STATE v. KISTLER, 2017 OK CR 24

Defendant charged in Payne County Case No. CF-2016-364 with: Count 1 — Robbery with a Firearm; Count 2 — First Degree Burglary. Facts: defendant broke into a dwelling and robbed an occupant with a firearm.
At preliminary hearing defendant was bound over on both counts; later moved to dismiss Count 2 under 21 O.S. § 11(A) and Lawson v. State, arguing the counts arose from the same criminal act.
Trial judge (Judge Kistler) granted the motion, ordering the State to dismiss one of the two counts and to elect which charge to try.
The State sought a writ of prohibition from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to block enforcement of the dismissal order.
The Court reviewed controlling § 11 jurisprudence (noting Davis and subsequent cases) and concluded Lawson's merger analysis was inconsistent with current law; it explicitly overruled Lawson.
The Court granted the writ, holding the district court lacked legal authority to order dismissal under § 11 for these separate offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether convicting/charging both Robbery with a Firearm and First Degree Burglary for the same episode violates 21 O.S. § 11(A) (prohibition on punishing the same act under multiple statutes)	State: § 11 allows punishment for distinct criminal acts; robbery and burglary are separate acts and punishable separately	Defendant (Kistler order relied on Lawson): the burglary and robbery arose from the same criminal transaction/act so multiple punishments would be barred under § 11	Court held robbery and burglary are separate criminal acts/omissions for § 11 purposes; § 11 does not bar charging or punishing both in this factual scenario and explicitly overruled Lawson
Whether a writ of prohibition was appropriate to prevent the district court from enforcing its dismissal order	State: the dismissal order was unauthorized by law and would cause irreparable injury; writ proper	Implicit defense: trial court has discretion to enforce controlling precedent (Lawson)	Court held prerequisites for prohibition met (judicial power exercised, unauthorized by law, no adequate remedy); granted writ

Lawson v. State, 484 P.2d 900 (Okla. Crim. App. 1971) (held burglary and robbery in same transaction merged; explicitly overruled)
Ziegler v. State, 610 P.2d 251 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980) (burglary distinct from subsequent sexual offenses; separate convictions permitted)
Davis v. State, 993 P.2d 124 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999) (adopted analysis focusing on relationship between crimes; rejected merger-by-means tests)
Sanders v. State, 358 P.3d 280 (Okla. Crim. App. 2015) (distinct possession-based offenses may be separately punished)
Head v. State, 146 P.3d 1141 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (separate crimes for possession of drugs and paraphernalia)
Hale v. State, 888 P.2d 1027 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995) (single act cannot be charged as two separate sexual offenses where elements overlap)
Taylor v. State, 889 P.2d 319 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995) (offenses occurring inside a residence after burglary completed do not automatically merge)
Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1970) (double jeopardy/collateral estoppel principles applicable to consecutive prosecutions)