CORRECTION ORDER

¶1 On March 4, 1997, the opinion in the above styled case was handed down by the Court. Due to modifications in the opinion as a result of conference actions during the discussion of the case, the opinion handed down incorrectly included an early draft of Judge Lumpkin's separate Concur in Results vote. The opinion is hereby ordered corrected to reflect the separate writing of Judge Lumpkin attached to the March 4, 1997, opinion is hereby ordered withdrawn and the attached correct separate writing is made a part of the official opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 24^th day of March, 1997.

/s/
CHARLES S. CHAPEL, Presiding Judge

/s/
RETA M. STRUBHAR, Vice Presiding Judge

/s/
GARY L. LUMPKIN, Judge

/s/
JAMES F. LANE, Judge

/s/
CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Judge

ATTEST:

James Patterson
Clerk

---

ROBERT LEROY BRYAN v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA

(F-95-84)

LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULT

¶1 I agree with the results reached in the opinion. I write separately on three matters.

¶2 First, I once again urge this Court to adopt a unified approach when reviewing claims dealing with the sufficiency of the evidence. See White v. State, 900 P.2d 982, 993-995 (Okl.Cr.1995)(Lumpkin, J., Specially Concurring).

¶3 Second, I write separately to explain why we are addressing a supplemental proposition. Ordinarily, this Court will not address propositions which are not presented in a timely manner in the Appellant's brief-in-chief. See 22 O.S.Supp.1996, Ch. 18, App . Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Rule  3.4 (F)(2). However, this Court remanded Appellant's case pursuant to Cooper v. Oklahoma, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 1373, 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996) to determine if a retrospective competency hearing could be held; and, if so, to hold such a hearing using a constitutionally correct burden of proof. Such a hearing was held; and this Court's course of action is consistent with the scope of our authority set out in Rule 3.11 (A).

¶4 Third, I do not agree with the Court's discussion of Supplemental Proposition V. The Court's decision in Jackson v. State, 811 P.2d 614 (Okl.Cr.1991), is not applicable to the situation presented here. The purpose of discovery is to provide the opposing party matters which may be used at trial and to ensure the party is put on notice of its existence. That was done in this case. The trial judge made the correct ruling.