Christopher Lewis Whinery v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2018-112

Filed: May 16, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Christopher Lewis Whinery appealed his conviction for first degree murder. The Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and a $500.00 fine. Judge Lumpkin dissented.

Decision

The judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there reversible error in allowing the prosecution to introduce Appellant's statements to the police?
• Did the trial court properly determine that Appellant was not in custody during the police interrogation?
• Were Miranda warnings required before Appellant's statements were obtained?
• Was the trial court's finding regarding Appellant's custody status clearly erroneous?

Findings

• the trial court properly concluded that no Miranda warnings were required at the time of questioning, and the resulting statements were admissible at trial
• the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED

F-2018-112

May 16, 2019

Christopher Lewis Whinery

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Christopher Lewis Whinery, Appellant, was tried without a jury and found guilty of first degree murder, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2012 § 701.7(C), in the District Court of Creek County, Case No. CF-2015-30. The Honorable Douglas W. Golden, District Judge, sentenced him to life imprisonment and a $500.00 fine.

Mr. Whinery appeals in the following proposition of error:
1. The trial court committed reversible error when it allowed the prosecution to introduce Appellant’s statements to the police given at the police station because at the time Appellant was in police custody and had not been advised of, or waived, his constitutional rights.

Appellant must serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for consideration for parole. 22 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1(1).

In Proposition One, Appellant claims the trial court erred by admitting, over his objection, statements obtained from him by a custodial interrogation without the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We review this preserved challenge to the trial court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion, deferring to the trial court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, and reviewing the legal conclusions derived from those facts de novo. Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19, ¶ 10, 422 P.3d 788, 793.

From our review of the record, the trial court’s finding that Petitioner was not in custody at the time of his statements is not clearly erroneous. Appellant had neither been formally arrested nor had his freedom restrained to the degree associated with formal arrest at the time of questioning. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467, 86 S.Ct. at 1624. The trial court properly concluded that no Miranda warnings were required at the time of questioning, and the resulting statements were admissible at trial. Proposition One is denied.

DECISION

The judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 1 Appellant must serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for consideration for parole. 22 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1(1).
2. 2 Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.7 - First Degree Murder
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 13.1 - Parole Eligibility

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

No US Code citations found.

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19, I 10, 422 P.3d 788, 793
• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)