Felix Finley, IV v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2004-682

Filed: May 1, 2006

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Felix Finley, IV appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. Conviction and sentence were affirmed, but the case was reversed and remanded for resentencing. Judge Lumpkin dissented.

Decision

The Judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. The case is REVERSED and REMANDED to the District Court for RESENTENCING. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2006), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there irrelevant and inconsistent jury instructions that conveyed to the jury that Finley was not legally entitled to act in self-defense?
• Did the State fail to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Finley was not acting in self-defense when he stabbed a larger, older man?
• Did irrelevant evidence infect the fairness of the proceedings, rendering the trial unfair and the results unreliable?
• Was the 70-year sentence for manslaughter excessive and disproportionate, violating the Eighth Amendment?
• Did the failure to properly answer the jury's question about pardon and parole result in an inflated sentence?
• Did cumulative trial errors deprive Finley of a fair trial and reliable verdict?
• Should the written judgment and sentence be corrected to reflect that Finley was not sentenced as an habitual offender?

Findings

• The court erred in conveying that Finley was not legally entitled to act in self-defense.
• The evidence was sufficient to rebut Finley's claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The irrelevant evidence did not affect the jury's verdict of guilt.
• The sentence was excessive and disproportionate, violating the Eighth Amendment.
• The failure to properly answer the jury's question about pardon and parole affected the sentence.
• No cumulative error occurred that affected the verdict of guilt.
• The written judgment and sentence should be corrected to reflect that Finley was not sentenced as an habitual offender.

F-2004-682

May 1, 2006

Felix Finley, IV

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

CHAPEL, PRESIDING JUDGE: Felix Finley, IV was tried by jury and convicted of the lesser included offense of Manslaughter in the First Degree, in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 711, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2003-2561. In accordance with the jury’s recommendation, the Honorable Susan S. Caswell sentenced Finley to seventy (70) years imprisonment. Finley appeals from this conviction and sentence. Finley raises seven propositions of error in support of his appeal:

I. Irrelevant and inconsistent instructions, coupled with the prosecutor’s misleading argument, erroneously conveyed to the jury that Finley was not legally entitled to act in self-defense;

II. The State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Finley was not acting in self-defense when he stabbed a larger, older man, who was holding and punching him;

III. Irrelevant evidence SO infected the fairness of the proceedings that the trial was unfair and the results were unreliable;

IV. The 70-year sentence for manslaughter is SO excessive and disproportionate as to violate the Eighth Amendment;

V. Failure to properly answer the jury’s question about pardon and parole resulted in an inflated sentence;

VI. The trial errors cumulatively deprived Finley of a fair trial and reliable verdict; and

VII. The written judgment and sentence should be corrected to reflect accurately that Finley was not sentenced as an habitual offender.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits and briefs, we find that Finley’s conviction for manslaughter should be affirmed. However, the case must be reversed and remanded for resentencing.

We find in Proposition I that the standard uniform jury instructions on self-defense accurately state the law, were supported by the evidence presented, and were appropriately given. We find in Proposition II that the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Finley’s claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. We find in Proposition III that irrelevant evidence of the conditions surrounding Finley’s arrest, and gang evidence, did not affect the jury’s verdict of guilt; any potential prejudice in sentencing is cured by our resolution of Proposition V. We find in Proposition VI that no accumulation of error occurred which affected the verdict of guilt, and any error which may have affected the imposition of sentence is cured by our resolution of Proposition V. We find in Proposition V that Finley’s jury should have been instructed that he would be required, by statute, to serve 85% of any sentence imposed for either murder or manslaughter before becoming eligible to be considered for parole. We recently decided this issue in Anderson v. State, 2006 OK CR 6. Finley is entitled to relief on this issue as his appeal was pending in this Court when Anderson was decided.

The case must be reversed and remanded for resentencing. Given this result, Propositions IV and VII are moot.

Decision

The Judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. The case is REVERSED and REMANDED to the District Court for RESENTENCING.

Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2006), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 711.
2. Allen v. State, 1994 OK CR 13, 871 P.2d 79, 93.
3. McDonald v. State, 1988 OK CR 245, 764 P.2d 202, 205.
4. Ruth v. State, 1978 OK CR 79, 581 P.2d 919, 922.
5. Wilkie v. State, 33 Okla. Crim. 225, 242 P. 1057, 1059 (1926).
6. Freeman v. State, 97 Okla. Crim. 275, 262 P.2d 713 (1953).
7. McHam v. State, 2005 OK CR 28, 126 P.3d 662, 667.
8. Hill v. State, 1995 OK CR 28, 898 P.2d 155, 168.
9. Mitchell v. State, 1993 OK CR 56, 876 P.2d 682, 684.
10. Allen v. State, 1989 OK CR 79, 783 P.2d 494, 497.
11. 12 O.S.2001, § 2401.
12. Hawkins v. State, 1994 OK CR 83, 891 P.2d 586, 593.
13. Malicoat v. State, 2000 OK CR 1, 992 P.2d 383.
14. Rogers v. State, 1995 OK CR 8, 890 P.2d 959, 971.
15. Ochoa v. State, 1998 OK CR 41, 963 P.2d 583, 597.
16. 20 O.S.2001, § 3001.1.
17. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 696, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2069, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
18. Alverson v. State, 1999 OK CR 21, 983 P.2d 498, 520.
19. Anderson v. State, 2006 OK CR 6, ¶ 24.
20. 21 O.S.2001, §§ 12.1, 13.1.
21. Griffin v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 327, 107 S.Ct. 708, 716, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 711 - Manslaughter in the First Degree
• Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2401 - General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence
• Okla. Stat. tit. 20 § 3001.1 - Parole Eligibility for Certain Offenses
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 12.1 - Provisions Concerning Attempt
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1 - Provisions Concerning Conspiracy

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

• 466 U.S. § 668 (1984) - Strickland v. Washington
• 479 U.S. § 314 (1987) - Griffin v. Kentucky

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• Allen v. State, 1994 OK CR 13, 871 P.2d 79, 93
• McDonald v. State, 1988 OK CR 245, 764 P.2d 202, 205
• Ruth v. State, 1978 OK CR 79, 581 P.2d 919, 922
• Wilkie v. State, 33 Okla. Crim. 225, 242 P. 1057, 1059 (1926)
• Freeman v. State, 97 Okla. Crim. 275, 262 P.2d 713 (1953)
• McHam, 2005 OK CR 28, 126 P.3d 662, 667
• Hill v. State, 1995 OK CR 28, 898 P.2d 155, 168
• Mitchell v. State, 1993 OK CR 56, 876 P.2d 682, 684
• Hawkins v. State, 1994 OK CR 83, 891 P.2d 586, 593
• Malicoat v. State, 2000 OK CR 1, 992 P.2d 383
• Rogers v. State, 1995 OK CR 8, 890 P.2d 959, 971
• Ochoa v. State, 1998 OK CR 41, 963 P.2d 583, 597
• Anderson v. State, 2006 OK CR 6, 1 24
• Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 696, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2069, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
• Alverson v. State, 1999 OK CR 21, 983 P.2d 498, 520
• Griffin v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 327, 107 S.Ct. 708, 716, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987)