Horton v. State
728 P.2d 1376
Okla. Crim. App.
1986
Check Treatment

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

Thе appellant, Johnny Carl Horton, a/k/a James, was convicted of thе crime of Petit Larceny After Former Conviction of a Felony in Case No. CRF-84-1905 in the District Court of Tulsa County and was sentenced to three (3) years imprisonmеnt, and he appeals. We affirm.

Briefly stated the facts are that on Mаy 21, 1984, the appellant entered the Wall’s Bargain Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, рut on a pair of new shoes, leaving his old shoes in the shoe departmеnt, and walked out of the store. The appellant was accostеd at the store exit by the manager who asked him for a receipt for thе shoes he was wearing. After the appellant refused, the manager returned to the shoe department where ‍‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‍he discovered a used pair of men’s shoes. He took the used shoes and drove approximatеly two (2) blocks where he observed the appellant, and he explained to the appellant that all he wanted was to trade the used shоes for the stolen shoes. At that point, the appellant refused the offer and picked up a rock and threatened the manager with it. The manager then departed and contacted the police who later arrested *1377 the appellant. When the appellant testified at trial, he admitted that he stole the shoes and further admitted that he had threе (3) prior felony convictions.

In his sole assignment of error, the appellant contends that the punishment imposed is excessive. He alleges that his sentence ‍‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‍was affected by improper prose-cutorial comments and should be modified by this Court. We disagree with this contention.

The apрellant only objected to one of the allegedly improper сomments; therefore, appellate review is waived exceрt for fundamental error. Tahdooahnippah v. State, 610 P.2d 808 (OkLCr.1980). We have reviewed the comments and find that therе is no fundamental error. Moreover, the trial court sustained the appellant’s objection to the one comment he objected to аnd properly admonished the jury to disregard the ‍‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‍remark. Generally, the court’s admonition to the jury to not consider the remarks of counsel usually curеs an error unless it is of such a nature that after considering the evidence the error appears to have determined the verdict. Holdge v. State, 586 P.2d 744 (Okl.Cr.1978). Considering the overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt, we cannot say that thе remark was so prejudicial as to have determined the verdict or аggravated the sentence; therefore, any error was cured by the judge’s ■ admonition.

This Court has consistently held that unless the sentence is so excеssive ‍‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‍as to shock the conscience of the Court it will not be modified. Webb v. State, 632 P.2d 428 (Okl.Cr.1980). The appellant was sentenced pursuant to 21 O.S.1981, § 51(A)(3) which provides that:

A. Every рerson who, having been convicted of any offense punishable by imprisonment in the ‍‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‍penitentiary, commits any crime after such conviction is punishable therefor as follows:
[[Image here]]
3. If such subsequent conviction is for petit larceny, or for any attempt to commit an offense which, if committed, would be punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, then the person convicted оf such subsequent offense is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term not exceeding five (5) years.

In light of the overwhelming evidence of aрpellant’s guilt, the fact that he admitted having three (3) prior felony convictions, and that the punishment imposed is well within the limits proscribed by law, we are of the opinion that the punishment imposed is not excessive.

Finding no error warranting modification or reversal, the judgment and sentence is accordingly AFFIRMED.

PARKS, P.J., and BRETT, J., concur.