Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
HOPKINS v. LAFORTUNE
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Decided December 22, 2016No. Case Number: PR-2016-0757Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
LEWIS, J:
CONCUR IN PART, DISSENT IN PART
¶ 1 I dissent to the Order’s decision to overrule Ullery v. State, 1999 OK CR 36, 988 P.2d 332. Ullery sets forth the three methods of time computation under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD). When adopting the IAD, the legislature was silent regarding the issues discussed in Ullery, therefore, this Court was required to adopt a method of time computation. Since our decision in Ullery, the legislature has not acted in contravention of our decision. I would find this inaction to be an affirmation of our interpretation of the statute.1
¶2 The…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bob Jones University v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- New York v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Seth Yellen, A/K/A Ronald Larkins v. Thomas I. Cooper, Superintendent, Shadow Mountain Correctional Facility, and Lt. Ted Weber, Correctional OfficerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1987
- Olstad v. Microsoft CorporationWisconsin Supreme Court · 2005
- Ullery v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1999
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.