Ex Parte Doll

3 Citing cases

  1. In re Gable

    118 P.2d 1035 (Okla. Crim. App. 1941)   Cited 7 times

    " This court has the same feeling as did the trial court, but under the law of this state as enacted by the Legislature the court did not have the right or authority to enter the order that the judgment and sentence should run concurrently as was entered in the Rogers county case No. 1694. This question has been fully discussed and the authorities cited in the late case of In re Flowers, 71 Okla. Cr. 330, 111 P.2d 509, and following it, Ex parte Doll, 73 Okla. Cr. 34, 117 P.2d 547. It is unnecessary to here quote from these decisions. They may be read by those who desire to do so.

  2. Walker v. State

    780 P.2d 1181 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989)   Cited 16 times
    Describing an abuse of discretion as "a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented in support of and against the application"

    However, after the Neitch decision, Section 976 was amended to permit the trial judge to run any sentence concurrent with any other sentence. Now, a trial court may at all times order that any sentence run concurrently with any other sentence. Hence, prior case law holding to the contrary is no longer dispositive of this issue. See, e.g., Bearden v. State, 392 P.2d 55, 58 (Okla.Cr. 1964); Neitch, 355 P.2d at 1013; Ex Parte Doll, 73 Okla. Cr. 34, 117 P.2d 547, 548 (1941). Although we have determined that the trial judge had the authority to run the sentences concurrently, petitioner is entitled to relief only if the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to do so.

  3. In re Oral Davis

    150 P.2d 367 (Okla. Crim. App. 1944)   Cited 6 times

    We think the facts in this proceeding are very similar to the facts in the case of Ex parte Robnett, 69 Okla. Cr. 235, 101 P.2d 645, and the case of Ex parte Pennington, 71 Okla. Cr. 263, 110 P.2d 923. In the cases of In re Flowers, 71 Okla. Cr. 330, 111 P.2d 509; In re Gable, 73 Okla. Cr. 155, 118 P.2d 1035; Ex parte Doll, 73 Okla. Cr. 34, 117 P.2d 547, and other cases cited therein, it is held: "Before the court has jurisdiction to provide that sentences shall run concurrently, the convictions, or pleas of guilty, must have been sustained in both cases before sentence has been pronounced in either."