Clonnie A. Layman v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2004-198

Filed: Feb. 28, 2005

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Clonnie A. Layman appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (methamphetamine) and driving under the influence of alcohol. Conviction and sentence were reversed and remanded for a new trial. Lile dissented.

Decision

The Judgments and Sentences of the District Court are 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 reversible error by allowing the State to exercise a peremptory challenge against a minority juror without establishing a race-neutral reason?
• Did instructional error leave Appellant's jury without proper guidance on a clearly established lesser offense?
• Was Mr. Layman unfairly prejudiced by the admission of irrelevant evidence regarding typical methamphetamine prices and amounts sold?
• Did irrelevant, improper, and misleading evidence result in an inflated sentence?
• Was the instruction regarding the fine for trafficking incorrect and prejudicial?
• Did error at Mr. Layman's trial result in an excessive sentence despite significant mitigating evidence?
• Did the cumulative effect of all the errors deprive Appellant of a fair trial?

Findings

• the court erred in not requiring the State to assert a race-neutral reason for excluding Juror Warrior with a peremptory challenge
• the appellate court reversed the judgments and sentences and remanded for a new trial

F-2004-198

Feb. 28, 2005

Clonnie A. Layman

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

CHAPEL, PRESIDING JUDGE: In McIntosh County District Course Case No. CF-2002-159, Clonnie Layman was tried by jury and convicted of Count I: Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Methamphetamine) in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2002, § 2-415, after former conviction of a felony and Count II: Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol in violation of 47 O.S.2001, § 11-902. The Honorable Gene F. Mowery sentenced Layman to life imprisonment and a $200,000.00 fine for Count I and one (1) year imprisonment and a $1000.00 fine for Count II to be served concurrently. Layman appeals these Judgments and Sentences. Layman raises the following propositions of error:

I. The trial court committed reversible error by allowing the State to exercise a peremptory challenge against a minority juror without establishing a race-neutral reason. Mr. Layman was denied an impartial jury composed of a fair cross section of the community in violation of the fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution and Article II, §§ 7 and 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

II. Instructional error left Appellant’s jury without proper guidance on a clearly established lesser offense to Count II, which denied Mr. Layman a fair trial.

III. Mr. Layman was unfairly prejudiced by the admission of irrelevant evidence regarding typical methamphetamine prices and amounts sold and submitted to the O.S.B.I. in unrelated drug cases.

IV. Irrelevant, improper, and misleading evidence resulted in an inflated sentence.

V. The instruction regarding the fine for trafficking was incorrect, prejudicial and should be modified.

VI. Error at Mr. Layman’s trial resulted in an excessive sentence, especially in light of the significant mitigating evidence presented on his behalf.

VII. The cumulative effect of all the errors addressed above deprived Appellant of a fair trial.

After thoroughly considering the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, briefs, and exhibits of the parties, we find Layman is entitled to a new trial. We find in Proposition I that the trial court erred in not requiring the State to assert a race-neutral reason for excluding Juror Warrior with a peremptory challenge.¹ We do not address Propositions II, III, IV, V, VI and VII due to the relief recommended in Proposition I.

Decision

The Judgments and Sentences of the District Court are 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.

¹ The trial court erroneously overruled Layman’s objection by finding that Layman could not challenge Juror Warrior’s exclusion because Layman was white and Juror Warrior was black. This is not the standard. Green v. State, 862 P.2d 1271, 1272 (Okl. Cr. 1993) (racial identity between accused and a prospective juror is not a precondition to a Batson challenge).

ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL

J. BRYAN RAYL GREG STIDHAM
P.O. BOX 54153 KAREN VOLZ
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74145 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
DONALD D. SELF
MCINTOSH COUNTY COURTHOUSE
EUFAULA, OKLAHOMA 74432

ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL W.A. DREW EDMONDSON
KIMBERLY D. HEINZE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
P.O. BOX 926 112 STATE CAPITOL
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA 73070 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73105
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE

OPINION BY: CHAPEL, P. J.
LUMPKIN, V.P.J.: CONCURS IN RESULTS
JOHNSON, J.: CONCURS
LILE, J.: DISSENTS

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 63 O.S.Supp.2002, § 2-415
2. 47 O.S.2001, § 11-902
3. Green U. State, 862 P.2d 1271, 1272 (Okl. Cr. 1993)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-415 (2002) - Trafficking in Illegal Drugs
• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 11-902 (2001) - Driving Under the Influence

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
• Green v. State, 862 P.2d 1271, 1272 (Okl. Cr. 1993)