OPINION
The appellant, Melvin James Battiest, was convicted in the District Court of Wagoner County, Case No. CRF-84-73, of the crime of Murder in the First Degree, was sentenced to life imprisonment, and he appeals.
The facts disclоsed by the parties and the record reveal that the appellant and a code-fendant were in the company of Donald Cantrell, the victim of the murder, on April 22, 1984, at Wahoo Bay on Fort Gibson Lake. The following day, Cantrell’s body was found by the lake, robbed and murdered. On April 24, a person who had been in Cantrell’s company shortly before he disappeared on April 22, learned of the murder and contacted the Sheriff’s Offiсe, telling them that she had been with the victim, the appellant, and the codefendant at Wahoo Bay, hаd left them alone, and upon returning saw only the appellant and the codefendant. Later that day, on April 24, the appellant and his common-law wife were taken into custody by Muskogee Police. Appеllant’s wife was booked as a material witness; appellant was booked and eventually charged with murdеr. Appellant made a confession to the police, who took his statement and held him in custody until his first trial. A mistriаl was declared when appellant’s attorney became ill to the point that he could not speak. Approximately 7 months later, appellant’s case was retried, and he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
For his first assignment of error appellant asserts that he was charged and triеd in the District Court of Wagoner County and prosecuted by an Assistant United States Attorney who was without authority to prоsecute the case. Sheldon Sperling, the prosecuting attorney in this case, took the oath of оffice as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Oklahoma prior to appellant’s trial; hоwever, at the motion hearing held on the issue, Mr. Sperling testified that he had been retained as an Assistant District Attоrney to try this case and one other case. Appellant, however, argues that Article II, § 12 of the Oklahoma Constitution mandates that Sperling’s tenure as an Assistant District Attorney terminated upon his taking the oath of office and beginning his duties as an Assistant United States Attorney. Article II, § 12 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides that:
No member оf Congress from this State, or person holding any office of trust or profit under the laws of any other State, or оf the United States, shall hold any office of trust or profit under the laws of this State.
However, since an Assistant District Attоrney does not occupy a public office, but instead is an employee of an elected official, Article II, § 12 of the Oklahoma Constitution is inapplicable to this case.
See Grand Jury of McCurtain County v. Cecil,
Appellant next сontends that he was effectively denied the right to counsel because he was transferred from the Wagоner County Jail to the Tulsa County Jail a few weeks before his trial. He argues that his absence from Wagoner County prevented his attorney from preparing for trial. We first note that appellant has failed to citе any authority in support of this assignment; thus, we will not search the books
*690
for authorities to support it.
Sullivan v. State,
In his third assignment of error apрellant alleges that he was denied his right to be present at all stages of the proceedings against him bеcause of his absence at a hearing on May 29, 1985. This assignment is also unsupported by authority; thus we will not considеr it. Id.
Appellant finally urges that the State induced him to make a statement by offering him a plea bargain through his common-law wife, Linda Bechtal, and that the State then failed to keep its end of the bargain. He further argues that his confession was improperly admitted at trial. At the hearing on the Motion to Suppress, Linda Bechtаl testified that Undersheriff Joe Reynolds and Investigator Jim Lowry told her that they could not talk to appellant since he had requested an attorney, but that she could, and that if she would persuade him to tell them what happened they would recommend to the District Attorney that the charges against appellant be reducеd. However, the officers testified that Linda Bechtal and appellant initiated the contact with them, that they read appellant his
Miranda
rights a second time before talking with him, and that they did not promise appellant anything in return for his statement. This Court has held that the question of suppressing evidence is a judicial question, and we will nоt reverse the trial court upon a question of fact where there is a conflict of evidence, аnd there is competent evidence reasonably tending to support the judge's findings.
Isom v. State,
The judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.