*1 places a conduct” “course of statute numerous the commission
premium on e., price
crimes, “many i. or fall will stand Finally, each case
one”. merits; concur in I
on its own decision, the reason of this
the results
stated. TUCKER, Oklahoma, Defend- Error. ant in
No. A-15425. Appeals of 3, 1971.
Feb.
168 testimony the of offered defendant
The the cellmate of a former Larry Maynard, in the currently serving a term defendant Defendеr, plain- for Dalton, Public Jay he that testified who penitentiary, state in error. tiff said thе committed the defendant and not crime. Gen., Atty. Max Blankenship, G. T. Gen.,
Martin, for Atty. defendant Asst. the that defend- Morgan testified Storms error. him in living with ant his wife were and March; March 16th that оn BUSSEY, Presiding Judge. p.m. to from 5:00 did not the house leave midnight. Tucker, referred hereinafter rеbuttal, permitted, and defendant, tried was charged, the to was as the to read оbjection, of Okla- in the District the defendant’s convicted over Edwards, aat Kidnapping taken County of of of the offense Seth homa Felony; his that the testified of а Edwards trial. After Former Conviction former on March twenty him than with living at not less was punishment fixed defendant ap- at the house left sixty (60) defendant more than The and not 16th. a red car. p.m. driving proximately imprisonment; and from said 8:30 per- timely appeal has been a and sentence proposition first The defendant’s this Court. fected to sеpa alleges cannot obtain that “the State at the trial Briefly stated the еvidence separate punishments statutes rate under 16, 1968, ap- at that on revеaled March involving single single for a transaction a robbery proximately p.m., оccurred a intent, act, 9:45 or course objective criminal and Dicker- drug storе in Tulsa. William the a of He that since conduct.” contends defendant had been сonvicted son, owner, previously the defend- testified that the Robbery, it for the crime Armed is dou of ant, netting his wearing large mesh over a out punishment ble to carve two face, caliber the store with .32 entered the course conduct. cannоt same We demanded, pistol. and was The defendant agree with a contention. We are such money. placed the given, He narcotics and Robbery the thаt Armed was the towels. Dickerson narcotics in two hand the left when the defendant fоrced, accompany to by gunpoint, was Robbery The elements of Armed store. was the store. Dickerson defendant from Kidnapping quite and those dissimi are a red Ford seat of forced into the back proof required prove the lar. The to placed his and a over automobile blanket required proof to Armed and the passenger in the got head. The defendant prove completеly dif are person drove an side and unidentified State, Okl.Cr., 473 P. Ryan ferent. See v. transported for car from the scene. He We, therefore, proposi 2d find this ten and wаs ordered approximately minutes tion to without merit. by defendant. out of the cаr getting out light on as he was dome came proposition next The defendant’s the de- of the and he could observe vehicle single alleges punishment that double for a approached car fendant’s face. Another intent, act, оbjective or course criminal and get back in- and Dickerson was ordered tо and unusual amounts cruel conduct driv- side the The vehicle was automobile. punishmеnt. that are of We minutes, approximately en he five rap crimes were committed fact the again again ordered from car. He negate the id not ultimаte succession does as observed defendant he dismounted committed. seрarate fact crimes were that from automobile. Dickerson ran from open the door for To hold otherwise would any of crimes number persons commit subsequently police. the car and called the simultaneously, they only be knowing cоuld We, find this
punished for one. JONES, William Scott proposition to be without merit. Oklahoma, Dеfend The defendant’s final in Error. ant *3 in contends that trial court erred al No. A — 15991. lowing to read the Appeals transcript the rebuttal witness from the 6, Jan. 1971. prior trial. We notе that trial court inquiry prior conducted an intensive to ad 8, Rehearing Denied Marсh mitting following guide the testimony
lines set in Page, forth Barber v. 390 U.S.
719,
1318,
88 S.Ct.
officers testified efforts made subpoena locate and serve a on wit The trial judicial
ness. court made a find
ing that diligent the State had been at
tempting to locate missing witness and just
stated: “I you don’t know what more
could require (CM 367). of them.”
We are of the that the record
properly supports ruling. the trial court’s
We, therefore, find this
without merit. conclusion, we observe that the
jury was instructed “good as to time cred
its” objection over the
the second stage two-stage proceed
ing. giving of such instruction is er State, Okl.Cr.,
ror. Williams v. P.2d judgment
997. The is sentence there
fore modified to an indeterminate term of
not less than ten nor more than thir (10),
ty imprisonment, and as so
modified and sentence is
Affirmed. Modified and affirmed.
NIX, J., not participating.
BRETT, J., specially concurring.
BRETT, Judge (specially concurring).
I concur in this because the act
of Armed when
the act of commenced. 11, O.S.Supp.1970, speaks
Title 21 § singular provision and makes no what-
soever for “course of conduct.”