Billy Ray Rodgers v The State Of Oklahoma

F 2002-1116

Filed: Aug. 14, 2003

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Billy Ray Rodgers

Summary

Billy Ray Rodgers appealed his conviction for Manufacturing Methamphetamine. The conviction and sentence were reversed, meaning he will not have to serve the original punishment of thirty-five years in prison and a $50,000 fine. Judge Lile dissented, meaning he disagreed with the decision to reverse the conviction. The court found that there was not enough proof that Billy Ray Rodgers actually took part in making methamphetamine. Just being present at the scene wasn’t enough to say he was guilty of the crime. The judges agreed that the evidence didn't clearly show he helped with the manufacturing.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence imposed in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF 2001-6000, for Manufacturing Methamphetamine (Count 1), is REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS.

Issues

• Was there sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Appellant participated in the offense of manufacturing methamphetamine?
• Did the trial judge fail to properly instruct the jury, violating due process?
• Did prosecutorial misconduct occur that requires a reversal for a new trial?
• Did ineffective assistance of counsel in the second stage of trial result in an excessive sentence requiring modification?
• Was Appellant's conviction the product of an illegal detention and search, necessitating the suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment?
• Did the cumulative effect of the errors deprive Appellant of a fair trial?

Findings

• the evidence was not sufficient
• the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury
• prosecutorial misconduct requires reversal for new trial
• ineffective assistance of counsel in the second stage of trial resulted in an excessive sentence requiring modification
• the conviction was the product of an illegal detention and search, requiring suppression of the evidence
• the cumulative effect of all the errors deprived Appellant of a fair trial

F 2002-1116

Aug. 14, 2003

Billy Ray Rodgers

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

JOHNSON, PRESIDING JUDGE:

Appellant, Billy Ray Rodgers, was convicted in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF 2001-6000 of Manufacturing Methamphetamine (Count 1), in violation of 63 O.S.2001, § 2-401, after former conviction of two or more felonies. Jury trial was held before the Honorable Ray Elliott, District Judge, on June 24th – 26th, 2002. The jury set punishment at thirty-five (35) years imprisonment and imposed a Fifty Thousand Dollar ($50,000.00) fine. Judgment and Sentence was imposed on August 29, 2002, in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Appellant thereafter filed this appeal.

Appellant raises six propositions of error:

1. Mr. Rodgers’ conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine must be reversed with instructions to dismiss because the evidence failed to demonstrate that he participated in the offense;
2. Mr. Rodgers’ conviction violated due process because the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury;
3. Prosecutorial misconduct requires reversal for new trial;
4. Ineffective assistance of counsel in the second stage of trial resulted in an excessive sentence requiring modification;
5. Appellant’s conviction was the product of an illegal detention and search, requiring suppression of the evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment; and,
6. The cumulative effect of all the errors addressed above deprived Appellant of a fair trial.

After thorough consideration of the propositions raised and the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, briefs and exhibits of the parties, we have determined Appellant’s conviction must be reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss for the reasons set forth below.

In his first claim of error, Appellant contends the State’s evidence was not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he participated in methamphetamine manufacturing and we agree. Appellant was charged co-jointly with Joel Platt. For him to be convicted as a principal to a crime, the State must establish that he directly committed each element of the offense, or that he aided and abetted in its commission. 21 O.S.2001, § 172. Aiding and abetting in a crime requires the State to show the accused procured the crime to be done, or aided, assisted, abetted, advised, or encouraged the commission of the crime. Banks v. State, 2002 OK CR 9, 13, 43 P.3d 390, 397. Mere presence or acquiescence, without participation, does not constitute a crime; however, only slight participation is needed to change a person’s status from mere spectator into an aider and abettor. Spears v. State, 1995 OK CR 36, 9 16, 900 P.2d 437, 438, cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1031, 116 S.Ct. 678, 133 L.Ed.2d 527.

Rodgers demurred after the State rested its case, moved for a directed verdict, and elected to stand on his demurrer. The trial court should have sustained the demurrer because the State’s evidence standing alone did not establish Appellant participated, even slightly, in the manufacture of methamphetamine. The State’s evidence was insufficient to prove Appellant acted as a principal or even as an aider and abettor. On appeal, the test for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, I 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-204. It is difficult to imagine a situation where a person would be present in a place where methamphetamine is being manufactured; however, without a showing of more than Appellant’s presence at the scene, this Court cannot sustain his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine. Accordingly, we find his conviction for Manufacturing Methamphetamine should be, and hereby is, REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS.

DECISION

The Judgment and Sentence imposed in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF 2001-6000, for Manufacturing Methamphetamine (Count 1), is REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS.

**APPEARANCES AT TRIAL**

CARSON CARTER III
ATTORNEY AT LAW
200 NORTH HARVEY, SUITE 500
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

NATHAN DILLS
W.A. DREW EDMONDSON
PAULETTE STEWART
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
320 ROBERT S. KERR, SUITE 505
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE

**APPEARANCES ON APPEAL**

CINDY DANNER BROWN
CHIEF, GENERAL APPEALS
P.O. BOX 926
NORMAN, OK 73070
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

ANN AGNEW CUPP
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
112 STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
ATTORNEYS FOR STATE

**OPINION BY:** JOHNSON, P.J.
LILE, V.P.J. : DISSENTS
LUMPKIN, J.: DISSENTS
CHAPEL, J.: CONCUR
STRUBHAR, J.: CONCUR

LILE, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE: DISSENTS

The question is not whether the Court would have convicted on the evidence. The question is whether a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant was there while methamphetamine was being manufactured. The meth lab equipment was everywhere; the odor of the manufacturing process overwhelming. The air contaminant level was more than 200 times the level for an average meth lab. Appellant’s social security card was mixed in with a bunch of used meth lab equipment. The Appellant’s fingerprints were found on lab equipment. The Appellant hid out as the police arrived. All of this evidence was undisputed and unchallenged. The conviction is adequately supported by the evidence and should be sustained. I am authorized to state that Judge Lumpkin joins in this special vote.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 63 O.S.2001, § 2-401
2. 21 O.S.2001, § 172

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-401 (2001) - Manufacturing Methamphetamine
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 172 (2001) - Aiding and Abetting
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Sentence for Felony Conviction

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:

• Banks v. State, 2002 OK CR 9, I 13, 43 P.3d 390, 397
• Spears v. State, 1995 OK CR 36, I 9, 900 P.2d 437, 438
• Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, I 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-204