*1 305 of of July 29, 1970. Aug. 10,

As Corrected Jr., T. Public

Andrew plaintiff in error. Gen., Blankenship, Atty. T. A. G. Max for defendant error. DeWayne Ramsey, hereinafter defendant, by charged as was

referred Information the District Court Tulsa of- County, with the Case No. CRF of one with Firearms Terry June, 10th Bruner on the defendant, by 1969. The being thoroughly advised plea fights, constitutional guilty for the reason that was Although charged. the offense cooperated with authorities securing the convictions of a co-defend- ant1, appear plea that his does not promise any resulted from or benefit by offered him the authorities.

Prior to the rendition of sentences, testimony support offered testimony and at the conclusion of said statements, following trial made page Transcript: at of56 Very Mo- well. The “THE COURT: Trial is for these tion for New denied one, of Rob- reasons. Number the crime by bery statute one severe crimes three or four more punish- as as far the State of against District him Cox, rendered received 1. The County. and sentences in each *2 parent pleas of ment is You are aware that the defendant entered concerned. to charges that. The court is well aware of the these Ramsey’s being by competent knowledge with full of Mr. consequences here. The court is aware that of the nature and of the punishment participated helped prosecution imposed and in which be there- the could but that one fact for. is, enough. thing not The that the crime Moreover, defendant although the says had been and law that committed pleas the instant case punished; the defendant for shall be and (CRF 69-882), and in District Court Case Robbery, particularly the crime of Armed 69-913, abundantly No. CRF it is clear when it comes to the court’s attention that participated that he in a number of other not the two cases that are but filed, armed robberies. circum Under such Robbery, some four other cases of Armed stances we believe that the stated reasons does not leave the court much choice. Green, refusing grant a to If it single were a for this crime suspended sentence in the case and instant ant and with the facts that we had 69-913, in District Court Case No. CRF seriously this the court would have amply supported by are logic, reason and say- probation. considered That not many for this and other courts ing that granted probation, he would have throughout long the nation have realized responsibility and the sitting here in Robbery serious nature of crime judgment is both to the defendant and to may punished by which be public, and I justify putting cannot life, imprisonment maximum or death this man probation. on the street through the electric chair. I any- think —we will not get into odds or In the instant judge case the was indeed else, thing I do feel that he is a lenient in assessing punishment of five proper hard, subject probation. It is years imprisonment in the instant and it is a hard line I taking. am I run concurrent with the five im- that, know but under the circumstances prisonment assessed in District Court Case have, and the convictions that I that I feel No. CRF and 69-913, we not feel that do I nothing can do I else. do not know his to grant suspended refusal sentences in whether penitentiary help will both cases constituted an abuse discre- man or not. All I know is that the law tion requiring reversal of the prescribes course, punishment. that Of and or the issuance aof directive gives court, certain alternatives to the that he reconsider the of the de- but the.court defines those other alter- fendant for suspended sentences. natives, directs that and this man be con- reasons, For the same we are of the fined in the Penitentiary State on the opinion that request the defendant’s that sentence that previously imposed, so this Court issue an order suspending the your Motion for New Trial is overruled.” sentences in and the instant case The defendant now contends that and in District Court Case No. CRF the trial court abused his discretion re be, should and the hereby same is denied. fusing grant suspended It sentence. The sentence is well settled that the from is affirmed. Appeals will not interfere with the discre tion of the trial court in granting or refus NIX, J., concurs. ing an application sentence in absence of an abuse of discretion. See (specially Presiding Judge con- State, Okl.Cr., LaRue 73; v. 404 P.2d Hicks curring) . State, Okl.Cr., 949; 432 P.2d and Giddens appears imposed 159. From our from the sentence on examination of the readily record it is ap- judge clearly defendant that the trial

3Q7 to the of- County, Case No. CRF-69—913 his discretion. not abuse did one with Firearms of surrounding the circumstances May, on the 30th Dennis Bratlien obviously weighed situation and defendant’s ap- on are raised the same issues minimum decision, as reflected peal in case as instant were raised crime the serious imposed for sentence *3 companion No. A-15632. has of discretion been Abuse committed. judge failed when the to result said Ramsey v. forth For the reasons set ar- and acted 305, consider delivered from record bitrarily. obvious date, and sentence in defendant’s not true that such was from affirmed. Judge Green because NIX, J., J., and what he P. concur. defendant’s situation authorities, “cooperate” with done the situation he also considered society possible rehabilitation for Bussey’s I concur with

defendant. opinion. BROWNING,

Will Bennett Plaintiff Error, n i Defend DeWayne in Error. No. A-15214. Appeals Court of Criminal of Oklahoma. The STATE of May 27, 1970. of Criminal July

Andrew T. Jr., Public plaintiff in error. Atty. Max A. Blankenship, T.G. Gen., for defendant in error. OPINION

MEMORANDUM Ramsey entered plea in District Court