M.A.W. v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
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
- State Ex Rel. Ogden v. HuntSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1955
- Edmondson v. PearceSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2004
- In Re Initiative Petition No. 382Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2006
- Associated Industries of Oklahoma v. Industrial Welfare CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1939
- Campbell v. WhiteSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.