Anthony Tyrone Raymond v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2000-861

Filed: Jun. 27, 2001

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State of Oklahoma

Summary

Anthony Tyrone Raymond appealed his conviction for trafficking illegal drugs. His conviction and sentence were upheld, with the fine modified to $10,000. Judge Lile dissented.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence of the trial court is AFFIRMED and the fine MODIFIED to ten thousand ($10,000.00) dollars.

Issues

• Was there an error by the trial court in excluding the testimony of defense witness Rudino Morgan based on alleged discovery violation?
• Did the trial court err by instructing the jury that they could not consider the sworn prior inconsistent statements of the officers Waller and Barnett as substantive evidence?
• Did the trial court err in imposing a fine when the enhancement provision under 21 O.S.1991, § 51.1(A)(1) does not provide for a fine?
• Did the valid search warrant to search premises and one named individual authorize the search of the appellant Anthony Raymond, violating his 4th and 14th Amendment rights?
• Does appellant Anthony Raymond have standing to bring a motion to suppress evidence in the case?
• Should the state of Oklahoma have specified the amount of drugs in Information CF-98-5621 and submitted the issue of the weight of the drugs to the jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

Findings

• The trial court erred in excluding the testimony of defense witness Rudino Morgan, but the error was harmless.
• No error related to the jury instruction on prior inconsistent statements was found.
• The trial court erred in imposing a fine, and it was modified to ten thousand ($10,000.00) dollars.
• The search and seizure were legal; the officers had reasonable articulable suspicion.
• The appellant had standing to bring the motion to suppress evidence, and there was no claim that he was denied the opportunity to present evidence.
• The quantity of drugs was sufficiently stated in the amended Information and Jury Instruction.

F-2000-861

Jun. 27, 2001

Anthony Tyrone Raymond

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

CHAPEL, JUDGE: Anthony Tyrone Raymond was tried by jury and convicted of trafficking of illegal drugs in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.1999, §2-415(A) in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-98-5621. In accordance with the jury’s recommendation, the Honorable Linda G. Morrissey sentenced Raymond to ten (10) years imprisonment, and imposed a fine of twenty-five thousand ($25,000.00) dollars. Raymond has perfected his appeal.

Raymond raises the following propositions of error:

I. The trial court erred by excluding the testimony of defense witness Rudino Morgan based on alleged discovery violation.
II. The trial court erred by instructing the jury that they could not consider the sworn prior inconsistent statements of the officers Waller and Barnett as substantive evidence.
III. The trial court erred in imposing a fine when the enhancement provision under 21 O.S.1991, § 51.1(A)(1) does not provide for a fine.
IV. Valid search warrant to search premises and one named individual did not authorize the search of the appellant Anthony Raymond on the premises, violated his 4th and 14th Amendment rights of the United States Constitution and warrants reversal with instructions to dismiss with prejudice his conviction.
V. Appellant Anthony Raymond has standing to bring motion to suppress evidence in the case at bar.
VI. Appellant asserts, pursuant to the rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that the state of Oklahoma should have specified the amount of drugs in Information CF-98-5621 and that the court should have submitted the issue of the weight of the drugs to the jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal including the original record, transcripts, briefs and exhibits of the parties, we have determined that reversal is not required under the law or evidence, but modification of the twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollar fine is required.

We find in Proposition I that the trial court erred in refusing to allow defense witness Rudino Morgan to testify, but the error was harmless. In Proposition II, we find no error as the jury was instructed as requested by Raymond. In Proposition III, we find that the trial court erred in imposing a fine pursuant to 21 O.S.1999, § 51(A)(1), but that a fine not exceeding ten thousand ($10,000.00) dollars may be imposed under 21 O.S. 1999, § 64. Therefore, we modify the fine to ten thousand ($10,000.00) dollars.

In Proposition IV we find that the officers had the requisite reasonable articulable suspicion that Raymond was engaged in criminal activity and possibly armed to conduct a legal frisk, and the subsequent discovery of the drugs on his person was legal. In Proposition V, we find that the trial court held a hearing on defense counsel’s motion to suppress the evidence and that the record does not support any claim that Raymond’s standing was contested or that he was not permitted to offer evidence at the hearing. In Proposition VI, we find that the quantity of cocaine base necessary for Raymond’s conviction was clearly stated in the amended Information and Jury Instruction.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence of the trial court is AFFIRMED and the fine MODIFIED to ten thousand ($10,000.00) dollars.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 63 O.S.Supp.1999, §2-415(A)
2. 21 O.S.1991, § 51.1(A)(1)
3. 21 O.S.1999, § 51(A)(1)
4. 21 O.S. 1999, § 64
5. 21 O.S.Supp. 1999, § 51(A)(1)
6. 21 O.S. 1999, § 64(B)
7. Fite v. State, 873 P.2d 293, 293 (Okl.Cr. 1993)
8. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868,1880, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)
9. Loman v. State, 806 P.2d 663, 667 (Okl.Cr. 1991)
10. Coulter v. State, 777 P.2d 1373, 1374 (Okl.Cr.1989)
11. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375-76, 113 S. Ct. 2130, 2137, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993)
12. Abraham v. State, 962 P.2d 647, 648 (Okl.Cr. 1998)
13. White v. State, 973 P.2d 306, 311 (Okl.Cr.1998)
14. Dodd v State, 993 P.2d 778, 783 (Okl.Cr.2000)
15. Hill v. State, 898 P.2d 155, 163 (Okl.Cr.1995)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-415(A) (1999) - Trafficking of illegal drugs
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 51.1(A)(1) (1991) - Enhancement provisions
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 51(A)(1) (1999) - Imposition of fine
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 64 (1999) - Fines upon conviction for felony
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 64(B) (1999) - Additional fines for felony convictions

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:

• Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)
• White v. State, 973 P.2d 306, 311 (Okl.Cr.1998)
• Dodd v. State, 993 P.2d 778, 783 (Okl.Cr.2000)
• Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)
• Omalza v. State, 911 P.2d 286, 308 (Okl.Cr.1995)
• Hill v. State, 898 P.2d 155, 163 (Okl.Cr.1995)
• Fite v. State, 873 P.2d 293, 293 (Okl.Cr. 1993)
• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868,1880, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)
• Loman v. State, 806 P.2d 663, 667 (Okl.Cr. 1991)
• Coulter v. State, 777 P.2d 1373, 1374 (Okl.Cr.1989)
• Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375-76, 113 S. Ct. 2130, 2137, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993)
• Abraham v. State, 962 P.2d 647, 648 (Okl.Cr. 1998)