Ralph Emerson Jones, Jr. v The State Of Oklahoma
F-2005-619
Filed: Mar. 7, 2006
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: Ralph Emerson Jones, Jr.
Summary
Ralph Jones, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Methamphetamine. Conviction and sentence were reversed for a new trial because he was not allowed the correct number of jury challenges. Judges Lumpkin and A. Johnson dissented.
Decision
The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch18, App.2004, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
Issues
- was there insufficient evidence to sustain Mr. Jones' conviction?
- did the trial court violate Jones's due process rights by denying him his statutory right to peremptory challenges?
- did the court err by reversing and remanding for a new trial based on an issue not raised on appeal?
Findings
- The court erred in denying Jones his statutorily-mandated number of peremptory challenges, requiring reversal.
- The evidence presented was not sufficient to sustain the conviction based solely on possession of drug paraphernalia.
F-2005-619
Mar. 7, 2006
Ralph Emerson Jones, Jr.
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
CHAPEL, PRESIDING JUDGE: Ralph Jones, Jr. was tried by jury and convicted of Unlawful Possession of Methamphetamine in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2004, § 2-402(B)(1) in Pushmataha County District Court Case No. CF-2004-126. In accordance with the jury’s verdict, the Honorable Lowell R. Burgess sentenced Jones to two years’ imprisonment. Jones has perfected this appeal. Jones raises the following proposition of error: The evidence is insufficient to sustain Mr. Jones’ conviction; mere possession of drug paraphernalia, without more, is not tantamount to knowing possession of a controlled substance.
After thoroughly considering the entire record before us on appeal, we find that reversal is required. The above proposition is not addressed because Jones is entitled to a new trial based upon trial error that he did not raise on appeal. Jones was allowed only three (3) of his statutorily-mandated five (5) peremptory challenges at trial.¹ Due process is violated when a defendant is denied a statutory right.² Further, this Court recently held that failure to accord a defendant his statutorily-mandated number of peremptory challenges cannot be waived and requires reversal.³ As a result, we reverse and remand Jones’s Judgment and Sentence for a new trial.
Decision
The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch18, App.2004, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL
MARIA BLAKELY
702 E. JACKSON STREET
HUGO, OK 74523
ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT
JAMES R. WOLFE
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
PUSHMATAHA COUNTY COURTHOUSE
HUGO, OKLAHOMA 74501
ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE
ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL
THOMAS PURCELL
POST OFFICE BOX 92G
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA 73070
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
W.A. DREW EDMONDSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
2300 N. LINCOLN BLVD.
112 STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73105
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
OPINION BY: CHAPEL, P. J.
LUMPKIN, V.P.J.: DISSENT
C. JOHNSON, J.: CONCUR
A. JOHNSON, J.: DISSENT
LEWIS, J.: CONCUR
¹ 22 O.S.2001, § 655.
² Golden v. State 2006 OK. CR 2, P.3rd; (denial of statutorily mandated peremptory challenges mandates reversal).
³ Id.
LUMPKIN, V.P.J.: DISSENT
I strongly dissent to the disposition of this case, i.e., how the Court would reverse this case and remand it for a new trial based upon an issue that is not even raised on appeal. No matter how much it may appear otherwise, we are not Appellant’s lawyers. Our job is to resolve issues that are appealed to us, not to step in and micromanage the criminal justice system. It is quite likely Appellant does not even want a new trial in this case. He received only two years imprisonment, and he’s probably out on the streets as we speak. Appellant raised only one issue on appeal, insufficiency of the evidence. Why? Because he wants the conviction thrown out, not the opportunity to serve more time. However, the evidence is sufficient and the conviction should be affirmed. But this is what happens when you label an error as suddenly structural, that was not. See Golden V. State, 2006 OK CR P.3d. Even those defendants who have no desire to take their chances with a jury again are forced to retry their case. It’s a lose/lose situation. I renew the objections I raised in my dissent to the errant analysis in Golden, and urge the Court to recognize there is no structural error here. More importantly, there is no allegation of error raised by the Appellant either at trial or on appeal on this issue.
A. JOHNSON, JUDGE, DISSENTING:
The Appellant raises one issue for this Court to decide. He argues that evidence of possession of drug paraphernalia alone is not sufficient to prove knowing possession of a controlled substance. The majority declines to address that issue, but reverses and remands for a new trial on an issue not raised below and not raised on appeal. I dissent because I find no reason to except this case from the general rule that this Court decides issues properly raised before it.
Footnotes:
- 22 O.S.2001, § 655.
- Golden v. State 2006 OK. CR 2, P.3rd; (denial of statutorily mandated peremptory challenges mandates reversal).
- Id.
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-402(B)(1) (2004) - Unlawful Possession of Methamphetamine
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 655 (2001) - Peremptory Challenges
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:
- Golden v. State, 2006 OK CR 2, 2 P.3d
- Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19, I 36, 422 P.3d 788, 799-800