Milton Veran Williams v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2002-808

Filed: Jul. 11, 2003

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Milton Veran Williams

Summary

Milton Veran Williams appealed his conviction for distribution and possession of crack cocaine and maintaining a place for selling drugs. His conviction and sentence included thirty years in prison for the first two counts and ten years for the last count, all served at the same time. Judge Lile dissented on the entry of the home by the police, believing it was proper under certain circumstances.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence for Count I (Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance) is AFFIRMED and it is ordered that the district court modify the fine for Count I from $100,000.00 to $10,000.00 and that the Judgment and Sentence be amended to reflect that the thirty (30) year sentence is to be served concurrently with Williams's ten (10) year sentence in Logan County Case No.CF-2000-117. The Judgments and Sentences for Count III (Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute) and Count IV (Maintaining a Dwelling for the Purpose of Keeping/Selling Controlled Dangerous Substances) are REVERSED AND REMANDED with Instructions to Dismiss.

Issues

• Was there a violation of the Fourth Amendment due to the forcible and warrantless entry into the appellant's home, and should the evidence obtained as a result have been suppressed?
• Did Count III of the Information provide insufficient notice to prepare a defense and prevent double jeopardy, thereby violating the appellant's right to due process?
• Does convicting the appellant of both Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute violate the Double Jeopardy clause?
• Did the prosecution's change in theory of the case during closing arguments deprive the appellant of his rights secured under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Oklahoma Constitution?
• Did evidence of other crimes and bad acts coupled with prosecutorial misconduct taint the trial to the point of violating the appellant's right to due process?
• Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance by failing to cross-examine a key state witness about her bias?
• Did the preliminary hearing magistrate err by failing to sustain the demurrer to Counts II, III, and IV due to insufficient evidence of probable cause?
• Did the State fail to prove that the appellant was the same person as the defendant listed on the prior judgment used to establish a felony conviction, thus improperly shifting the burden of proof?
• Were the penalty phase instructions that combined sentencing provisions from both drug statutes and the habitual offender statute improper and did they result in unlawful sentences?
• Should the judgment and sentence be modified to accurately reflect the sentence imposed?
• Did trial errors cumulatively deprive the appellant of a fair trial and reliable verdicts?

Findings

• the court erred
• the evidence was not sufficient
• the court did not err
• the court did not err
• the court did not err
• the evidence was sufficient
• the court did not err
• the fine was modified
• the judgment was modified
• there was no cumulative error

F-2002-808

Jul. 11, 2003

Milton Veran Williams

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

CHAPEL, JUDGE: Milton Williams was tried by jury and convicted of Count I: Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Crack Cocaine) in violation of 63 O.S.Supp. 2000, § 2-401(A)(1); Count III: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Crack Cocaine) with Intent to Distribute in violation of 63 O.S.Supp. 2000, § 2-401(B)(2); and Count IV: Maintaining a Place for Keeping/Selling Controlled Dangerous Substances in violation of 63 O.S.Supp. 1999, § 2-404, all after former conviction of a felony, in Logan County District Court Case No. CF-01-11.1 In accordance with the jury’s recommendation, the Honorable Donald L. Worthington sentenced Williams to thirty (30) years’ imprisonment and a $100,000.00 fine on Counts I and III and ten (10) years’ imprisonment and a $10,000.00 fine on Count IV. He ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. Williams appeals from these convictions and sentences. 1 Williams was also tried and acquitted of Count II: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana) with Intent to Distribute in violation of 63 O.S.Supp. 2000, § 2-401(B)(2).

Williams raises the following propositions of error:

I. Because the forcible and warrantless entry into the home violated the Fourth Amendment, the evidence found inside was illegally obtained and should have been suppressed.

II. Count 3 of the Information provided so few facts of the crime charged that it gave insufficient notice to prepare a defense and to prevent double jeopardy; therefore, Mr. Williams’ right to due process was violated and his conviction on Count 3 should be vacated.

III. Convicting Mr. Williams of Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Crack Cocaine) and Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Crack Cocaine) with the Intent to Distribute violates Double Jeopardy.

IV. The Prosecution’s change in theory of the case during closing arguments deprived Mr. Williams of his rights secured to him under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as Article II, §§ 7, 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

V. Evidence of other crimes and bad acts, coupled with prosecutorial misconduct, so tainted the trial with unfairness that Mr. Williams’ right to due process was violated.

VI. Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to cross-examine a key state witness about her bias arising from the fact that she had acceleration hearings pending on two deferred judgments as well as a new felony charge pending.

VII. The preliminary hearing magistrate erred in failing to sustain the demurrer to Counts 2, 3, and 4 because the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate probable cause to believe that Mr. Williams maintained the house or had dominion and control over the drugs found in the house.

