Michael Wayne Schulze v The State of Oklahoma

F-2006-896

Filed: Jul. 19, 2007

Not for Publication

Prevailing Party: Michael Wayne Schulze

Summary

# Michael Wayne Schulze appealed his conviction for First Degree Arson. Conviction and sentence affirmed. LUMPKIN dissented. Michael Wayne Schulze was found guilty by a jury for starting a fire, hurting someone, and being drunk in public. He was sentenced to a total of 45 years in prison and had to pay some big fines. Schulze thought his trial was unfair and claimed there were mistakes in the jury instructions and how the evidence was treated. The court looked at everything and decided that there was enough proof that Schulze did start the fire. They agreed that some parts of the sentencing for the smaller charges (the misdemeanors) were wrong and canceled the fines for those. However, they said his sentences for the arson and assault were fine. Schulze's request for a new trial was not accepted.

Decision

The Judgments and Sentences of the District Court for Counts I and II are AFFIRMED. The Judgments for Counts III and IV are AFFIRMED. The Sentences for Counts III and IV are MODIFIED by VACATING the fines imposed for those Counts. Schulze's Motion for New Trial is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2007), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• was there sufficient evidence to prove Schulze was guilty of First Degree Arson?
• did the trial court err in instructing jurors about the sentencing options for Count I?
• was the fine imposed for Count I authorized by law and the result of erroneous jury instructions?
• should the sentences for the misdemeanor counts be reversed or modified due to erroneous jury instructions?
• was Schulze prejudiced by the prosecutor's conduct during sentencing?

Findings

• the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for Count I - Arson in the First Degree
• the trial court erred in instructing jurors on sentencing, but relief is not required
• the trial court did not err in instructing jurors that they could recommend a fine of no more than $25,000 on Count I
• the trial court failed to instruct the jury correctly on the range of punishment for Counts III and IV, resulting in the vacation of those fines
• the prosecutor did not engage in improper argument

F-2006-896

Jul. 19, 2007

Michael Wayne Schulze

Appellant

v

The State of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

CHAPEL, JUDGE:

Michael Wayne Schulze was tried by jury and convicted of Count I, First Degree Arson in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 1401, after former conviction of two felonies; Count II, Assault and battery domestic abuse (misdemeanor) in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2005, § 644(C); Count III, Assault and battery (misdemeanor) in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2005, § 644(B); and Count IV, public intoxication in violation of 37 O.S.2001, § 8, in the District Court of Cherokee County, Case No. CF-2005-471. In accordance with the jury’s recommendation the Honorable G. Bruce Sewell sentenced Schulze to forty-five (45) years imprisonment and a $25,000 fine (Count I); one (1) year in the county jail and a $5,000 fine (Count II); ninety (90) days in jail and a $750 fine (Count III); and thirty (30) days in jail and a $100 fine (Count IV). Schulze appeals from these convictions and sentences.

Schulze raises five propositions of error in support of his appeal:

I. The evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Schulze was guilty of Count I – Arson in the First Degree;

II. Schulze’s sentence of imprisonment on Count I should be modified because it was based on a misleading jury instruction;

III. The fine imposed on Schulze for Count I – Arson in the First Degree – should be vacated or modified because it was not authorized by law and was the result of erroneous jury instructions;

IV. The sentence on each misdemeanor count should be reversed or modified because each was the result of an erroneous jury instruction; and

V. Schulze was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s improper conduct in regard to sentencing.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits and briefs, we find that Schulze’s sentences for Counts III and IV must be modified. No further relief is required.

We find in Proposition I that, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could find that Schulze set the trailer on fire. Schulze’s Motion for New Trial on this issue is denied.

We find in Proposition II that the trial court erred in instructing jurors Schulze could be sentenced to any number of years rather than life imprisonment. However, we find that, under the narrow circumstances of this case, this error does not require relief.

We find in Proposition III that the trial court did not err in instructing jurors that they could recommend a fine of no more than $25,000 on Count I.

We find in Proposition IV that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the correct range of punishment for Counts III and IV. The language used in instruction on those counts incorrectly implied that jurors must impose a fine. Although Schulze did not object to the instructions, this error in instruction constitutes a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and requires relief. Schulze’s fines for Counts III and IV are vacated.

We find in Proposition V that the prosecutor did not engage in improper argument.

Decision

The Judgments and Sentences of the District Court for Counts I and II are AFFIRMED. The Judgments for Counts III and IV are AFFIRMED. The Sentences for Counts III and IV are MODIFIED by VACATING the fines imposed for those Counts. Schulze’s Motion for New Trial is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2007), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Dodd v. State, 2004 OK CR 31, 100 P.3d 1017, 1041-42.
2. Wilhoit v. State, 1991 OK CR 50, 816 P.2d 545, 546; 22 O.S.2001, § 953; Rule .1(A), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2007).
3. 21 O.S.Supp.2002, § 51.1(B).
4. 20 O.S.2001, § 3001.1.
5. Brewer v. State, 2006 OK CR 16, 133 P.3d 892, 895; Spears U. State, 1995 OK CR 36, 900 P.2d 431, 445.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1401 (2001) - Arson in the First Degree
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 644(C) (Supp. 2005) - Assault and Battery Domestic Abuse
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 644(B) (Supp. 2005) - Assault and Battery
• Okla. Stat. tit. 37 § 8 (2001) - Public Intoxication
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 953 (2001) - Motion for New Trial
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 51.1(B) (Supp. 2002) - Sentence Enhancement
• Okla. Stat. tit. 20 § 3001.1 (2001) - General Provisions

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:

• Dodd v. State, 2004 OK CR 31, 100 P.3d 1017, 1041-42.
• Matthews v. State, 2002 OK CR 16, 45 P.3d 907, 919-20.
• Wilhoit v. State, 1991 OK CR 50, 816 P.2d 545, 546.
• Jackson v. State, 2006 OK CR 45, 146 P.3d 1149, 1160.
• Brewer v. State, 2006 OK CR 16, 133 P.3d 892, 895.
• Spears v. State, 1995 OK CR 36, 900 P.2d 431, 445.