*1 $90 driving around, him Braden left A. and that that? after
“Q.
did he do
What
and
forgot
and he
to
him
watch
everything
give
out
Well, he,
took
after he
light.
flash
He
Braden’s
getting
denied
there,
reached over
he
my pockets
money, except
paid
my
that
been
wrist
took
right
$6
hand and
with his
him for his
me to
services.
told
my
arm and
left
watch off of
back, and
look
I better not
.go
and
on
Defendant
admit-
on cross-examination
toward
tracks
across the
I started
previously
that
ted
he had
convicted
way from
opposite
Archer, kind
1952,
for car theft
convicted of
and
what
my bearings, to see
car,
my
get
to
1956,
assault,
and
and
also of
on.”
going
Dyer
convicted in Federal court under the
Act,
’phoned
18 U.S.C.A.
he
2311-2313.
§§
said that thereafter
Witness
defendant took
police.
He testified
(cid:127)the
prose-
While
conduct of
admitted
forth in
from him as
items
set
cuting
foray
witness in his
into the colored
information,
a number
and he identified
liquor,
of Tulsa in search
and
section
police recovered
had been
items that
defendant,
drinking with the
who was a
the defendant.
him,
condemned,
stranger to
is to be
and
ac-
that she was
Bell testified
deplored,
Maxine
his moral
conduct
never-
that on
and
(cid:127)quainted with
prose-
theless there was evidence that the
February
1957 he
early morning of
witness was robbed
cuting
the defendant.
n came
Frank-
North
at 339
up
her room
support
Such evidence is sufficient to
Arch’s
go
wanted her
jury. Ryan
lin Place and
verdict of the
Okl.
n Chili
cup of
they
drank
each
Parlor where
Cr.
A. W. the defendant having a conversation
the n 10, 1957,after February morning of 9th, that defendant
'his arrest on Braden, but would robbing
admitted that effect. (cid:127)sign a statement WILLIAMS, Error, Edward Leon Plaintiff for evidence There was purpose, for our is sufficient above 'but the Oklahoma, n except STATE Defendant prior proved the con- also the State Error. infor- alleged of defendant viction No. A-12467. mation. night that on the testified Appeals defendant Criminal Court of Oklahoma. February morning 8 and 9 that early Dec. 1957. whiskey around to chauffeured he Rehearing Denied Feb. 1958. n spots Tulsa, colored section Rehearing Second Petition Denied girl (and with a a date wanted Braden Feb. 1958. by the not rebutted keep he asked defendant to ; State) and that light for him case he flash watch said that Defendant “rolled”. got returned to when he Braden and
waited about they argument got into an car paid defendant Braden had
$6
99J
Tommy
victim,
alleged
herein
are that the
student,
Cooke,
theological
Robert
stopped
Sunday,
p. m.,
his car at
5:30
about
17, 1956,
light
inter-
stop
at the
June
*3
in
Cheyenne
of
section
Third and
Streets
Tulsa,
who
Oklahoma. The
was standing nearby,
and at
approached
pistol point
his
Cooke
way
forced
into the
automobile, directing
south
Cooke to drive
Highway
Thus,
kid-
the crime of
64.
completed by
napping was
acts.
these
P.2d
Norris v.
Thence,
compelled
540.
to drive
he
Cooke
Oklahoma,
per-
Bixby,
under
where
pistol,
took
suasion of
the defendant
his
Woodson,
Ladner, Jr.,
W.
A.
Fred
$5,
from
he
John
with which
Cooke’s billfold
Gotcher,
Tulsa,
Muskogee,
Jr.,
Paul
paid
gas,
to continue
and forced Cooke
plaintiff in error.
point ap-
on South on
a
Highway 64. At
Williamson, Atty. Gen.,
proximately
Sam H.
three
miles
miles east and four
Q.Mac
Gen.,
Taft, Oklahoma,
Atty.
Muskogee
defendant
north of
in
Lattimore, Asst.
point
County,
appar-
with which
was
he
error.
in
ently familiar,
the defendant marched
road,
Cooke into the weeds off a dead-end
Judge.
BRETT, Presiding
up,
pleading
with Cooke
not
tied
ac-
error,
Wil-
Edward Leon
Plaintiff
cording
confession,
to Williams’
and shot
below,
by in-
charged
was
liams, defendant
the right
Cooke on
side of
head behind
Tulsa
Court of
the District
formation
ear,
right
affecting
his instantaneous
Oklahoma, with the
admitted
County,
apparently
death.
life of Cooke was
on Decem-
committed
kidnapping,
crime
taken with the cold blooded
intent
elimi-
Tommy Robert
1956, against one
ber
nating
possibility
positive
identifi-
county
state, in
aforesaid
Cooke
might
cation. This
resulted had
Defend-
745.
21 O.S.1951
violation
subsequent depredations.
not been for his
plea
guilty,
but
entered
first
ant
The accused then stole the decedent’s auto-
subsequent
thereto withdrew
days
several
escape
an
sought
mobile and
to effect
from
plea
be-
entered
same
his crime.
