Shaun Scott Sprowls v The State Of Oklahoma

F 2000-1652

Filed: Mar. 14, 2002

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Shaun Scott Sprowls

Summary

Shaun Scott Sprowls appealed his conviction for manufacturing a controlled dangerous substance and manufacturing a precursor substance. His conviction and sentence included forty years in prison and fines totaling $150,000. The court found he was wrongly punished for both charges related to the same offense and reversed the second charge. Judge Lile dissented.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence imposed on Count 1 is AFFIRMED. The Judgment and Sentence imposed on Count 2 is hereby REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS and the Drug Clean-Up Fine is VACATED.

Issues

• Was the evidence against Mr. Sprowls unlawfully obtained absent a search warrant or exigent circumstances?
• Did the simultaneous convictions for Count 1, Manufacture of Controlled Dangerous Substance and Count 2, Manufacture of Precursor violate the statutory prohibition on double punishment?
• Was Mr. Sprowls' jury given an improper flight instruction?
• Was the evidence sufficient to convict Mr. Sprowls?
• Are Mr. Sprowls' sentences excessive?
• Did the cumulative effect of all the errors deprive Mr. Sprowls of a fair trial?

Findings

• The evidence against Mr. Sprowls was not suppressed.

F 2000-1652

Mar. 14, 2002

Shaun Scott Sprowls

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

JOHNSON, VICE-PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant, Shaun Scott Sprowls, was tried by a jury in Grant County District Court, Case No. CF 2000-5, for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Count 1), in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.1999, § 2-401(F), and for Manufacturing a Precursor Substance (Count 2), in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.1999, § 2-328.1 The Honorable Ronald Franklin, District Judge, presided at trial. The jury found Appellant guilty of both Counts and set punishment at forty (40) years imprisonment and a Fifty Thousand Dollar ($50,000.00) fine on Count 1, and ten (10) years imprisonment and a Twenty-Five Thousand Dollar ($25,000.00) fine on Count 2. On December 11, 2000, Judge Franklin formally sentenced Appellant in accordance with the jury’s recommendation and ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. Judge Franklin also imposed a One Hundred Thousand Dollar ($100,000.00) drug clean up fine, pursuant to 63 O.S. 1991, § 2-329. From the Judgment and Sentences imposed, Appellant filed this appeal.

Appellant raised six propositions of error:
1. The evidence against Mr. Sprowls should be suppressed because it was unlawfully obtained absent a search warrant or exigent circumstances;
2. The simultaneous convictions for Count 1, Manufacture of Controlled Dangerous Substance and Count 2, Manufacture of Precursor violated the statutory prohibition on double punishment;
3. Mr. Sprowls’ jury was given an improper flight instruction;
4. The evidence was insufficient to convict Mr. Sprowls;
5. Mr. Sprowls’ sentences are excessive; and,
6. The cumulative effect of all the errors addressed above deprived Mr. Sprowls of a fair trial.

After thorough consideration of the propositions raised and the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we have determined that Count 2 should be reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss, and the clean-up fine vacated for the reasons set forth below. As to Count 1, we find neither reversal nor modification is required under the law and evidence.

In Proposition 2, Appellant contends his convictions for both manufacturing methamphetamine and manufacturing a precursor substance violated double jeopardy provisions and 21 O.S. 1991, § 11. We agree. Under the facts of this case, Appellant was punished twice for the single offense of manufacturing methamphetamine. Hale v. State, 1995 OK CR 7, I 4, 888 P.2d 1027, 1029, holding limited by Davis V. State, 1999 OK CR 48, 1 13, 993 P.2d 124, 126; 21 O.S. 1991, § 11. Accordingly, we find Count 2 should be reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss. The corresponding drug clean up fine, imposed pursuant to 63 O.S.1991, § 2-329, is vacated. As to the remaining propositions, we find no relief is warranted. We review Proposition 1 for plain error and find none. Cheatham v. State, 1995 OK CR 32, I 48, 900 P.2d 414, 427; Champeau v. State, 1984 OK CR 54, 11 14-15, 678 P.2d 1192, 1196. Although the record discloses the giving of the modified flight instruction was error, we find the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Hill v. State, 1995 OK CR 28, I 21, 898 P.2d 155, 163; Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, 1 36, 876 P.2d 690, 702. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict on Count 1. Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, 1 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-204. The sentence and fine imposed on Count 1 falls within the statutory range of punishment and does not shock the conscience of the Court. See Rea v. State, 2001 OK CR 28, P.3d – (appropriate standard of review of claim of excessive sentence is whether the sentence imposed shocks the conscience of the Court). Although we find some error occurred and grant relief on Count 2, we find the erroneous flight instruction did not affect the jury’s verdict on Count 1 and no relief is warranted for error by accumulation. Humphreys v. State, 1997 OK CR 59, I 42, 947 P.2d 565, 578, cert. denied, 524 U.S. 930, 118 S.Ct. 2329, 141 L.Ed.2d 702 (1998).

DECISION

The Judgment and Sentence imposed on Count 1 is AFFIRMED. The Judgment and Sentence imposed on Count 2 is hereby REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS and the Drug Clean-Up Fine is VACATED.

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL

CHARLES HOLDSTOCK
1901 NORTH CLASSEN BLVD.
SUITE 110, VICTORIA BUILDING
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73146
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

PAUL HESSE
GRANT COUNTY COURTHOUSE
MEDFORD, OKLAHOMA 73759
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL

KATRINA CONRAD-LEGLER
1623 CROSS CENTER DRIVE
NORMAN, OK 73019
APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL

W.A. DREW EDMONDSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
112 STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73104
ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE

OPINION BY: JOHNSON, V.P.J.
LUMPKIN, P.J.: CONCURS
CHAPEL, J.: CONCURS
STRUBHAR, J.: CONCURS
LILE, J.: CONCURS IN RESULT

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 63 O.S.Supp.1999, § 2-401
2. 63 O.S.Supp.1999, § 2-328
3. 63 O.S. 1991, § 2-329
4. 21 O.S. 1991, § 11
5. Hale v. State, 1995 OK CR 7, 888 P.2d 1027
6. Davis v. State, 1999 OK CR 48, 993 P.2d
7. Cheatham v. State, 1995 OK CR 32, 900 P.2d 414
8. Champeau v. State, 1984 OK CR 54, 678 P.2d 1192
9. Hill v. State, 1995 OK CR 28, 898 P.2d 155
10. Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, 876 P.2d 690
11. Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, 709 P.2d 202
12. Rea v. State, 2001 OK CR 28
13. Humphreys v. State, 1997 OK CR 59, 947 P.2d 565

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-401 (1999) - Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-328 (1999) - Manufacturing a Precursor Substance
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-329 (1991) - Drug Clean-Up Fine
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 11 (1991) - Double Jeopardy

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:

• Hale v. State, 1995 OK CR 7, I 4, 888 P.2d 1027, 1029
• Davis v. State, 1999 OK CR 48, I 13, 993 P.2d 124, 126
• Cheatham v. State, 1995 OK CR 32, I 48, 900 P.2d 414, 427
• Champeau v. State, 1984 OK CR 54, I 14-15, 678 P.2d 1192, 1196
• Hill v. State, 1995 OK CR 28, I 21, 898 P.2d 155, 163
• Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, I 36, 876 P.2d 690, 702
• Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, I 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-204
• Rea v. State, 2001 OK CR 28, P.3d
• Humphreys v. State, 1997 OK CR 59, I 42, 947 P.2d 565, 578, cert. denied, 524 U.S. 930, 118 S.Ct. 2329, 141 L.Ed.2d 702 (1998)