2018 OK CR 8
Okla. Crim. App.2018Background
- Reuben Juan Lamar was convicted by a jury of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon (Count 2), Conspiracy (Count 5), and First Degree Burglary (Count 6); jury recommended 20, 4, and 20 year terms respectively; sentences ordered partly concurrent and partly consecutive.
- Facts: Lamar and two accomplices forcibly entered victim Debbie Parton’s home during the night, held victims at gunpoint, stole property and a car; victims identified Lamar from a photo lineup; a cigar tip from the scene produced a DNA match to Lamar.
- Pretrial history: multiple continuances over ~17 months; Lamar repeatedly sought to proceed pro se at various points, withdrew and renewed requests, and ultimately attempted again on morning of trial.
- On trial morning Lamar sought to represent himself and a continuance; the court initially denied delay, then offered election: pro se without continuance or proceed with counsel; Lamar was nonresponsive and obstructive; court proceeded with appointed counsel.
- Lamar raised nine propositions on appeal (self-representation/continuance, photo-lineup suggestiveness and bolstering, Fourth Amendment to DNA buccal swab, evidentiary/exclusion rulings, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance, double jeopardy, cumulative error); the Court affirmed and denied motions to supplement the record.
Issues
| Issue | Lamar's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to proceed pro se and entitlement to continuance when invoked on morning of trial | Lamar argues his Faretta request was timely (before jury selection) and he was entitled to a continuance to prepare if allowed to represent himself | Court stresses dilatory conduct, repeated prior opportunities, and that the request was a last-minute delay tactic; judge may deny continuance and foreclose self-representation for obstructive conduct | Court: Faretta waiver valid but request tied to continuance was untimely and dilatory; judge did not abuse discretion in denying continuance and effectively terminating self-representation due to obstructive behavior; no relief granted |
| Photo-lineup suggestiveness and due process | Lamar contends the police lineup was suggestive, making in-court IDs unreliable | State notes record lacks any showing of suggestiveness or unnecessary procedure; no contemporaneous objection or record support | Court: No plain error shown; appellant failed to identify how lineup was suggestive; claim denied |
| Third-party bolstering of ID and admission of DNA from buccal swab (Fourth Amendment) | Lamar argues officer’s testimony impermissibly bolstered IDs and buccal swab was obtained under a warrant with material omissions | State: Victims testified and were cross-examined so officer testimony about out-of-court IDs was permissible; record shows swabs obtained pursuant to a warrant and Lamar failed to challenge warrant below | Court: Bolstering testimony admissible because witnesses testified and were cross-examined; Fourth Amendment claim waived on appeal and no plain error shown; motions to supplement record to create evidence denied |
| Exclusion of impeachment evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance | Lamar asserts trial court improperly prevented impeachment (prior writing), prosecutor made improper comments, and counsel was ineffective for omissions | State: Trial court properly enforced disclosure rules (12 O.S. §2613); most misconduct claims unpreserved; ineffective-assistance claims lack record evidence and fail Strickland standard; supplementation/evidentiary hearing denied | Court: Rulings within discretion; exclusion not arbitrary; preserved claim(s) without merit; no evidentiary hearing warranted; ineffective assistance claims denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (criminal defendant has right to self-representation if waiver of counsel is knowing and intelligent)
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984) (limits on self-representation; defendant must abide by courtroom rules; structural error if Faretta violated)
- Coleman v. State, 617 P.2d 243 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980) (request to proceed pro se before jury selection deemed timely; continuance may be required absent dilatory motive)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (double jeopardy/multiplicity test: whether each offense requires proof of an additional fact)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance of counsel test: deficient performance and prejudice)