Webb, Judge of
Leslie W.
Honorable
fore
plea
guilty,
On
Court.
District
appears
night
preceding
the kid-
to death in
sentenced
defendant
m.,
napping, about 1:00 a.
the defendant
Judgment and sentence
chair.
the electric
Station,
drove into a Hudson Service
accordingly, from which this
entered
were
bought
asked how much
gas,
he owed the
perfected.
appeal has
attendant,
reached into
automobile he
re-
appeal,
driving,
pistol,
seeks
got
.38 caliber
told
On
money,
two
wanted his
said
the attendant he
thus
from
lief
First,
currency,
set forth.
hereinafter
him
obtained
forced
inside
propositions
$30
per-
money,
required
trial court
erred
for more
the station
contends
he
attorney
county
to make
go
the rest room
mitting the
him
ad-
into
detailing
monition,
your
the de-
in substance
“You come out and
blow
I’ll
kidnapping,
Later,
flight
another of-
pursuing
head off.”
fendant’s
preceding
kidnap-
automobile,
immediately
policemen,
wrecked
but
fense
therefor),
apprehension
motive
by crawling
through
avoided
(supplying
ping
following
culvert,
kidnapping.
hiding
two-hundred feet
crimes
in a
facts, briefly,
regard
evening
area
.the crime
until the
wooded
kid-
973. After a
or verdict
consum-
Ҥ
came out
napping when he
guilty in
a case where the extent
of Cooke.
mated the abduction
court, the
is left with the
kid-
apparent
behind
It is
motive
court, upon
suggestion
either
by the
apprehension
napping was to avoid
party that
there are circumstances
com-
robbery with firearms
officers for the
view,
properly
taken into
kidnapping
night before. After
mitted the
either
aggravation
mitigation
Cooke,
stealing Cooke’s
killing
punishment,
may in
discre-
its
automobile,
Tali-
defendant drove
summarily
tion hear
the same
at a
hina, Oklahoma,
an
where he committed
specified
time and
such notice to
employer
armed
of his former
*4
party
may
adverse
as it
direct.
$1,000. Later,
Cooke
he abandoned the
974,
Talihina
automobile
and returned
The circumstances must be
Ҥ
store for
burglarized
grocery
where he
a
presented by
testimony
of witness-
in the
food with which to sustain himself
court,
es
open
except
examined in
on
mountains. Thereafter he was arrested
when a witness
so sick or infirm as
by
Highway
Patrol
bus
a member of the
attend,
deposition
unable to
his
Poteau, Oklahoma,
a short
time
may be
taken
a magistrate of the
Tommy
later confessed the murder of
county
specified
out of
at a
Cooke,
point in
taking
the officers to
place, upon
such notice to
ad-
Oklahoma,
had
County,
where he
Le Flore
party
verse
may
as the court
direct.
re-
which the officers
gun,
disposed of the
testimony,
affidavit or
or
975. No
Ҥ
experts es-
which ballistics
covered
kind,
representation
verbal or
that killed Cooke.
gun
was the
tablished
written,
offered to or received
can be
County
foregoing occurrences
All the
ag-
or member thereof in
the court
statement relative
Attorney
his
detailed
punish-
gravation
mitigation
or
of the
kidnapping.
In addi-
for the
to the motive
except
provided in
last
ment
as
two
detailing
thereto,
F.
I. record
his
B.
tion
sections.”
theft, rob-
prior
for automobile
convictions
connection,
In
it has been held that
this
firearms,
and other crimes
bery with
case,
plea
capital
is for
on
ap-
thus
It is
trial court.
submitted to the
the de-
trial court to determine whether
unfortunate
parent
this
punished by
impris-
life
fendant should be
years
twenty
age,
seven
though
by imposition
pen-
of the death
onment or
to crime.
long been a devotee
Watkins,
95,
21 Okl.Cr.
205
alty.
re
In
great
care
proceeded
The court
18
191;
Opinion
Judges,
In re
of the
P.
defend-
relative to the
case
caution
this
546;
Opinion
598,
In
P.
re
197
Okl.Cr.
statutory rights,
constitutional
ant’s
18, 115
Judges, 6 Okl.Cr.
P. 1028. Nev-
judg-
pronouncement of
delaying the
even
ertheless,
plea
provisions
guilty,
eight
forty
hours
and sentence
ment
foregoing statute
invoked
of the
be
guilty, even
after the defendant’s
request
taking
made
when
of evi-
right
had waived
though the defendant
question
aggravation
dence on the
or
pronounce-
ready for the
thereto and stood
punishment.
request
mitigation of
This
Notwith-
judgment and sentence.
ment of
may be
the state or the
made
defendant.
facts,
com-
the defendant
standing these
allowing
improper
It has been held not to
plains the trial court erred
procedure
orally
employ
fore-
method
County Attorney to
state these
this
request
by way
aggravation. absence of
therefor.
In re
going Wat
kins, supra;
Arnold,
procedure
589,
v.
this
State
39
defendant contends
Idaho
But,
provisions
things
22
of the
995
No, sir.
would
punishment.
