Robert D. Simms

This case involves the appeal of a second conviction for robbery with firearms in Oklahoma County District Court, where the defendant received a 50-year sentence after the first conviction was reversed on appeal. The defendant challenged the identification evidence from store employees and police officers, the trial court's refusal of additional jury instructions on his alibi defense and claim that another person committed the crime, and the prosecutor's closing arguments. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found the evidence sufficient to support the verdict, determined that the given instructions fully and accurately covered the defense theories under applicable law, and concluded that the prosecutor's statements were fair inferences from the testimony or responses to defense remarks. The court therefore affirmed the judgment and sentence in all respects.

criminal lawprocedure

In Callins v. State, the appellant was convicted in Oklahoma County District Court of first-degree rape after a prior felony conviction based on the victim's testimony identifying him as the assailant who abducted her at knifepoint, drove her to a remote area, sexually assaulted her, and stole her car, along with corroborating evidence including police testimony, the recovered vehicle with altered paint, a citation issued to the defendant while driving it, and personal items linking him to the car. The jury imposed a 1,500-year sentence, which the defendant appealed on grounds that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment, violated equal protection, encroached on executive authority, and resulted from improper prosecutorial argument. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the sentence did not violate constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment or equal protection and was not excessive, as parole rules would treat it effectively as a life term; a concurrence emphasized the jury's role and rejected claims of bias, while a dissent argued the sentence was patently excessive and should be modified to life imprisonment.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hill v. State, two appellants were separately tried and convicted by juries of second-degree burglary after a grocery store in Dacoma, Oklahoma, was forcibly entered and items including food, cigarettes, an adding machine, and a radio were stolen. The appeals, consolidated by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, centered on whether the testimony of a confessed accomplice who implicated both defendants was sufficiently corroborated under state law and on related claims of improper prosecution and closing-argument misconduct. The court held that independent evidence, including police sightings of the defendants' distinctive vehicle near the scene and identification of specific stolen property, provided the required corroboration connecting the appellants to the crime, allowing the jury to consider the accomplice's full account. Other asserted errors were deemed either unpreserved or without merit, leading the court to affirm the minimum two-year sentences for both appellants.

criminal lawprocedure

In Branch v. Mills, petitioner William Max Branch sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the District Court from trying him on a felony charge of unlawful possession of hashish with intent to distribute, arguing that the charge arose from the same transaction as two misdemeanors—unlawful possession of amphetamines and marijuana—to which he had already pleaded guilty and been sentenced, violating double jeopardy protections under the Oklahoma Constitution and statutes. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied the writ. The majority reasoned that the hashish discovered on Branch's person during arrest constituted a distinct offense from the marijuana found later in his home under a search warrant and from the amphetamines, so the prior convictions did not bar prosecution for the hashish felony. A dissent argued that the possessions were part of a single transaction and that 21 O.S. § 11 also precluded multiple punishments for the same act.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the joint trial and conviction of Herbert Claude Fields and Jimmy Louis Phillips for first-degree rape after former felony conviction in Oklahoma County District Court, based on the testimony of victim Karen Lee Kimbrough and her boyfriend describing an August 1970 encounter where the defendants offered assistance with a stalled car, then abducted and raped the victim after separating her from her companion. The jury imposed 1,000-year sentences in a two-stage proceeding. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding the evidence sufficient to support the verdict, no reversible errors in the trial proceedings, and the lengthy term consistent with statutory guidelines as it effectively functioned as a life sentence under the Pardon and Parole Board's policies for parole consideration after one-third of the maximum or fifteen years. The court rejected arguments that the sentence improperly encroached on executive parole authority or nullified the 'Forgotten Man' statute.

criminal law

This case arose when a district attorney sought mandamus or prohibition after a special district judge in Tulsa County suppressed evidence from a search warrant on grounds that the supporting affidavit was insufficient, dismissed the charges, and denied reinstatement of the prosecutions. The court determined that neither mandamus nor prohibition was available because the magistrate had jurisdiction and was exercising judicial discretion, and the state had not followed the steps for an appeal on a reserved question of law. Recognizing an imbalance with defendants' rights to seek review, the court modified its prior decisions in Nicodemus, Jones, and Harper by adopting new Rule 6, which creates a specific appellate procedure allowing the state to challenge adverse magistrate rulings on motions to suppress, quash informations, or discharge defendants at preliminary examination.

criminal lawprocedure