Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Randolph v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided February 4, 2010No. F-2008-208Published

1Concurrence

LUMPKIN, Judge,

specially concur.

€ 1 I concur in the Court's analysis and the affirming of the judgment and sentence. The supplemental briefing in this case points to a distinction that needs to be made between constitutional rights and statutory procedures. In this day and age, some would make every issue a constitutional issue, however, that is not always the case. In the recent case of Melendes-Diaz v. Massachusetts, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009), the United States Supreme Court discussed a defendant's right, under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Barber v. PageSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. Howell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1994
  4. State v. TinklerCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API