Tony Guinn v The State Of Oklahoma
F-2000-939
Filed: Jul. 20, 2001
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma
Summary
Tony Guinn appealed his conviction for Workers' Compensation Fraud. His conviction and sentence were affirmed, but the sentences were modified to run at the same time instead of one after the other. Judges Lumpkin and Chapel dissented on different points about the counts of fraud.
Decision
The Judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, however the Sentences are MODIFIED to run concurrently.
Issues
- Was there a violation of the state and/or federal double jeopardy prohibition in Mr. Guinn's multiple punishments on two counts of Workers' Compensation Fraud arising out of one claim for benefits?
- Did the Appellant's conviction on two counts based on fraudulent statements to different doctors violate double jeopardy constitutional provisions?
- Should the sentences be modified to run concurrently instead of consecutively?
Findings
- The court did not err in affirming the conviction on two counts of Workers' Compensation Fraud based on different fraudulent statements to separate doctors.
- The sentence should be modified to run concurrently rather than consecutively.
- One judge dissented regarding the modification of sentences, believing it should remain consecutive.
- One judge would reverse one of the two counts as a violation of double jeopardy.
F-2000-939
Jul. 20, 2001
Tony Guinn
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
LILE, JUDGE: Appellant, Tony Guinn, was found guilty at jury trial of two counts of Workers’ Compensation Fraud in violation of 21 O.S. 1994, § 1663, in Case No. CF-98-3641 in the District Court of Oklahoma County. The Honorable Susan W. Bragg, District Judge, sentenced Appellant in accordance with the jury’s verdicts to a $2,000 fine and one (1) year imprisonment on each count, to be served consecutively. Appellant has perfected his appeal to this Court. Appellant raises the following proposition of error in support of his appeal: MR. GUINN’S MULTIPLE PUNISHMENT ON TWO COUNTS OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION FRAUD ARISING OUT OF ONE CLAIM FOR BENEFITS VIOLATES THE STATE AND/OR FEDERAL DOUBLE JEOPARDY PROHIBITION.
After a thorough consideration of this proposition and the entire record before us, including the original record, transcripts and briefs of the parties, we have determined that reversal is not required under the facts and the law. Appellant’s conviction on two counts based upon fraudulent statements to different doctors did not violate the federal or state double jeopardy constitutional provisions. Blockburger v. U.S., 248 U.S. 299, 302, 52 S.Ct. 180, 181, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); Bogue v. State, 1976 OK CR 274, ¶ 7, 556 P.2d 272, 275; Ebeling v. Morgan, 237 U.S. 625, 35 S.Ct. 710, 59 L.Ed. 1151 (1910); Morgan v. Devine, 237 U.S. 632, 35 S.Ct. 712, 59 L.Ed. 1153 (1910). However, under the facts of this case, the sentence should be modified to provide the counts shall run concurrently. Maxwell v. State, 1989 OK CR 22, ¶ 12, 775 P.2d 818, 820.
DECISION
The Judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, however the Sentences are MODIFIED to run concurrently.
ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL
CHARLES HENRY
OKLAHOMA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
320 ROBERT S. KERR, ROOM 611
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
WENDELL B. SUTTON
OKLAHOMA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
320 ROBERT S. KERR, ROOM 611
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL
SHERRY TODD W. A. DREW EDMONDSON
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL
2300 NORTH LINCOLN
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
ATTORNEY FOR STATE
JENNIFER BLAKENEY WELCH
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
112 STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
OPINION BY: LILE, J.
LUMPKIN, P.J.: CONCURS IN PART/DISSENTS IN PART
JOHNSON, V.P.J.: CONCURS
CHAPEL, J.: CONCURS IN PART/DISSENTS IN PART
STRUBHAR, J.: CONCURS
LUMPKIN, PRESIDING JUDGE: CONCUR IN PART/DISSENT IN PART I concur in the Court’s decision to affirm the judgments in this case. However, I can find no basis in law or fact to modify the sentences, and dissent to the Court’s action which directs the sentences be served concurrently.
CHAPEL, JUDGE, CONCURS IN PART/DISSENTS IN PART: I would reverse one of the two counts as a violation of double jeopardy clause of both the state and federal constitutions. Here, there was one claim for worker’s compensation supported by two misrepresentations to separate physicians.
occa_footer