Keyuna Crystal Mosley v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2018-664

Filed: Sep. 19, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Keyuna Crystal Mosley appealed her conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. Her conviction and sentence were upheld, and she was sentenced to twenty years in prison, with the requirement that she serve 85% of her sentence before being eligible for parole. Judge Lewis, Judge Lumpkin, Judge Hudson, and Judge Rowland agreed with the opinion, while Judge Easlick dissented.

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. 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 Ms. Mosley's guilt of conjointly committing robbery with a dangerous weapon beyond a reasonable doubt?
• was the testimony of the victim sufficient to support the jury's verdict despite being allegedly unbelievable and uncorroborated?
• did the jury properly determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimony?
• did the Court appropriately evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the State?

Findings

• The evidence was sufficient to support Appellant's conviction of robbery with a dangerous weapon.
• The court did not err in its evaluation of witness credibility and the weight of testimony.

F-2018-664

Sep. 19, 2019

Keyuna Crystal Mosley

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE: Keyuna Crystal Mosley was tried by jury and convicted of Robbery with A Dangerous Weapon in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 801, after two or more previous felony convictions, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2017-1853. In accordance with the jury’s recommendation the Honorable Ray C. Elliott sentenced Appellant to twenty (20) years imprisonment. Appellant must serve 85% of her sentence before becoming eligible for parole consideration. 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1. Appellant appeals from this conviction and sentence.

Appellant raises one proposition of error in support of her appeal: The State’s evidence was insufficient to prove Ms. Mosley’s guilt of conjointly committing robbery with a dangerous weapon beyond a reasonable doubt such that due process requires her case to be reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits and briefs, we find that the law and evidence do not require relief. We find that, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed robbery with a dangerous weapon. Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, ¶ 15, 90 P.3d 556, 559.

To prove robbery with a dangerous weapon the State must show the wrongful taking and carrying away of personal property of another from his person or immediate presence, by force or fear, using a knife. 21 O.S.2011, § 801; OUJI-CR 2d 4-144. A principal to a crime is one who either directly and actively commits the acts constituting an offense or knowingly and with criminal intent aids and abets in the commission of the offense. Hackney v. State, 1994 OK CR 29, ¶ 9, 874 P.2d 810, 814; OUJI-CR 2d 2-5, 2-6.

Appellant claims the State failed to prove that she acted conjointly with her boyfriend to commit the robbery. She argues that victim Seale’s testimony was unbelievable and was contradicted by her own testimony. She suggests the State was required to, but did not, corroborate Seale’s testimony with other evidence, such as forensic evidence from the truck, text records, or records of their online communications. Appellant is mistaken. While the State could have offered such evidence in corroboration, it was by no means required to do so. Seale was both an eyewitness and the victim. The jury determines the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. Mason v. State, 2018 OK CR 37, ¶ 13, 433 P.3d 1264, 1269.

Viewing the evidence as a whole, we accept all reasonable inferences and choices tending to support the jury’s verdict. Id. Even where evidence sharply conflicts, we will not interfere with a verdict supported by evidence. Robinson v. State, 2011 OK CR 15, ¶ 17, 255 P.3d 425, 432. The evidence showed that Appellant lured victim Seale to the scene of the crime, called her cohort to the scene, and not only personally took but carried away Seale’s property while her cohort held the knife on the victim. This Court will not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the jury. White v. State, 2019 OK CR 2, ¶ 9, 437 P.3d 1061, 1065. This proposition 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. 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.Supp.2015, § 13.1
3. 21 O.S.2011, § 801
4. OUJI-CR 2d 4-144
5. Hackney v. State, 1994 OK CR 29, II 9, 874 P.2d 810, 814
6. Mason v. State, 2018 OK CR 37, I 13, 433 P.3d 1264, 1269
7. Robinson v. State, 2011 OK CR 15, 17, 255 P.3d 425, 432
8. White v. State, 2019 OK CR 2, I 9, 437 P.3d 1061, 1065
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 § 801 (2011) - Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1 (Supp. 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:

• Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, I 15, 90 P.3d 556, 559
• Hackney v. State, 1994 OK CR 29, II 9, 874 P.2d 810, 814
• Mason v. State, 2018 OK CR 37, I 13, 433 P.3d 1264, 1269
• Robinson v. State, 2011 OK CR 15, 17, 255 P.3d 425, 432
• White v. State, 2019 OK CR 2, I 9, 437 P.3d 1061, 1065