Robert Neal Owens v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2018-512

Filed: Jul. 18, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

**Owens appealed his conviction for Sexual Battery and Child Abuse by Injury. Conviction and sentence: 10 years for Sexual Battery and 45 years for Child Abuse, to be served one after the other for a total of 55 years. No one dissented.** In this case, Robert Neal Owens was found guilty of Sexual Battery and Child Abuse by Injury. He was sentenced to ten years in prison for Sexual Battery and forty-five years for Child Abuse, which means he will serve a total of fifty-five years. Owens claimed that there was not enough evidence against him for either crime. However, the court decided that there was enough proof to support both convictions. They confirmed that Owens' actions, such as touching inappropriately and causing injury to a child, were serious crimes. Owens also argued that his long sentence was too harsh, but the court disagreed, saying the punishment was reasonable considering his history of previous crimes. In the end, the court upheld the original decision and confirmed Owens' sentence.

Decision

The Judgment and 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

• Was there sufficient evidence to support a conviction for sexual battery?
• Was there sufficient evidence to support a conviction for child abuse by injury?
• Were the sentences imposed excessive and should they be modified?

Findings

• Evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for sexual battery.
• Evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for child abuse by injury.
• The sentences imposed were not excessive and did not shock the conscience of the court.

F-2018-512

Jul. 18, 2019

Robert Neal Owens

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

ROWLAND, JUDGE:

Appellant Robert Neal Owens appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Lincoln County, Case No. CF-2017-122, for Sexual Battery, After Former Conviction of Six Felonies (Count 1), in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 1123(B) and Child Abuse by Injury, After Former Conviction of Six Felonies (Count 2), in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(A). The Honorable Cynthia Ferrell Ashwood, District Judge, presided over Owens’ non-jury trial, found him guilty as to both counts and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment on Count 1 and forty-five years imprisonment on Count 2. Judge Ashwood ordered the sentences to run consecutively with each other and awarded credit for all time served.

Owens raises the following issues: (1) whether the state presented sufficient evidence to support a conviction for sexual battery; (2) whether the state presented sufficient evidence to support a conviction for child abuse by injury; and (3) whether his sentences are excessive and should be modified. We find relief is not required and affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court.

1. Owens contends his conviction on Count 1 – Sexual Battery must be reversed for insufficient evidence. Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Coddington v. State, 2006 OK CR 34, T 70, 142 P.3d 437, 456; Spuehler U. State, 1985 OK CR 132, T 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04. This Court does not reweigh conflicting evidence or second-guess the fact-finding decisions of the trier of fact; we accept all reasonable inferences and credibility choices that tend to support the verdict. See Day U. State, 2013 OK CR 8, I 12, 303 P.3d 291, 298; Coddington, 2006 OK CR 34, 70, 142 P.3d at 456. We further recognize that the law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence and either, or any combination of the two, may be sufficient to support a conviction. Miller v. State, 2013 OK CR 11, II 84, 313 P.3d 934, 965. Pieces of evidence must be viewed not in isolation but in conjunction, and we must affirm the conviction so long as, from the inferences reasonably drawn from the record as a whole, the [fact finder] might fairly have concluded the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Matthews v. State, 2002 OK CR 16, I 35, 45 P.3d 907, 919-20.

Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, we find a rational trier of fact could reasonably find beyond a reasonable doubt all the necessary elements of Sexual Battery, including that Owens touched the victim in a lewd and lascivious manner and without the victim’s consent. Owens’ claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for Count 1 is therefore denied.

2. Owens contends his conviction on Count 2 must also be reversed for insufficient evidence. We review this claim using the same standard set forth above. Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, we likewise find a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt the necessary elements of child abuse by injury, including that Owens caused injury to the victim by obstructing his airway when he placed the child victim in a chokehold. Owens’ claim of insufficient evidence on Count 2 is therefore rejected.

3. Owens contends his consecutive sentences totaling fifty-five years are excessive because the State’s evidence was weak and did not establish appalling criminal conduct. This Court will not disturb a sentence within statutory limits unless, under the facts and circumstances of the case, it shocks the conscience of the Court. Thompson v. State, 2018 OK CR 32, 16, 429 P.3d 690, 694. This was Owens’ seventh felony conviction. He had two prior felony convictions for similar offenses and the sentence imposed was within the statutory range of punishment. The district court considered Owens’ conduct as well as his prior record and imposed punishment accordingly. We find Owens’ claim of excessive sentence is without merit because his sentence does not meet this Court’s shock the conscience test. This claim is denied.

DECISION

The Judgment and 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. 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 1123(B)
2. 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(A)
3. 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1
4. Coddington v. State, 2006 OK CR 34, T 70, 142 P.3d 437, 456
5. Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, T 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04
6. Day v. State, 2013 OK CR 8, I 12, 303 P.3d 291, 298
7. Miller v. State, 2013 OK CR 11, II 84, 313 P.3d 934, 965
8. Matthews v. State, 2002 OK CR 16, I 35, 45 P.3d 907, 919-20
9. Thompson v. State, 2018 OK CR 32, 16, 429 P.3d 690, 694
10. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1123 (2015) - Sexual Battery
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 843.5 (2014) - Child Abuse by Injury
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1 (2015) - Parole Eligibility

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:

• Coddington v. State, 2006 OK CR 34, T 70, 142 P.3d 437, 456
• Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, T 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04
• Day v. State, 2013 OK CR 8, I 12, 303 P.3d 291, 298
• Miller v. State, 2013 OK CR 11, II 84, 313 P.3d 934, 965
• Matthews v. State, 2002 OK CR 16, I 35, 45 P.3d 907, 919-20
• Thompson v. State, 2018 OK CR 32, 16, 429 P.3d 690, 694