Blog

F-2019-37

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

Jonathan Lamont Suggs v State Of Oklahoma

F-2019-37

Filed: Jun. 24, 2021

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Jonathan Lamont Suggs appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. The conviction and sentence were reversed and remanded for a new trial. Judge Lewis and Judge Lumpkin dissented. In this case, Suggs was found guilty of three charges: a misdemeanor for Domestic Abuse, a felony for First Degree Burglary, and another misdemeanor for Assault and Battery. The jury decided to acquit him of two other charges. Suggs was sentenced to jail time and a fine. On appeal, Suggs argued that the jury should have been instructed on a lesser crime called Illegal Entry since there was conflicting evidence about whether a person was present when he entered the apartment. The court agreed that the trial had made a mistake by not giving that instruction, which was important for the jury to consider. They found that this mistake had affected the outcome of the trial, so they decided that Suggs needed a new trial for the burglary charge. However, the court upheld his sentences for the Domestic Abuse and Assault and Battery charges, as those convictions were not challenged. The dissenting opinions argued against this decision, stating that there was sufficient evidence for the conviction and that the jury should have followed the initial trial strategy.

Decision

Counts 2 and 4 of the Judgment and Sentence are AFFIRMED. Count 3 of the Judgment and Sentence is REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.

Issues

  • Was there sufficient evidence to support Suggs's conviction for First Degree Burglary?
  • Did the trial court err by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of Illegal Entry?
  • Was trial counsel constitutionally ineffective for not requesting an instruction on the lesser offense of Illegal Entry?
  • Did the accumulation of errors deprive Suggs of a fair trial?

Findings

  • the court erred
  • the evidence was sufficient
  • the court erred
  • the court erred
  • the court erred
  • the court erred
  • the court erred

F-2019-37

Jun. 24, 2021

Jonathan Lamont Suggs

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

HUDSON, JUDGE: Appellant, Jonathan Lamont Suggs, was tried and convicted by a jury in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2016-269, of Count 2: Domestic Abuse (Assault and Battery), a misdemeanor, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(C); Count 3: Burglary in the First Degree, After Former Conviction of a Felony, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1431; and Counts 4: Assault and Battery, a misdemeanor, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 644(B). The Honorable Cindy H. Truong, District Judge, presided at trial and sentenced Suggs in accordance with the jury’s verdicts to one year in the county jail and a $1,000.00 fine on Count 2; ten years imprisonment on Count 3; and 90 days in the county jail on Count 4. Suggs must serve 85% of the sentence imposed on Count 3 before becoming eligible for parole. 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1(12). Judge Truong ordered the sentences to run concurrently, but consecutively to Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2011-3556. The trial court further imposed various costs and fees. Suggs now appeals and raises seven propositions of error before this Court.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits and the parties’ briefs, we find that relief is warranted under the law and evidence in this case. Although sufficient evidence was presented to support Suggs’s conviction for First Degree Burglary, the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of Illegal Entry constitutes plain error affecting the foundation of the case that warrants relief. We therefore REVERSE AND REMAND FOR NEW TRIAL Suggs’s Count 3 conviction for First Degree Burglary based on this error. Because Suggs does not challenge his misdemeanor convictions in Counts 2 and 4, however, we AFFIRM the judgment and sentence for these counts.

1. Sufficiency of the Evidence. The elements of first-degree burglary are: (1) breaking; (2) entering; (3) a dwelling; (4) of another; (5) in which a human is present; and (6) with intent to commit some crime therein. See 21 O.S.2011, § 1431; OUJI-CR (2d) No. 5-12. Suggs complains the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt two elements of his Count 3 conviction for first-degree burglary-the fifth element (Proposition One) and the sixth element (Proposition Three). We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and will not disturb the verdict if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime charged to exist beyond a reasonable doubt. Mason U. State, 2018 OK CR 37, I 13, 433 P.3d 1264, 1269. See also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). This analysis requires examination of the entire record. Young v. State, 2000 OK CR 17, I 35, 12 P.3d 20, 35. The law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence and either, or any combination of the two, may be sufficient to support a conviction. Miller U. State, 2013 OK CR 11, II 84, 313 P.3d 934, 965, overruled on other grounds, Harris U. State, 2019 OK CR 22, I 69, 450 P.3d 933, 958. This Court accepts all reasonable inferences and credibility choices that tend to support the verdict. Davis v. State, 2011 OK CR 29, I 74, 268 P.3d 86, 111; see also Coddington U. State, 2006 OK CR 34, IT 70, 142 P.3d 437, 456. Where evidence conflicts, we must presume on appellate review that the jury resolved any conflicts in favor of the prosecution. Robinson U. State, 2011 OK CR 15, I 17, 255 P.3d 425, 432.

