Legal Opinion · Concurrence

A.M.H. v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided November 18, 1988No. J-88-276Published

1Concurrence

PARKS, Judge,

specially concurring:

With regard to appellant’s claim that the State failed to comply with 10 O.S.Supp. 1986, § 1109(A), we have recently held that a juvenile who falls within the provisions of the Reverse Certification statute is an “adult”, not a “child”, and is thus not entitled to the special protections of Section 1109(A). See H.W. v. State, 759 P.2d 214, 216 (Okla.Crim.App.1988); Highsaw v. State, 758 P.2d 336, 340 (Okla.Crim.App.1988). “The reverse certification mechanism had not yet commenced to operate, because no charge had yet been filed against appellant. At that…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. H.W. v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1988
  2. Highsaw v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API