“Mr. Williams:
not constitute double
Empey,
State v.
65
44
Utah
239 P.
you at this
“The Court: And
A.L.R.
24
558.
Criminal Law
they
admit that
were true and
C.J.S.
10, p. 1213,
note
stated:
the rule is
by the
committed the acts
set forth
correct,
that is
is it?
offenses,
“Where there are several
Yes,
although
“Mr. Williams:
sir.
part
each is
of the same
*
**
transaction,
imposition
you have
right.
“The Court: All
Do
separate
punishments on conviction
anything
say on behalf of
further
of each
punish-
offense is not double
this-defendant?
* *
ment,
Nothing
“Mr.
further.
Woodson:
Pagliaro
Cox, Cir.,
v.
8
900;
143 F.2d
Te
apparent
It is
that the defendant not
sciona
589;
v. Blunter,
Cir.,
10
151 F.2d
provisions
waived the
21 O.S.1951
§§
878;
Carroll
Sanford,
v.
Cir.,
5
167 F.2d
973, 974, 975,
but he at
time intended
Murray v.
States, Cir.,
United
F.2d
mitigation, since
provisions for
said
invoke
583; Commonwealth
rel.
ex
Withers
to offer.
such evidence
apparently he had no
Ashe,
Hence,
350 Pa.
39 A.2d
610.
mitigation
showing
aof
In the absence
punishment
imposed
kidnapping
herein
penalty
case, the extreme
capital
in a
objectionable
is not
ground
on the
2 Cal.2d
People
Laing,
imposed.
punishment.
constitutes double
The stat
armed The transaction ended prisoner, POWELL, J., killing his concurs. consummating the crime of murder. NIX, J., dissents. apprehended defendant was charged with murder. The case was set trial NIX, Judge (dissenting). the jury while was in process being selected, his defendant withdrew country pro- our Rights of The Bill of plea of guilty. not Upon of guilty, language certain and concise vides Carroll, Honorable G. a District E. of- same subj for the person be ect shall Judge, with long experience and learned in life or put jeopardy of twice fense to law, sentenced the defendant to serve Con- of our provision sacred limb. This the rest of his peni- natural life the state adherred to religiously has been stitution tentiary at McAlester. Judge No doubt adoption. One ratification since its Carroll took into consideration hazards chipped stalwart dust grain of trial, of a relying for conviction almost would re- of laws structure in our stone exclusively upon a confession of the de- jurisprudence be- progress our tard fendant, which would have been admissible these fun- preserving conception. In yond only if voluntarily given. This no doubt country, we must rights our damental gave the trial court much concern as was indirectly done permit never indicated in his remarks while passing sen- directly. done cannot be He tence. said: death in the defendant sentenced Was “ * * * weighs This matter heavi- murder, which for the crime this case ly the shoulders of this Court. and sen- convicted previously been he had thing. right want to do the I may be life, to death sentenced tenced do, criticized for about what I’m If the latter kidnapping? developed today that to but here con- be disturbed. true, not verdict should tinue mean jury trial —I that it should true, the verdict former If process; long, orderly would be a if de- of deliberation The hours never stand. only recently and I recall that in a mo- stren- of a question to this voted suppress tion filed certain paramount trying nature. The uous things, evidence certain certain defend- been whether the struggle has has evidence come to the attention has for- record sordid creation ant might the Court which have some miti- That which right to live. feited gating circumstances penalty. your is whether writer deeply concerned Rights Bill of so “There toyed with the was a confession alleged. we *9 we, by per- part testimony mankind. Have There’s some to all the precious of thrice carved an individual the defendant that to obtain that mitting con- result, you a flaunted probably obtain desired fession were slapped to order in There probably land? and beaten of our and kicked to Constitution the my you in The defendant to bring the submission—into mind. doubt sub- grave sepa- with three charged sign to this case was mission certain con- this in crimes, arising out of During distinct fession. that motion I recall rate kidnapping, armed rob- that there were two some same confessions. transaction— accosted the brought murder. He de- was never into bery, and One court. destroyed, city intersection Tul- was and what an was in that ceased know, confession will never this Court and investigation; investigation of your record, but the other was brought confession investigation of court, it, into read and I remem- which have alleged, been which have you stated, ber that that it was obtained stated been you and which admit were bodily part after you were beaten.” of this crime you which com- have mitted in County, Tulsa which result- No doubt these statements were true ed in the victim, murder of the they Rev- were not If challenged state. Cook, erend you pled to which they have true, not were confession would guilty and been sentenced in have Musko- been admissible state would gee County, and which court have takes handicapped been ob- tremendously in into consideration, that murder taining as be- a was defendant conviction as the ing part parcel the crime the sole witness to crime. surviving here, which thing. as a However, continuing charged this is not herein It is opinion the Courfs that there has to The review the merits this matter. never been in the history pleaded defendant Tulsa guilty to the crime County, brutal, more vicioiis crime murder and life received his committed, this crime you to which penitentiary. in the state Had defend- pled have guilty here. The fact that present ant death, received doubt you pled have guilty the crime case would to not this court and before murder in Muskogee County and crimes re- incident to the murder would there, ceived life passed sentence forgot- not long into since oblivion and particularly consequence