Blog

F-2018-850

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

Johnny Aldric Samples, III v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2018-850

Filed: Dec. 19, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

# Johnny Aldric Samples, III appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. Conviction and sentence life imprisonment on four counts. Judge Kuehn 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 Mr. Samples denied due process and a fair trial when the trial court improperly admitted hearsay statements of B.L.?
  • Was Mr. Samples denied due process and a fair trial when the trial court improperly admitted irrelevant evidence?
  • Was the State's evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Samples sexually abused B.L.?
  • Was the State's evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Samples sexually abused C.L.?
  • Was Mr. Samples denied effective assistance of counsel to which he was entitled under the 6th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution?
  • Should Mr. Samples' convictions be reversed due to the cumulative effect of errors depriving him of a fair trial?
  • Did the trial court abuse its discretion in ordering Mr. Samples to serve his sentences consecutively, resulting in a constitutionally excessive sentence?

Findings

  • the trial court did not err in admitting hearsay statements of B.L.
  • the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of Joanna Cortez's suicide but the error was harmless.
  • the State's evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Samples sexually abused B.L.
  • the State's evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Samples sexually abused C.L.
  • Mr. Samples did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.
  • no cumulative error deprived Mr. Samples of a fair trial.
  • the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Mr. Samples to serve his sentences consecutively.

F-2018-850

Dec. 19, 2019

Johnny Aldric Samples, III

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LUMPKIN, JUDGE:

Appellant, Johnny Aldric Samples, III, was tried by jury and convicted of four counts of Child Sexual Abuse, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(E) (Counts 1-4), after former conviction of two or more felonies, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case Number CF-2016-7860. The jury recommended as punishment life imprisonment on each count. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly and ordered the sentences to run consecutively to one another. From this judgment and sentence Appellant appeals.

Appellant raises the following propositions of error in this appeal:
I. Mr. Samples was denied due process and a fair trial when the trial court improperly admitted hearsay statements of B.L. under 12 O.S.Supp.2013, § 2803.1.
II. Mr. Samples was denied due process and a fair trial when the trial court improperly admitted irrelevant evidence under 12 O.S.2011, § 2404(B).
III. The State’s evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Samples sexually abused B.L.
IV. The State’s evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Samples sexually abused C.L.
V. Mr. Samples was denied effective assistance of counsel to which he was entitled under the 6th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and Art. 2, §7 and 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
VI. Mr. Samples’ convictions should be reversed as the cumulative effect of errors deprived him of a fair trial.
VII. The trial court abused its discretion in ordering Mr. Samples to serve his sentences consecutively, therefore resulting in a constitutionally excessive sentence.

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, Appellant contends B.L.’s hearsay statements were improperly admitted pursuant to 12 O.S.Supp.2013, § 2803.1 since she was sixteen when she made them and did not have a disability as set forth in the statute. We review this claim for plain error since Appellant did not object on this basis in the trial court. Our test for analyzing plain error is found in Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, 876 P.2d 690. Under the Simpson test, we determine whether Appellant has shown an actual error, which is plain or obvious, and which affects his or her substantial rights. This Court will only correct plain error if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings or otherwise represents a miscarriage of justice.

Section 2803.1(A) allows the admission at trial of statements made by a child thirteen (13) years of age or older who has a disability which describes any act of sexual contact performed with or on the child or incapacitated person by another. It requires a hearing, outside the presence of the jury, for the trial court to determine if the time, content and totality of circumstances surrounding the taking of the statement provide sufficient indicia of reliability so as to render it inherently trustworthy. Section 2803.1(A)(1) provides that the trial court, in determining the trustworthiness of the statement, may consider, among other things, the spontaneity and consistent repetition of the statement, the declarant’s mental state at the time of the statement, whether the terminology used is unexpected of an incapacitated person and whether lack of a motive to fabricate exists.

We find the evidence supports the trial court’s determination that B.L. was a disabled child within the ambit of Section 2803.1. There was no error in the trial court’s finding. Proposition I is denied.

In Proposition II, Appellant complains the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence that Joanna Cortez, B.L.’s and C.L.’s mother, committed suicide. As Appellant objected at trial to the admission of this evidence, we review the claim for an abuse of discretion. The State gave notice to the defense that it would seek to admit at trial evidence of Cortez’s suicide. The trial court held a hearing regarding the admissibility of this evidence. The prosecutor argued the evidence was res gestae because it gave the jury a complete picture of Cortez’s whereabouts and showed the police did not simply focus on Appellant and nothing else. Defense counsel objected that the evidence was too prejudicial. The trial court found the evidence admissible.

The trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence. However, this error was harmless. An error is harmless, and thus not a proper basis for reversal, when the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no reasonable probability that the error might have contributed to the verdict. The evidence against Appellant was overwhelming. Both children testified clearly about what Appellant did to them and their testimony was consistent with their statements about the abuse. Appellant’s testimony was incredible and contradicted his previous statements. Proposition II is denied.

In Proposition III, Appellant argues the State failed to prove sufficiently the element of penetration as required for his conviction on Count 4, which charged Appellant with child sexual abuse by inserting his penis into the vagina of B.L., who at the time was thirteen years of age. Under this test, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. B.L. testified that Appellant raped her numerous times. We note it is not necessary for the witness to give a graphic, anatomically correct definition of penetration in order for the jury to find that a defendant committed the crime of rape. The above evidence sufficiently supports Appellant’s conviction for sexually abusing B.L. by putting his penis into her vagina. Proposition III is denied.

In Proposition IV, Appellant contends his convictions for sexually abusing C.L. are not supported by sufficient evidence. The State charged Appellant in Counts 1-3 with sexually abusing C.L. by touching the vaginal area of C.L., who was at the time seven (7) years of age. Based on the above evidence, Appellant’s convictions for sexually abusing C.L. on three different occasions are supported by sufficient evidence. Proposition IV is denied.

Appellant claims in Proposition V that his counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately object to the admission of B.L.’s hearsay statements. However, because we found no error in Proposition I, Appellant has not shown his counsel’s performance was deficient or that he suffered any prejudice. Proposition V is denied.

In Proposition VI, Appellant claims the combined errors in his trial denied him the right to a constitutionally guaranteed fair trial. We found error occurred in Proposition II due to the admission of evidence of Cortez’s suicide. However, we found the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Proposition VI is denied.

In his final proposition, Appellant claims the trial court abused its discretion by running his sentences consecutively to one another. Appellant’s crimes were despicable. The facts and law of this case clearly support Appellant’s sentence. Proposition VII 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. 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.Supp.2014, § 843.5(E)
  2. 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1
  3. 12 O.S.Supp.2013, § 2803.1
  4. 12 O.S.2011, § 2404(B)
  5. 12 O.S.2011, § 2403
  6. 10 O.S.2011, § 1408(D)(4)
  7. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967)
  8. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979)
  9. Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, 90 P.3d 556
  10. Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, 709 P.2d 202
  11. Bales v. State, 1992 OK CR 24, 829 P.2d 998
  12. Willis v. State, 2017 OK CR 23, 406 P.3d 30
  13. Malone v. State, 2013 OK CR 1, 293 P.3d 198
  14. Harris v. State, 2007 OK CR 28, 164 P.3d 1103
  15. Bechtel v. State, 1987 OK CR 126, 738 P.2d 559
  16. Riley v. State, 1997 OK CR 51, 947 P.2d 530
  17. Kamees v. State, 1991 OK CR 91, 815 P.2d 1204
  18. A.O. v. State, 2019 OK CR 18, 447 P.3d 1179
  19. Huskey v. State, 1999 OK CR 3, 989 P.2d 1

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 843.5(E) (2014) - Child Sexual Abuse
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1 (2015) - Parole Eligibility
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2803.1 (2013) - Child's Hearsay Statements
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2404(B) (2011) - Relevance and Character Evidence
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2403 (2011) - Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 61.1 (2011) - Sentencing to Run Consecutively

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

  • 21 U.S.C. § 843.5(E) - Child Sexual Abuse
  • 21 U.S.C. § 61.1 - Sentencing
  • 12 U.S.C. § 2403 - Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice
  • 12 U.S.C. § 2803.1 - Hearsay Statements of Children
  • 6 U.S.C. § 668 - Right to Counsel
  • 14 U.S.C. § 1 - Rights under the Constitution
  • 21 U.S.C. § 2404(B) - Character Evidence
  • 17 U.S.C. § 107 - Fair Use
  • 17 U.S.C. § 18 - Exemptions
  • 12 U.S.C. § 30 - Discretionary Review
  • 12 U.S.C. § 580 - Credibility of Witnesses

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

  • Martinez v. State, 2016 OK CR 3, I 53, 371 P.3d 1100, 1113-14
  • Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, 876 P.2d 690
  • Willis v. State, 2017 OK CR 23, I 20, 406 P.3d 30, 35
  • State v. Farthing, 2014 OK CR 4, I 4, 328 P.3d 1208, 1209
  • Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S. Ct. 824, 828, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1967)
  • Myers v. State, 2000 OK CR 25, I 59, 17 P.3d 1021, 1035
  • Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, 15, 90 P.3d 556, 559
  • Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, I 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-204
  • Taylor v. State, 2011 OK CR 8, I 13, 248 P.3d 362, 368
  • Robinson v. State, 2011 OK CR 15, I 17, 255 P.3d 425, 432
  • Bales v. State, 1992 OK CR 24, 99 5-6, 829 P.2d 998, 999
  • Harris v. State, 2007 OK CR 28, I 41, 164 P.3d 1103, 1118
  • Bechtel v. State, 1987 OK CR 126, I 12, 738 P.2d 559, 561
  • Bosse v. State, 2017 OK CR 10, I 93, 400 P.3d 834, 866
  • Riley v. State, 1997 OK CR 51, I 20, 947 P.2d 530, 534
  • Kamees v. State, 1991 OK CR 91, I 21, 815 P.2d 1204, 1208-09
  • Davis v. State, 2018 OK CR 7, 419 P.3d 271
  • A.O. v. State, 2019 OK CR 18, 447 P.3d 1179, I 13, 1187
  • Huskey v. State, 1999 OK CR 3, 989 P.2d 1

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,