James Michael Hudson v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2003-1266

Filed: Dec. 21, 2004

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

James Michael Hudson appealed his conviction for several crimes. He was convicted for manufacturing methamphetamine, possessing methamphetamine, using a police radio unlawfully, possessing a vehicle part with an altered ID number, and possessing a gun after being convicted of felonies. His total sentence was twenty-one years for making drugs and six years for possessing drugs, plus additional years for the other charges, all to be served back-to-back. Hudson argued that his rights were violated in multiple ways during his trial. The court decided that Hudson's convictions were upheld, but they changed his sentences so that he could serve them at the same time instead of one after the other. They found he did not have double punishment, the search of his property was lawful, and his confession about the safe was given freely. The court also decided that his lawyer did not do a good job in asking for the judge to step down because of bias, but this did not change the outcome of his guilt. Overall, the court agreed with Hudson on some points but confirmed his convictions and modified his sentences to make them run together instead of separately. # James Michael Hudson appealed his conviction for drug-related charges. Conviction and sentence upheld but modified to serve concurrently. Judge Lumpkin dissented.

Decision

The Judgments of the District Court are AFFIRMED and the Sentences are MODIFIED to be served concurrently.

Issues

• Was there a violation of the statutory prohibition against double punishment and double jeopardy for the simultaneous convictions of manufacture and possession of methamphetamine?
• Did the execution of the search warrant exceed its scope, rendering it an illegal general warrant and warranting suppression of the evidence?
• Should Mr. Hudson's conviction for possession of a firearm be dismissed due to police coercion in obtaining evidence?
• Was the State's evidence sufficient to support Mr. Hudson's convictions on all counts?
• Did Mr. Hudson receive ineffective assistance of counsel?
• Did the admission of other crimes evidence prejudice the jury and deprive Mr. Hudson of a fair trial?
• Was Mr. Hudson's sentence excessive?
• Did the cumulative effect of the alleged errors deprive Mr. Hudson of a fair trial?

Findings

• The court did not err regarding double jeopardy; convictions for Manufacturing and Possessing Methamphetamine were upheld.
• The execution of the search warrant was proper and not an illegal general warrant.
• The evidence supporting Count V for Possession of a Firearm was not obtained through police coercion.
• The evidence was sufficient to support all of Hudson's convictions.
• Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request the recusal of Judge Claver due to bias.
• The admission of other crimes evidence was not improper.
• Proposition regarding excessive sentencing was deemed moot.
• The cumulative effect of all errors did not deprive Hudson of a fair trial.
• The sentences were modified to be served concurrently rather than consecutively.

F-2003-1266

Dec. 21, 2004

James Michael Hudson

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

CHAPEL, JUDGE: James Hudson was tried by jury and convicted of Count I: Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) in violation of 63 O.S.2001, § 2-401; Count II: Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) in violation of 63 O.S.2001, § 2-402; Count III: Unlawful Use of a Police Radio in violation of 21 O.S. 2001, § 1214; Count IV: Possession of Motor Vehicle/Parts with an Altered VIN; and Count V: Possession of a Firearm After Felony Conviction in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 1283, after former conviction of two or more felonies, in Okmulgee County District Court Case No. CF-2002-192.

In accordance with the jury’s recommendation, the Honorable H. Michael Claver sentenced Hudson to twenty-one (21) years’ imprisonment for Count I, six (6) years’ imprisonment for Count II, four (4) years’ imprisonment each for Counts III and IV, and three (3) years’ imprisonment for Count V. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. Hudson appeals these Judgments and Sentences.

Hudson raises the following propositions of error:

I. The simultaneous convictions for Count I, Manufacture Controlled Dangerous Substance, Methamphetamine and Count II, Unlawful Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance, Methamphetamine violated the statutory prohibition against double punishment and double jeopardy.

II. Execution of the search warrant exceeded the scope of the warrant, turning it into an illegal general warrant; therefore, the resulting evidence should have been suppressed.

III. Mr. Hudson’s conviction in Count V, for Possession of a Firearm, should be dismissed, because the evidence of the weapon was obtained due to police coercion.

IV. The State’s evidence in Mr. Hudson’s case was insufficient.

V. Mr. Hudson received ineffective assistance of counsel.

VI. Admission of other crimes evidence prejudiced the jury, deprived Mr. Hudson of his fundamental right to a fair trial, and warrants reversal of the sentence.

VII. Mr. Hudson’s sentence is excessive.

VIII. The cumulative effect of all errors addressed above deprived Mr. Hudson of a fair trial.

After thoroughly considering the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, briefs, and parties’ exhibits, we affirm Hudson’s convictions but order that his sentences be modified to be served concurrently rather than consecutively.

We find in Proposition I that Hudson’s convictions for Manufacturing and Possessing Methamphetamine in Counts I and II did not violate double jeopardy or 21 O.S.2001, § 11. We find in Proposition II that the search was proper. We find in Proposition III that Hudson’s statement disclosing the combination of his safe was voluntary and not the product of coercion. We find in Proposition IV the evidence was sufficient to support Hudson’s convictions on all counts. We find in Proposition V that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request recusal of Judge Claver for bias. We find in Proposition VI that other crimes evidence was not improperly admitted. We find Proposition VII to be moot based upon the relief recommended in Proposition V. We find in Proposition VIII that the error in Proposition V was adequately remedied and there are no other errors to be considered cumulatively.

Decision:

The Judgments of the District Court are AFFIRMED and the Sentences are MODIFIED to be served concurrently.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-401
2. Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-402
3. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1214
4. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1283
5. 21 O.S.2001, § 11
6. Watkins v. State, 829 P.2d 42 (Okl.Cr.1991)
7. Watkins v. State, 855 P.2d 141 (Okl.Cr.1992)
8. Luman v. State, 629 P.2d 1275, 1276 (Okl.Cr.1981)
9. Romano v. State, 909 P.2d 92, 109 Okl.Cr.1995
10. Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04 (Okl.Cr.1985)
11. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
12. Lalli v. State, 870 P.2d 175, 177 (Okl.Cr.)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-401 - Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-402 - Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1214 - Unlawful Use of a Police Radio
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1283 - Possession of a Firearm After Felony Conviction
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 11 - General Principles of Criminal Responsibility

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:

• Watkins v. State, 829 P.2d 42 (Okl.Cr.1991)
• Watkins v. State, 855 P.2d 141 (Okl.Cr.1992)
• Luman v. State, 629 P.2d 1275, 1276 (Okl.Cr.1981)
• Romano U. State, 909 P.2d 92 (Okl.Cr.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 855, 117 S.Ct. 151, 136 L.Ed.2d 96 (1996)
• Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202 (Okl.Cr.1985)
• Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
• Lalli v. State, 870 P.2d 175 (Okl.Cr.)