Legal Opinion

Pickens v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided September 15, 1989No. 0-87-561Published

1Concurrence

LUMPKIN, Judge,

specially concurring:

While I agree that this case should be reversed and remanded to the district court for a rehearing, I write separately to further address the State’s burden to “offer strict proof of the finality” of a predicate judgment and sentence. The minimum *599standard for strict proof of the finality of a conviction can be met by the introduction of a certified or authenticated judgment and sentence together with a certified or authenticated copy of the docket sheet showing whether the Defendant has perfected a direct appeal of the conviction and if so perfected,…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Woods v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1974
  2. Scott v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1987
  3. Powell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1987
  4. Sams v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API