*1 rеmark, PARKS, Judge, specially sustained fourth the trial court thus, objection; no error. This we find my in stated reasons concur groundless. v. separate opinion Reid J., (Okl.Cr.1987)(Parks, Spe- 1355, 1356-57 In his final Concurring). cially by impos- argues that the trial erred indigent. since he Since this ing fines raised, prematurely we decline State, 682 P.2d it. See v.
address Jones sentences are COLLINS, Appellant, Lee
Charles P.J., BRETT, part, pаrt. Oklahoma, Appellee. STATE No. F-85-657. Appeals of Criminal of Oklahoma. Court BRETT, concurring Presiding Judge: dissenting part, Feb. preju- agree controlled sub- due to fact that diced There- person. found
stance was
fore, affirmed. his conviction must be opinion’s of the admission of
treatment search of the auto-
which resulted
mobile. reveals
An examination of the record copy policе officer did not send a (2), official
of exhibit number two report exhibit number
stored vehicle (4), Depart- report
four the unofficial Furthermore, on Safely.
ment of Public report
the face of the unofficial
pears to no link the contents
listed and the vehicle identification
stored information. State, 601 Magann held in (Okl.Cr.1979) that: recognized proce inventory police impounding in order a vehicle
dure when protect and to protect contents of theft.
officers false Okl.Cr., 507 P.2d
See Gonzales (1973). accomplish objec To these
tives, showing the inventory sheet must be filled out
contents vehicle points less
appropriately. Anything inventory is possibility that
subterfuge.
Lewd Molestation Former Conviction Felony. aof He was sentenced to 150 years’ imprisonment count, on each with running concurrently, three counts and оne running consecutively count to the first appeals raising count. He assign- five ments of error.. stated,
Briefly
concerning the two counts
rape,
the evidеnce revealed that a fifteen
year old female
relative of the
concerning
testified
two
occasions
appellant
when the
forсed her to have in-
tercourse with
once when she was
eleven, and once when she was thirteen. A
relative,
second female
years
who was ten
triаl,
old at the time of
concerning
testified
two incidents of lewd
appellant
when she
years
was nine
old.
Those facts are
discussed more detail in
assignment
the second
of error.
investigator
An
for the
Coun-
ty
and Deputy
Sheriff’s Office
Sheriff
arrest,
appellant
interviewed the
after
testified that he
charges.
admitted the
also testified and admitted
girl,
intercourse
the first
but stated
her,
he
was coerced
and that the
wrong.
dates were
He denied the incidents
girl.
with the second
error,
In
assignment
his first
pellant complains
questions
of two
asked
prosecutor,
alleging
improper.
question
The first
drew an ob
jection from defense
and wаs sus
tained; therefore, any
error not of
funda
Tahdooahnip
mental error was
waived.
State,
pah
(Okl.Cr.1980).
BUSSEY, Judge:
evidence,
reviewing sufficiency of the
Collins,
required
determine,
Charles Lee
reviewing
are
in the
convicted
Court Musko-
the evidence in
most
favorable to
CRF-84-326,
gee County,
State,
Case No.
two
rational trier
fact
Degree Rape
counts of First
After Former
could have found the essential elements of
Felony,
Conviction
two
charged beyond
counts of
the crime
a rеasonable
under all the
unless
disturb
sentence
Spuehler
doubt.
(Okl.Cr.1985). Testimony
presented,
facts and circumstances
shock
believed,
as to
if
so excessive
would show
1984, grabbed
Ahhaitty
a nine
the Court.
in June of
conscience of
relative,
Consider-
around
by object failure to commеnt, seques er failure to ask for preliminary of at tration witnesses the PARKS, Judge, specially hearing until the witness had first separately the issue of I write to address testified, preparation lack of During cross-ex- prosecutorial misconduct. U.S. Washington, trial. 466 Strickland appellant, prosecutor amination of the 668, 694, 2052, 2068, 104 L.Ed.2d 80 S.Ct. question appellant concern- was allowed to (1984) “The must 698 holds: defendant age first start- ing the his wife when he of probability that show there is reasonable they dаting or not her and whether ed that, unprofessional er but for counsel’s engaged intimacy” before his “acts rors, proceeding would the result of the eighteen. age reached the Defense wife proba been have different. reasonable object prosecutor did until the counsel not bility probability sufficient to under partic- had “a asked whether mine confidence the outcome.” young girls?” At that penchant for ular to officers confessed objeсtion was sustained as point, counsel’s counts, against all and confessed on question, further form the and no more on sexual intercourse De- subject was inquiry on this conducted. minor than one with one occasion however, any failed to state fense strength of the Considering witnesses. nor cannot evidence necessarily apparent dif find that the would have been verdict context, required by 12 as ferent. 1981, 2104(A)(1). It is doubtful § questioning was under assignment of such relevant fifth 1981, 2401, since the urges imрosed O.S. the sentences rape consistently charged held and lewd We have excessive. range his wife’s and his own respectively of niece punishmеnt is within the that where objection by marriage. no not niece legislature, we will established grounds relevancy was made or lieve should he made to run conсur- specific ground. other Accordingly, rently. properly preserved the error was not
appeal by making timely specific objec foregoing,
tion. On the basis and in strong guilt evidence of and the crimes, say
nature of the I cannot
fundamental error occurred so as re
quire reversal modification. See (Okl.Cr.
McLeod v. 1986). AMOCO PRODUCTION Thus, that the conviction herein COMPANY, Appellant, concur, should be affirmed. how- *4 ever, majority’s determination that alleged error herein properly was nоt The CORPORATION COMMISSION OF
preserved OKLAHOMA; composed because defense counsel failed to the STATE of request jury Baker, that the court admonish Hamp of the Honorable Chair man; disregard the gov- Eagleton, remarks. The statute the Honorable Norma 1981, erning Vice-Chairman; and the Honorable 2104(A)(1) Code, Townsend, Commissioner; of оur Evidence B. James provides: Inc.; Exploration, and Bartex and Be rexco, Inc., Appellees. may predicated upon
A. Error not be ruling which admits or excludes evidence No. 63664. right unless a party substantial is affected, and: ruling
1. If admitting is one evi- dence, timely objection or motion to Oklahoma, of Appeals appears record, stating spe- strike Division No. 1. ground
cific if the 1986. apparent from the con- text.... Rehearings Sept. Denied 1986. supports Pre-Code dеcisional law the ma-
jority’s holding, express neither but
language 2104(A)(1), anything of Section Legislative history,
in its support request
Court’s conclusion that
admonition to jury necessary pre- serve an error appeal. for review оn 1See Rehearing Denied Feb. Whinery,
L. Guide to the Oklahoma Evi- (1985). my opinion, dence Code preserved appeal under Section
2104(A)(1) timely if a
is interposed by regardless of request
whether a for an admonishment or
motion for mistrial made. believe this Legislature’s as codi- clear intent 2104(A)(1).
fied Section
BRETT, Presiding Judge: concurring part/dissenting concur that and sen- affirmed,
tences should be but I be-