Jones v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating, “where an appellant is charged with both drug and non-drug predicate offenses, it is permissible to provide for enhancement under either” the Habitual Offender Act or the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Bobby Joe Hickman v. Denise Spears
  Tenth Circuit· 1998-10-27· cited 106×
• BIVENS v. STATE
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 2018-10-11· cited 28×
• WASHINGTON v. STATE
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 2023-12-21· cited 10×
• Hickman v. Spears
  Tenth Circuit· 1998-10-27

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Riley v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 1988-08-09· cited 48×
• Faubion v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 1977-09-29· cited 28×
• Bickerstaff v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 1983-08-08· cited 20×
• Croan v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 1984-06-06· cited 18×
• Novey v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 1985-11-06· cited 18×
• Leigh v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 1985-04-12· cited 17×
• Hayes v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 1976-05-20· cited 13×