Dondre Columbus Johnson v State Of Oklahoma

M-2003-495

Filed: Feb. 12, 2004

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Dondre Columbus Johnson appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery. Conviction and sentence were 90 days in jail and $952.50 in court costs. Judge Stine dissented.

Decision

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that this matter is REMANDED to the District Court for the purpose of order nunc pro tunc to correctly reflect the amount of court costs owed by Appellant. In his final proposition of error, Appellant contends prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial. Specifically, Appellant argues the prosecutor engaged in improper cross-examination, improperly gave his personal opinion of Appellant's guilt, and argued facts outside the record in closing argument. A review of the record reveals no objection was entered by Appellant at trial, thereby waiving all but fundamental error. *Hammon v. State*, 2000 OK CR 7, 999 P.2d 1082, 1097. We have reviewed the record and find no fundamental error requiring modification or reversal. As such, Appellant's Judgment and Sentence in Pittsburgh County District Court Case No. CM-2002-1144 is AFFIRMED. IT IS so ORDERED.

Issues

• Was the trial court's assessment of court costs excessive due to a calculation error?
• Did prosecutorial misconduct deprive the Appellant of a fair trial?

Findings

• the trial court erred in the calculation of court costs
• Appellant's conviction and sentence were affirmed

M-2003-495

Feb. 12, 2004

Dondre Columbus Johnson

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

Appellant was found guilty by jury in Pittsburgh County District Court, Case No. CM-2002-1144, of Assault and Battery. Following the jury’s recommendation, the Honorable James D. Bland, Special Judge, assessed punishment of ninety (90) days incarceration in the county jail and assessed court costs in the amount of $952.50. It is from this Judgment and Sentence that Appellant appeals.

In his first assignment of error, Appellant claims the trial court’s assessment of court costs was excessive because of a mistake in the way it was calculated. Appellant requests this Court to modify the costs assessed against him. Appellee agrees an error was made by the trial court regarding the amount of costs owed by Appellant.

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that this matter is REMANDED to the District Court for the purpose of order nunc pro tunc to correctly reflect the amount of court costs owed by Appellant.

In his final proposition of error, Appellant contends prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial. Specifically, Appellant argues the prosecutor engaged in improper cross-examination, improperly gave his personal opinion of Appellant’s guilt, and argued facts outside the record in closing argument. A review of the record reveals no objection was entered by Appellant at trial, thereby waiving all but fundamental error. *Hammon v. State*, 2000 OK CR 7, 999 P.2d 1082, 1097.

We have reviewed the record and find no fundamental error requiring modification or reversal. As such, Appellant’s Judgment and Sentence in Pittsburgh County District Court Case No. CM-2002-1144 is AFFIRMED.

IT IS so ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 12th day of February, 2004.
CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Presiding Judge
STEVE LILE, Vice Presiding Judge
GARY L. LUMPKIN, Judge
CHARLES S. CHAPEL, Judge
RETA M. STRUBHAR, Judge

ATTEST: Clerk

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Hammon U. State, 2000 OK CR 7, 999 P.2d 1082, 1097.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 644 - Assault and Battery
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1064 - Court Costs

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:

• Hammon v. State, 2000 OK CR 7, 999 P.2d 1082, 1097