Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Fontenot v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided June 8, 1994No. F-88-571Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

LUMPKIN,

Presiding Judge, concurring in part/dissenting in part:

I concur with the Court’s affirming Appellant’s conviction. The Court’s excellent analysis in determining the standard discussed in Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101 (1954) is well taken. The adoption of this more practical approach standard should eliminate the aberrations found in cases such as Thornburg v. State, 815 P.2d 186 (Okl.Cr.1991), which I believe to be overruled by this decision.

However, I cannot agree with the result reached in remanding for resentencing based *87on Hain v. State, 852 P.2d…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Opper v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
  2. Salazar v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1993
  3. Hain v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1993
  4. Thornburgh v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API