Shawn R. Chapman v The State of Oklahoma

F-2001-1165

Filed: Nov. 14, 2002

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State of Oklahoma

Summary

Shawn R. Chapman appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including first-degree rape and kidnapping. His conviction and sentence totaled 480 years in prison. Judge Lumpkin dissented, believing the original sentences were appropriate and should not have been changed.

Decision

The Judgments of the District Court are AFFIRMED. The Sentences in Counts IV, V and VIII are AFFIRMED. The Sentences in Counts I, II and III are MODIFIED to life imprisonment.

Issues

• was there admission of other crimes evidence that prejudiced the jury?
• did the trial court err in admitting exhibits into evidence whose prejudicial value outweighed their probative value?
• did defense counsel's admissions during closing arguments deprive Mr. Chapman of his right to counsel and due process?
• was there prosecutorial misconduct that deprived Mr. Chapman of a fair trial and resulted in an excessive sentence?
• did the simultaneous convictions for Rape by Instrumentation violate the statutory prohibition on double punishment?
• did the trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to grant a continuance?
• are Mr. Chapman's sentences excessive?
• did the cumulative effect of the errors deprive Mr. Chapman of a fair trial?

Findings

• the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of other crimes
• the admission of the search warrant and return does not rise to the level of plain error
• defense counsel did not admit or concede Chapman's guilt in closing argument
• the prosecutor's comments did not deprive Chapman of a fair trial
• Chapman's convictions for rape by instrumentation do not violate the statutory prohibition against multiple punishment
• Chapman failed to show how he was prejudiced by the denial of his motion for continuance
• Chapman's total sentence of 480 years imprisonment shocks the Court's conscience, leading to sentence modification to life imprisonment
• there is no cumulative error

F-2001-1165

Nov. 14, 2002

Shawn R. Chapman

Appellant

v

The State of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

CHAPEL, JUDGE: Shawn R. Chapman was tried by jury and convicted of Count I, First Degree Rape in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.1999, § 1111(A)(3); Count II, Rape by Instrumentation (finger) in violation of 21 O.S.1991, § 1111.1; Count III, Rape by Instrumentation (tongue) in violation of 21 O.S.1991, § 1111.1; Count IV, Kidnapping in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.1999, § 741; Count V, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.1999, § 645; Count VIII, Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (methamphetamine) in violation of 73 O.S.Supp.2000, § 2-402; and Count IX, Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2000, § 2-405, in the District Court of Logan County, Case No. CF-01-16.¹ In accordance with the jury’s recommendation the Honorable Donald L. Worthington sentenced Chapman to one hundred fifty (150) years imprisonment on each of Counts I, II, and III; ten (10) years imprisonment on each of Counts IV, V and VIII; and a $1,000 fine on Count IX. Chapman appeals from these convictions and sentences.

Chapman raises eight propositions of error in support of his appeal:

I. Admission of other crimes evidence prejudiced the jury, deprived Mr. Chapman of his fundamental right to a fair trial, and warrants reversal of the sentences.

II. The trial court erred when it admitted several exhibits into evidence whose prejudicial value outweighed their probative value.

III. Defense counsel’s frank admissions of guilt during his closing arguments deprived Mr. Chapman of his right to counsel under the sixth amendment and to due process under the fourteenth amendment.

IV. Prosecutorial misconduct deprived Mr. Chapman of a fair trial and caused the jury to render an excessive sentence.

V. The simultaneous convictions for Counts II and III, Rape by Instrumentation, violated the statutory prohibition on double punishment.

VI. The trial court abused its discretion by refusing to grant defense counsel’s request for continuance.

VII. Mr. Chapman’s sentences are excessive.

VIII. The cumulative effect of all the errors addressed above deprived Mr. Chapman of a fair trial.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal including the original record, transcripts, briefs and exhibits of the parties, we find that the law and evidence do not require reversal, but sentence modification is warranted in Counts I, II and III. We find in Proposition I that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of other crimes, so distinctive as to establish a signature, to show a common scheme or plan.² We find in Proposition II that the search warrant and return were cumulative to evidence already before the jury, and their admission does not rise to the level of plain error.³ We further find the trial court did not err in admitting letters Chapman wrote in jail, which contain statements against interest and are probative of material issues.⁴ We find in Proposition III that a thorough review of the record shows defense counsel did not admit or concede Chapman’s guilt in closing argument or at any time during the course of trial. We find in Proposition IV that any discussion of Chapman’s general character in closing argument was a response to defense counsel’s argument;⁵ an isolated statement that Chapman committed crimes against the community does not require relief; and the remainder of the prosecutors’ argument was confined to inferences and deductions from the evidence.⁶ We find in Proposition V that Chapman’s convictions for rape by instrumentation, digital and oral, do not violate the statutory prohibition against multiple punishment because the sexual acts were not part of a continuous transaction.⁷ We find in Proposition VI that Chapman completely fails to show how he was prejudiced or, indeed, affected by the trial court’s denial of his motion for continuance.⁸ We find in Proposition VII that Chapman’s total sentence of 480 years imprisonment shocks the Court’s conscience.⁹ We modify the sentences on Counts I, II and III to life imprisonment. We find in Proposition VIII that there is no cumulative error.¹⁰

Decision

The Judgments of the District Court are AFFIRMED. The Sentences in Counts IV, V and VIII are AFFIRMED. The Sentences in Counts I, II and III are MODIFIED to life imprisonment.

ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL

MARVIN QUINN
2601 NW Expressway, Ste 100W
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112
Attorney for Defendant

ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL

KATRINA CONRAD-LEGLER
1623 Cross Center Drive
Norman, Oklahoma 73019
Attorney for Appellant

ROBERT R. HUDSON
DAVID M. BROCKMAN
112 State Capitol Building
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Attorneys for the State

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

Footnotes:

1. In accordance with the jury's recommendation the Honorable Donald L. Worthington sentenced Chapman to one hundred fifty (150) years imprisonment on each of Counts I, II, and III; ten (10) years imprisonment on each of Counts IV, V and VIII; and a $1,000 fine on Count IX.
2. Chapman was acquitted of Count VI, Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, and Count VII, Concealing Stolen Property.
3. Driskell v. State, 1983 OK CR 22, 659 P.2d 343, 349; Johnson v. State, 1985 OK CR 152, 710 P.2d 119, 120; Driver v. State, 1981 OK CR 117, 634 P.2d 760, 763; Jett v. State, 1974 OK CR 140, 525 P.2d 1247, 1249; Hall v. State, 1980 OK CR 64, 615 P.2d 1020, 1022; Burks v. State, 1979 OK CR 10, 594 P.2d 771, 774-75, overruled in part on other grounds by Jones v. State, 1989 OK CR 7, 772 P.2d 922.
4. Short v. State, 1999 OK CR 15, 980 P.2d 1081, 1095, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1085, 120 S.Ct. 811, 145 L.Ed.2d 683 (2000).
5. 12 O.S.2001, §§ 2401, 2403.
6. Teafatiller v. State, 1987 OK CR 141, 739 P.2d 1009, 1010.
7. Freeman v. State, 1994 OK CR 37, 876 P.2d 283, 287, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022, 115 S.Ct. 590, 130 L.Ed.2d 503.
8. 21 O.S.2001, § 11; Gregg v. State, 1992 OK CR 82, 844 P.2d 867, 878.
9. Jones v. State, 1995 OK CR 81, 917 P.2d 976, 978.
10. Jones v. State, 1998 OK CR 36, 965 P.2d 385, 386.
11. Alverson v. State, 1999 OK CR 21, 983 P.2d 498, 520, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1089, 120 S.Ct. 820, 145 L.Ed.2d 690 (2000).
12. Rea v. State, 34 P3rd 148 (Okl.Cr.2001).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1111(A)(3) - First Degree Rape
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1111.1 - Rape by Instrumentation
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 741 - Kidnapping
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 645 - Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon
• Okla. Stat. tit. 73 § 2-402 - Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-405 - Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
• Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2401 - General admissibility of evidence
• Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2403 - Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 11 - Prohibition against multiple punishment
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 - Sentence modification

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:

• Driskell v. State, 1983 OK CR 22, 659 P.2d 343, 349
• Johnson v. State, 1985 OK CR 152, 710 P.2d 119, 120
• Driver v. State, 1981 OK CR 117, 634 P.2d 760, 763
• Jett v. State, 1974 OK CR 140, 525 P.2d 1247, 1249
• Hall v. State, 1980 OK CR 64, 615 P.2d 1020, 1022
• Burks v. State, 1979 OK CR 10, 594 P.2d 771, 774-75
• Short v. State, 1999 OK CR 15, 980 P.2d 1081, 1095
• Teafatiller v. State, 1987 OK CR 141, 739 P.2d 1009, 1010
• Freeman v. State, 1994 OK CR 37, 876 P.2d 283, 287
• Gregg v. State, 1992 OK CR 82, 844 P.2d 867, 878
• Riley v. State, 1997 OK CR 51, 947 P.2d 530, 533
• Doyle v. State, 1989 OK CR 85, 785 P.2d 317, 324
• Salyer v. State, 1988 OK CR 184, 761 P.2d 890, 893
• Mooney v. State, 1999 OK CR 34, 990 P.2d 875, 883
• Jones v. State, 1995 OK CR 81, 917 P.2d 976, 978
• Jones v. State, 1998 OK CR 36, 965 P.2d 385, 386
• Alverson v. State, 1999 OK CR 21, 983 P.2d 498, 520
• Rea v. State, 34 P3rd 148 (Okl.Cr.2001)

Click Here To Download PDF