Ronald Lee King v State Of Oklahoma

F-2003-583

Filed: May 26, 2004

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Ronald Lee King appealed his conviction for Unlawful Delivery of Cocaine Base after having been convicted of two or more felonies. His conviction and sentence were upheld, but the fine was reduced. Judge Lile disagreed with part of the decision.

Decision

The Judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Appellant's sentence of twenty-five (25) years imprisonment is AFFIRMED. The $30,000 fine imposed is ordered MODIFIED to $10,000.

Issues

• Was there reversible error in admitting the contraband into evidence due to failure to establish a proper chain of custody?
• Did the trial court err in denying Appellant's discovery request for Officer Rodriguez's notes?
• Should Appellant's sentence be modified as excessive due to improper closing argument by the prosecutor?
• Did the jury exceed the statutory maximum in imposing a $30,000 fine?

Findings

• the court did not err in admitting the contraband into evidence
• there was no discovery violation regarding Officer Rodriguez's notes
• the $30,000 fine was excessive and modified to $10,000
• the sentence of twenty-five (25) years imprisonment is affirmed

F-2003-583

May 26, 2004

Ronald Lee King

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

STRUBHAR, J.: Ronald Lee King, Appellant, was tried by jury in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2002-6306, where he was convicted of one count of Unlawful Delivery of Cocaine Base, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. The jury set punishment at twenty-five (25) years imprisonment and a $30,000 fine. The Honorable Thomas C. Gillert, who presided at trial, sentenced Appellant accordingly. From this judgment and sentence, he appeals.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits and briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment, but modify the sentence imposed. The following propositions of error were considered:

I. It was reversible error to admit the contraband into evidence. The State failed to establish a proper chain of custody, violating the Oklahoma Evidence Code as well as Appellant’s Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial. Without the contraband, the evidence was insufficient to support Appellant’s conviction.

II. It was error to deny Appellant’s discovery request for Officer Rodriguez’s notes.

III. This Court should modify Appellant’s sentence; it is excessive and the jury’s decision was influenced by improper closing argument by the prosecutor.

IV. The $30,000 fine assessed by the jury exceeded the statutory maximum permitted by 21 O.S.2001, § 64 (B). Appellant’s sentence should be modified by eliminating the fine.

As to Proposition I, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting St.’s Exhibit 1 as the State adequately proved that in reasonable probability the evidence was the contraband Rodriguez obtained from Appellant. Driskell v. State, 659 P.2d 343, 354 (Okl.Cr.1983).

As to Proposition II, we find no discovery violation as Appellant concedes the State provided the defense with everything in the prosecutor’s file. We note defense counsel did not renew his request for Rodriguez’s notes after Rodriguez testified that his notes were contained in his report. Nor did defense counsel argue the notes were critical to the chain of custody. Because Rodriguez’s notes were contained in his report, which Appellant received and used at trial, there was no discovery violation. As for Appellant’s claim that the notes concerning other drug purchases made the same day are critical to the chain of custody issue, this claim must fail. As held above, the chain of custody was sufficient and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence. See Wilson V. State, 983 P.2d 448, 462 (Okl.Cr.1998) (noting it is proper to admit evidence where there is only speculation of tampering or alteration and let what doubt there may be go).

DECISION

The Judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Appellant’s sentence of twenty-five (25) years imprisonment is AFFIRMED. The $30,000 fine imposed is ordered MODIFIED to $10,000.

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL

CURTIS ALLEN
TULSA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE
423 S. BOULDER, STE. 300
TULSA, OK 74103
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

MICKEY HAWKINS
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
500 S. DENVER
TULSA, OK 74103
ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL

STUART SOUTHERLAND
TULSA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE
423 S. BOULDER, STE. 300
TULSA, OK 74103
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

W.A. DREW EDMONDSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
406 COURTHOUSE
KELLYE BATES
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
2300 N.LINCOLN BLVD., SUITE112
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

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

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 21 O.S.2001, § 64 (B)
2. Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 2402
3. 21 O.S.2001, § 21

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 64(B) - Maximum fine for felonies

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, 659 P.2d 343, 354 (Okl.Cr.1983)
• Wilson v. State, 983 P.2d 448, 462 (Okl.Cr.1998)