**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS**
**STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BRIAN KEITH FULLERTON,**
Appellant,
vs.
**THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,**
Appellee. **No. F-2018-629**
**FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS**
**STATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 26 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION**
**JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Brian Keith Fullerton, was convicted by a jury in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2016-4430, of four counts of Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. The Honorable Bill Graves, District Judge, sentenced him in accordance with the jury's recommendation to life imprisonment on each count, with the sentences to be served as follows: two pairs of life terms to run concurrently, with one pair served consecutively to the other. Appellant must serve 85% of each sentence before being considered for parole. Appellant raises four propositions of error in support of his appeal: **PROPOSITION I:** The evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction for both Count 1 and Count 2 Lewd Acts with a Child Under the Age of Sixteen because the State failed to prove Mr. Fullerton touched L.D. on the vagina more than once. **PROPOSITION II:** The information filed in this case was insufficient as it failed to apprize Mr. Fullerton of what he was charged with and was not specific enough to allow him to plead former jeopardy should the State seek to file other charges, in violation of the due process clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions. **PROPOSITION III:** The prosecutors invoked improper sympathy toward the victim, L.D., and appealed to the jury's emotions, violating Mr. Fullerton's right to a fair trial. **PROPOSITION IV:** Trial errors, when considered in an accumulative fashion, warrant a new trial. After thorough consideration of these propositions, the briefs of the parties, and the record on appeal, we affirm. **Analysis of Propositions:** 1. **Proposition I:**
Appellant claims the victim's statements were too vague for the jury to reasonably find he committed the acts described in Counts 1 and 2 more than once. However, the Court found the victim's consistent statements to family, the forensic interviewer, and her anatomical drawing support the conviction on both counts. The evidence was deemed sufficient as per precedent. 2. **Proposition II:**
The Court noted that since Appellant did not challenge the specificity of the Information at trial, this complaint was waived except for plain error. The factual allegations of the Information were sufficient for Appellant to prepare a defense and to advance a plea of former jeopardy for similar subsequent charges. No error was found. 3. **Proposition III:**
Appellant argued that the prosecutor's closing remarks improperly invoked sympathy for the victim. With no objection raised at the time of the closing argument, the Court reviewed for plain error and found no basis for relief, as the comments were grounded in the evidence presented at trial. 4. **Proposition IV:**
The Court determined that since no errors were identified in the prior propositions, there could not be cumulative error. **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. --- **APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY**
**THE HONORABLE BILL GRAVES, DISTRICT JUDGE** **ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL**
KENDA MCINTOSH
MELTEM KARLA TANKUT
ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER
OKLAHOMA COUNTY **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL**
HALLIE ELIZABETH BOVOS
ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER
OKLAHOMA COUNTY **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE**
MEREDITH EASTER
MIKE HUNTER
MCKENZIE MCMAHAN
ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
OKLAHOMA COUNTY --- **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.**
**LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR**
**LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS**
**HUDSON, J.: CONCUR**
**ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR**