VIII. The State failed to prove Mr. Williams was one and the same person as the defendant listed on the prior judgment and sentence from Texas used to establish Mr. Williams had a prior felony conviction; moreover, the State improperly shifted the burden to the defendant to prove that the conviction was not his. Accordingly, the finding of a prior conviction should be stricken, and Mr. Williams’ sentences should be modified.

IX. The penalty phase instructions, which combined sentencing provisions from both the drug statutes and the habitual offender statute, were improper and resulted in unlawful sentences.

X. The judgment and sentence should be modified to reflect accurately the sentence imposed.

XI. The trial errors cumulatively deprived Mr. Williams of a fair trial and reliable verdicts.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, and briefs, we find that Williams’s convictions in Count III (Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute) and Count IV (Maintaining a Dwelling for the Purpose of Keeping/Selling Controlled Dangerous Substance) must be reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss; his conviction and sentence in Count I (Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance) should be affirmed but that the fine should be modified from $100,000.00 to $10,000.00; and the Judgment and Sentence should be modified to reflect that his remaining thirty (30) year sentence should be served concurrently with his ten (10) year sentence in Logan County Case No. CF-2000-117.

We find in Proposition I that the police unlawfully entered Williams’s home, requiring the suppression of all evidence seized as a result of the entry. Thus, Williams’s convictions for Counts III and IV are reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss. Propositions II, III, and VII are thereby rendered moot.

We find in Proposition IV that the prosecutor’s comments at trial did not constitute a variance between the charge and proof. We find in Proposition V that no evidence of other crimes was improperly admitted at trial. We find Proposition VI that trial counsel was not ineffective. We find in Proposition VIII that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Williams had a prior felony conviction and that the State’s argument did not shift the burden of proof.

We find in Proposition IX that Williams’s fine of $100,000.00 in Count I must be modified to $10,000.00. We find in Proposition X that the Judgment and Sentence in this case should be modified to reflect the trial court’s order that the remaining sentence was to be served concurrently with Williams’s sentence in Logan County Case No. CF-2000-117. We find in Proposition XI that there is no cumulative error.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence for Count I (Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance) is AFFIRMED and it is ordered that the district court modify the fine for Count I from $100,000.00 to $10,000.00 and that the Judgment and Sentence be amended to reflect that the thirty (30) year sentence is to be served concurrently with Williams’s ten (10) year sentence in Logan County Case No. CF-2000-117. The Judgments and Sentences for Count III (Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute) and Count IV (Maintaining a Dwelling for the Purpose of Keeping/Selling Controlled Dangerous Substances) are REVERSED AND REMANDED with Instructions to Dismiss.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 63 O.S.Supp. 2000, § 2-401(A)(1)
2. 63 O.S.Supp. 2000, § 2-401(B)(2)
3. 63 O.S.Supp. 1999, § 2-404
4. 63 O.S.Supp. 2000, § 2-401(B)(2)
5. Payton U. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980)
6. Patterson v. State, 45 P.3d 925, 930 (Okl.Cr.2002)
7. Hammon U. State, 898 P.2d 1287, 1305 (Okl.Cr.1995)
8. Cooper U. State, 671 P.2d 1168, 1173 (Okl.Cr.1983)
9. Vanscoy U. State, 734 P.2d 825, 829 Okl.Cr.1987
10. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
11. Cooper v. State, 810 P.2d 1303, 1306 (Okl.Cr.1991)
12. Romano v. State, 909 P.2d 92, 116 (Okl. Cr.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 855, 117 S.Ct. 151, 136 L.Ed.2d 96 (1996)
13. 21 O.S.2001, § 51(A)(1)
14. 21 O.S.2001, § 64(B)
15. Bryan v. State, 1997 OK CR 15, 935 P.2d 338, 365-66, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 957, 118 S.Ct. 383, 139 L.Ed.2d 299 (1997)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-401(A)(1) - Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-401(B)(2) - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-404 - Maintaining a Place for Keeping/Selling Controlled Dangerous Substances
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 51(A)(1) - Sentence for felony; Fine
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 64(B) - Imposition of fines
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 Ch. 18, Rule 3.11 - Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals

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:

• Patterson v. State, 45 P.3d 925, 930 (Okl.Cr.2002)
• Hammon v. State, 898 P.2d 1287, 1305 (Okl.Cr.1995)
• Cooper v. State, 671 P.2d 1168, 1173 (Okl.Cr.1983)
• Vanscoy v. State, 734 P.2d 825, 829 (Okl.Cr.1987)
• Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
• Romano v. State, 909 P.2d 92, 116 (Okl.Cr.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 855, 117 S.Ct. 151, 136 L.Ed.2d 96 (1996)
• Bryan v. State, 1997 OK CR 15, 935 P.2d 338, 365-66, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 957, 118 S.Ct. 383, 139 L.Ed.2d 299 (1997)
• Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980)
• Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85