Tammy Renee Baldwin v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2000-991

Filed: Oct. 2, 2001

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Tammy Renee Baldwin

Summary

Tammy Renee Baldwin appealed her conviction for possession of methamphetamine and marijuana. Conviction and sentence: Baldwin was sentenced to 20 years in prison for methamphetamine and 1 year in county jail for marijuana, with the sentences running one after the other. Judge Lile dissented on the decision about her convictions.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence of the trial court for Count I: Possession of a Controlled and Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine), After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, is AFFIRMED and for Count II: Possession of a Controlled and Dangerous Substance (Marijuana) the Judgment and Sentence is REVERSED and REMANDED with instruction to DISMISS.

Issues

• was there a violation of double jeopardy in Ms. Baldwin's convictions for possession of methamphetamine and marijuana?
• did the trial court violate Ms. Baldwin's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by predetermining consecutive sentences and imposing an excessive sentence?
• did the trial court commit reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the Defendant's theory of the case regarding circumstantial evidence?
• were the State's exhibits illegally obtained in violation of constitutional protections?
• did the accumulation of errors in the case result in denial of due process of law for Ms. Baldwin?

Findings

• the court erred in finding double jeopardy violations for Count I and Count II
• Proposition II is moot due to the reversal of Count II
• the court did not err in refusing to give circumstantial evidence instructions
• the admission of State's exhibits 1 through 3 was proper
• there was no accumulation of error that denied due process

F-2000-991

Oct. 2, 2001

Tammy Renee Baldwin

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

CHAPEL, JUDGE: Tammy Renee Baldwin was tried by jury and convicted of Count I: Possession of a Controlled and Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine), After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp. 1994, § 2-402, and Count II: Possession of a Controlled and Dangerous Substance (Marijuana), in violation of 63 O.S.Supp. 1994, § 2-402, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-97-1056. In accordance with the jury’s recommendation the Honorable Susan P. Caswell sentenced Baldwin to twenty (20) years imprisonment for Count I and one (1) year in county jail for Count II and ordered the sentences to run consecutively. Baldwin perfected this appeal.

Appellant raises the following propositions of error:
I. Ms. Baldwin’s convictions and punishments for possession of methamphetamine under Count I and possession of marijuana under Count II violate her state and federal Constitutional protections from double jeopardy.
II. Ms. Baldwin’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated when the trial judge abused her discretion by pre-determining that consecutive sentences would be imposed if Ms. Baldwin was convicted and by the imposition of an excessive sentence.
III. The trial court committed reversible error in failing to instruct the jury on Defendant’s theory of the case when it refused to give circumstantial evidence instructions, thus violating appellant’s federal Constitutional Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and corresponding rights to the Oklahoma Constitution.
IV. State’s exhibits 1 through 3 were illegally obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and corresponding provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution and should not have been admitted during Ms. Baldwin’s trial.
V. The accumulation of errors in this case so infected the trial with unfairness that Ms. Baldwin was denied due process of law.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, briefs and exhibits of the parties, we reverse the judgment of the lower court with respect to Count II and remand the case with instructions to dismiss Count II. We find in Proposition I that Baldwin’s simultaneous possession of methamphetamine and marijuana is a single act of possession and conviction for both violates Baldwin’s Constitutional protection against double jeopardy. We find that Proposition II is moot due to the above reversal of Count II. We find in Proposition III that circumstantial evidence instructions were not required because the State relied on both direct and circumstantial evidence. We find in Proposition IV that State’s exhibits 1 through 3 were properly admitted at trial because the search of Baldwin’s purse for weapons was reasonable and legal. In Proposition V, we find no accumulation of error because the error found in Proposition I is individually reversible and no other error exists.

Decision
The Judgment and Sentence of the trial court for Count I: Possession of a Controlled and Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine), After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, is AFFIRMED and for Count II: Possession of a Controlled and Dangerous Substance (Marijuana) the Judgment and Sentence is REVERSED and REMANDED with instruction to DISMISS.

ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL
LARRY SCOTT
ONE NORTH HUDSON, SUITE 930
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73102
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL
KATHERINE JANE ALLEN
1623 CROSS CENTER DRIVE
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA 73019
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

MARC PATE
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
OKLAHOMA COUNTY

W.A. DREW EDMONDSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

WILLIAM R. HOLMES
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
320 ROBERT S. KERR, SUITE 505
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73102
ATTORNEY FOR STATE

OPINION BY: CHAPEL, J.
LUMPKIN, P.J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS
JOHNSON, V.P.J.: CONCUR
STRUBHAR, J.: CONCUR
LILE, J.: DISSENT

LILE, JUDGE: DISSENTS
Appellant relies upon Watkins v. State, 1992 OK CR 34, 855 P.2d 141, to support her contention that only one conviction can be had from possession of multiple controlled dangerous substances found in one container or package. The reasoning of this Court in Watkins was that the crime prohibited by § 2-401 is possession of a controlled dangerous substance, not possession of a specific narcotic. Accordingly, the holding in Watkins was that only one charge could arise out of possession of multiple controlled dangerous substances found in one package. Appellant’s reliance on Watkins, however, is misplaced. This Court in Mooney v. State, 1999 OK CR 34, I 18, 990 P.2d 875, 884, established the same evidence test. Pursuant to this test, offenses that contain elements not contained in the other are prosecutable as separate offenses. Pursuant to Mooney, the decision in Watkins is inapplicable. This Court’s decision in Mooney is in accordance with Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). Under Blockburger, one crime must require proof of a fact that the other does not in order to prosecute and punish for both crimes. In the case at issue, Appellant possessed both marijuana and methamphetamine. While both were contained in her purse, Appellant was properly prosecuted for two counts of possession. Each offense contains an element not contained in the other, i.e. the composition of the substance. Further, both offenses require proof of a fact (composition) that the other does not in order to prosecute. Therefore, pursuant to Mooney and Blockburger, I would find Appellant’s convictions for possession of marijuana and possession of methamphetamine are proper.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 63 O.S.Supp. 1994, § 2-402.
2. Watkins v. State, 855 P.2d 141, 142 (Okl.Cr.1992).
3. Wade v. State, 825 P.2d 1357 (Okl.Cr.1992).
4. Russell v. State, 433 P.2d 520 (Okl.Cr.1967); U.S. v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973).
5. Applegate v. State, 904 P.2d 130 (Okl.Cr.1995).
6. Mooney v. State, 1999 OK CR 34, I 18, 990 P.2d 875, 884.
7. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-402 (1994) - Possession of Controlled and Dangerous Substance

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:

• Watkins v. State, 1992 OK CR 34, 855 P.2d 141
• Mooney v. State, 1999 OK CR 34, I 18, 990 P.2d 875
• Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306
• Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19, I 36, 422 P.3d 788, 799-800
• Wade v. State, 825 P.2d 1357 (Okl.Cr.1992)
• Russell v. State, 433 P.2d 520, 522 (Okl.Cr.1967)
• U.S. v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973)
• Applegate v. State, 904 P.2d 130 (Okl.Cr.1995)