Porter v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Porter v. State

1991 OK CR 8, 805 P.2d 105, 62 O.B.A.J. 456, 1991 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 8, 1991 WL 10194

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 24, 1991

DocketNo. F-84-826

StatusPublished

This text of 1991 OK CR 8 (Porter 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

Porter v. State, 1991 OK CR 8, 805 P.2d 105, 62 O.B.A.J. 456, 1991 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 8, 1991 WL 10194 (Okla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

On July 2, 1990, the appellee, State of Oklahoma, filed a petition for rehearing in the above styled and numbered appeal. In its petition, the State alleged that this Court overlooked relevant facts as to whether the district court had commenced a post-examination competency hearing as previously ordered by this Court. On October 23, 1990, this Court called for a response from the appellant as to whether this petition for rehearing should be granted which was timely filed. The record does reflect that the District Court of Cherokee County did conduct a hearing on July 7, 1989, at which it determined that it would be feasible to conduct a retrospective competency hearing. However, as of the date of this Court’s order of June 11, 1990, the retrospective competency hearing had not been conducted despite repeated orders from this Court to do so.

A rehearing is allowed pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.1989, Ch. 18 App., Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Rule 3.14(B). However, this rule limits the conditions upon which a rehearing may be had to those situations where a question decisive of the case which was raised by the attorney of record has been overlooked or where the decision is in conflict with an express statute or controlling decision that was not called to the attention of this Court in the briefs. Having considered the petition filed herein and the response filed by appellant, this Court finds that the petition for rehearing is based upon neither of these conditions, and therefore the petition should be DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ James F. Lane JAMES F. LANE, Presiding Judge

/s/ Gary L. Lumpkin GARY L. LUMPKIN, Vice Presiding Judge

/s/ Tom Brett TOM BRETT, Judge

/s/ Ed Parks ED PARKS, Judge

/s/ Charles A. Johnson CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Judge

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

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

On July 2, 1990, the appellee, State of Oklahoma, filed a petition for rehearing in the above styled and numbered appeal. In its petition, the State alleged that this Court overlooked relevant facts as to whether the district court had commenced a post-examination competency hearing as previously ordered by this Court. On October 23, 1990, this Court called for a response from the appellant as to whether this petition for rehearing should be granted which was timely filed. The record does reflect that the District Court of Cherokee County did conduct a hearing on July 7, 1989, at which it determined that it would be feasible to conduct a retrospective competency hearing. However, as of the date of this Court’s order of June 11, 1990, the retrospective competency hearing had not been conducted despite repeated orders from this Court to do so.

A rehearing is allowed pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.1989, Ch. 18 App., Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Rule 3.14(B). However, this rule limits the conditions upon which a rehearing may be had to those situations where a question decisive of the case which was raised by the attorney of record has been overlooked or where the decision is in conflict with an express statute or controlling decision that was not called to the attention of this Court in the briefs. Having considered the petition filed herein and the response filed by appellant, this Court finds that the petition for rehearing is based upon neither of these conditions, and therefore the petition should be DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ James F. Lane JAMES F. LANE, Presiding Judge

/s/ Gary L. Lumpkin GARY L. LUMPKIN, Vice Presiding Judge

/s/ Tom Brett TOM BRETT, Judge

/s/ Ed Parks ED PARKS, Judge

/s/ Charles A. Johnson CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1991 OK CR 8, 805 P.2d 105, 62 O.B.A.J. 456, 1991 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 8, 1991 WL 10194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-state-oklacrimapp-1991.