Todd O'Shay Coburn v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2001-10

Filed: Nov. 13, 2001

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State of Oklahoma

Summary

Todd O'Shay Coburn appealed his conviction for Shooting With Intent to Kill and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. His conviction and sentence were originally set at three consecutive fifty-year sentences. The court found that some evidence used during his sentencing was not allowed and could have affected his right to a fair hearing. Because of this, they changed his sentences to thirty-five years on each count, also to be served consecutively. Judge Lile wrote the opinion, and no judges dissented.

Decision

The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED, and the sentences MODIFIED to thirty-five years on each count to be served consecutively.

Issues

• was the admission of Officer Stieber's testimony during the punishment phase improper and prejudicial to Mr. Coburn's fair sentencing hearing?
• was evidence of the factual details of a prior conviction improperly admitted in the second stage of the trial?
• was evidence of an additional crime improperly admitted in the second stage?
• did the prosecutor's questioning improperly imply that jurors had a duty not to be lenient in this trial?
• was the prosecutor's insinuation of additional unknown crimes against Appellant improper?
• did cumulative error during the sentencing phase prejudice Appellant despite individual errors being considered harmless?
• should the sentences imposed be modified given the seriousness of the crimes and the errors identified?

Findings

• the admission of Officer Stieber's testimony during the punishment phase deprived Mr. Coburn of a fair sentencing hearing
• evidence of the factual details of a prior conviction was improperly admitted into evidence
• evidence of the details of an additional crime was improperly admitted in the second stage
• the prosecutor's insinuation that Appellant may have been guilty of additional unknown crimes was improper
• the cumulative errors were not harmless and prejudiced Appellant at the sentencing phase
• the evidence of guilt was great and the crimes were serious, leading to a modification of sentences
• the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED, and the sentences MODIFIED to thirty-five years on each count to be served consecutively

F-2001-10

Nov. 13, 2001

Todd O'Shay Coburn

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LILE, JUDGE: Appellant, Todd O’Shay Coburn, was convicted at jury trial of Shooting With Intent to Kill in violation of 21 O.S.Supp. 1992, § 652 (Count I & II) and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon by Use of Firearm in violation of 21 O.S. 1999, §645 (Count III), all after former felony conviction, in case number CF-98-157, in the District Court of Kay County. The Honorable Leslie D. Page, Associate District Judge followed the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Appellant to three (3) consecutive fifty (50) year sentences. Appellant has perfected this appeal. Appellant raises the following proposition of error in support of his appeal:

THE ADMISSION OF OFFICER STIEBER’S TESTIMONY DURING THE PUNISHMENT PHASE DEPRIVED MR. COBURN OF A FAIR SENTENCING HEARING.

After a thorough consideration of these propositions and the entire record before us, including the original record, transcripts and briefs of the parties, we have determined that modification is required under the facts and the law. We find under Appellant’s proposition of error, that evidence of the factual details of a prior conviction was improperly admitted into evidence in the second stage of this trial. Bean v. State, 1964 OK CR 59, 392 P.2d 753. Further, evidence of the details of an additional crime was improperly admitted in the second stage. The prosecutor’s questioning of the jury concerning their possible feeling that juries and judges in the past improperly have been too lenient with other defendants improperly implied that the jurors had a duty to not make the same mistake in this trial. Walker v. State, 1992 OK CR 73, 841 P.2d 1159. Further, the prosecutor’s insinuation that Appellant may have been guilty of additional unknown crimes was improper. Howell v. State, 1994 OK CR 62, 882 P.2d 1086. Although these errors were not objected to at trial, and although individually they could be considered as harmless error, under the facts of this case, we are not convinced that as cumulative error, they did not prejudice Appellant at the sentencing phase of this trial. Guance v. State, 1988 OK CR 39, 751 P.2d 1074; Fitzgerald v. State, 1998 OK CR 68, 972 P.2d 1157. On the other hand, the evidence of guilt is great and these crimes are astoundingly cold-blooded and of the most serious import. We modify the sentences to thirty-five (35) years on each count, to be served consecutively.

DECISION

The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED, and the sentences MODIFIED to thirty-five years on each count to be served consecutively.

ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL

MEGAN DANIEL
P.O. BOX 2276
ENID, OK 73702
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

ROBERT W. JACKSON
STEVEN M. PRESSON
P.O. BOX 5392
NORMAN, OK 73070-5392
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

PHIL ROSS
W. A. DREW EDMONDSON
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
KAY COUNTY COURTHOUSE
NEWKIRK, OK 74647
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

ATTORNEYS FOR STATE
112 STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

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

RB

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 21 O.S.Supp. 1992, § 652
2. 21 O.S. 1999, § 645
3. Bean v. State, 1964 OK CR 59, 392 P.2d 753
4. Walker v. State, 1992 OK CR 73, 841 P.2d 1159
5. Howell v. State, 1994 OK CR 62, 882 P.2d 1086
6. Guance v. State, 1988 OK CR 39, 751 P.2d 1074
7. Fitzgerald v. State, 1998 OK CR 68, 972 P.2d 1157

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 652 (1992) - Shooting With Intent to Kill
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 645 (1999) - Assault with a Dangerous Weapon
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Sentencing for Crimes
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1060 (2011) - Modification of Sentence

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:

• Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19, I 36, 422 P.3d 788, 799-800
• Bean v. State, 1964 OK CR 59, 392 P.2d 753
• Walker v. State, 1992 OK CR 73, 841 P.2d 1159
• Howell v. State, 1994 OK CR 62, 882 P.2d 1086
• Guance v. State, 1988 OK CR 39, 751 P.2d 1074
• Fitzgerald v. State, 1998 OK CR 68, 972 P.2d 1157