Human Present: The evidence regarding whether a human was present when Suggs entered his former girlfriend Casandra Williams’s apartment was conflicting. Williams testified that she was in her apartment when Suggs entered using a key he stole from her purse. He arrived unannounced and uninvited and entered without her permission. Yet, Williams also told a 911 dispatcher immediately after the event that Suggs was already in [her] house when [she] got [t]here and everything was messed up. Despite Williams’s conflicting statements, the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to prove this element of the crime. Suggs testified at trial and acknowledged Williams was home when he entered the apartment. Williams’s contradictory statement to the 911 dispatcher merely provided a conflict in the evidence which this Court presumes was resolved in favor of the State.

Intent to Commit Some Crime Therein: Suggs’s physical attack on Williams was circumstantial evidence of his intent to commit an act of domestic abuse when he entered Williams’s apartment. Thus, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence was sufficient to prove Suggs’s intent to commit a crime at the time he broke and entered Williams’s apartment. Relief is denied for Propositions One and Three.

2. Instructional Error. Illegal entry is a recognized lesser-included offense of first-degree burglary. Suggs complains in Proposition Four that the trial court erred when it failed to sua sponte instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of illegal entry. Suggs argues the evidence presented at trial would have allowed the jury to rationally find him guilty of the lesser offense of illegal entry, while acquitting him of the greater offense of first-degree burglary. Suggs failed to request this instruction or object to its omission below, waiving all but plain error review of this claim.

To be entitled to relief under the plain error doctrine, Suggs must demonstrate: (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. 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.

Suggs demonstrates plain error warranting relief. Suggs’s argument focuses on the conflicting evidence related to the fifth element of first-degree burglary-i.e., whether a human was present. Because of this conflicting evidence, Suggs argues an instruction on the lesser-included offense of illegal entry was warranted. The evidence regarding whether a human was present when Suggs entered Williams’s apartment was clearly conflicting. The trial court therefore should have instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of illegal entry pursuant to 21 O.S.2011, § 1438(A). The trial court’s failure to do so cannot be held harmless as the record shows the jury clearly struggled with reconciling the conflicting evidence relating to the fifth element-i.e., whether Williams was present in the apartment when the breaking and entry occurred.

Suggs’s Count 3 first-degree burglary conviction is therefore reversed and remanded to the district court for a new trial. The remaining propositions of error are rendered moot by this determination.

DECISION

Counts 2 and 4 of the Judgment and Sentence are AFFIRMED. Count 3 of the Judgment and Sentence is REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

