*1 proceeding. post conviction judgment in is addressed to question of bail an If bail is denied
District Court. Court, is made to this
application for bail Petitioner to show the burden is on the its abused discretion. Gen- Court below Court
erally when bail is denied showing bail absent a clear
will not allow compelling to do otherwise. factors 4.2, Rule subd. E. we find the facts
As to an abuse of dis has not shown
Petitioner denying District Court
cretion Accordingly, we appeal. pending
bail 4.2, deny E subd.
rely upon our Rule be ad of Petitioner to
ing application to bail. Writ denied.
mitted J.,P. concurs.
NIX, J., not participating. Wesley DAVIS, Wesley John
John a/k/a Davison, STATE of A-16730.
No. Appeals of Oklahoma.
Court of Criminal 11, 1971. Anderson, Public
plaintiff in error. Atty.
Larry Derryberry, in error. fendant Judge: BUSSEY, Presiding Davis, referred hereinafter Wesley John tried, and charged, defendant, was *2 790 questioned
convicted in the District Court of Okla- the arresting officer on re-direct Carrying for the homa offense examination as follows: Weapon, a Concealed After Former Con- “Q. Was there anything else unusual Felony. punishment viction of a His was about the you stopped vehicle as eight fixed at and it? timely from said a Yes, sir, “A. it daily was on our crime appeal perfected this has been to Court. sheet, it, we call or wanted list— trial, At the Irwin Officer of the Okla- the person automobile and a by the City Department, homa Police testified that same name. 22, 1970, on patrol October he on at was “Q. The same name as this defendant? m.; stopped a. a in 4:30 he car the 1200 “A. fitting description, The car City, Block of South Robinson Oklahoma yes, sir.” light because noof to illuminate license the (Tr. 16) tag. stopped, As the car he saw the driver over, stoop pushing something ifas under Defendant contends that this line driver, the seat. Defendant was the of questioning “evidentiary constituted an stated that he had no driver’s license. harpoon” by condemned this Court time partially Irwin observed a consumed bottle after time. We concur with the conten of vodka between the driver front tion of the defendant that such line of passenger was, seats. He also questioning fact, observed what improper. In the appeared pistol be a sticking to handle from recent State, Okl.Cr., case of Green v. 481 under the front seat. It turned out be P.2d we stated: a nine shot caliber .22 revolver. “It has practice been the of this Court that in cases involving ‘evidentiary har- The defendant testified that he did not poons’ guilt hangs fairly where close in pistol car; know the was in the he had balance, trial, the grant while been in just Tulsa and returned about 11:30 guilt cases where strongly is estab- night the he was arrested. While defend- lished and a trial undoubtedly new will ant gone, was he left his car in garage conviction, result this Court will re- in the 700 Block of Northwest Second ' duce the sentence.” Street, keys and left the under the floor mat so that they his friends could drive it if proposition final asserts that wished. pre- Defendant admitted to six improper questions were asked of the de Felony vious convictions. fendant concerning his tifne credits. On cross-examination of the the rebuttal, Kerlick, On Officer Oklahoma prosecution questioned pre him about his City Department, Police testified that on convictions, vious much how time de 22, 1970, October interrogated the de- actually fendant had served on It each. fendant in City the Oklahoma After Jail. was thus established that advising defendant of his rights, Miranda served twenty-five fourteen months and Kerlick told the defendant that when the days two-year on a previous conviction, pistol stolen, was living defendant was that he years, served two three months on hall, across the and that the owner sus- four-year conviction, and that he served pected it, stealing defendant of to which four and eight-year one-half on an defendant replied that he did not steal the argues conviction. Defendant that gun, but he knew person who did. of questioning line circumvents rule es defendant said he bought pistol State, tablished this Court in Williams v. the thief. The proposi- defendant’s first Okl.Cr., 461 P.2d it wherein we held tion asserts improper jury concerning error to instruct evidence was introduced. The Record re- good time credits. are of the flects that the Assistant Attorney questions actually that such as to time highly are previous convictions on served
improper. conclusion, we observe
In established, and strongly is guilt
defendant’s *3 require not do
thus, committed the errors un trial would
reversal, con
doubtedly result conviction. by served justice would best
clude ato and sentence judgment
modifying so imprisonment, as of five
term
modified, sentence is judgment affirmed. Modified and
affirmed.
BRETT, J., concurs.
NIX, Judge (dissenting). errors, in this many too
There were nature,
of a for impartial that kind a fair have of guaranteed under the
trial as him Con- of it should be I am the
stitution.
reversed. ERVIN,
Booker T. Defender, Anderson, Public Carroll Womack, plain- Asst. Public tiff error. of The STATE Larry Derryberry, Atty. No. A-16672. fendant in error. Appeals of Criminal Oklahoma. Judge. Presiding 5, 1971. Ervin, hereinafter referred
Booker T. charged, tried, and con- victed District Court of Oklahoma in the Larceny; offense of of the Grand his three punishment was fixed at said perfect- timely appeal has been ed to this Court. stated,
Briefly at the trial evidence September adduced that on Offi- riding partner cer Sheldon and were patrol. He testified that noticed a car pull alley into the of the block on