Renese Bramlett v The State of Oklahoma

F-2018-1020

Filed: Oct. 31, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Renese Bramlett appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. The conviction and sentence were life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Judge William J. Musseman presided over the trial and resentencing. Bramlett argued that the prosecutor acted wrongly, that he did not get a fair chance to offer evidence to help his case, and that his case should have been changed instead of sent back for resentencing. The court found no reason to change the outcome and upheld the sentence. Judge Kuehn and Judge Lewis agreed with the decision but had some separate thoughts.

Decision

The Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• whether prosecutorial misconduct requires modification of his sentence to life with the possibility of parole
• whether he was denied due process because the State offered evidence of his prior felony convictions and he was not allowed to offer evidence in mitigation
• whether his case on appeal should have been modified rather than remanded for resentencing

Findings

• the court did not err in denying modification of the sentence based on prosecutorial misconduct
• the court did not err in excluding mitigating evidence regarding prior felony convictions
• the court did not err in remanding for resentencing instead of modifying the sentence

F-2018-1020

Oct. 31, 2019

Renese Bramlett

Appellant

v

The State of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

Appellant Renese Bramlett was convicted by jury in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2015-4266, of First Degree Murder, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 701.7. The jury assessed punishment at life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Honorable William J. Musseman, District Judge, presided at trial and sentenced Bramlett accordingly. Bramlett appealed his Judgment and Sentence to this Court in Case No. F-2016-1052. In a published opinion, this Court affirmed Bramlett’s judgment but vacated his sentence and remanded the cause to the district court for resentencing. Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19, 422 P.3d 788. Bramlett’s resentencing trial was held on September 10-12, 2018. At the conclusion of the resentencing trial, the jury assessed punishment at life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Honorable William J. Musseman, District Judge, who presided over the resentencing trial sentenced Bramlett accordingly. Bramlett appeals, raising the following issues: (1) whether prosecutorial misconduct requires modification of his sentence to life with the possibility of parole; (2) whether he was denied due process because the State offered evidence of his prior felony convictions and he was not allowed to offer evidence in mitigation; (3) whether his case on appeal should have been modified rather than remanded for resentencing. We find relief is not required and affirm the sentence of the district court.

1. Bramlett argues in his first proposition that modification of his sentence is required because the prosecutor appealed to the sympathy of the jury during closing argument. Because the comments at issue were not met with contemporaneous objection below we review for plain error only. Barnes v. State, 2017 OK CR 2, ¶ 6, 408 P. 3d 209, 213. Plain error is an actual error, that is plain or obvious, and that affects a defendant’s substantial rights, affecting the outcome of the trial. Mitchell v. State, 2016 OK CR 21, ¶ 24, 387 P.3d 934, 943. It is true that blatant appeals to sympathy are inappropriate. See Terrell v. State, 2018 OK CR 22, ¶ 8, 425 P.3d 399, 401 (citing Ashton v. State, 2017 OK CR 15, ¶ 51, 400 P.3d 887, 900). However, we evaluate the alleged misconduct within the context of the entire trial, considering not only the propriety of the prosecutor’s actions, but also the strength of the evidence against the defendant and the corresponding arguments of defense counsel. Hanson v. State, 2009 OK CR 13, ¶ 18, 206 P.3d 1020, 1028. Both sides have wide latitude to discuss the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom. Harmon v. State, 2011 OK CR 6, ¶ 81, 248 P.3d 918, 943. Relief is only granted where the prosecutor’s flagrant misconduct so infected the defendant’s trial that it was rendered fundamentally unfair. See Jones v. State, 2011 OK CR 13, ¶ 3, 253 P.3d 997, 998. It is the rare instance when a prosecutor’s misconduct during closing argument will be found to be so egregiously detrimental to a defendant’s right to a fair trial that reversal is required. Pryor v. State, 2011 OK CR 18, ¶ 4, 254 P.3d 721, 722. The comments at issue were not inappropriate appeals to sympathy but, rather, were proper comments on the evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. This argument is without merit and relief is not required.

