Vincent Vasquez v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2008-620

Filed: Aug. 5, 2009

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Vincent Vasquez appealed his conviction for three counts of sexual abuse of a child. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the court, and he was told to serve eight years in prison for each count, with some parts of the sentence paused. One judge, Lewis, disagreed with the decision.

Decision

The Judgments and Sentences of the District Court are AFFIRMED. The Order of Restitution is VACATED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.1 App. (2009), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• was there sufficient evidence to support the convictions by providing adequate corroboration of the prosecutrix's inconsistent and impeached testimony?
• did the trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to admit crucial evidence that was relevant to Vasquez's defense?
• did the trial court err in failing to provide adequate jury instructions on direct and circumstantial evidence?
• did the trial court err by imposing a restitution sentence that lacked support?
• should Vasquez's convictions be overturned based on cumulative error?

Findings

• the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions
• the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit irrelevant evidence
• Vasquez failed to show he was prejudiced by the trial court's instructions to the jury
• the restitution order was improperly imposed and must be vacated
• no cumulative error requires relief

F-2008-620

Aug. 5, 2009

Vincent Vasquez

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

CHAPEL, JUDGE:

Vincent Vasquez was tried by jury and convicted of Counts I (Sexual Abuse of a Child by Attempted Rape), III (Sexual Abuse of a Child by Rape by Instrumentation) and VI (Sexual Abuse of a Child by Forcible Oral Sodomy), Sexual Abuse of a Child in violation of 10 O.S.Supp.2006, § 7115, in the District Court of Cleveland County, Case No. CF-2007-196.1 In accordance with the jury’s recommendation the Honorable Tom A. Lucas sentenced Vasquez to eight (8) years imprisonment on each count, to run consecutively, with the sentences for Counts III and VI suspended. Vasquez must serve 85% of his sentence on Count I before becoming eligible for parole consideration. Vasquez appeals from these convictions and sentences.

Vasquez raises five propositions of error in support of his appeal:

I. The evidence was insufficient to support the convictions by providing sufficient corroboration of prosecutrix’ inconsistent and impeached testimony;

II. Vasquez was severely prejudiced by the trial court’s abuse of discretion in refusing to admit competent evidence that was crucial to Vasquez’s defense;

III. The trial court erred in failing to adequately instruct the jury on direct and circumstantial evidence;

IV. The trial court erred by imposing an unsupported sentence of restitution to be paid by Vasquez; and

V. Vasquez’s convictions should be granted relief based on cumulative error.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits and briefs, we find that no relief is required under the law and evidence. We find in Proposition I that taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could find the elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.2 We find in Proposition II that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit irrelevant evidence. 3 We find in Proposition III that Vasquez fails to show he was prejudiced by the trial court’s instructions to the jury. 4

The State concedes in Proposition IV that restitution was improperly imposed, and the order of restitution must be vacated. We find in Proposition V that no cumulative error requires relief.5

Decision

The Judgments and Sentences of the District Court are AFFIRMED. The Order of Restitution is VACATED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.1 App. (2009), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 10 O.S. Supp. 2006, § 7115.
2. Dodd v. State, 2004 OK CR 31, 100 P.3d 1017, 1041-42.
3. Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 281, 765 P.2d 800, 802.
4. Martin v. State, 1987 OK CR 265, 747 P.2d 316, 318.
5. Dill v. State, 2005 OK CR 20, 122 P.3d 866, 868; 12 O.S. 2001, § 2401.
6. Bell v. State, 2007 OK CR 43, 172 P.3d 622, 627.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 10 § 7115 - Sexual Abuse of a Child
• Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2401 - General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 - Sentencing for Criminal Offenses

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:

• Dodd v. State, 2004 OK CR 31, 100 P.3d 1017, 1041-42.
• Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 281, 765 P.2d 800, 802.
• Martin v. State, 1987 OK CR 265, 747 P.2d 316, 318.
• Dill v. State, 2005 OK CR 20, 122 P.3d 866, 868.
• Bell v. State, 2007 OK CR 43, 172 P.3d 622, 627.