Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Campbell

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided August 18, 1998No. S 97-197Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLumpkin, Judge

¶ 1 I can concur only in the Court’s decision to hear this appeal and affirm the prison discipline proceedings as to the loss of earned credits. However, I must dissent to the Court’s aberrant reasoning that the prison discipline of a $50.00 fíne violates the double jeopardy clause.

¶ 2 In its attempt to find a way to apply Hudson v. U.S., 522 U.S. 93, 118 S.Ct. 488, 139 L.Ed.2d 450 (1997), to a situation to which it does not apply, the Court has once again attempted to fit the proverbial square peg into a round hole. I adopt and apply the analysis set out in my separate vote to Worthen v.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hudson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  2. Worthen v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API