Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Nave v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided April 8, 1991No. F-88-1083Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

LUMPKIN, Vice Presiding Judge,

concurring in part/dissenting in part.

I concur in the Court’s determination that the eye witness identity evidence was properly admitted, however, I must respectfully dissent to the finding that Appellant did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to counsel.

The record, when viewed in its entirety, demonstrates that Appellant made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver in this case. He initiated his request in a calculated and articulate fashion by filing a Motion to Proceed Pro Se and a Brief in Support of Motion to Proceed Pro Se. (O.R.14-16) After…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. United States v. Jack Warledo, Johnson Warledo, Thomas Lee Ahaisse, Gary Larney and Meredith Malcolm QuinnCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1977
  3. Johnson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1976
  4. Coleman v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1980
  5. Swanegan v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1987

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API