Court Opinion

ID: 9539796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:10:27.250979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:21.153094
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Presiding Judge,
specially concurring:
While I concur in the majority opinion, I continue to adhere to the views set forth in my separate opinion in Anderson v. State, 765 P.2d 1232, 1234 (Okla.Crim.App.1988) (Parks, J., Dissenting), that a plain reading of the applicable statutory scheme demonstrates that the Legislature did not intend that the post-examination competency hearing be held months or years after trial. Here, the majority gives meaningful consideration to the question of whether it is feasible to conduct a post-examination competency hearing after trial. But see Anderson, 765 P.2d at 1233 (where the “feasibility” issue was not addressed by the majority).