or material Evidently persons ten. sat- were not in the matter of the they passing Court with this result and chose isfied sentence this case.” brought was again. The defendant carve charged County he was to Tulsa where back exceedingly It is clear tem- made sen- for which he was armed with per remarks that the crime of these prison upon a years to SO tenced predominating murder basis was pled guilty charged kidnapping, guilty; penalty. infliction the death In allud- chair; in the electric received death crime, ing to atrociousness of the upon the being obtained desired results surely trial judge had reference to attempt. third kidnapping. murder and not The trial remarks, according gave his hours study proceedings careful A investigation deliberation inevitably question entirety raises the their murder, resulting showing facts record be- death given was part which of the crime was before into deceased to drive he forced the cause court. stated: point pistol county at or was another “ * ** imposed because com- there sentence has never been in history County crime of mitted the heinous murder of Tulsa a more already brutal, committed, he had convicted which vicious crime life pled serve the balance his crime zvhich sentenced to judge, passing prison. (Emphasis trial ours.) here.” the defendant for the quite It is obvious that the judge trial strongly kidnapping, indicated did not have reference kidnapping, the crime murder remarks in itself vicious, brutal or deeply in his mind and embedded no doubt murder but to the committed in Muskogee justify penalty. extreme He used County, which we agree, as being said: conception in its brutal and vicious in its *10 “ * * * very court has been agree The execution. I am inclined to with de- case, matter of in the this counsel in their fendant’s deliberate contention that consideration, punishment it of given hours has the extent in the case at 1000 ardy given punishment the a result of the nor double only as
bar was received County and same offense. Muskogee committed in murder prevailing that murder constituted Our court the case formerly has held in attorney county minds of the factor Rupert State, 226, v. P. 9 131 Okl.Cr. and court. trial 713, 714, 744, L.R.A.,N.S., 60, in an 45 Musko opinion taken to If the deceased been Doyle: Judge the able jurist, without gee by released the defendant and person put “That no be shall twice penalty harm, we agree can death in jeopardy for the same offense is majority would have The been excessive. universally accepted principle opinion penalty death justifying law, common principle this potential gravity of calls attention been in the embodied federal Constitu- referring to kidnapping by the crime Constitutions, tion in all state Ross, Greenlease, Lindbergh, such cases as incorporated it is in the Constitu- average generally and others known tion of the state of ex- Oklahoma In cases victim citizen. of these each * * press provision was killed defendant was “We provision think this Bill given penalty. well to the extreme is Rights, principles therein point tried out that defendants were these declared, is enough broad to mean time, but sen one one time and convicted person lawfully no can be twice time, their was though tenced one punished for the The same offense. identical with the case at bar. nature other, one follows from this before this death case the first This is provision constitutional designed is Since statehood kidnapping. as a result protect intended to the accused by our court been decided cases six punishment a double much as with kid charged were defendants where protect him from two trials.” follows cited as cases are These napping. imposed each sentence along parte Lange, Ex 18 Wall. In case: State, Okl.Cr. v. 68 Norris defendant: 872, 163, 163, this 21 L.Ed. uses 85 U.S. State, Shimley 540, v. years; 30 172, P.2d 6 proposition: language supporting this 526, years; 179, 3 P.2d 196 87 Okl.Cr. anything “If there settled in the State, 238 P.2d v. Flowers jurisprudence England and Ameri- State, Okl. v. years; 96 Williams 20 ca, man can twice that no Phillips years; v. 20 255 P.2d Cr. lawfully punished for the same offense. 167, 20 years; and P.2d Okl.Cr. though there been nice And 289 P.2d Okl.Cr. Ratcliff questions application in the rule years. charged in which the to cases act was used, gun was of these cases most In such to come within the definition of brutality was shown. violence offense, statutory than one more years, imposed was 30 greatest party jurisdic- bring within State, supra. average Norris court, more than tion of one there has majority of these cases years. doubt its entire never could have been filed charges numerous complete protection party when transaction, but the same result as a punishment proposed a second time, con- one tried each facts, same same one time. and sentenced one victed *" * * statutory same offense. therefore, must, conclude that We “ * * * ample imposed we shall see herein constitutes rea- holding principle time for murder. son for in- second punishment true, flagrant tended to be assorted it is a violation consti- being This provision concepts applied our tutional law must fundamental jeop- put cases where a person be twice all second shall
1001
fastly
attempted
be inflicted
is
doctrine.
It
said
in Love
judicial
State,
291,
v.
41
1035,
sentence.
Okl.Cr.
same offense
272 P.
1037:
is
what avail
the constitu-
“For of
“The decisions of this
have
court
against
protection
more than
tional
uniformly
held
as
used
the con
can
number
one trial
if
be
there
provision
stitutional
quoted
above
pro
pronounced on
same
sentences
person
viding
no
put
shall be twice
that,
having once
verdict?
isWhat
in jeopardy for
offense,
the same
* * *
can
guilty,
found
been tried and
nomine,
so
but the same crim
never
tried
for that
again
offense?
act,
inal
transaction,
or omission.
