Hardiman v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
1Concurrence
■ JOHNSON, Judge,
concurring in result.
While I concur in the result of the majority opinion herein as it relates to the first and second assignments of error, I need to speak to the third proposition of alleged error. The first proposition of error had to do with the fact that convictions used were outside the ten-year limitation found in 12 O.S.1981, § 2609, and further, the second proposition was the failure by the State to provide proper written notice as it relates to the introduction of such evidence; I concur in the court’s findings as it relates to both of these propositions.
The third…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Robinson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1987
- Campbell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1981
- Johnson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1988
- Shipman v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1982
- Gilbert v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1988
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.