Skelton v. State
| Decision Date | 21 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. F-83-319,F-83-319 |
| Citation | 672 P.2d 671 |
| Parties | 1983 OK CR 159 Larry Eugene SKELTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Order Reversing Conviction and Remanding for New Trial.
Larry Eugene Skelton has appealed his LeFlore County District Court conviction for Burglary of an Automobile, After Former Conviction of Two Felonies. He was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment.
This case must be reversed and remanded for the reason that the appellant was represented at trial by the same attorney who prosecuted the case at the arraignment and preliminary hearing as the Assistant District Attorney. Reversal is mandated notwithstanding the appellant's waiver of objection to representation by that attorney.
This Court has condemned such behavior in the past. See, Roberts v. State, 72 Okl.Cr. 384, 115 P.2d 270 (1941) superceded on rehearing, 72 Okl.Cr. 392, 117 P.2d 174 (1941), 115 P.2d at 273. Furthermore, it is prohibited both by statute and the Code of Professional Responsibility. See, 21 O.S.1981, § 556; 5 O.S.1981, ch. 1, App. 3 DR 9-101(B).
In dealing with a similar but not analogous situation, this Court stated, "The public has a right to absolute confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the administration of justice." Howerton v. State, 640 P.2d 566 (Okl.Cr.1982) at 568. We therefore reemphasize that, notwithstanding the willingness of a defendant to be represented by an attorney who is presumably familiar with the State's case by virtue of having been the prosecutor, such a situation creates a pervasive atmosphere of impropriety which cannot be waived. Under no circumstances should such a situation be allowed to arise in the future.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 21st day of November, 1983.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Love
...66 Ill.2d 162, 5 Ill.Dec. 246, 361 N.E.2d 569, 571-72 (1977); State v. Sparkman, 443 So.2d 700 (La.Ct.App.1983); Skelton v. State, 672 P.2d 671 (Okla.Crim.App.1983). The court fashioned a "bright line rule" for these limited circumstances, stating that when a defense attorney has appeared f......
-
Crawford v. State
...indicated to the jury that even his former lawyer had given up on him. In support of his argument, Appellant relies on Skelton v. State, 672 P.2d 671 (Okl.Cr.1983), and Howerton v. State, 640 P.2d 566, 568 (Okl.Cr.1982). These cases prohibit an attorney from changing sides during a case, ev......
-
Galloway v. State
...automatic reversal. See, e.g. , People v. Lawson , 163 Ill.2d 187, 206 Ill.Dec. 119, 644 N.E.2d 1172, 1183 (1994) ; Skelton v. State , 672 P.2d 671 (Ok. 1983) ; State v. Gibbons , 1 Or.App. 374, 462 P.2d 680 (1969). Other courts adhere to a prejudicial-showing requirement but condemn such p......
-
State v. Love
...had appeared as a county prosecutor for the state of Oklahoma at the defendant's arraignment and preliminary hearing. Skelton v. State, 672 P.2d 671 (Okla.Crim.App.1983). Quoting an earlier case, the court "The public has a right to absolute confidence in the integrity and impartiality of t......