Sean Bryce Hill v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2018-326

Filed: May 23, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Sean Bryce Hill appealed his conviction for stalking. His conviction and sentence were four years in prison and a $2,500 fine. Judge April Seibert made the ruling. Hill disagreed, saying that the State did not prove there was a protective order during the times he followed and bothered the victim. However, the court decided that there was enough evidence to show he broke the order, so they affirmed the judgment. No judges disagreed with this decision.

Decision

The judgment and sentence 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 the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a protective order was in effect when Sean Bryce Hill allegedly stalked and harassed the victim?
• Did the State's failure to produce the protective order during the trial result in a prejudicial misstatement of the facts?

Findings

• The court did not err regarding the existence of the protective order and found the evidence sufficient.
• The judgment and sentence is affirmed.

F-2018-326

May 23, 2019

Sean Bryce Hill

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Sean Bryce Hill, Appellant, was tried by jury and convicted of stalking, a felony, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 1173, in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2017-3903. The jury sentenced him to four (4) years imprisonment and a $2,500.00 fine. The Honorable April Seibert, Special Judge, pronounced judgment and sentence accordingly. Mr. Hill appeals in the following proposition of error:

1. The State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the protective order during the incidents after February 27, 2018 by not introducing the protective order which was in existence during this time. The use of the temporary protective order was not an (sic) accurate after February 27, 2018, and to state it was in existence was prejudicial and a misstatement of the facts.

In Proposition One, Appellant challenges the State’s failure to produce evidence that a protective order was in effect at the time of his alleged following and harassment of the victim. We review this proposition by viewing the evidence, and all reasonable inferences from it, in the light most favorable to the State, asking whether any rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, I 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04. The evidence that Appellant followed and harassed the victim while a valid protective order prohibited these acts is sufficient. Proposition One is denied.

DECISION

The judgment and sentence 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 the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 1173
2. Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, I 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04
3. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1173 (2015) - Stalking

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:

• Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, I 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04