  1. 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(C)
  2. 21 O.S.2011, § 1431
  3. 21 O.S.2011, § 644(B)
  4. 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1(12)
  5. 21 O.S.2011, § 1431
  6. OUJI-CR (2d) No. 5-12
  7. Collins U. State, 2009 OK CR 32, 223 P.3d 1014, 1023
  8. Mason U. State, 2018 OK CR 37, 433 P.3d 1264, 1269
  9. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)
  10. Miller U. State, 2013 OK CR 11, 313 P.3d 934, 965
  11. Davis v. State, 2011 OK CR 29, 268 P.3d 86, 111
  12. Coddington U. State, 2006 OK CR 34, 142 P.3d 437, 456
  13. Robinson U. State, 2011 OK CR 15, 255 P.3d 425, 432
  14. Rowland U. State, 1991 OK CR 94, 817 P.2d 263, 266
  15. Plunkett v. State, 1986 OK CR 77, 719 P.2d 834, 842
  16. Roberts v. State, 2001 OK CR 14, 29 P.3d 583, 589
  17. OUJI-CR(2d) No. 5-16
  18. 21 O.S.2011, § 1438(A)
  19. 21 O.S.2011, § 1760
  20. Splawn U. State, 2020 OK CR 20, P.3d
  21. Baird v. State, 2017 OK CR 16, 400 P.3d. 875, 883
  22. 20 O.S.2011, § 3001.1
  23. Grissom U. State, 2011 OK CR 3, 253 P.3d 969, 980
  24. Jones U. State, 2006 OK CR 17, 134 P.3d 150, 154
  25. Shrum v. State, 1999 OK CR 41, 991 P.2d 1032, 1036
  26. 21 O.S.2011, § 1435
  27. Beck U. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 633-34 (1980)
  28. Pickens U. State, 2005 OK CR 27, 126 P.3d 612, 620
  29. Davis v. State, 2011 OK CR 29, 268 P.3d 86, 116
  30. Jackson U. State, 1998 OK CR 39, 964 P.2d 875, 902
  31. Harney U. State, 2011 OK CR 10, 256 P.3d 1002, 1005
  32. Gilson U. State, 2000 OK CR 14, 8 P.3d 883, 918
  33. Spence U. State, 2008 OK CR 4, 177 P.3d 582, 584

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 644(C) - Domestic Abuse (Assault and Battery)
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1431 - Burglary in the First Degree
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 644(B) - Assault and Battery
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1(12) - Parole Eligibility
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1438(A) - Illegal Entry
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1760 - Malicious Mischief
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1435 - Second-degree burglary
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 20 § 3001.1 - Miscarriage of Justice

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:

  • Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19, I 36, 422 P.3d 788, 799-800
  • Collins v. State, 2009 OK CR 32, "If 32, 223 P.3d 1014, 1023
  • Mason v. State, 2018 OK CR 37, I 13, 433 P.3d 1264, 1269
  • Young v. State, 2000 OK CR 17, I 35, 12 P.3d 20, 35
  • Miller v. State, 2013 OK CR 11, II 84, 313 P.3d 934, 965
  • Harris v. State, 2019 OK CR 22, I 69, 450 P.3d 933, 958
  • Davis v. State, 2011 OK CR 29, I 74, 268 P.3d 86, 111
  • Coddington v. State, 2006 OK CR 34, IT 70, 142 P.3d 437, 456
  • Robinson v. State, 2011 OK CR 15, I 17, 255 P.3d 425, 432
  • Rowland v. State, 1991 OK CR 94, I 7, 817 P.2d 263, 266
  • Plunkett v. State, 1986 OK CR 77, I 22, 719 P.2d 834, 842
  • Roberts v. State, 2001 OK CR 14, I 20, 29 P.3d 583, 589
  • Bench v. State, 2018 OK CR 31, I 73, 431 P.3d 929, 954, cert. denied, U.S. , 140 S. Ct. 56 (2019)
  • Splawn v. State, 2020 OK CR 20, I 5, P.3d
  • Baird v. State, 2017 OK CR 16, I 25, 400 P.3d. 875, 883
  • Tollett v. State, 2016 OK CR 15, I 4, 387 P.3d 915, 916
  • Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19, 38, 139 P.3d at 923
  • Grissom v. State, 2011 OK CR 3, I 28, 253 P.3d 969, 980
  • Jones v. State, 2006 OK CR 17, I 6, 134 P.3d 150, 154
  • Shrum v. State, 1999 OK CR 41, IT 10, 991 P.2d 1032, 1036
  • Harney v. State, 2011 OK CR 10, IT 11, 256 P.3d 1002, 1005
  • Gilson v. State, 2000 OK CR 14, I 119, 8 P.3d 883, 918
  • Pickens v. State, 2005 OK CR 27, "II 35, 126 P.3d 612, 620
  • Davis v. State, 2011 OK CR 29, I 101, 268 P.3d 86, 116
  • Jackson v. State, 1998 OK CR 39, q14, 964 P.2d 875, 902
  • Spence v. State, 2008 OK CR 4, I 9, 177 P.3d 582, 584
  • Hancock v. State, 2007 OK CR 9, I 98, 155 P.3d 796, 819

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