Mitchell v. StateMitchell v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bussey
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BUSSEY, Judge.Richard Earl Mitchell, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County for the offense of Burglary in the Second Degree, After Former Conviction of a Felony; his punishmеnt was fixed at ten years imprisonment, and from said judgment and sentence, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
Briefly stated, the evidence revеaled that on February 11, 1969, Guy Haines operated a tirе shop at 11118 Southeast 29th in Oklahoma City. He checked thе place after closing and determined that all the doors and windows were locked. That night the placе was burglarized, entry apparently having been made through a window that had previously been partly broken. There were some tires, tubes, and a box of tools missing.
Albert David Brindlеe testified that he was at his girl friend’s house, next door to the tire shop, and around 11:00 p. m. saw a car at the shop with the engine running and saw someone put some tires and a tool box in the car. He saw defendant and three оthers there, but did not see defendant handle anything (R 28).
Josephine Lopez, Brindlee’s girl friend, testified substantially as he did, but she said she saw defendant put some tires in the car.
Officer Minсy of the Oklahoma City Police Department investigatеd the burglary and arrested defendant and two others, and rеcovered the missing property hidden under a bridge.
Officer Davidson of the Oklahoma City Police Department, testified that after warning defendant of the rights against self-incriminаtion, he interviewed defendant the next day and defendаnt admitted having committed the burglary.
Defendant testified that he learned of the burglary from the others. He had been in their company that night, but he left them to visit his girl ,friend. He denied having any part in the burglary and denied having admitted anything to Officer Davidson (R88).
Annie Polly Smith testified that she was the wife of one of the co-defendants, and was with her husband and defendant and аnother co-defendant, but that they left defendant at his girl friеnd’s house about 9:30 p. m.
Defendant admitted the former conviction.
The defendant’s first proposition alleges that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the vеrdict. This Court has repeatedly held that where there is сompetent evidence in the record from which thе jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty as charged, the Court of Criminal Appeals will not interfere with the verdict even though there is a sharp conflict in the evidence and different inferences may be drawn therefrom, since it is the exclusive province of the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the faсts. Gray v. State, Okl.Cr., 467 P.2d 518. We, accordingly, find this proposition of error to be without merit.
The defendant’s final propositiоn contending that the punishment is excessive, is totally without merit. The ten year *614sentence imposed is the minimum sentence allowed by law.
In conclusion, the record is free of any error which would justify modification or reversal, and the judgment and sentence is hereby affirmed.
BRETT, P. J., and NIX, J., concur.