Blog

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA RASHAUN HAASTROP, ) ) NOT FOR PUBLICATION Appellant, ) vs. ) No. F-2018-1160 ) FILED THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ) STATE OF OKLAHOMA Appellee. ) DEC – 5 2019 JOHN D. HADDEN SUMMARY OPINION CLERK KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant, Rashaun Haastrop, was charged in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2018-55, with First Degree Burglary, After Conviction of Two Felonies. He was convicted of the lesser related offense of Attempted First Degree Burglary, After Conviction of Two Felonies. On November 13, 2018, the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, sentenced him to twenty years imprisonment in accordance with the jury’s recommendation. This appeal followed. Appellant raises one proposition of error in support of his appeal: PROPOSITION. THE STATE INTRODUCED INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT MR. HAASTROP HAD PRIOR CONVICTIONS OUT OF ILLINOIS AND THEREFORE HIS SENTENCE MUST BE MODIFIED. After thorough consideration of this proposition, the briefs of the parties, and the record on appeal, we affirm. Appellant’s sole complaint on appeal is that the State failed to sufficiently prove that he was the person named in two Illinois documents reflecting felony convictions for “Rashaun Haastrup,” or that those convictions were valid and final, i.e., that the defendant in those proceedings had the assistance of counsel and that the convictions had not been appealed. The two latter challenges were not raised below, SO we review them only for plain error. Mathis U. State, 2012 OK CR 1, “I 30, 271 P.3d 67, 78. Plain errors are those errors which are obvious in the record and affect the substantial rights of the defendant; that is, the error affects the outcome of the proceeding. Daniels U. State, 2016 OK CR 2, I 3, 369 P.3d 381, 383. The State offered two certified documents reflecting convictions in Illinois for a Rashaun Haastrup. The chronological entries on these documents show that in each case, (1) Mr. Haastrup was represented by counsel, (2) his rights to appeal were explained to him, but (3) no appeals were taken. The documents were generated several years after the convictions were entered, and neither reveal any activity after formal sentencing. See Bickerstaff U. State, 1983 OK CR 116, I 8, 669 P.2d 778, 780 (“Although the record does not specifically state whether the appellant completed an appeal of those [prior] convictions, the fact that the convictions occurred over nine years ago reflects the finality of 2 them”). On this record, the trial court’s conclusion that the convictions were valid and final was not plainly erroneous. As for whether Appellant (Rashaun Haastrop) and the person named in the documents (Rashaun Haastrup) are the same person, the jury received testimony from a police officer who interviewed Appellant after his arrest. The officer said that Appellant admitted serving prison time in Illinois for two different crimes, one for drugs and another for theft; the State’s documents reflected convictions for a drug crime and a theft crime. The officer retrieved the Illinois documents based on identifying information that Appellant gave him. Given the unusualness of both names, the similarity between them, and Appellant’s own admissions, a rational juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the convictions were, in fact, Appellant’s. Jackson U. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Garcia U. State, 1987 OK CR 49, I 30, 734 P.2d 820, 825. As there is no error, his sole proposition is denied. DECISION The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Oklahoma County is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma 3 Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL BENJAMIN MUNDA ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER BONNIE BLUMERT ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDERS OKLAHOMA COUNTY 320 ROBERT S. KERR AVE. PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE SUITE 611 320 ROBERT S. KERR AVE. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73101 SUITE 400 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT DANIEL GRIDLEY MIKE HUNTER DANIEL POND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA. ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS TESSA L. HENRY 320 ROBERT S. KERR AVENUE ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL SUITE 505 313 NE 21ST STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J. LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR 4

Click Here To Download PDF