F-2010-495
In OCCA case No. F-2010-495, Marco Lamonte Carroll appealed his conviction for one count of Second Degree Felony Murder and two counts of Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Discharge of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for Counts 1 and 3 but reverse Count 2 based on double jeopardy grounds. One judge dissented. Carroll was found guilty in a case related to a drive-by shooting that led to one person's death and another's injury. The evidence indicated that there were multiple guns in the vehicle, and shots were fired from more than one of them. The jury's conclusion that Carroll participated in the incident was deemed sufficient by the court. Carroll raised several reasons for his appeal. He argued that there wasn't enough evidence for the charge of Drive-by Shooting, which also supported his Second-Degree Murder conviction. He believed that the merger doctrine should mean his murder charge couldn't be based on the same act that caused the death, meaning his murder conviction should be vacated. He claimed that being convicted of both murder and using a vehicle to facilitate the shooting violated double jeopardy laws, which protect from being tried for the same crime twice. Finally, he argued that the trial court wrongly refused to give him credit for the time he spent in jail before the trial. After looking closely at all the arguments and the case records, the court upheld Carroll's convictions for Second Degree Murder and Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Discharge of a Firearm related to the second shooting incident. However, they agreed that counting the charge for the first shooting incident separately violated double jeopardy principles, leading to the reversal of that conviction. Overall, while Carroll's main murder conviction and the second vehicle charge were confirmed, the charge of Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Discharge of a Firearm from the first shooting was dismissed. The court concluded that the trial judge had functioned properly regarding the defendant's time served and did not find grounds to change that part of the decision.