Court Review Archives - OCCA Opinions

F-2018-668

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 31, 2019
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **RICHARD PATRICK SPAULDING,** **Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-668** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **OCT 31 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Richard Patrick Spaulding, Appellant, was tried by a jury and found guilty of first degree murder, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 701.7(A), in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2017-682. The jury set punishment at life imprisonment. The Honorable William J. Musseman, Jr., District Judge, pronounced judgment and sentence accordingly. Mr. Spaulding appeals on the following proposition of error: 1. The evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed the crime of murder in the first degree. Appellant must serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for consideration for parole, pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1(1). In Proposition One, Appellant argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We review the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. *Spuehler v. State,* 1985 OK CR 132, ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04. In this inquiry, we will not second guess the jury's finding of facts, but will accept the reasonable inferences and credibility choices that support the jury's verdict. *Mason v. State,* 2018 OK CR 37, ¶ 13, 433 P.3d 1264, 1269. We conclude that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support Appellant's conviction for murder. Proposition One 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. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY** **THE HON. WILLIAM J. MUSSEMAN, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** RICHARD KOLLER 423 S. BOULDER AVE., STE. 300 TULSA, OK 74103 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** RICHARD COUCH REBECCA NEWMAN 423 S. BOULDER AVE., STE. 300 TULSA, OK 74103 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT KENNETH ELMORE MIKE HUNTER KATY HAMSTRA ATTORNEY GENERAL ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS KEELEY L. MILLER 500 S. DENVER AVE., STE. 900 TULSA, OK 742103 ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY: LEWIS, P.J.** KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, P.J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-668_1735223088.pdf)

RE-2004-1015

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 18, 2006
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-1015, the appellant appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence for Lewd Molestation and reverse the revocation of the suspended sentence for Rape in the First Degree. One judge dissented. The appellant had previously entered a plea of no contest in 2001 to charges of Rape in the First Degree and Lewd Molestation. After this, he was given a ten-year sentence for each charge, which was suspended. However, in 2003, the State filed an Application to Revoke the appellant's suspended sentences, claiming he had violated several conditions of his probation, such as not paying fees and not attending counseling. During a hearing, the appellant admitted to violating the terms of his probation. Initially, the court held off on revoking his sentence to give him chances to comply with the rules. However, after several reviews and additional hearings, the court eventually revoked his sentences in 2004. The appellant argued that the court did not have the right to keep reviewing his case or to revoke his sentences because he believed the last filed application to revoke had expired by that time. The court found that it had been monitoring the appellant's progress, showing that it was acting out of leniency. The appellant also stated that he was not properly notified of the issues to be addressed at the last hearing. In the court's decision, it was explained that when someone admits to violating probation rules, it is generally accepted that the court can act on that admission. The court noted that the legal standard for revoking a suspended sentence is not very high and concluded that they did not find any error with the decision during the hearings. However, the appellant sought to vacate his conviction for Rape, claiming he was underage at the time of the offense and thus legally not able to have committed the crime as defined by the law. The court ultimately agreed with the appellant that there was a critical error regarding the age requirement for a Rape conviction. They decided to reverse the revocation of that particular sentence and stated that the Judgment and Sentence for Count I should be vacated and dismissed entirely. So, the final decision was to keep the revocation of the sentence for Lewd Molestation but to remove the conviction for Rape due to the age issue, allowing for a correction of that mistake in legal proceedings.