Thomas v. State ( 1989 )

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).