DUCLOS v. STATE
400 P.3d 781
Okla. Crim. App.2017Background
- Appellant David Paul Duelos was convicted by jury of Unlawful Communication With Minor By Use of Technology; twelve? no, eight years and $5,000 fine were recommended and imposed.
- On Oct 18, 2013, Appellant allegedly communicated with someone he believed to be a 14-year-old female via email and text, expressing sexual or prurient interest.
- Unbeknownst to him, the contact was with Lieutenant Adam Flowers, an undercover officer with the ICAC Task Force.
- Appellant arranged to meet the supposed minor at a movie theater in El Reno, Oklahoma; he parked away from the public view and admitted to the encounter after being confronted by police.
- A pillow and blanket found in the back seat of his vehicle were seized as evidence; Appellant claimed no intent to have sex with the minor.
- Section 576 prohibits the judge who conducts the preliminary examination from trying the case without consent of all parties; the record failed to show Appellant consented to the same judge presiding at trial; the case proceeded with a special judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the § 576 error plain error and harmless? | Duelos (State) argues the error is not plain error or reversible. | Duelos argues the error is plain and structural, requiring reversal. | No structural error; harmless error analysis applies; denial affirmed. |
| Was there a failure to instruct on sex offender registration (Proposition II)? | Reed v. State doctrine requires instruction on registration. | Instructions given were accurate; no duty to instruct. | No instructional error; proposition denied. |
| Was the sentence excessive (Proposition III)? | Sentence claimed excessive under circumstances. | Court should not reverse for excessiveness. | Sentence not excessive; proposition denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simpson v. State, 876 P.2d 690 (1994 OK CR) (plain error framework for statutory violations; harmless error analysis available)
- Hogan v. State, 139 P.3d 907 (2006 OK CR) (harmless error applicability to trial errors; substantial rights test)
- Stewart v. State, 372 P.3d 508 (2016 OK CR) (plain error analysis continued; limit on structural error doctrine)
- Phillips v. State, 989 P.2d 1017 (1999 OK CR) (harmless error for restraints; statutory violation subject to harmless error analysis)
- Turney v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) (state policy vs. structural error; policy-based violation not structural error)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (structural error framework limited; most errors subject to harmless error analysis)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (structural error concept in certain constitutional rights; limited class)