Pickens v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
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
- Woods v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1974
- Scott v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1987
- Powell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1987
- Sams v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1988