Court Opinion

ID: 5150768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-02 01:54:45.262437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:52:20.021997
License: Public Domain

[12] I concur in this decision and especially with that part which provides "to the extent the language in Roselle, supra, is inconsistent *Page 352 
with this opinion in regard to the application of 22 O.S. 1971, rule 2.7, it is expressly overruled." My view is thatRoselle, supra, should be specifically overruled. Likewise, I specifically refer to that part of the decision which states "However, Roselle, supra, is not to be construed to permit the trial court to not prepare a formal order and consequently escape having this Court review judgment for a contempt conviction." That is essentially what I was attempting to set forth in my dissent to Roselle, supra. That order referred to constitutes the judgment and sentence, as provided for in the statutes. Therefore, I concur. *Page 588