Wilson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Wilson v. State

1985 OK CR 67, 701 P.2d 1040, 1985 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 229

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 11, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1985 OK CR 67 (Wilson 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

Wilson v. State, 1985 OK CR 67, 701 P.2d 1040, 1985 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 229 (Okla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION

PARKS, Presiding Judge:

The appellant, Travis Lyle Wilson, was tried for Burglary in the Second Degree After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies in the District Court of Washington County, Case No. CRF-83-63. He was convicted by a District Court jury, which sentenced him to twenty (20) years imprisonment. We reverse.

Appellant alleges in two assignments of error that the District Court violated his right to equal protection of law when it failed to order production of a preliminary hearing transcript in this case. We are compelled to agree with the appellant’s assertion.

This Court has held a violation of equal protection occurs when a preliminary hearing transcript is refused to an indigent because he or she cannot afford the same. Waters v. State, 454 P.2d 325 (Okl.Cr. 1969). See also Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 194, 19 L.Ed.2d 41 (1967). An accused is entitled to a transcript of a preliminary hearing where: (1) defense counsel acted with due diligence to acquire the transcript; and (2) the transcript is necessary for cross-examination of witnesses at trial. Bryant v. State, 471 P.2d 948 (Okl.Cr.1970). Failure to provide a transcript when these requirements are met will result in reversal of a subsequent conviction. Parrott v. State, 479 P.2d 619 (Okl.Cr.1971).

In the case at bar, defense counsel filed a motion requesting the transcript just ten days after the preliminary hearing. Furthermore, the motion filed by defense counsel stated a sufficient basis upon which to grant the request. Counsel’s motion for the transcript was timely; no alternatives to the transcript were available; and no reason for the trial court’s decision to overrule the motion was given.

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence of the District Court is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for a new trial.

BRETT, J., concurs. BUSSEY, J., specially concurring.

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

OPINION

PARKS, Presiding Judge:

The appellant, Travis Lyle Wilson, was tried for Burglary in the Second Degree After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies in the District Court of Washington County, Case No. CRF-83-63. He was convicted by a District Court jury, which sentenced him to twenty (20) years imprisonment. We reverse.

Appellant alleges in two assignments of error that the District Court violated his right to equal protection of law when it failed to order production of a preliminary hearing transcript in this case. We are compelled to agree with the appellant’s assertion.

This Court has held a violation of equal protection occurs when a preliminary hearing transcript is refused to an indigent because he or she cannot afford the same. Waters v. State, 454 P.2d 325 (Okl.Cr. 1969). See also Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 194, 19 L.Ed.2d 41 (1967). An accused is entitled to a transcript of a preliminary hearing where: (1) defense counsel acted with due diligence to acquire the transcript; and (2) the transcript is necessary for cross-examination of witnesses at trial. Bryant v. State, 471 P.2d 948 (Okl.Cr.1970). Failure to provide a transcript when these requirements are met will result in reversal of a subsequent conviction. Parrott v. State, 479 P.2d 619 (Okl.Cr.1971).

In the case at bar, defense counsel filed a motion requesting the transcript just ten days after the preliminary hearing. Furthermore, the motion filed by defense counsel stated a sufficient basis upon which to grant the request. Counsel’s motion for the transcript was timely; no alternatives to the transcript were available; and no reason for the trial court’s decision to overrule the motion was given.

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence of the District Court is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for a new trial.

BRETT, J., concurs. BUSSEY, J., specially concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1985 OK CR 67, 701 P.2d 1040, 1985 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-state-oklacrimapp-1985.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack