Douglas Edward Scott v State Of Oklahoma
F-2018-617
Filed: Apr. 25, 2019
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma
Summary
Douglas Edward Scott appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation and Petit Larceny. His conviction and sentence were for eight years in prison for the assault and six months in jail for the larceny. The sentences will be served at the same time. Judge Hudson dissented.
Decision
The JUDGMENT and SENTENCE is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.1 18, App. (2018), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
Issues
- was the evidence sufficient to support the charge of Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation?
- was Appellant's sentence for Count 1 excessive and should it be modified by the Court?
Findings
- Evidence was sufficient to support the charge of Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation.
- The sentence for Count 1 is not excessive and should not be modified.
F-2018-617
Apr. 25, 2019
Douglas Edward Scott
Appellant
v
State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Appellant Douglas Edward Scott was tried in a non-jury trial before the Honorable Cynthia Ferrell Ashwood, District Judge, and convicted of Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation, After Former Conviction of a Felony (Count I) (21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(J)) and Petit Larceny (Count II) (21 O.S.Supp.2017, § 1704), in the District Court of Lincoln County, Case No. CF-2017-206. The trial court sentenced Appellant to eight (8) years imprisonment in Count I and six (6) months in the county jail in Count II, said sentences to run concurrently. It is from this judgment and sentence that Appellant appeals.
Appellant raises the following propositions of error in support of his appeal:
I. The evidence was insufficient to support the charge of Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation.
II. Appellant’s sentence for Count 1 is excessive and should be modified by the Court.
After thorough consideration of these propositions and the entire record before us on appeal including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we have determined that under the law and the evidence no relief is warranted.
In Proposition I, we review Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Mitchell v. State, 2018 OK CR 24, I 11, 424 P.3d 677, 682. While there was conflicting testimony in this case, we do not reweigh conflicting evidence or second-guess the decision of the fact-finder; we accept all reasonable inferences and credibility choices that tend to support the verdict. Id. The credibility of witnesses and the weight and consideration to be given to their testimony are within the exclusive province of the trier of facts. Rutan v. State, 2009 OK CR 3, I 49, 202 P.3d 839, 849. Here, the judge heard both the State’s evidence and Appellant’s testimony and rejected his claim of innocence. There is sufficient competent evidence in the record to support that decision and to support the finding of guilt. This proposition is denied.
In Proposition II, we find Appellant’s sentence of eight (8) years for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation, After Former Conviction of a Felony, is within the statutory range of punishment and appropriate based on the facts and circumstance of the case. The sentence is not so excessive as to shock the conscience of the Court. See Thompson v. State, 2018 OK CR 32, I 16, 429 P.3d 690, 694 (this Court will not modify a sentence within the statutory range unless, considering all the facts and circumstances, it shocks our conscience). No modification of the sentence is warranted and this proposition is denied.
Accordingly, this appeal 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.1 18, App. (2018), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY
THE HONORABLE CYNTHIA FERRELL ASHWOOD, DISTRICT JUDGE
APPEARANCES AT TRIAL
CHARLES MICHAEL THOMPSON
P.O. BOX 926
NORMAN, OK 73070
PATRICK AARON THOMPSON
104 W. 8TH ST.
CHANDLER, OK 74834
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
RICHARD SMOTHERMON
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
MIKE HUNTER
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
PATRICIA HIGH
ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY
JOSHUA R. FANELLI
LINCOLN CO. COURTHOUSE
811 MANVEL AVE., STE. 1
CHANDLER, OK 74834
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE
OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.
LEWIS, P.J.: Concur
KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur
HUDSON, J.: Concur
ROWLAND, J.: Concur
Footnotes:
- 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(J)
- 21 O.S.Supp.2017, § 1704
- Mitchell v. State, 2018 OK CR 24, I 11, 424 P.3d 677, 682
- Rutan v. State, 2009 OK CR 3, I 49, 202 P.3d 839, 849
- Thompson v. State, 2018 OK CR 32, I 16, 429 P.3d 690, 694
- Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.1 18, App. (2018)
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 644(J) - Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1704 - Petit Larceny
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:
- Mitchell v. State, 2018 OK CR 24, I 11, 424 P.3d 677, 682.
- Rutan v. State, 2009 OK CR 3, I 49, 202 P.3d 839, 849.
- Thompson v. State, 2018 OK CR 32, I 16, 429 P.3d 690, 694.