Okla. Stat. tit. 44, § 44-864
This is the official text of Okla. Stat. tit. 44, § 44-864, part of Oklahoma’s Stat. tit. 44, — part of the compiled statutory law of Oklahoma, published by the state as "Stat. tit. 44,." Browse the sections below, each linked to its official government source.
Not legal advice. This page reproduces the official text of a government statute for reference only. Laws change, and how a statute applies depends on your specific facts. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your state.
Judge advocate review of finding of guilty in summary
Official statutory text
court-martial.
ARTICLE 64. Judge advocate review of finding of guilty in
summary court-martial.
A. In general. Under regulations prescribed by the Adjutant
General, each summary court-martial in which there is a finding of
guilty shall be reviewed by a judge advocate. A judge advocate may
not review a case under this subsection if the judge advocate has
acted in the same case as an accuser, preliminary hearing officer,
member of the court, military judge, or counsel or has otherwise
acted on behalf of the prosecution or defense. The judge advocate's
review shall be in writing and shall contain the following:
1. Conclusions as to whether:
Oklahoma Statutes - Title 44. Militia Page 127
a. the court had jurisdiction over the accused and the
offense,
b. the charge and specification stated an offense, and
c. the sentence was within the limits prescribed as a
matter of law;
2. A response to each allegation of error made in writing by
the accused; and
3. If the case is sent for action under subsection B of this
section, a recommendation as to the appropriate action to be taken
and an opinion as to whether corrective action is required as a
matter of law.
B. Record. The record of trial and related documents in each
case reviewed under subsection A of this section shall be sent for
action to the person exercising general court-martial jurisdiction
over the accused at the time the court was convened (or to that
person's successor in command) if:
1. The judge advocate who reviewed the case recommends
corrective action; or
2. Such action is otherwise required by regulations of the
Adjutant General.
C. 1. The person to whom the record of trial and related
documents are sent under subsection B of this section may:
a. disapprove or approve the findings or sentence, in
whole or in part,
b. remit, commute, or suspend the sentence in whole or in
part,
c. except where the evidence was insufficient at the
trial to support the findings, order a rehearing on
the findings, on the sentence, or on both, or
d. dismiss the charges.
2. If a rehearing is ordered but the convening authority finds
a rehearing impracticable, he or she shall dismiss the charges.
3. If the opinion of the judge advocate in the judge advocate's
review under subsection A of this section is that corrective action
is required as a matter of law and if the person required to take
action under subsection B does not take action that is at least as
favorable to the accused as that recommended by the judge advocate,
the record of trial and action thereon shall be sent to the State
Judge Advocate for review under Section 869 of this title (Article
69).
ARTICLE 64. Judge advocate review of finding of guilty in
summary court-martial.
A. In general. Under regulations prescribed by the Adjutant
General, each summary court-martial in which there is a finding of
guilty shall be reviewed by a judge advocate. A judge advocate may
not review a case under this subsection if the judge advocate has
acted in the same case as an accuser, preliminary hearing officer,
member of the court, military judge, or counsel or has otherwise
acted on behalf of the prosecution or defense. The judge advocate's
review shall be in writing and shall contain the following:
1. Conclusions as to whether:
Oklahoma Statutes - Title 44. Militia Page 127
a. the court had jurisdiction over the accused and the
offense,
b. the charge and specification stated an offense, and
c. the sentence was within the limits prescribed as a
matter of law;
2. A response to each allegation of error made in writing by
the accused; and
3. If the case is sent for action under subsection B of this
section, a recommendation as to the appropriate action to be taken
and an opinion as to whether corrective action is required as a
matter of law.
B. Record. The record of trial and related documents in each
case reviewed under subsection A of this section shall be sent for
action to the person exercising general court-martial jurisdiction
over the accused at the time the court was convened (or to that
person's successor in command) if:
1. The judge advocate who reviewed the case recommends
corrective action; or
2. Such action is otherwise required by regulations of the
Adjutant General.
C. 1. The person to whom the record of trial and related
documents are sent under subsection B of this section may:
a. disapprove or approve the findings or sentence, in
whole or in part,
b. remit, commute, or suspend the sentence in whole or in
part,
c. except where the evidence was insufficient at the
trial to support the findings, order a rehearing on
the findings, on the sentence, or on both, or
d. dismiss the charges.
2. If a rehearing is ordered but the convening authority finds
a rehearing impracticable, he or she shall dismiss the charges.
3. If the opinion of the judge advocate in the judge advocate's
review under subsection A of this section is that corrective action
is required as a matter of law and if the person required to take
action under subsection B does not take action that is at least as
favorable to the accused as that recommended by the judge advocate,
the record of trial and action thereon shall be sent to the State
Judge Advocate for review under Section 869 of this title (Article
69).
Status: in_force · Read it on the official government site
Need a lawyer in Oklahoma?
Find a Oklahoma lawyer
About this page: Statute text is reproduced from official government publishers via the
Open US Law dataset
(Vaquill AI, snapshot v2026.08, CC BY 4.0). Primary legislative text like this is public domain under the government-edicts doctrine
(Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). We link every section back to its official source so you can verify it independently.