827 P.2d 171 - Simpson v. State

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently August 2012

18 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

PARKS, Judge,

¶1specially concurring:

¶2I write separately to comment on appellant’s first assignment of error. This Court addressed a substantially similar argument in Wooten v. State, 702 P.2d 59 (Okl.Cr.1985), wherein we stated:

In his second assignment of error, appellant contends that 21 O.S.1981, § 11 precludes AFCF enhancement of this offense [Bringing Alcoholic Beverages Into a Penal Institution, After Former Conviction of a Felony]. That statute provides that when an act or omission is made a crime and punishment under one of the specific statutory sections and under the general criminal section, i.e. Title 21, the specific shall control the general. But, the second sentence of 21 O.S.1981, § 11 specifically permits AFCF enhancement under 21 O.S.1981, § 51; therefore, this assignment of error is without merit.

¶3Id. at 61 (emphasis in original). Although the instant case concerns an attempted crime, I find that Wootenis applicable. Pursuant to Section 11, Section 51 permits AFCF enhancement notwithstanding that the attempt statute, 21 O.S.1981, § 42, contains specific sentencing guidelines.