Joseph Edward Peyton v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2001-122

Filed: Sep. 11, 2002

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Joseph Edward Peyton appealed his conviction for Robbery With Firearms. His conviction and sentence were for ten years in prison for two counts and five years for three counts, totaling a significant prison term. The court decided that some of his charges should be removed while upholding others. Judge Strubhar disagreed with part of the decision.

Decision

The judgment and sentence of the trial court is AFFIRMED on Counts I and III. The judgment and sentence of the trial court on Counts II, IV, and V is REVERSED and DISMISSED.

Issues

• Was there insufficient evidence to support Mr. Peyton's convictions in Counts II, IV, and V?
• Did Mr. Peyton's statements to the police require suppression due to lack of custody?
• Is the sentence imposed on Mr. Peyton excessive and in need of modification?

Findings

• the court did not err, appellant's statements were admissible
• the evidence was not sufficient to support convictions in Counts II, IV, and V
• the sentence was not excessive and should not be modified

F-2001-122

Sep. 11, 2002

Joseph Edward Peyton

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LILE, JUDGE: Appellant, Joseph Edward Peyton, was convicted at jury trial of five counts of Robbery With Firearms in violation of 21 O.S.1991, § 801 in Case No. CF-2000-2693, in the District Court of Tulsa County. The Honorable J. Michael Gassett, District Judge, sentenced Appellant in accordance with the jury’s verdict to ten (10) years imprisonment on Counts I and III, and five (5) years imprisonment on Counts II, IV, and V, and ordered the sentences to run consecutively. Appellant has perfected his appeal to this Court.

Appellant raises three propositions of error in support of his appeal:

I. MR. PEYTON’S STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.
II. THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT MR. PEYTON’S CONVICTIONS IN COUNTS TWO, FOUR AND FIVE.
III. SENTENCE IS EXCESSIVE AND SHOULD BE MODIFIED.

1 After a thorough consideration of these propositions and the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, available transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we find that reversal on Counts II, IV, and V is required by the facts and the evidence.

In Proposition I, we find under the totality of the circumstances that Appellant was not in police custody when he made his admission. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); Bryan v. State, 1997 OK CR 15, 935 P.2d 338; Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984); Dennis v. State, 1999 OK CR 23, 990 P.2d 277. Therefore, the questioning did not require that Miranda warnings be given and the statements are admissible. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1996); McGregor v. State, 1994 OK CR 71, 885 P.2d 1366. This proposition is denied.

Concerning Proposition II, mere presence at the scene of the crime does not invoke criminal responsibility. Hindman v. State, 1982 OK CR 98, 647 P.2d 456. To prove aiding and abetting, the State must show acts, words or gestures encouraging the commission of the offense, either before or at the time of the commission of the offense. Frazier v. State, 1981 OK CR 13, 624 P.2d 84. The State relied upon Appellant’s statement without any additional evidence of his participation. That statement alone does not establish guilt of these counts. This proposition is granted, and Counts II, IV, and V are reversed.

2 As for Proposition III, the sentence does not shock the conscience of the Court. Rea v. State, 2001 OK CR 28, 34 P.3d 148.

DECISION

The judgment and sentence of the trial court is AFFIRMED on Counts I and III. The judgment and sentence of the trial court on Counts II, IV, and V is REVERSED and DISMISSED.

ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL

MARCUS WRIGHT
4815 S. HARVARD AVENUE, STE. 447
TULSA, OK 74135

ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL

MARY S. BRUEHL
1623 CROSS CENTER DRIVE
NORMAN, OK 73019

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

JAMES DUNN
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
500 SOUTH DENVER, ROOM 406
TULSA, OK 74103

W. A. DREW EDMONDSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

KEELEY L. HARRIS
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
112 STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

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

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); Bryan v. State, 1997 OK CR 15, 935 P.2d 338; Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984); Dennis v. State, 1999 OK CR 23, 990 P.2d 277.
2. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1996); McGregor v. State, 1994 OK CR 71, 885 P.2d 1366.
3. Hindman v. State, 1982 OK CR 98, 647 P.2d 456.
4. Frazier v. State, 1981 OK CR 13, 624 P.2d 84.
5. Rea v. State, 2001 OK CR 28, 34 P.3d 148.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 801 (1991) - Robbery With Firearms
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1103 (1999) - Standards for Admissibility of Confessions
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1382 (1982) - Criminal Responsibility for Conduct of Another
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2001) - Sentencing for Violent Crimes

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:

• Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977)
• Bryan v. State, 1997 OK CR 15, 935 P.2d 338
• Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984)
• Dennis v. State, 1999 OK CR 23, 990 P.2d 277
• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1996)
• McGregor v. State, 1994 OK CR 71, 885 P.2d 1366
• Hindman v. State, 1982 OK CR 98, 647 P.2d 456
• Frazier v. State, 1981 OK CR 13, 624 P.2d 84
• Rea v. State, 2001 OK CR 28, 34 P.3d 148