2. Pursuant to 21 O.S.Supp.2013, § 701.10-1, the State offered evidence of Bramlett’s prior felony convictions at the trial on resentencing. The defense objected to the introduction of this evidence. Defense counsel argued that it was unfair to allow the State to offer this evidence when the defense was precluded from offering evidence in mitigation of punishment. The trial court rejected this argument overruling defense counsel’s objection to the introduction of this evidence. Bramlett reurges his argument on appeal. While Bramlett states that he does not necessarily contend that he was entitled to present the full range of mitigating evidence required in a capital case, he argues that when the jury is allowed to hear evidence of prior felony convictions in a non-capital case, a defendant must be permitted to present something more than evidence that he is not the person named on a Judgment and Sentence. He asserts that failure to do so violates a defendant’s right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Bramlett acknowledges that this Court recently addressed this same issue in Vanderpool v. State, 2018 OK CR 39, 434 P.3d 318. In Vanderpool, this Court rejected a claim that noncapital murder defendants should be allowed to introduce evidence in mitigation of punishment because the State is allowed to introduce evidence of prior felony convictions. We found that the procedure set forth in Section 701.10-1 satisfies the fundamental requirements of due process. We noted that while the Oklahoma Legislature has not provided for an individualized sentencing hearing in noncapital cases, it has determined that the circumstance of prior felony convictions is relevant to the sentencing decision in a noncapital first degree murder trial. Id., 2018 OK CR 39, ¶ 45, 434 P.3d at 328. The Court added that although a defendant may not present mitigating evidence in the sentencing stage under Section 701.10-1, the statute does not run afoul of the premise that both parties had an equal opportunity to introduce relevant evidence. Id., 2018 OK CR 39, ¶ 46, 434 P.3d at 328. This Court concluded: Since Section 701.10-1 permits the defense the opportunity to present evidence to defend against the State’s evidence of prior convictions in the sentencing stage of the trial, it meets the fundamental requirements of due process. The statute is undoubtedly constitutional. Id. We reject Bramlett’s argument that Vanderpool was wrongly decided and decline his request to overrule our decision in that case.

3. Finally, Bramlett argues that modification is the preferred remedy when sentencing error has occurred. He argues several alleged perceived deficiencies in the resentencing process as applied to the facts of his case and asks this Court to modify his sentence to life with the possibility of parole. Bramlett asserts that the decision to remand a case for resentencing disadvantages a defendant because research suggests that a defendant who has already been found guilty by a jury is likely to receive a more severe sentence from a different jury on resentencing due to the absence of residual doubt which may have been present in the first trial. This, he asserts, is even more of a problem where the defendant is precluded from presenting mitigating evidence at the resentencing trial where the State introduces evidence of prior felony convictions. Finally, he argues that by ordering a new sentencing trial instead of modifying the sentence, the Court does not punish the prosecutor for his or her misconduct at trial. To the extent that Bramlett’s arguments are more about policy than controlling law they would be best directed to the Legislature. See Harris v. State, 2019 OK CR 22, ¶ 93, P.3d (citing Williams v. State, 2001 OK CR 24, ¶ 20, 31 P.3d 1046, 1051-52). Furthermore, Barnett’s arguments that he was disadvantaged by a resentencing trial are purely speculative. He does not allege any error of law in his resentencing trial and we find none. His request for relief is denied.

DECISION

The Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Barnes U. State, 2017 OK CR 2, 26, I 6, 408 P. 3d 209, 213.
2. Mitchell U. State, 2016 OK CR 21, I 24, 387 P.3d 934, 943.
3. Terrell U. State, 2018 OK CR 22, IT 8, 425 P.3d 399, 401 (citing Ashton U. State, 2017 OK CR 15, IT 51, 400 P.3d 887, 900).
4. Hanson U. State, 2009 OK CR 13, I 18, 206 P.3d 1020, 1028.
5. Jones U. State, 2011 OK CR 13, "I 3, 253 P.3d 997, 998.
6. Pryor U. State, 2011 OK CR 18, I 4, 254 P.3d 721, 722.
7. Vanderpool v. State, 2018 OK CR 39, 434 P.3d 318.
8. Harris U. State, 2019 OK CR 22, I 93, P.3d (citing Williams U. State, 2001 OK CR 24, I 20, 31 P.3d 1046, 1051-52).
9. Ashton U. State, 2017 OK CR 15, IT 53, 400 P.3d 887, 900, overruled on other grounds by Williamson v. State, 2018 OK CR 15, 422 P.3d 752.
10. 21 O.S.Supp.2018, § 51.1.
11. Roney U. State, 1991 OK CR 114, § 10, 819 P.2d 286, 288.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.7 - First Degree Murder
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.10-1 - Sentencing procedure for first degree murder
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 51.1 - General sentencing enhancement statute

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, 422 P.3d 788
• Barnes v. State, 2017 OK CR 26, 408 P.3d 209
• Mitchell v. State, 2016 OK CR 21, 387 P.3d 934
• Terrell v. State, 2018 OK CR 22, 425 P.3d 399
• Ashton v. State, 2017 OK CR 15, 400 P.3d 887
• Hanson v. State, 2009 OK CR 13, 206 P.3d 1020
• Jones v. State, 2011 OK CR 13, 253 P.3d 997
• Pryor v. State, 2011 OK CR 18, 254 P.3d 721
• Vanderpool v. State, 2018 OK CR 39, 434 P.3d 318
• Harris v. State, 2019 OK CR 22
• Williams v. State, 2001 OK CR 24, 31 P.3d 1046
• Roney v. State, 1991 OK CR 114, 819 P.2d 286