Brandon J. Grimland v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2002-855

Filed: Aug. 14, 2003

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State of Oklahoma

Summary

Brandon Grimland appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. Conviction and sentence were modified from one hundred (100) years' imprisonment to twenty-five (25) years' imprisonment. Judge Lile dissented, believing the case should be sent back for re-sentencing.

Decision

The Judgment is AFFIRMED and the Sentence is MODIFIED from one hundred (100) years' imprisonment to twenty-five (25) years' imprisonment.

Issues

• Was the evidence sufficient to find Mr. Grimland guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
• Did the prosecutor improperly raise questions about how much time Appellant served on prior convictions, leading the jury to improperly consider parole?
• Was the sentence imposed so disproportionate and excessive under the circumstances that it should shock the conscience of the Court?

Findings

• the evidence was sufficient to establish Grimland's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
• the sentence must be modified from one hundred (100) years' imprisonment to twenty-five (25) years' imprisonment due to improper injection of parole into the jury's sentencing decision
• Proposition III is rendered moot due to the relief granted in Proposition II

F-2002-855

Aug. 14, 2003

Brandon J. Grimland

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

CHAPEL, JUDGE: Brandon Grimland was tried by jury and convicted of First Degree Manslaughter in violation of 21 O.S. 2001, § 711, after two or more former convictions, in Muskogee County District Court Case No. CF-2001-656. In accordance with the jury’s recommendation, the Honorable Mike Norman sentenced Grimland to one hundred (100) years’ imprisonment. Grimland appeals from this conviction and sentence. Grimland raises the following propositions of error:

I. The evidence was insufficient to find Mr. Grimland was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

II. The prosecutor improperly raised questions about how much time Appellant served on prior convictions and, as a result, the jury improperly considered the possibility of parole, resulting in an excessive sentence which warrants modification.

III. The sentence imposed was so disproportionate and excessive under the circumstances of this case that it should shock the conscience of this Court.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, briefs and exhibits, we find that the Judgment should be affirmed but that Grimland’s sentence must be modified. We find in Proposition I that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Grimland’s beating proximately caused Hughart’s death. We find in Proposition II that Grimland’s sentence must be modified from one hundred (100) years’ imprisonment to twenty-five (25) years’ imprisonment because the prosecutor improperly injected parole into the jury’s sentencing decision.

Decision

The Judgment is AFFIRMED and the Sentence is MODIFIED from one hundred (100) years’ imprisonment to twenty-five (25) years’ imprisonment.

ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL
JOHN BUTLER
DANNY G. LOHMANN
CARLOS WILLIAMS
APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL
JOHN BUTLER & ASSOCIATES
P.O. BOX 926
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA 73070

ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL
DAVID PIERCE
W.A. DREW EDMONDSON
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
220 STATE STREET
MUSKOGEE, OKLAHOMA 74401

ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE
JENNIFER J. DICKSON
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
112 STATE CAPITOL
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73105

1 Grimland had been charged with First Degree Murder.
2 The evidence established that Hughart died from blunt force trauma to the head as a result of the beating administered by Grimland and a subsequent stairwell fall that occurred as a direct result of the beating. Accordingly, a rational trier of fact could have found that Grimland was the proximate cause of Hughart’s death. We also find that the jury did not have to be instructed that the evidence had to exclude every reasonable hypothesis but Grimland’s guilt.

3 The prosecutor repeatedly improperly injected parole into the jury’s sentencing decision. Although these questions and comments were unobjected to, they were plain error because they had a substantial influence on the jury’s sentencing recommendation.

Proposition III is rendered moot due to the relief granted in Proposition II as a twenty-five (25) year sentence for First Degree Manslaughter is not excessive.

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

3 LILE, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE: CONCURS IN PART/DISSENTS IN PART I believe this case should be remanded for re-sentencing.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Grimland had been charged with First Degree Murder.
2. Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202, 203-204 (Okl.Cr.1985).
3. Stringfellow U. State, 744 P.2d 1277, 1279 (Okl.Cr.1987).
4. Simpson v. State, 876 P. 2d 690, 702 (Okl.Cr. 1994).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 711 (2001) - First Degree Manslaughter

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:

• Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202, 203-204 (Okl.Cr.1985)
• Stringfellow v. State, 744 P.2d 1277, 1279 (Okl.Cr.1987)
• Simpson v. State, 876 P.2d 690, 702 (Okl.Cr.1994)