Nave v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
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
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- United States v. Jack Warledo, Johnson Warledo, Thomas Lee Ahaisse, Gary Larney and Meredith Malcolm QuinnCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1977
- Johnson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1976
- Coleman v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1980
- Swanegan v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1987
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.