CR
25, 137 P.3d
1234;
Torres v. State, 2002 OK CR 35, 58 P.3d 214;
Valdez v. State, 2002 OK CR 20, 46 P.3d 703. This includes any challenge to the
execution protocol.
Id. The Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals apply
to all appeals and proceedings before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
Rule 1.0(A),
Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22,
Ch. 18, App. (2014). Both § 1089 and Rule 9.7,
Rules of the Oklahoma Court of
Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2014), set forth the requirements
for a properly filed application for post-conviction relief. Our rules and
decisions permit discovery in capital post-conviction proceedings.
Bland v.
State, 1999 OK CR
45, ¶ 3, 991 P.2d
1039, 1040. The Court of Criminal Appeals has the authority to grant a stay
of execution of a sentence of death pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, § 1001.1.
¶9 However, Appellants have repeatedly refused to invoke the jurisdiction and
power of the Court to act. It is a fundamental axiom of jurisprudence that a
party must first file an action to have access to the court. Buis v.
State,
1990 OK CR
28, ¶ 4, 792 P.2d
427, 429 (holding court may only exercise jurisdiction of justiciable matter
through filing of pleadings sufficient to invoke power of the court to act).
Despite repeated invitations from this Court for Appellants to file pleadings to
invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, Appellants have failed to do so.
¶10 I have the utmost faith that if Appellants had a meritorious challenge to
their convictions, sentences of death or the execution protocol, that the
Oklahoma Indigent Defense System would ably represent them pursuant to §
1089(B). I note that in each of the Appellants' cases, the District Court
appointed the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System to represent them in seeking
post-conviction relief. Attorneys from the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System have
previously appeared in each of the Appellants' post-conviction proceedings.
Lockett v. State, unpub. dispo. PCD-2002-631, (Okl. Cr. October 22,
2002); Warner v. State, unpub. dispo. PCD-2003-897 (Okl. Cr. December 20,
2006). Those attorneys understand and follow the procedure the Oklahoma
Legislature has established for the review of sentences involving the death
penalty. The District Courts' orders appointing the Oklahoma Indigent Defense
System remain valid. In light of Appellants' repeated refusals to file an action
in this Court I am forced to conclude that Appellants' "civil" pleadings are
nothing more than an attempt to cause a delay in their lawful execution. Since
the jurisdiction of this Court has not been properly invoked, this Court cannot
issue a stay of execution.
Citationizer© Summary of Documents Citing This Document
| Cite |
Name |
Level |
| None Found. |
Citationizer: Table of Authority
| Cite |
Name |
Level |
| Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Cases |
| | Cite | Name | Level |
| | 1990 OK CR 28, 792 P.2d 427, | BUIS v. STATE | Discussed |
| | 1992 OK CR 31, 830 P.2d 581, | MAYNARD v. LAYDEN | Discussed at Length |
| | 1994 OK CR 19, 871 P.2d 1386, | DUVALL v. STATE | Cited |
| | 1996 OK CR 55, 932 P.2d 22, | Benjamin Lozoya v. State | Discussed |
| | 2002 OK CR 20, 46 P.3d 703, | VALDEZ v. STATE | Discussed |
| | 2002 OK CR 35, 58 P.3d 214, | TORRES v. STATE | Discussed |
| | 2006 OK CR 25, 137 P.3d 1234, | MALICOAT v. STATE | Discussed at Length |
| | 2008 OK CR 15, 185 P.3d 397, | STATE v. HALL | Discussed |
| | 2013 OK CR 12, 308 P.3d 1053, | JOHNSON v. STATE | Discussed at Length |
| | 1999 OK CR 45, 991 P.2d 1039, | Bland v. State | Discussed |
| | 1997 OK CR 52, 945 P.2d 503, 68 OBJ 3135, | State v. Tolle | Discussed |
| | 1999 OK CR 14, 989 P.2d 949, 70 OBJ 1076, | State v. Young | Discussed |
| Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases |
| | Cite | Name | Level |
| | 1937 OK 569, 72 P.2d 823, 181 Okla. 32, | ROGERS v. DOUGLASS | Discussed at Length |
| | 2006 OK 99, 152 P.3d 875, | STATE ex rel. OKLA. STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH v. ROBERTSON | Discussed |
| | 2011 OK 105, 268 P.3d 72, | JONES v. STATE | Discussed |
| | 2013 OK 24, 301 P.3d 407, | W.R. ALLISON ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COMPSOURCE OKLAHOMA | Discussed |
| | 2013 OK 43, 305 P.3d 1004, | STARKEY v. OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS | Discussed |
| | 2014 OK 28, | LOCKETT v. EVANS | Cited |
| | 1978 OK 130, 595 P.2d 416, | CARDER v. COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS | Discussed at Length |
| | 1982 OK 2, 639 P.2d 1233, | Independent School Dist. No. 9 of Tulsa County v. Glass | Cited |
| Title 20. Courts |
| | Cite | Name | Level |
| | 20 O.S. 40, | Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction | Discussed |
| | 20 O.S. 42, | Power to Ascertain Jurisdictional Facts | Cited |
| Title 22. Criminal Procedure |
| | Cite | Name | Level |
| | 22 O.S. 1001.1, | Time for Execution of Judgment Imposing Death Sentence - Stay of Execution | Discussed at Length |
| | 22 O.S. 1012, | Repealed by Laws 1992, HB 2268, c. 106, § 3, eff. September 1, 1992 | Cited |
| | 22 O.S. 1015, | Execution of Judgment of Death - Location - Procedure | Discussed |
| | 22 O.S. 1051, | Right of Appeal - Review - Corrective Jurisdiction - Procedure - Scope of Review on Certiorari | Cited |
| | 22 O.S. 1080, | Post-Conviction Procedure Act - Right to Challenge Conviction or Sentence. | Cited |
| | 22 O.S. 1089, | Post-Conviction Relief for Death Penalty Conviction - Grounds for Appeal | Cited |