Also,
that where the state
elects
Manifestly it
not
or
danger
through its
prose
authorized officers to
jeopardy
being
second time found
cute an accused for an offense in one
guilty.
punishment
It is
that would
phases
aspects
of its
or
legally follow the second conviction
trial
the accused is
ac
convicted or
danger
guarded
real
quitted by
jury,
the state cannot
if,
against by
But
the Constitution.
prosecute
afterwards
the same crim
judgment
after
has been rendered on
inal act or transaction under color of
conviction,
and the sentence of
State,
Estep
another name.
11 Okl.
that judgment
criminal
executed on the
103,
64;
Cr.
143 P.
State,
Jackson
again
he can
on
sentenced
that con-
523,
11
1058;
Okl.Cr.
P.
Barton v.
punish-
viction
to another
different
150,
1019;
222 P.
ment,
punish-
or to endure the same
Hourigan
11],
v. State
Okl.Cr.
[38
time,
ment a
second
the constitution-
1057;
Courtney
P.
v. State [41
al
value?
It
restriction of
is not
30],
1059;
Okl.Cr.
269 P.
Fox v.
spirit in
its intent and its
such a case
50 Ark.
836;
8 S.W.
much
as if a new
violated
trial had
Nielson,
re
131 U.S.
9 S.Ct.
had,
and on
conviction
second
individual which received for quences, prosecute and then wrong- ages jurist the sanction of the such chooses, doer for crime. If he statesman; such and in cases nar- however, he carve out a small- row or illiberal should be construction crime, prosecute degree er given to the words the fundamental only. But he should be allowed ”** they law which are embodied. ** * carve but once. But we do prosecutor think that the can be ascertained research should be multiply prosecutions jurisdictions been most all zealous allowed in- Rights pres- definitely, up adhering dividing the Bill conse- against single act, prohibitions quences double of a wrongful ervation of indirectly. separate prosecution directly founding Our jeopardy consequences.” each of such clung stead- numerous occasions *12 jurisdic- POWELL, Judge of these various (concurring). The utterances constitutional tions are based our petition The for of the re-consideration its jeopardy. It had barrier double against opinion promulgated herein December on work ground inception ago. The centuries 4, 1957 and rehearing for filed this and years Magna Charta laid was court on December 1957 was so force- system pillar in our ago. It became stone ful and argument by oral A. Lad- John ratification of jurisprudence ner, Jr., Esq. (who represent did not de- since Rights 1791. Our courts Bill fendant in the court), arresting, trial so devotedly preserved its have time opinion that we have reconsidered the com- die in It has been heroism strength. plained of. record has been read and The re- were If it its value. defending sacred re-read, and all briefs and the au- re-read individual, one life of laxed to take particularly re- thorities studied. would concepts, damage contrary to its opinion light petition studied the The mankind, victim. not to the be done re-hearing. for him- for created case has in this It be made clear that should when merit could neither record self a sordid County court of Tulsa on district convened court, his mercy and from this expect nor January charges 1957 there were two remarks affected destiny not be will defendant, pending against the No. case your writer. 16910,being a charge of with fire- affirmed opinion has majority arms, penalty and where the maximum was is set. date execution and conviction (21 801); O.S.1951 and case expressed out not been opinion has This 16911,kidnapping, No. where likewise the defendant, out but for any compunction maximum was death. rights of inherent my concern The record discloses that a sentence constitution in the down as laid people all fifty years case, imposed in the first land. of our imposed and in the second Rehearing. On appeal death in the electric chair. The judgment. fi'om the latter is Presiding Judge. BRETT, As Judge demonstrated Brett in his that the felt argument, oral After opinion, the confession of the offense rehearing petition on urged matters charged subjects pun- to the accused same majority fully treated ishment if he were tried and found ad- the same this opinion of jury. the verdict aof In other pe- urged matters to, and hered words, punishment, the extent of the with- pe- overruled are rehearing tition (21 the limits the statute O.S.1951 § tition denied. A), 745 subd. was within the discretion ex- appointed for the originally trial judge. Leon Edward ecution record before us is duty from the Our ap- pending having passed Williams, judge or not the trial whether determine ; peal discretion in the mat- his have abused adjudged decreed ordered, pen- of the extreme ter assessment of the dis- judgment alty. Oklahoma, be County, Tulsa trict illustration for single A extreme the de- electrocution by the out carried if clarity defendant had in would be that Williams, by the Leon fendant, Edward escape sought get kid- attempt Penitenti- State Oklahoma Warden napped person point to drive him a local Oklahoma, McAlester, Tuesday, ary, refused, defendant at he had March, 1958. day of 11th car point taken the and at some gun place victim had forced out of convenient POWELL, J., concurs. injury, and had used the car without airport railway get, say car to JSIIX, J., dissents. *13 bery escape, charge, infliction effecting in an by station was advised both counsel case, I such a the death and defendant himself agree, that would all minds think reasonable accused to wanted withdraw the plea former be an of discretion. guilty” plea would abuse “not and enter a of “guilty”. ques- The court was careful to the trial court within case where tion defendant as to whether he had been of the facts could not become aware induced by promise leniency to case, except circumstances in the within change his plea, and advised defendant himself, may, spite he have what that might he sentence, receive a death gleaned from heard news casts and defendant said that he understood that. pre- press, he is