Name on criminal court records
Roman Vladimirovich Serpik v. Oklahoma
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Roman Serpik argues that the required oaths for the Oklahoma prosecutor who filed a 2023 charge were not on file, and that state filings used a name different from his certified identity, making his later challenge unfair.
- What's at stake
- Serpik’s claims about the charge and later state-court records remain unresolved at the Supreme Court.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
He asks the Supreme Court to review; his petition was distributed for a conference, which is not a decision on the claims.
Serpik argues that Assistant District Attorney Gina Farris Webb signed a January 2023 charging document when her required oaths were not on file.
The petition challenges both the original charge and the fairness of later state-court proceedings over Serpik’s identity and case records.
Question presented
1. Whether an INFORMATION filed on January 25, 2023 (CM-2023-31, Beckham County) is constitutionally valid when signed by Assistant District Attorney Gina Farris Webb whose statutory oaths of office were not on file, and whether such an INFORMATION may lawfully designate the defendant under the res judicata entity name “ ROMAN SERPIK ’ from TR-2020-1163 (Beckham Co. Okla 12/08/2020-12/09/2020) rather than the certified identity “ ROMAN VLADIMIROVICH SERPIK ” (See prosecutor oath requirements! Trade name for LLC)? 2. Whether structural defects arising from identity variance, intentional caption conversion, and record obstruction violated Petitioner ’ s federal constitutional rights and rendered the state post-conviction process fundamentally unfair. (See structural defects)? 3. Whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals violated due process and its own binding mandate (M-2023-910, Footnote 1) by issuing the August 14, 2026, Order and Mandate under the defective entity caption “ ROMAN SERPIK, ” despite the jury verdict identifying the defendant as “ Roman Vladimirovich Serpik ” and requiring all versions of the name to be included in subsequent proceedings. (See caption defects)? 4. Whether due process is violated when a state appellate court issues a mandate under a defective entity caption ( “ ROMAN SERPIK ’ ) that contradicts the County Clerk ’ s certified record identifying the defendant as “ ROMAN VLADIMIROVICH SERPIK, ” the trade name of Roman Serpik LLC (Last 4 SSNZEIN-2305). (See Oklahoma Articles of Organization for Roman Serpik LLC)?
What happens next
The Court must decide whether to hear the case. The conference date does not promise an order that day, and oral argument is not scheduled.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
More questions
- What name does Serpik say the state appeals court’s mandate should have used?
- He argues it should have used “Roman Vladimirovich Serpik,” the name he says appears in the jury verdict and certified record, rather than “Roman Serpik.”
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.