Court Opinion

ID: 9794439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:05:37.403978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:13:39.788702
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
I cannot agree with the majority’s statement that the error of the trial court in refusing to instruct the jury concerning the possibility of imposing a sentence of life without parole “would not be available if the defendant did not or refused to request the life without parole instruction.” Majority at 1363. First, because such an issue is not before this Court, the above statement is merely dictum. Second, contrary to the majority’s assertion, a request and waiver are not prerequisites to finding error in a case such as this.
In Allen, this Court found “that the trial court’s refusal to consider the possibility of imposing a sentence of life without parole provision ... was error.” Id. 821 P.2d at 376. We then went on to state that “[t]his result is even more compelling in the present case, wherein the Petitioner urged the court to consider the sentence and executed a valid waiver of his constitutional right against the application of any ex post facto law.” Id. at 376 (emphasis added). We did not state in Allen that a request and waiver were necessary to preserve any error, only that such procedure made the result “more compelling.” Indeed, no defendant is required to request that the trial court instruct the jury on the available *1364punishment for a given offense; such is the duty of the trial court. In Allen, this Court mandated that a life without parole punishment be considered by the sentencer where a First Degree Murder defendant is tried subsequent to the enactment of 21 O.S.Supp.1987, § 701.10. Because this punishment is mandated under such circumstances, no request or waiver is required.
I concur with all other aspects of the majority opinion.
BRETT, J., joins in this opinion.