Antonio Tiwan Taylor v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2018-359

Filed: May 16, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Antonio Tiwan Taylor appealed his conviction for robbery and other charges. His conviction and sentence were for thirty years for two counts of robbery, ten years for conspiracy, and ten years for possessing a firearm, all to be served one after the other. Judge Noma Kuehn wrote the opinion, and Judge Rowland did not participate. In June 2016, Taylor and two other men broke into a house, held the residents at gunpoint, and stole their money and things. One of the residents identified Taylor as one of the robbers. Later, Taylor was found with jewelry taken during the robbery. He argued that there wasn't enough evidence to prove his guilt and that he didn't get a fair trial because the jury wasn't told about the problems with eyewitness identification. He also argued that being punished for both robbery and possession of a firearm was unfair, and he asked for a new trial because of mistakes he believed happened during his original trial. The court disagreed with Taylor on all points and decided that there was enough evidence to support the conviction. They found that the eyewitness identification was strong, meaning the jury didn't need special instructions about it. The court also ruled that he could be convicted for both robbery and possessing a firearm without breaking any laws. Overall, the decision was to uphold his conviction and the lengthy sentence he received.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Oklahoma County is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.1 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was the state's evidence sufficient to prove Mr. Taylor's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, making the evidence insufficient to support a conviction?
• Did the trial court's refusal to give the jury the cautionary eyewitness identification instruction, where eyewitness testimony was the critical element of the State's case, deny Mr. Taylor a fair trial before a properly instructed jury?
• Do Mr. Taylor's separate convictions for robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm, involving a single act of possession, violate Oklahoma statute and constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy?
• Do trial errors, when considered in a cumulative fashion, warrant a new trial?

Findings

• evidence was sufficient to support a conviction
• the court did not err in refusing to give the cautionary eyewitness identification instruction
• there was no double-punishment violation
• there can be no cumulative error

F-2018-359

May 16, 2019

Antonio Tiwan Taylor

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant, Antonio Tiwan Taylor, was convicted by a jury in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2016-4761, of two counts of Robbery with a Firearm (21 O.S.2011, § 801) (Counts 1 and 2); one count of Conspiracy to Commit a Felony (21 O.S.2011, § 421) (Count 5); and one count of Felon in Possession of a Firearm (21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 1283) (Count 8), all After Conviction of Two or More Felonies. On April 2, 2018, the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, sentenced him in accordance with the jury’s recommendation as follows: Counts 1 and 2, thirty years imprisonment; Count 5, ten years imprisonment; and Count 8, ten years imprisonment, with all terms to be served consecutively. Appellant must serve at least 85% of his sentences on Counts 1 and 2 before parole consideration. 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1(8).

Appellant raises four propositions of error in support of his appeal:

PROPOSITION I. THE STATE’S EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE MR. TAYLOR’S GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, MAKING THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION.

PROPOSITION II. THE TRIAL COURT’S REFUSAL TO GIVE THE JURY THE CAUTIONARY EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION INSTRUCTION, WHERE EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY WAS THE CRITICAL ELEMENT OF THE STATE’S CASE, DENIED MR. TAYLOR A FAIR TRIAL BEFORE A PROPERLY INSTRUCTED JURY.

PROPOSITION III. MR. TAYLOR’S SEPARATE CONVICTIONS FOR ROBBERY AND UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM, INVOLVING A SINGLE ACT OF POSSESSION, VIOLATE OKLA. STAT. TIT. 21, § 11 AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

PROPOSITION IV. TRIAL ERRORS, WHEN CONSIDERED IN A CUMULATIVE FASHION, WARRANT A NEW TRIAL.

After thorough consideration of these propositions, the briefs of the parties, and the record on appeal, we affirm. In June 2016, three armed men broke into the Oklahoma County home of Felicia Alvarado and Andre Ward; they forced the residents to the floor, ransacked their home, and took their money and personal property. Alvarado subsequently identified Hernandez and Appellant as two of the gunmen; she testified that Hernandez was not wearing a mask, and that although Appellant had his face covered with a bandanna, she got a good look at his face when the bandanna momentarily fell off. About two weeks after the robbery, Appellant was found to be in possession of jewelry taken during the crime. Co-defendant Hernandez subsequently pled guilty to his involvement in the robbery and conspiracy, and named Appellant as one of his accomplices in a sworn statement. Although Hernandez repudiated that statement at Appellant’s trial, it remained substantive evidence of Appellant’s guilt. 12 O.S.2011, § 2801(B)(1)(a); Omalza U. State, 1995 OK CR 80, I 39, 911 P.2d 286, 300.

