Legal Opinion · Dissent

M.A.W. v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided May 20, 2008No. J-2007-955Published

1DissentChapel, J.

€ 1 I dissent to the Opinion. I believe that H.B. 2195 clearly violates the single-subject rule and is unconstitutional. MAW. was subject to the provisions of the Youthful Offender Act which prevented him from requesting certification as a youthful offender.1 This law was affected by a series of legislative mishaps, concluding with the unconstitu*393tional enactment of H.B. 2195. Before 2006, Section 7806-2.5 of Title 10 provided that a minor of fifteen, sixteen or seventeen years who had committed murder could apply for certification as a youthful offender. In 2006, the Legislature enacted two…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Ogden v. HuntSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1955
  2. Edmondson v. PearceSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2004
  3. In Re Initiative Petition No. 382Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2006
  4. Associated Industries of Oklahoma v. Industrial Welfare CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1939
  5. Campbell v. WhiteSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API