Kristy Ladell Thompson v State Of Oklahoma

F-2002-203

Filed: Feb. 28, 2003

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Kristy Ladell Thompson appealed her conviction for Robbery with a Weapon, Conspiracy, and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. Conviction and sentence were upheld for Robbery with a Weapon and Conspiracy, but the sentence for Assault and Battery was reversed and dismissed. Judge Chapel dissented regarding the Conspiracy charge, believing there was not enough evidence to support it.

Decision

The Judgments and Sentences in Counts I and II are AFFIRMED, the Judgment and Sentence in Count III is REVERSED with instructions to DISMISS.

Issues

• Was the evidence sufficient to support the crime of Robbery with a Weapon?
• Was the evidence sufficient to support the conviction for Assault and Battery?
• Was the evidence sufficient to support a charge of conspiracy?
• Should Appellant have been punished twice for the same offense?
• Did an evidentiary harpoon and subsequent prosecutorial misconduct deprive Appellant of a fair trial?
• Did cumulative error deprive Appellant of a fair trial?

Findings

• The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for Robbery with a Weapon.
• The conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon was reversed with instructions to dismiss.
• The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for Conspiracy.
• Appellant should not have been punished twice for the same offense, leading to the reversal of Count III.
• No prosecutorial misconduct deprived Appellant of a fair trial.
• No cumulative error deprived Appellant of a fair trial.

F-2002-203

Feb. 28, 2003

Kristy Ladell Thompson

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Appellant Kristy Ladell Thompson was tried conjointly in the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CF-2001-293, and found guilty of Robbery with a Weapon (Count I) (21 O.S. 2001, § 801), Conspiracy (Count II) (21 O.S. 2001, § 421), and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (Count III) (21 O.S. 2001, § 645), After Former Conviction of a Felony. The jury recommended as punishment imprisonment for ten (10) years in Count I, and two (2) years in each of Counts II and III. The trial court sentenced accordingly, ordering the sentences in Count II to run consecutive to the sentence in Count I, and Count III to run consecutive to Counts I and II. From these judgments and sentences, Appellant appeals.

In support of her appeal, Appellant raises the following propositions of error:

I. The evidence was insufficient to support the crime of Robbery with a Weapon.
II. The evidence was insufficient to support conviction on Assault and Battery.
III. The evidence was insufficient to support a charge of conspiracy.
IV. Appellant should not have been punished twice for the same offense.
V. An evidentiary harpoon and subsequent prosecutorial misconduct deprived Appellant of a fair trial.
VI. Cumulative error deprived Appellant of a fair trial.

After a thorough consideration of these propositions and the entire record before us on appeal including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we have determined that neither reversal nor modification is warranted under the law and the evidence, as to Counts I and II. Count III is reversed with instructions to dismiss as adjudicated in Proposition IV.

In Proposition I, we find the circumstantial evidence sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction for Robbery with a Weapon. See Mitchell U. State, 884 P.2d 1186, 1199 (Okl.Cr.1994). In Proposition II, we address in conjunction with Proposition IV, as we find it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Assault and Battery conviction as Appellant’s convictions for both Robbery with a Weapon and Assault and Battery with a Weapon violate the provisions of 22 O.S. 2001, § 11 as the two crimes arose out of one act. See Davis v. State, 993 P.2d 124, 126-27 (Okl.Cr. 1999). Therefore, Appellant’s conviction in Count III, Assault and Battery with a Weapon, is reversed with instructions to dismiss.

In Proposition III, we find sufficient circumstantial evidence was presented upon which to base a finding that an agreement did exist between Appellant and her co-defendant thereby supporting a conviction for conspiracy. See Mayes v. State, 887 P.2d 1288, 1313 (Okl.Cr.1994); State v. Davis, 823 P.2d 367, 370 (Okl.Cr.1991).

In Proposition V, we find the court’s admonition to the jury to disregard any comments regarding Officer Aguilera’s concerns about Appellants once they left the Marlow City Jail cured any error as that information, together with testimony concerning Appellant’s alias, did not determine the verdict. See Patton v. State, 973 P.2d 270, 292-293 (Okl.Cr. 1998).

In Proposition VI, we find Appellant was not denied a fair trial by cumulative error. See Conover v. State, 933 P.2d 904 (Okl.Cr. 1997); Ashinsky v. State, 780 P.2d 201, 209 (Okl.Cr. 1989).

DECISION

The Judgments and Sentences in Counts I and II are AFFIRMED, the Judgment and Sentence in Count III is REVERSED with instructions to DISMISS.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 21 O.S. 2001, § 801
2. 21 O.S. 2001, § 421
3. 21 O.S. 2001, § 645
4. 22 O.S. 2001, § 11
5. Mitchell U. State, 884 P.2d 1186, 1199 (Okl.Cr.1994)
6. Davis v. State, 993 P.2d 124, 126-27 (Okl.Cr.1999)
7. Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04 (Okl.Cr.1985)
8. White v. State, 900 P.2d 982, 994 (Okl.Cr. 1995)
9. Mayes v. State, 887 P.2d 1288, 1313 (Okl.Cr.1994)
10. State v. Davis, 823 P.2d 367, 370 (Okl.Cr.1991)
11. Patton v. State, 973 P.2d 270, 292-293 (Okl.Cr.1998)
12. Conover v. State, 933 P.2d 904 (Okl.Cr.1997)
13. Ashinsky v. State, 780 P.2d 201, 209 (Okl.Cr.1989)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 801 (2001) - Robbery with a Weapon
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 421 (2001) - Conspiracy
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 645 (2001) - Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 11 (2001) - Multiple Convictions

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:

• Mitchell v. State, 884 P.2d 1186, 1199 (Okl.Cr.1994)
• Davis v. State, 993 P.2d 124, 126-27 (Okl.Cr.1999)
• Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04 (Okl.Cr.1985)
• White v. State, 900 P.2d 982, 994 (Okl.Cr. 1995)
• Mayes v. State, 887 P.2d 1288, 1313 (Okl.Cr.1994)
• State v. Davis, 823 P.2d 367, 370 (Okl.Cr.1991)
• Patton v. State, 973 P.2d 270, 292-293 (Okl.Cr.1998)
• Conover v. State, 933 P.2d 904 (Okl.Cr.1997)
• Ashinsky v. State, 780 P.2d 201, 209 (Okl.Cr.1989)