Robinson v. State

798 P.2d 222, 1990 WL 135811
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma·Decided September 8, 1990·No. No. F-86-625·Published

Opinion

ORDER

E. Alvin Schay, Appellate Public Defender, has filed a motion requesting this Court to determine whether attorneys in the Appellate Public Defender System can be court appointed for the purpose of appeals remanded to the district court for post-examination competency hearings. See Thomas v. State, 777 P.2d 399 (Okl.Crim. App.1989).

Having carefully considered the application, and being fully advised in the premises, we adopt the following procedure with regard to appointment of counsel on appeals remanded for post-examination competency hearings:

1. The district court should first consider appointing the original trial counsel when possible.
2. Where the original trial counsel is not available, the district court shall have the responsibility of appointing counsel other than the Appellate Public Defender’s Office.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ed Parks ED PARKS, Presiding Judge

/s/ Hez J. Bussey HEZ J. BUSSEY, Judge

/s/ Tom Brett TOM BRETT, Judge

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

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

Robinson v. State, 798 P.2d 222, 1990 WL 135811 (Okla. Ct. App. 1990).

798 P.2d 222 (Robinson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thomas v. State
1989 OK CR 32 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1989)