Mantooth v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Mantooth v. State

1971 OK CR 345, 489 P.2d 219, 1971 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 888

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 14, 1971

DocketNo. A-16334

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1971 OK CR 345 (Mantooth 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

Mantooth v. State, 1971 OK CR 345, 489 P.2d 219, 1971 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 888 (Okla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge.

Robert Lee Mantooth, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried, and convicted in the District Court of Pushmataha County, Oklahoma, for the offense of Burglary in the Second Degree, After Former Conviction of a Felony. His punishment was fixed at ten (10) years imprisonment, and from said judgment and sentence, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

This case must be reversed because of the admissibility of an alleged confession, without the proper predicate that the defendant had been thoroughly advised of his constitutional rights in accordance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. Although we have previously held that the words repeated without variation in order to be effective, and that words which convey the substance of the order along with the required information are sufficient, the warnings in the instant case are totally deficient. We further observe that the Record does not reflect that the defendant acknowledged that he understood the rights as explained. The judgment and sentence is, accordingly, reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

BRETT and NIX, JJ., concur.

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

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge.

Robert Lee Mantooth, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried, and convicted in the District Court of Pushmataha County, Oklahoma, for the offense of Burglary in the Second Degree, After Former Conviction of a Felony. His punishment was fixed at ten (10) years imprisonment, and from said judgment and sentence, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

This case must be reversed because of the admissibility of an alleged confession, without the proper predicate that the defendant had been thoroughly advised of his constitutional rights in accordance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. Although we have previously held that the words repeated without variation in order to be effective, and that words which convey the substance of the order along with the required information are sufficient, the warnings in the instant case are totally deficient. We further observe that the Record does not reflect that the defendant acknowledged that he understood the rights as explained. The judgment and sentence is, accordingly, reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

BRETT and NIX, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1971 OK CR 345, 489 P.2d 219, 1971 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mantooth-v-state-oklacrimapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack