Blog

F-2018-964

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

Robert Paul Lockner, Sr. v The State of Oklahoma

F-2018-964

Filed: Sep. 26, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Robert Paul Lockner, Sr., appealed his conviction for two counts of Assault and Battery of a Police Officer. Conviction and sentence: four years imprisonment for each count, served one after the other. Judge Kuehn dissented.

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 an error in denying the appellant's request for an instruction on self-defense?
  • Did the State err by introducing other crimes evidence without prior notice?
  • Did cumulative errors deprive the appellant of his right to a fair trial and reliable outcome?

Findings

  • the trial court did not err in denying the requested instruction on self-defense
  • there was no error in the admission of evidence regarding methamphetamine because it was part of the res gestae and not subject to the notice requirement
  • the cumulative error claim is denied as there were no individual errors that deprived Lockner of a fair trial

F-2018-964

Sep. 26, 2019

Robert Paul Lockner, Sr.

Appellant

v

The State of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

Appellant Robert Paul Lockner, Sr., was tried by jury in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Case No. CF-2017-450, and convicted of two counts of Assault and Battery of a Police Officer, After Former Conviction of Two Felonies, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 649(B). The jury assessed punishment at four years imprisonment on each count. The Honorable John Canavan, Jr., who presided at trial, sentenced accordingly and ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. Lockner appeals raising the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his request for an instruction on self-defense; (2) whether relief should be granted because the State introduced other crimes evidence without first providing notice of its intent to do so; and (3) whether cumulative errors deprived him of his right to a fair trial and reliable outcome. We find relief is not required and affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court.

1. Lockner argues that the facts of this case warranted a jury instruction on self-defense, and the trial court’s refusal to give the instruction was reversible error. The determination of which instructions shall be given to the jury is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Absent an abuse of that discretion, this Court will not interfere with the trial court’s judgment if the instructions as a whole, accurately state the applicable law. Bench U. State, 2018 OK CR 31, ¶ 68, 431 P.3d 929, 953 (quoting Eizember v. State, 2007 OK CR 29, ¶ 111, 164 P.3d 208, 236). In making an arrest an officer may use all necessary means to effect the arrest. See 22 O.S.2011, § 193 (If, after notice of intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all necessary means to effect the arrest.) Lockner has not shown that he was entitled to an instruction on self-defense. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying this requested instruction and relief is not required.

2. Lockner argues on appeal that error occurred when the State introduced evidence that he had methamphetamine in his system at the time of his arrest without giving notice of its intent to introduce this evidence. Because the evidence at issue was not met with contemporaneous objection review is for plain error only. See Hogan U. State, 2006 OK CR 19, ¶ 38, 139 P.3d 907, 923. To be entitled to relief for plain error, an appellant must show: (1) the existence of an actual error (i.e., deviation from a legal rule); (2) that the error is plain or obvious; and (3) that the error affected his substantial rights, meaning the error affected the outcome of the proceeding. Id. The basic law is well established – when one is put on trial, one is to be convicted – if at all – by evidence which shows one guilty of the offense charged; and proof that one is guilty of other offenses not connected with that for which one is on trial must be excluded. Lott U. State, 2004 OK CR 27, ¶ 40, 98 P.3d 318, 334. See also Miller v. State, 2013 OK CR 11, 89, 313 P.3d 934, 966 (Any criminal conviction obtained through a trial must be based upon evidence establishing that the defendant committed the charged crime(s), rather than evidence of other offenses.). However, [i]f a defendant’s conduct is part of the res gestae of the charged offense, then it is not considered other crimes or bad acts evidence. Vanderpool U. State, 2018 OK CR 39, ¶ 24, 434 P.3d 318, 324 (citing Rogers v. State, 1995 OK CR 8, 20-21, 890 P.2d 959, 971). Evidence is considered part of the res gestae, when: (1) it is so closely connected to the charged offense as to form part of the entire transaction; (2) it is necessary to give the jury a complete understanding of the crime; or (3) when it is central to the chain of events. Eizember, 2007 OK CR 29, ¶ 77, 164 P.3d at 230. See also Andrew U. State, 2007 OK CR 23, ¶ 42, 164 P.3d 176, 190. The evidence at issue was part of the res gestae of crimes charged and not subject to the notice requirement of Burks. Furthermore, the probative value of this evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. 12 O.S.2011, § 2403. There was no error, plain or otherwise, in the admission of this evidence.

3. Finally Lockner asserts that even if no individual error in his case merits reversal, the cumulative effect of the errors committed warrants a new trial or sentence modification. The cumulative error doctrine applies when several errors occurred at the trial court level, but none alone warrants reversal. Although each error standing alone may be of insufficient gravity to warrant reversal, the combined effect of an accumulation of errors may require a new trial. Martinez U. State, 2016 OK CR 3, ¶ 85, 371 P.3d 1100, 1119. Cumulative error does not deprive the defendant of a fair trial when the errors considered together do not affect the outcome of the proceeding. Baird v. State, 2017 OK CR 16, ¶ 42, 400 P.3d 875, 886. A cumulative error claim is baseless when this Court fails to sustain any of the alleged errors raised on appeal. Id. There were no errors, either individually or when considered together, that deprived Lockner of a fair trial. 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, § 649(B)
  2. 22 O.S.2011, § 193
  3. Hogan U. State, 2006 OK CR 19, IT 38, 139 P.3d 907, 923
  4. 3 Lott U. State, 2004 OK CR 27, I 40, 98 P.3d 318, 334
  5. Miller v. State, 2013 OK CR 11, 89, 313 P.3d 934, 966
  6. Vanderpool U. State, 2018 OK CR 39, I 24, 434 P.3d 318, 324
  7. Eizember, 2007 OK CR 29, "I 77, 164 P.3d at 230
  8. Andrew U. State, 2007 OK CR 23, T 42, 164 P.3d 176, 190
  9. Burks v. State, 1979 OK CR 10, II 12, 594 P.2d 771, 774
  10. 12 O.S.2011, § 2403
  11. Martinez U. State, 2016 OK CR 3, I 85, 371 P.3d 1100, 1119
  12. Baird v. State, 2017 OK CR 16, I 42, 400 P.3d 875, 886
  13. Thompson U. State, 2018 OK CR 5, "I 7, 419 P.3d 261, 263

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 649 - Assault and Battery of a Police Officer
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 193 - Arrest Procedures
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2403 - Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 - Definitions
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 405 - Cumulative Error Doctrine

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:

  • Bench U. State, 2018 OK CR 31, I 68, 431 P.3d 929, 953
  • Eizember v. State, 2007 OK CR 29, I 111, 164 P.3d 208, 236
  • Hogan U. State, 2006 OK CR 19, IT 38, 139 P.3d 907, 923
  • Lott U. State, 2004 OK CR 27, I 40, 98 P.3d 318, 334
  • Miller v. State, 2013 OK CR 11, 89, 313 P.3d 934, 966
  • Vanderpool U. State, 2018 OK CR 39, I 24, 434 P.3d 318, 324
  • Rogers v. State, 1995 OK CR 8, 20-21, 890 P.2d 959, 971
  • Andrew U. State, 2007 OK CR 23, T 42, 164 P.3d 176, 190
  • Burks v. State, 1979 OK CR 10, II 12, 594 P.2d 771, 774
  • Martinez U. State, 2016 OK CR 3, I 85, 371 P.3d 1100, 1119
  • Baird v. State, 2017 OK CR 16, I 42, 400 P.3d 875, 886
  • Thompson U. State, 2018 OK CR 5, I 7, 419 P.3d 261, 263

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