LEE v. STATE
2018 OK CR 14
Okla. Crim. App.2018Background
- Appellant Glendell Dewayne Lee was convicted by jury of two counts of Shooting with Intent to Kill, Robbery with a Firearm, and Possession of a Firearm after Felony Conviction; jury recommended 100 years on Counts I–II and life on Counts III–IV; trial court imposed consecutive sentences.
- On appeal Lee raised four propositions: (I) incomplete jury instruction on Oklahoma’s 85% Rule; (II) prosecutorial misconduct (hearsay and misstating life sentence length); (III) ineffective assistance of counsel; (IV) cumulative error.
- Trial court’s Instruction No. 36 incorrectly stated the 85% Rule applied only to life sentences, omitting its applicability to other 85% offenses (Counts I & II were 85% crimes).
- Prosecutor misstated during closing that a life sentence equals 45 years and urged the jury to impose 1,000-year terms on Counts I & II; prosecutor also briefly referenced excluded hearsay during cross-examination.
- Appellate court found the incorrect 85% instruction and the prosecutor’s misstatement combined to constitute plain error affecting sentencing fairness; remanded for resentencing but affirmed convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. 85% Rule instruction defective | Trial court gave incomplete Instruction No. 36 limiting 85% Rule to life sentences, harming Lee’s sentencing rights | Instructional error was not reversible or did not affect substantial rights | Court found plain and obvious error affecting substantial rights and remanded for resentencing |
| 2. Prosecutorial misconduct | Prosecutor elicited excluded hearsay and misstated law (life = 45 years), influencing jury to impose extreme sentences | Any errors were harmless given jury admonitions and weight of evidence | Misstatement of law combined with faulty 85% instruction warranted resentencing (plain error) |
| 3. Ineffective assistance of counsel | Trial counsel elicited and highlighted appellant’s criminal history, failed to object to misstatements and instruction | Counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy; no prejudice shown affecting guilt; sentencing prejudice cured by resentencing | Strickland test not met; no ineffective-assistance reversal; resentencing cures any sentencing-stage omissions |
| 4. Cumulative error | Combined errors denied fair trial | Errors either harmless or affect only sentencing | No cumulative error requiring reversal of convictions; remand limited to resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Simpson v. State, 876 P.2d 690 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994) (plain-error standard articulated)
- Daniels v. State, 369 P.3d 381 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016) (review of 85% Rule instruction issues)
- Marquez-Burrola v. State, 157 P.3d 749 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007) (requirement to give full uniform 85% instruction)
- Hogan v. State, 139 P.3d 907 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (plain-error and fairness analysis)
- Anderson v. State, 130 P.3d 273 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (clarifying parole/85% discussion vs. statutory life sentence)
- Florez v. State, 239 P.3d 156 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010) (misstatement of law by prosecutor does not always require relief)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective-assistance standard)