Court Opinion

ID: 9787038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:09:15.459732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:51.590044
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, JUDGE:
Concur in Part/Dissent in Part.
T 1 I concur in the fact we have previously set out in Rules 1.11 and 1.13(L), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2009), that verification of a document filed with this Court can be made either by verification before a Notary Public or by compliance with the provisions of 12 O.S.8upp.2004, § 426. While Form 18.2 only provided an example of the format to be utilized when verification is made before a Notary Public, Rule 1.18(L) provided the example of the statutory language to be used when verification is in accordance with Seetion 426.
12 The problem with the Court's "revision" of Form 18.2 is it does not recognize the two alternative methods available for verification of documents filed in this Court. The correct action, and one that would be in compliance with Rules 1.11 and 1.13(L), would be to republish Form 18.2 with both alternatives set out. All the Court has done with this revision is to exchange one of the alternatives for the other alternative and give the impression there is only one way to comply with the verification requirements. In other words, the revision has accomplished nothing, except create more confusion rather than resolving it.