Linda Kaye Corder v The State Of Oklahoma

F 2000-1653

Filed: Mar. 21, 2002

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Linda Kaye Corder appealed her conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine and a precursor substance. Her conviction was for 40 years and a $50,000 fine for methamphetamine, and 10 years and a $25,000 fine for the precursor substance. A $100,000 drug clean-up fine was also imposed. Judge Lumpkin dissented regarding the clean-up fine, stating it should not be removed because the harm from manufacturing still existed.

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 Ms. Corder 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 Substance, violate the statutory prohibition on double punishment?
• Did the trial court err in allowing the State to impeach Ms. Corder with a misdemeanor conviction?
• Was Ms. Corder's jury given an improper flight instruction regarding Shaun Sprowls' actions, which prejudiced the jury?
• Was the evidence insufficient to convict Mr. Sprowls?
• Are Ms. Corder's sentences excessive?
• Did the cumulative effect of all the errors addressed deprive Ms. Corder of a fair trial?

Findings

• the court erred in allowing simultaneous convictions for Count 1 and Count 2, violating double jeopardy provisions
• the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict on Count 1
• the trial court did not commit plain error regarding the suppression of evidence
• the trial court did not commit plain error in allowing impeachment with a misdemeanor conviction
• the modified flight instruction given to the jury was harmless error
• the sentences imposed on Count 1 were not excessive
• the cumulative effect of the errors did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial
• the Judgment and Sentence imposed on Count 1 is AFFIRMED
• the Judgment and Sentence imposed on Count 2 is REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS
• the Drug Clean-Up Fine is VACATED

F 2000-1653

Mar. 21, 2002

Linda Kaye Corder

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

JOHNSON, VICE-PRESIDING JUDGE:

Appellant, Linda Kaye Corder, was tried by a jury in Grant County District Court, Case No. CF 2000-6, 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. 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 seven propositions of error:
1. The evidence against Ms. Corder 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. The trial court erred in allowing the State to impeach Ms. Corder with a misdemeanor conviction;
4. Ms. Corder’s jury was given an improper flight instruction, as to Shaun Sprowls’ actions, which prejudiced the jury;
5. The evidence was insufficient to convict Mr. Sprowls;
6. Ms. Corder’s sentences are excessive; and,
7. 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 her 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, I 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. We also review Proposition 3 for plain error as defense counsel failed to object to improper impeachment at trial. We find no plain error and have no grave doubt that the improper impeachment affected the jury’s verdict. Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, I 37, 876 P.2d 690, 702. Further, although the record discloses the giving of the modified flight instruction as to the codefendant 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, I 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, 9 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 combined effect of the erroneous flight instruction and the improper use of the misdemeanor drug conviction for impeachment did not affect the jury’s verdict on Count 1. No relief is warranted for error by accumulation. Humphreys v. State, 1997 OK CR 3 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.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 63 O.S.Supp.1999, § 2-401(F)
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, "I 4, 888 P.2d 1027, 1029
6. Davis v. State, 1999 OK CR 48, I 13, 993 P.2d 124, 126
7. Cheatham v. State, 1995 OK CR 32, I 48, 900 P.2d 414, 427
8. Champeau v. State, 1984 OK CR 54, 11 14-15, 678 P.2d 1192, 1196
9. Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, "I 37, 876 P.2d 690, 702
10. Hill v. State, 1995 OK CR 28, I 21, 898 P.2d 155, 163
11. Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, 9 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-204
12. Rea v. State, 2001 OK CR 28, -- P.3d -
13. Humphreys v. State, 1997 OK CR 3 59, I 42, 947 P.2d 565, 578

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) - Prohibition on Double Punishment

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
• Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, I 37, 876 P.2d 690, 702
• Hill v. State, 1995 OK CR 28, I 21, 898 P.2d 155, 163
• 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 3 59, I 42, 947 P.2d 565, 578