As to Proposition I, we find that (1) Alvarado’s positive identification of Appellant as one of the gunmen, coupled with (2) Appellant’s possession of property taken during the robbery, and (3) Hernandez’ sworn statement specifically naming Appellant as one of his accomplices, was sufficient evidence from which a rational juror could conclude, without any reasonable doubt, that Appellant was guilty as charged. Jackson U. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 316, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2787, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Easlick U. State, 2004 OK CR 21, 15, 90 P.3d 556, 559. Proposition I is denied.

As to Proposition II, before refusing defense counsel’s requested cautionary instruction on the dangers of eyewitness identification, the trial court carefully examined the factors relevant to whether the instruction was warranted. See Webb U. State, 1987 OK CR 253, I 10, 746 P.2d 203, 206. Given Alvarado’s opportunity to view the assailants, and her strong and consistent identification of Appellant as one of them, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the instruction. A special instruction on the dangers of eyewitness identification is not warranted unless there are serious questions about the reliability of the identification. McDoulett U. State, 1984 OK CR 81, I 9, 685 P.2d 978, 980. Proposition II is denied.

In Proposition III, Appellant claims his conviction for Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony (Count 8) should be dismissed. Because Appellant did not raise this claim below, we review only for plain error, which requires him to show a plain or obvious error affected the outcome of the proceeding. This Court will correct plain error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. Irwin U. State, 2018 OK CR 21, I 4, 424 P.3d 675, 676. Appellant claims that because the possession and use of a firearm was an essential component of the robbery charges, a separate conviction for possessing a firearm after conviction of a felony constitutes double punishment. See 21 O.S.2011, § 11(A) (in no case can a criminal act or omission be punished under more than one section of law). We disagree. Section 11 of the Oklahoma Penal Code generally allows punishment for both the felonious possession of a firearm and for other crimes in which the weapon is possessed or used. Thompson U. State, 2018 OK CR 32, I 12, 429 P.3d 690, 693-94. Through accomplice liability, Appellant was guilty of Robbery with Firearms even if he had never held a gun, since his two accomplices also used firearms during the home invasion. Furthermore, the State specifically alleged that the robbery counts and the felon-in-possession count involved different firearms. Compare Sanders U. State, 2015 OK CR 11, I 11, 358 P.3d 280, 284. There was no double-punishment violation here. Proposition III is denied.

As to Proposition IV, because we have identified no errors in the preceding propositions, there can be no cumulative error. Engles U. State, 2015 OK CR 17, I 13, 366 P.3d 311, 315. Proposition IV 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 Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 1 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.2011, § 801
2. 21 O.S.2011, § 421
3. 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 1283
4. 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1(8)
5. 21 O.S.2011, § 11(A)
6. 12 O.S.2011, § 2801(B)(1)(a)
7. Omalza U. State, 1995 OK CR 80, I 39, 911 P.2d 286, 300
8. Jackson U. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 316, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2787, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
9. Easlick U. State, 2004 OK CR 21, 15, 90 P.3d 556, 559
10. Webb U. State, 1987 OK CR 253, I 10, 746 P.2d 203, 206
11. McDoulett U. State, 1984 OK CR 81, I 9, 685 P.2d 978, 980
12. Irwin U. State, 2018 OK CR 21, I 4, 424 P.3d 675, 676
13. Thompson U. State, 2018 OK CR 32, I 12, 429 P.3d 690, 693-94
14. Sanders U. State, 2015 OK CR 11, I 11, 358 P.3d 280, 284
15. Engles U. State, 2015 OK CR 17, I 13, 366 P.3d 311, 315

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 801 - Robbery with Firearm
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 421 - Conspiracy to Commit a Felony
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1283 - Felon in Possession of a Firearm
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1 - Sentencing for certain offenses
• Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2801 - Definitions
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 11 - Multiple punishments for a criminal act

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:

• Omalza v. State, 1995 OK CR 80, I 39, 911 P.2d 286, 300
• Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 316, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2787, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
• Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, 15, 90 P.3d 556, 559
• Webb v. State, 1987 OK CR 253, I 10, 746 P.2d 203, 206
• McDoulett v. State, 1984 OK CR 81, I 9, 685 P.2d 978, 980
• Irwin v. State, 2018 OK CR 21, I 4, 424 P.3d 675, 676
• Thompson v. State, 2018 OK CR 32, I 12, 429 P.3d 690, 693-94
• Sanders v. State, 2015 OK CR 11, I 11, 358 P.3d 280, 284
• Engles v. State, 2015 OK CR 17, I 13, 366 P.3d 311, 315