Ricky Dion Bruner v The State Of Oklahoma
F-2002-108
Filed: Apr. 30, 2003
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma
Summary
Ricky Dion Bruner appealed his conviction for several serious crimes, including robbery, assault, and rape. His conviction and sentence included life imprisonment without parole for many of the charges. The court found that two of the kidnapping convictions were wrong, but kept the other sentences. Judge Chapel disagreed with part of the decision.
Decision
The judgment and sentences on Counts I, II, III, IV, V, X, and XII are hereby AFFIRMED. The judgments and sentences on Counts VI and VII, kidnapping, are hereby REVERSED with instructions to DISMISS. This matter is REMANDED to Oklahoma County for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Issues
- Was there a violation of statutory and constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy due to multiple convictions arising from a single criminal episode?
- Did the evidence support Appellant's convictions for assault and battery with a deadly weapon with intent to kill or second degree rape?
- Are Appellant's sentences excessive, disproportionate, and violative of constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment?
Findings
- the court erred in convicting Appellant on two counts of kidnapping due to double jeopardy violation
- evidence was sufficient to support Appellant's convictions for assault and battery with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and second degree rape
- Appellant's sentences were not excessive or disproportionate
F-2002-108
Apr. 30, 2003
Ricky Dion Bruner
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
LUMPKIN, J.: Appellant, Ricky Dion Bruner, was tried by jury in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2000-6316 (consolidated with CF-1999-6798), and convicted of the following crimes: three counts of Robbery with Firearms (Counts I, II, and III), in violation of 21 O.S.Supp. 1999, § 801; two counts of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon with intent to kill (Counts IV and V), in violation of 21 O.S.Supp. 1999, § 652; two counts of Kidnapping (Counts VI and VII), in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.1999, § 741; Second Degree Rape (Count X) and First Degree Rape (Count XII), both in violation of 21 O.S.1999, § 1111 and 21 O.S.1991, § 1114. The jury set punishment at life imprisonment without parole on each of Counts I, II, IV, V, and XII, twenty-five (25) years imprisonment on Count III, ten (10) years imprisonment on each of Counts VI and VII, and fifteen (15) years imprisonment on Count X. The trial judge sentenced Appellant in accordance with the jury’s verdict on Counts III, VI, VII, and X. However, because the jury imposed sentences in excess of that allowed by law, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment on Counts I, II, and XII and twenty (20) years imprisonment on Counts IV and V, all sentences to be served consecutively. Appellant now appeals his various convictions and sentences.
Appellant raises the following propositions of error in this appeal:
I. Appellant’s multiple convictions arising from a single criminal episode are in violation of statutory and constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy;
II. The evidence was insufficient to support Appellant’s convictions for assault and battery with a deadly weapon with intent to kill or second degree rape [by instrumentation] of Ms. Kelly; and
III. Appellant’s sentences are excessive, disproportionate, and violative of federal and state constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment.
After a thorough consideration of these propositions and the entire record before us, including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we find the two kidnapping convictions must be reversed, but we otherwise affirm.
With respect to proposition one, we find a double jeopardy violation occurred when Appellant was convicted for two counts of kidnapping. The evidence does not reflect that the kidnappings were separate and distinct crimes from the robberies and rapes Appellant committed or participated in as an aider and abettor. Davis v. State, 993 P.2d 124, 126 (Okl.Cr.1999).
With respect to proposition two, we find, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and accepting all reasonable inferences and credibility choices that tend to support the jury’s verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202, 203-204 (Okl.Cr.1995); Powell U. State, 995 P.2d 510, 524 (Okl.Cr. 2000).
With respect to proposition three, we find Appellant’s remaining sentences, although severe, are not so excessive as to shock the conscience of the Court. Rea v. State, 34 P.3d 148,149 (Okl.Cr.2001).
DECISION
The judgment and sentences on Counts I, II, III, IV, V, X, and XII are hereby AFFIRMED. The judgments and sentences on Counts VI and VII, kidnapping, are hereby REVERSED with instructions to DISMISS. This matter is REMANDED to Oklahoma County for further proceedings consistent herewith.
AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
THE HONORABLE SUSAN W. BRAGG
APPEARANCES AT TRIAL
ANTHONY SYKES
EUGENIA BAUMAN
ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER
APPEARANCES ON APPEAL
CAROLYN L. MERRITT
ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER
OKLAHOMA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE
611 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
PATTYE HIGH
W.A. DREW EDMONDSON
JOELYNN MCCORMICK
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
KEELEY L. HARRIS
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
112 STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE
OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.
JOHNSON, P.J.: CONCUR
LILE, V.P.J.: CONCUR
CHAPEL, J.: CONCUR IN PART/DISSENT IN PART
STRUBHAR, J.: CONCUR
Footnotes:
- 21 O.S.Supp. 1999, § 801
- 21 O.S.Supp. 1999, § 652
- 21 O.S.Supp. 1999, § 741
- 21 O.S.1999, § 1111
- 21 O.S.1991, § 1114
- 21 O.S.Supp. 1999, § 801
- 21 O.S.Supp. 1999, § 652
- 21 O.S.Supp. 1999, § 741
- 21 O.S.1999, § 1111
- 21 O.S.1991, § 1114
- Davis v. State, 993 P.2d 124, 126 (Okl.Cr.1999)
- Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202, 203-204 (Okl.Cr.1995)
- Powell U. State, 995 P.2d 510, 524 (Okl.Cr. 2000)
- Rea v. State, 34 P.3d 148,149 (Okl.Cr.2001)
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 801 (1999) - Robbery with Firearms
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 652 (1999) - Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 741 (1999) - Kidnapping
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1111 (1999) - Rape, First Degree
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1114 (1991) - Rape, Second Degree
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:
- Davis v. State, 993 P.2d 124 (Okl.Cr.1999)
- Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202 (Okl.Cr.1995)
- Powell v. State, 995 P.2d 510 (Okl.Cr. 2000)
- Rea v. State, 34 P.3d 148 (Okl.Cr.2001)