Court Opinion

ID: 9566915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:44:46.336658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:05.143412
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Vice Presiding Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent. Having reviewed the entire record, I must agree with the district judge who reviewed the magistrate’s ruling sustaining appellees’ demurrers that the State failed to show probable cause that appel-lees committed embezzlement by bailee under 21 O.S.1981, § 1455. Further, while I agree legislative enactment of 22 O.S.Supp. 1987, §§ 1089.1-1089.7 supercedes former Rule Six, 22 O.S.1981, Ch. 18, App., I believe it would be beneficial to this Court in all future cases to require the reviewing district judge or associate district judge to enter an order stating his findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting his ruling. See Fletcher v. State, 735 P.2d 1190, 1198 (Okla.Crim.App.1987).