-
GARY L. LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge DAVID B. LEWIS, Vice Presiding Judge Specially Concurs
ROBERT L. HUDSON, Judge
LEWIS, V. P. J., SPECIALLY CONCURS:
¶ 1 I write separately to clarify my position. Quite clearly the trial court relied on case law which is substantially distinguishable from the case at bar. Lawson v. State ,
1971 OK CR 188 ,484 P.2d 900 , concerns a situation where there are subsequent trials covering two crimes arising out of the same transaction. This Court in Lawson relied on 21 O.S.Supp.1970, § 11, and 22 O.S.1961, § 404. The current case law sets forth the correct analysis of a section 11 issue. See Davis v. State ,1999 OK CR 48 ,993 P.2d 124 . Furthermore, in Taylor v. State ,1995 OK CR 10 , ¶ 45,889 P.2d 319 , 339, this Court held that offenses occurring inside a residence once the burglary is completed do not merge into a single transaction prohibiting separate charges and convictions. I, therefore, agree that Lawson should be overruled.¶ 2 To make it clear, the prohibition against subsequent trials which occurred in Lawson may properly be analyzed under the prohibition against double jeopardy and collateral estoppel. See Ashe v. Swenson ,
397 U.S. 436 ,90 S.Ct. 1189 ,25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970) ; State v. Hooley ,2012 OK CR 3 ,269 P.3d 949 ; and *902Smith v. State ,2002 OK CR 2 ,46 P.3d 136 . This issue has not arisen in this case, so further analysis is unnecessary.
Document Info
Docket Number: No. PR-2017-518
Citation Numbers: 421 P.3d 899
Judges: Lumpkin
Filed Date: 10/25/2017
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/19/2022