headlines matters Defendant wanted to days waive the two disregarded,1 to failed sumed if had he continuance for sentencing and have the by 22 procedure to O.S. follow outlined sentence entered immediately. The court inclusive, pro- 1951, 973-975 if such or county asked the attorney if he had any stipulation was cedure waived without statement or make, record he to wished facts, it agreement or would as to the and he answered to the effect that he would idea would of this writer there like for his statement to cover both the support nothing by way of a record to cases—armed robbery and kidnapping. The imposed. the sentence there would Where court then announced that before he would heard evidence had the court be a trial and pass sentence in case No. that he an accused found jury had plea would take a in case No. 16911. No punishment and left the assessment objection interposed to procedure, this circumstances, if such under so the court stated to the defendant that the request- nor the defendant neither State county attorney and defendant’s counsel present further evidence to opportunity ed advised court in case No. court mitigation, or aggravation 16911, the kidnapping case where defend- guide in the record would have a basis previously ant had plea entered “not sentence, and there imposition of him in the guilty”, that he wished to withdraw such by this court for review a basis would be plea plea enter of “guilty”. The be dissatisfied should the accused in case court asked correct, defendant if that was punishment assessed amount with the answered, “Yes, sir”, and. and the fol- has been done. appeal, lowing transpired: then forced, immediately question here “The Now, you Court:. understand by erred failure to or not the whether the nature of charge, this you do ? produce testimony in require the State to “Mr. Williams: That’s right. purported the with- support of the not been called that the State had in case “The Court: understand, You by reason of confession of prove on to it is charge punishable that is alleged facts were but which the extreme penalty of imprison- life support recommendation recounted ment, or death in the electric chair? county attorney in conclusion “Mr. Yes, Williams: sir. the amount of made as “The Court: In light of that knowl- assessed. edge and information and understand- attorney county statement of the ing, you are entering this freely prior sentencing court has and voluntarily upon your part? opinion. Judge Brett’s detailed This Yes, “Mr. Williams: sir. cover armed was to both the rob- “The charge kidnapping Court: charge. bery Has there been any representations considered the you first armed rob- The court by eoun- made 384; People Riley, 95 Okl.Cr. 127 P.2d Harrison 1. 459; Herren v. Ill. 33 N.E.2d 134 A.L.R. P.2d 1261. you say you else, to the sen- some record wish to sel, anyone make? you expect from might tence case? your please, “Mr. If Honor Simms: I could told “Mr. Williams: position ex- will be the State expect the maximum. plained County Attorney, *14 Mr. Edmondson. electric
“The Court: Of death ? chair Very “The Court: well. Yes, sir. “Mr. Williams: “Mr. Edmondson: If the court repre- that light “The Court: please, I your think should that Honor counsel, you your made to sentation fully in this advised of the facts plea
you your of not wish withdraw to case, any before recommendations plea to the guilty guilty and enter a all, pun- should to the be made at as ? charge ishment, your inasmuch as before Hon- appears or charg- the informations Yes, “Mr. Williams: sir. ing crimes, pleas each of these plea Upon your “The Court: guilty the defendant of kid- crime guilty, charged Therefore, up typed we made. have information napping forth as set brief statement of facts concern- finds the court in case number ing both the ac- of these crimes and you and offense guilty of tions of this defendant in the informa- forth set kidnapping as be ad- circumstances would you any statements you Do have tion. in court trial either missible on the make, any to legal reason wish to cases, than read of these and rather pass should why the court assign, thing, I will make reference entire you, in upon ac- impose sentence your submit it to Honor then to plea guilty as your cordance detail, if that it in is the reading ? charged court. desire No, sir. “Mr. Williams: prefer I would “The Court: you in the IAs told “The Court: just read it. you right to case, you have right, at least two All sir. your deferred “Mr. Edmondson: sentence formal sen- before days, by the entirety, In its then we “The Court: plea. You your under tence is entered have it before the court without will however, that, may waive delay.” further impose court your request, proceeded county attorney then The your immediately. isWhat sentence statements, fin- and when he had malee his ? request detailing the facts in armed rob- ished impose you That “Mr. Williams: to tell kid- bery continued case he about now. sentence defendant’s efforts napping that followed time, without At this “The Court: robbery. escape from the scene delay? further Woodson, counsel Mr. Yes, sir. “Mr. Williams: objection interposed an state- then you state- Do “The Court: county attorney as ments make, as counsel you wish to ment robbery. armed phases followed the defendant? that he was advised counsel The rather I would re- “Mr. Woodson: covering considering the statement both please. answered, if the them “All cases, right”, serve and counsel except overruling of his ob- Now, but did Very well. Mr. “The Court: jection. Simms, representing the completed the county attorney then pleaded the crime of murder and there guilty, happening from the moment events should like to introduce the closing kidnapping until ministerial student judge statements ejected from car into the weeds with court in passing the de- fendant, hound and shot death. The fol- hands after he entered his transpired: lowing then and introduced the full context of it into the record.” again “Mr. I would like Woodson: The State objection, offered no and a interpose here, objection an that the transcript of the proceedings before the pleaded guilty defendant has to two district court of Muskogee County, where charges, one the armed defendant had been charged with the mur- one the kidnapping. statements *15 der that was the culmination of kid- the county attorney re- by the being made napping question, was received in evi- charge, that has been late to another argument dence. It was the that in that passed jurisdiction. another the record Muskogee County from dis- Well, I will consider “The Court: that closed court the district there had as- county it the attor- as sessed a life sentence for the murder ney continuing thing as a of course and that was the culmination of kidnapping, the matter, proper think which I the district court of County Tulsa all the facts sur- to advise the court of justified would not be in imposing greater a cowrse, rounding two crimes. Of penalty. highjacking case is con- as the as far The district court Muskogee County cerned, competent, it he might not at all did hear not evidence nor statements in kidnapping standpoint, but aggravation mitigation charge is, course, thing, continuing as murder plea where defendant had entered long charge he had victim in his of guilty, presumably so he knew nothing control, I and under think all the his charge. the facts of the court pertinent com- to the incident are his statement based his assessing the mini- petent to the court and the court should mum penalty for imprison- murder of life know, your obj Iso will overrule ection. ment on thought the Criminal Exception.” “Mr. Woodson: Appeals Court never had affirmed the county attorney objected Counsel to the penalty where an accused had thrown mentioning defendant and crimes himself on mercy of the court and en- judge suggested to counsel that he plea tered a guilty. Judge Brett in his just give exception would him an to the opinion has cited a number of cases where county whole When statement. attor- approved this court has sentences where ney completed his statement counsel the death was plea assessed on a defendant granted asked guilty. Other cases could have been recess, recess. After the counsel for the cited. asked a limited number further court reasoned there to make statement for the de- minutes might be reversible error in the record if fendant, but the court advised counsel to confession were a certain offered and re- wanted. all the time he take evidence; ceived defense coun- Much of counsel’s statement was jurors devoted some sel claimed that had not left thought that seeking morning the State was room that court before defend- revenge presented handcuffed, retaliation he they may ant was and that capital against punishment. In thesis him handcuffed. seen statement, course of his counsel for defend- whether or Of might course there said: ant record, after made, error record “In relation appellate offense in Mus- be for the would deter- probable in which kogee, charged questions he was mine and such should before, oh, way ed hearing said, on the determination three he have had no — actually robbery. Now, im- times armed of the amount I only previous felony murder. one convic- posed for confessed tion. County no of Tulsa The district resolving pondered things in in— these “The Court: And that was
doubt district action that the contention “Mr. Williams: In Indiana. limit him Muskogee County should court of Indiana, you “The Court: impose, he might sentence served a term for that? immediately but pass refused to Yes, “Mr. Williams: sir. February days two set the case over for “The convicted Court: Weren’t m., fol- 1957 at 9:30 a. at which time charge of a Court? in the Federal lowing transpired: sir, “Mr. Williams: Yes but that Williams, you “By the Court: Mr. a Federal Federal Juvenile —Under appeared heretofore before Delinquency Act. Juvenile your withdrew of not “The Court: You did serve a term firearms, charge escape reformatory, and did from the information, en set out in the *16 you did not? were guilty. You plea your tered No, sir, “Mr. know Williams: don’t I matter. in rights your advised you as escape. call I could it as an refer arguments in heard The court trusty was working up Ingle- as a near case, statement to the ence wood, just and I walked off. attorney’s county by the presented were sentencing office, of formal matter correction With that “The Court: hour, at this you until time passed facts, this have do of the statement you as guilty found you court wish state anything that after else information of in the charged at time? this guilty. Now upon your plea of charge No, Williams: sir. “Mr. about has come an intervention ? your age “The Court: What your plea, and at jrou entered since Twenty-seven.” “Mr. Williams: you you if time, asked the court that pronounce proceeded to The court next any legal or any to make statement had 16910; in No. and then in judgment case pass not why the court should cause case 16911 as follows: No. you you you, upon and said “In number State case versus up the taking court in none. had Williams, charged here Edward Leon time, give you an will matter this kidnap- with the crime offense of and statement, any if make opportunity to ping as set forth the information. make, you wish you statement ' upon Upon charge, this arraignment why Court any legal cause or show court, appearing the district before judgment pass should not at this time plea you guilty. entered plea your upon you, in accordance case was thereafter set the trial guilty. jury At docket of this court. a date Well, thing in one “Mr. Williams: case, prior setting you of this to the facts, according— appeared in division this district You understand this “The Court: court, and before this and ex- with firearms only pressed your your to withdraw desire you asking am now. charge, I plea guilty and of not enter Yes, charge of kidnapping Williams: sir. What I to the “Mr. say, information. going according to the set forth You were represented by times, counsel Mr. Edmondson read the state- at all wav facts, your legal why I been convict- advised all had constitu- ment given rights. Opportunity was have any tional correction to make in ref- you time, your at that counsel erence to the statement of counsel for week, Wednesday which was on of this regard? that cared any you to make statement that “Mr. No, Williams: sir. why make, legal showing cause “The Court: Those facts were true? judgment pronounced should not be “Mr. Yes, Williams: sir. your punishment by fixed the court. “The Court: you And at this time made Statements arguments were admit they that you were true open by here court and made committed the acts as set forth by your State and counsel reference correct, that is is it? case, to the and in to the reference punishment. Yes, “Mr. case, Williams: in the sir. this judgment case “The you Court: All right. Do passed morning, court anything further say on behalf of cognizant importance court this defendant? matter, seriousness “Mr. Nothing Woodson: further.” charges, you although stated It is vital to (1) note that counsel you voluntarily making were the defendant did not object to proce- your any pleas, being without influence dure followed his determin- brought upon you, prom- bear ation of the imposed sentences to be pleas, and ise of results of the two cases before him where the defendant facts, stating were cognizant of the pleas guilty; (2) entered you might had been informed interposed by objections counsel expect each the extreme *17 the defendant to the matters outlined and cases, you and both of and that these by county attorney recounted the the to your voluntarily making plea of were which an and he stated in effect was guilty charge. the at that to The court of outline facts that would admissible passed sentencing the matter for trial, objections in evidence on in the were morning give all an parties until this to charge armed of consideration opportunity deliberating for the any kidnap- involving of of facts the the You for matter. comehere at this time case, ping kidnapping and then in case the sentencing judgment under formal the happened to consideration of what in of court entered on the which was County Muskogee at the termination the of Wednesday, you guilty the finding of kidnapping. court in The ruled of favor as kidnapping and offense set crime objection defendant’s as the rob- to armed forth in the information. bery charge, but ruled that he had right you anything to “Do further case, fixing punishment kidnapping in the time, any legal at this cause to state beginning consider all the facts from to the court, why the the court show to should kidnapping, the end to which would punishment up- your not fix and assess include fact of the the murder to which your charge to on the pleaded previously guilty; defendant had kidnapping as set forth in the informa- county attorney (3) completed after the his ? tion purported the statement of counsel facts No, Williams: sir. “Mr. lengthy the made a defendant statement Now, Court: at purported that time on and did not “The take issue Wednesday, fact, was a sought there statement of but to show the district Muskogee County the State made relative to this facts court the death sequence victim, case, kidnapped and only events had assessed the the surrounding sequence penalty imprisonment, the minimum life the surrounding and the facts the wanted the court to consider events rea- the assigned judge, of this crime. the Do commission sons was there separate offenses, at are record jurisdiction the made received evidence two Muskogee separate imposition of the dis- time of of sentence courts. action The first, trict County, Muskogee acting County, outlined. court heretofore did court statement the not bind Tulsa After defense counsel’s the district court of County. 9:30 adjourned February until the Where maximum sentence each same, charge two a. m. sentence in the pronouncing was but where first court had failed such sen- cases. assess to duty tence. was of the district February On reconvening County background of Tulsa to consider the had cor- court asked if defendant he of re- probabilities made rections statements to made habilitation, circum- and all facts and county he Edmondson, attorney, and by Mr. surrounding kidnapping. The stances previously claimed that served he satisfy court had his mind and con- own felony crimes that his charge; one assessed, science he was minor committed when were certainly court was interested prosecuted Federal was under the that he question kidnapping of whether victim ac- Delinquency Act. Juvenile liberated, so, was if un- ever and if was re- cepted then The court corrections. record harmed. The showed he was cor- peatedly defendant as asked shot marched out with bound and made coun- hands rectness statement abandoned, facts, ty attorney purported thus' soul liberated his county Maker, attor- body in effect stated the and his to the earth. ney’s was a truthful statement pun- It is concluded the extent of the sequence of and facts sur- events statute, ishment within the limits of the was crime. rounding the commission judge, within the discretion the trial equivalent stipulation. This apparent. of such abuse discretion is I recounted, Under circumstances violation process. discover no of due necessary agree that was not not justify record does further con- proof. The put State to on evidence question jeop- sideration of the of double admitted, and the circumstances ardy by Judge has been treated than Brett. commission thereof were surrounding the *18 question Such not raised the trial admitted, witnesses call and offer so to of the case. taking up just would be proof the time prove something where expressed Subject thoughts required. proof respect Judge the dissent all my NIX, reiterate kidnapping, crimes concurrence O.S.1951 opinion promulgated by Judge O.S.1951 and murder 21 BRETT. §§