Carl Douglas Crick, Jr. v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2018-626

Filed: Oct. 17, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Carl Douglas Crick, Jr. appealed his conviction for first-degree rape and other related charges. Conviction and sentence were upheld, and he received life imprisonment and long sentences for his crimes. Judge Lumpkin dissented.

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 ineffective assistance of counsel at trial in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?
• Did trial counsel fail to present the testimony of certain witnesses?
• Did trial counsel fail to object to improper vouching by a prosecution witness?
• Was there a clear and convincing showing of a strong possibility that trial counsel was ineffective?
• Did the failure to utilize certain evidence or object to certain testimony deny Appellant a trial whose result is reliable?

Findings

• the court did not err in the denial of the motion to supplement the record and request for evidentiary hearing regarding ineffective assistance of counsel
• trial counsel's failure to object to vouching testimony was not deficient as the objection was meritless
• Proposition One regarding ineffective assistance of counsel is denied
• the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED

F-2018-626

Oct. 17, 2019

Carl Douglas Crick, Jr.

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Carl Douglas Crick, Jr., Appellant, was tried by jury and found guilty of Counts 1 and 4, first degree rape, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2006, § 1111; Count 2, rape by instrumentation, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2009, § 1111.1; Counts 3 and 5, lewd or indecent acts with a child under age 16, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1123; and Count 6, lewd or indecent acts with a child under age 12, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1123; in the District Court of Logan County, Case No. CF-2014-205. The jury sentenced him to life imprisonment in Counts 1, 2, and 4; twenty (20) years imprisonment in Counts 3 and 5, and fifty (50) years imprisonment in Count 6. The Honorable Phillip Corley, District Judge, pronounced judgment and ordered the sentences in Counts 1 through 5 to be served concurrently and Count 6 to be served consecutively.

Mr. Crick appeals in the following proposition of error:

1. Crick received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Appellant argues in Proposition One that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel by counsel’s failure to present the testimony of certain witnesses and object to an instance of improper vouching by a prosecution witness. Pursuant to Rule 3.11(B), Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, 22 O.S.Supp.2018, Ch. 18, App., Appellant has also filed a motion to supplement the record with evidence supporting his claims, and requests an evidentiary hearing. We review this claim under Strickland U. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), requiring that Appellant show not only that trial counsel performed deficiently, but that Appellant was prejudiced by it. Id., 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. Deficient performance requires a showing of errors 1 Appellant must serve 85% of his sentences before being eligible for consideration for parole. 22 O.S.2011, § 13.1 (10, 18). 2 SO serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Id. Prejudice to the defense occurs when counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Id. To obtain an evidentiary hearing under Rule 3.11(B), Appellant must present clear and convincing evidence of a strong possibility trial counsel was ineffective for failing to identify or utilize available evidence. Rule 3.11(B)(3)(b). This burden is less demanding than the Strickland standard itself. Simpson v. State, 2010 OK CR 6, I 53, 230 P.3d 888, 905-06. The grant of an evidentiary hearing is not a finding that defense counsel was ineffective, but a preliminary decision that the facts warrant a further opportunity to develop such a claim. On the other hand, the denial of a request for evidentiary hearing under the less demanding burden of Rule 3.11(B) necessarily implies a conclusion that the Appellant has not shown a violation of Sixth Amendment under Strickland. Id.

Reviewing Appellant’s claim that counsel was deficient in failing to utilize certain testimony at trial, we find that Appellant’s submissions of that supposed testimony do not clearly and 3 convincingly show a strong possibility that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective. Appellant’s motion to supplement the record and request for evidentiary hearing on this part of his claim are therefore denied.

Appellant next argues that trial counsel was deficient by failing to object to a prosecution witness’s improper vouching for the credibility of the alleged victim. See Lawrence U. State, 1990 OK CR 56, II 3-4, 796 P.2d 1176, 1177 (finding social worker’s opinion testimony that child sexual abuse victims of a certain age do not lie about these things was reversible error). We find the vouching in Lawrence distinguishable from the statement here, which explained why a DHS investigator remained skeptical of a child’s recantation and recommended continued services for the children involved. Counsel is not deficient for failing to make meritless objections. Jackson U. State, 2016 OK CR 5, I 13, 371 P.3d 1120, 1123. Because Appellant has not shown that counsel’s alleged failure to utilize certain evidence, or object to certain testimony, was constitutionally deficient, or that these alleged errors denied Appellant a trial whose result is reliable, 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.1 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOGAN COUNTY

THE HONORABLE PHILLIP CORLEY, DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL
APPEARANCES ON APPEAL
REBECCA KING
JAMES L. HANKINS
127 S. BROAD
929 N.W. 164TH STREET
GUTHRIE, OK 73044
EDMOND, OK 73013
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

ADAM BANNER
1900 N.W. EXPWY., STE 601
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

KAREN DIXON
MIKE HUNTER
ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
301 EAST HARRISON AVENUE
KATHERINE R. MORELLI
GUTHRIE, OK 73044
ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL
ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE
313 N.E. 21 ST STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

OPINION BY: LEWIS, P.J.
KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur
LUMPKIN, J.: Concur
HUDSON, J.: Concur
ROWLAND, J.: Concur

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 21 O.S.Supp.2006, § 1111
2. 21 O.S.Supp.2009, § 1111.1
3. 21 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1123
4. 21 O.S.Supp.2011, § 13.1 (10, 18)
5. Strickland U. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
6. Lawrence U. State, 1990 OK CR 56, II 3-4, 796 P.2d 1176, 1177
7. Jackson U. State, 2016 OK CR 5, "I 13, 371 P.3d 1120, 1123
8. Rule 3.11(B), Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, 22 O.S.Supp.2018, Ch. 18, App.
9. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1111 (2006) - Rape in the First Degree
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1111.1 (2009) - Rape by Instrumentation
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1123 (2013) - Lewd or Indecent Acts with a Child Under Age 16
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 13.1 (2011) - Eligibility for Parole
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.11 (2018) - Evidentiary Hearings

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:

• Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
• Simpson v. State, 2010 OK CR 6, I 53, 230 P.3d 888, 905-06
• Lawrence v. State, 1990 OK CR 56, II 3-4, 796 P.2d 1176, 1177
• Jackson v. State, 2016 OK CR 5, "I 13, 371 P.3d 1120, 1123