Legal Opinion · Dissent

D.M.H. v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided June 7, 2006No. J-2005-336Published

1Dissent

LUMPKIN, VPJ:

dissents.

¶ 1 I dissent to the Court’s opinion, which uses vague substantive due process theories to grant the defendant relief beyond that provided by Oklahoma’s Constitution, statutes, and case law. Said relief should be unavailable to the defendant due to the fact that he clearly waived the right to a jury trial.

¶ 2 The role of an appellate court and its judges is to adjudicate the propositions of error presented based on the record developed at the trial court and through the attorneys of record. In this particular case the single proposition of error raised on appeal was…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. McKeiver v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Ex Parte HollowellCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1947

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API