Darrell W. Hogan v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2004-1266

Filed: Feb. 10, 2006

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Darrell W. Hogan appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. His conviction and sentence were reversed, and he was granted a new trial. Judge Lumpkin dissented. In this case, Hogan was found guilty of killing his cellmate, James Wise, after Wise threatened him. Hogan said he was attacked when he choked Wise with a laundry bag's drawstring and then called for help. During the trial, Hogan's lawyers claimed he didn't get enough chances to challenge jurors, which is a right he should have had. The court agreed with Hogan's argument and decided he deserves a new trial.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch18, App.2004, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there a denial of the statutory right to peremptory challenges in the trial for first-degree murder?
• Did the denial of peremptory challenges violate due process?
• Was there a need for a new trial due to the limitation on peremptory challenges?
• Should a harmless error analysis apply to the denial of peremptory challenges in this case?
• Was the appellant prejudiced by the limited number of peremptory challenges during the trial?

Findings

• the court erred

F-2004-1266

Feb. 10, 2006

Darrell W. Hogan

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

CHAPEL, PRESIDING JUDGE: Darrell W. Hogan was tried by jury and convicted of First Degree Murder in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 701.7, in the District Court of Pittsburg County, Case No. CF-2004-300. Following the jury’s recommendation, the Honorable Thomas M. Bartheld sentenced Hogan to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Hogan has perfected his appeal of this conviction.

On the morning of February 24, 2004, Darrell Hogan killed his cellmate, James Wise, at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. Early that morning, Wise had held a knife to Hogan’s throat, threatening to kill him if he failed to hand over later-acquired canteen items. When Hogan agreed, Wise withdrew and put away the knife. About two hours later, Hogan placed a sheet over the cell door window to bar outsiders’ view. He removed the drawstring from a laundry bag, choked Wise with it until Wise collapsed approximately five minutes later, then flushed the drawstring down the toilet and summoned a guard. Wise was taken for immediate medical attention for his injuries but died three weeks later. Hogan was interviewed by an internal investigator and confessed to killing Wise.

Hogan raises a single proposition of error, claiming entitlement to a new trial because he was denied full exercise of his peremptory challenges. A defendant on trial for first-degree murder is entitled to nine (9) peremptory challenges. Hogan was only allowed five (5) peremptory challenges at trial. Due process is violated when a defendant is denied a statutory right. Moreover, this Court recently reversed a case for this precise error. We reverse and remand Hogan’s Judgment and Sentence for a new trial.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch18, App.2004, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL

MR. JEFF CONTRERAS
P.O. BOX 1871
MCALESTER, OK 74502
ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT

ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL

ROBERT W. JACKSON
STEVEN M. PRESSON
JACKSON & PRESSON, P.C.
207 WEST MAIN STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 5392
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA 73070-5392
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

MR. CHRIS WILSON
W.A. DREW EDMONDSON
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
115 EAST CARL ALBERT PARKWAY
MCALESTER, OKLAHOMA 74501
ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE

MATTHEW C. FLEISCHER
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
2300 N. LINCOLN BLVD.
112 STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73105
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

OPINION BY: CHAPEL, P. J.
LUMPKIN, V.P.J.: DISSENT
C. JOHNSON, J.: CONCUR
A. JOHNSON, J.: CONCUR
LEWIS, J.: CONCUR

LUMPKIN, VICE-PRESIDING JUDGE: DISSENTING

As I stated in my dissent to Golden v. State, 2006 OK CR 2, I disagree with this Court finding a harmless error analysis is not applicable to the denial of the statutory right of 9 peremptory challenges in a first-degree murder trial. As in Golden, constitutional error occurred here as Appellant’s statutory right to peremptory challenges was denied or impaired by not receiving that which state law provides. However, except for certain specifically delineated situations, constitutional errors have historically been subject to a harmless error analysis. See Neder v. U.S., 527 U.S. 1, 8, 119 S. Ct. 1827, 1833, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999), Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). See also Bartell v. State, 1994 OK CR 59, 881 P.2d 92. Applying a harmless error analysis to the present case, I find the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The record shows that at trial defense counsel did not object to the limited number of peremptory challenges. Now on appeal, Appellant has not argued or shown he was prejudiced by the lack of peremptory challenges. As I cannot find error from a silent record, or prejudice from anything in the current record, the violation of the statutory right in this case was harmless, and the judgment and sentence should be affirmed.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 1 22 O.S. .2001, § 655.
2. 2 Golden U. State, 2006 OK.CR 2, P.3rd ; (denial of statutorily mandated peremptory challenges mandates reversal).
3. 3 Id.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.7 - First Degree Murder
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 655 - Peremptory Challenges

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:

• Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19, I 36, 422 P.3d 788, 799-800
• Golden v. State, 2006 OK CR 2
• Bartell v. State, 1994 OK CR 59, 881 P.2d 92