Attempted First Degree Burglary Archives

F-2018-1160

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 5, 2019
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **RASHAUN HAASTROP,** **Appellant,** **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-1160** **FILED DEC - 5 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** *KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:* Appellant, Rashaun Haastrop, was charged in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2018-55, with First Degree Burglary, After Conviction of Two Felonies. He was convicted of the lesser related offense of Attempted First Degree Burglary, After Conviction of Two Felonies. On November 13, 2018, the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, sentenced him to twenty years imprisonment in accordance with the jury's recommendation. This appeal followed. Appellant raises one proposition of error in support of his appeal: **PROPOSITION:** The State introduced insufficient evidence to prove that Mr. Haastrop had prior convictions out of Illinois and therefore his sentence must be modified. After thorough consideration of this proposition, the briefs of the parties, and the record on appeal, we affirm. Appellant's sole complaint on appeal is that the State failed to sufficiently prove that he was the person named in two Illinois documents reflecting felony convictions for Rashaun Haastrup, or that those convictions were valid and final, i.e., that the defendant in those proceedings had the assistance of counsel and that the convictions had not been appealed. The two latter challenges were not raised below, so we review them only for plain error, as established in *Mathis v. State*, 2012 OK CR 1, ¶ 30, 271 P.3d 67, 78. Plain errors are those errors which are obvious in the record and affect the substantial rights of the defendant; that is, the error affects the outcome of the proceeding, as seen in *Daniels v. State*, 2016 OK CR 2, ¶ 3, 369 P.3d 381, 383. The State offered two certified documents reflecting convictions in Illinois for a Rashaun Haastrup. The chronological entries on these documents show that in each case, (1) Mr. Haastrup was represented by counsel, (2) his rights to appeal were explained to him, but (3) no appeals were taken. The documents were generated several years after the convictions were entered, and neither reveal any activity after formal sentencing. See *Bickerstaff v. State*, 1983 OK CR 116, ¶ 8, 669 P.2d 778, 780. On this record, the trial court's conclusion that the convictions were valid and final was not plainly erroneous. As for whether Appellant (Rashaun Haastrop) and the person named in the documents (Rashaun Haastrup) are the same person, the jury received testimony from a police officer who interviewed Appellant after his arrest. The officer testified that Appellant admitted serving time in Illinois for two different crimes, specifically a drug offense and a theft offense; the State's documents reflected convictions for a drug crime and a theft crime. With identifying information provided by Appellant, the officer retrieved the Illinois documents. Given the unusualness of both names, their similarity, and Appellant's own admissions, a rational juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the convictions were, in fact, Appellant's, as established by *Jackson v. Virginia*, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) and *Garcia v. State*, 1987 OK CR 49, ¶ 30, 734 P.2d 820, 825. As there is no error, his sole 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. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** **ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL** **BENJAMIN MUNDA** **ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER** **BONNIE BLUMERT** **ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER** **OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **320 ROBERT S. KERR AVE.** **SUITE 611** **OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73101** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL** **DANIEL GRIDLEY** **MIKE HUNTER** **DANIEL POND** **ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA.** **ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS** **TESSA L. HENRY** **ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL** **320 ROBERT S. KERR AVENUE** **SUITE 505** **OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102** **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1160_1734786705.pdf)

S-2015-672

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 15, 2016
Post category:S

In OCCA Case No. S-2015-672, the appellant appealed his conviction for Attempted First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to dismiss the State's appeal and deny the petition for writ of prohibition/mandamus. The dissenting opinion was noted by one member of the court. This case involves Jeremy Scott Niederbuhl, who was charged on December 13, 2013, for trying to break into a home. After attending a barbeque at the homeowner's house, Niederbuhl returned hours later and attempted to enter the home through a door and a window. The homeowner, Mr. Scott, fired shots, hitting Niederbuhl, who then went to the hospital and remained there for two weeks. The legal process began in 2013 when the charges were filed. However, Niederbuhl only found out about the charges in late 2014 when he turned himself in for a different issue. His lawyer argued that there were important text messages between Niederbuhl and the homeowner that could help his case, but the State did not provide this evidence, leading to a significant delay in the trial. On July 17, 2015, the trial court dismissed the case, agreeing that Niederbuhl's rights to a speedy trial and due process were violated due to the State’s lack of action and bad faith. The court believed the State did not follow its obligation to turn over evidence, which was a significant factor in its decision to dismiss the case. The State disagreed with the trial court's dismissal and filed a motion to reconsider the ruling. However, the trial court decided it couldn’t consider this motion because the State already filed an appeal. The State then appealed the dismissal, claiming the trial court made errors in its ruling and that the dismissal did not follow legal procedures. However, the court decided that the State’s appeal was not valid since it did not follow specific laws regarding when the State can appeal a dismissal. In addition to the appeal, the State also filed a petition requesting an order based on their belief that the trial court made mistakes in its rulings. However, the appellate court concluded that the State did not meet the requirements to get an extraordinary writ, which is a special type of order. In summary, the appellate court dismissed the State's appeal and told the case to go back to the District Court for further actions. The petition for the extraordinary writ was also denied, indicating that the appellate court found no legal basis for the State’s claims.

F-2004-643

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 26, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-643, Earnest Alphonzo Lee appealed his conviction for Attempted First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence to fifteen years. One judge dissented. Earnest Alphonzo Lee was found guilty by a jury of Attempted First Degree Burglary. The jury believed he deserved to go to prison for twenty years, and the trial court agreed with their decision. Earnest felt this was unfair, so he appealed his case. In his appeal, Earnest raised several issues he thought were wrong during his trial. The first issue was about something called an “evidentiary harpoon.” This means that he thought the arresting officer made a comment that brought up Earnest’s right to stay silent after he was arrested. The court looked closely at this and decided it was not a big deal because there was a lot of strong evidence proving he was guilty, which made the officer’s comment not harmful. The second issue was about a juror named Barker that Earnest wanted removed from the jury, but the judge did not agree. The court said this did not cause any problems since Earnest’s lawyer could have removed the juror another way. For the third issue, Earnest believed that the judge did not explain the punishment ranges to the jury correctly. The court agreed and said the law was not followed properly when the jury decided on the punishment. So, they changed Earnest’s sentence to fifteen years. The fourth issue claimed the prosecutor did something wrong during the trial, but the court found that this did not affect the outcome of the trial since there was still a lot of strong evidence against Earnest. In the fifth issue, the court believed there was enough evidence for the jury to find Earnest guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, the sixth issue was about whether all the errors together were so bad that Earnest did not get a fair trial. The court decided that the problems were not serious enough to change the outcome of the trial. Overall, the court agreed that the trial had some mistakes but decided that the most important issue was the incorrect instructions about the punishment. They changed Earnest’s sentence to 15 years but said the rest of the trial was fair.