453 P.3d 1244 (Okla.Crim.App. 2019), F-2018-740, Burns v. State

Docket Nº:F-2018-740
Citation:453 P.3d 1244
Opinion Judge:KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:
Party Name:Tyrell Deonta BURNS, Appellant v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
Attorney:ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL ZACHARY T. YOUNG, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT RYAN G. CANNONIE, ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY, NOWATA CO. COURTHOUSE, NOWATA, COUNSEL FOR THE STATE ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL CHAD JOHNSON, P.O. BOX 926, NORMAN, OK 73070, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT MIKE HUNTER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA., JAY SCHNIEDERJ...
Judge Panel:LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR
Case Date:November 07, 2019
Court:Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1244

453 P.3d 1244 (Okla.Crim.App. 2019)

Tyrell Deonta BURNS, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-2018-740

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

November 7, 2019

AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF NOWATA COUNTY; THE HONORABLE CURTIS L. DELAPP, DISTRICT JUDGE

ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL

ZACHARY T. YOUNG, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

RYAN G. CANNONIE, ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY, NOWATA CO. COURTHOUSE, NOWATA, COUNSEL FOR THE STATE

ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL

CHAD JOHNSON, P.O. BOX 926, NORMAN, OK 73070, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

MIKE HUNTER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA., JAY SCHNIEDERJAN, ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE

SUMMARY OPINION

KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:

Page 1245

[¶1] Tyrell Deonta Burns was tried by jury and convicted of Count I, Violation of Mary Rippy Violent Crime Offenders Registration Act; and Count IV, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, in the District Court of Nowata County, Case No. CF-2015-151.1 In accordance with the jury’s recommendation the Honorable Curtis L. DeLapp sentenced Appellant to ten (10) years imprisonment (Count I); and one (1) year imprisonment and a fine of $1000.00 (Count IV), to run concurrently. Appellant appeals from these convictions and sentences.2

[¶2] Appellant raises four propositions of error in support of his appeal: I. There was no evidence that Appellant was notified of his duty to register with local law enforcement pursuant to the Mary Rippy Violent Crime Offenders Registration Act. II. The court did not adequately instruct the jury on the elements of violating the Mary Rippy Violent Crime Offenders Registration Act.

III. State Exhibits 29-32, purported copies of Appellant’s prior judgment and sentences, should not have been admitted at trial, as they were neither identified by a witness nor self-authenticating.

IV. Appellant’s maximum 10-year prison term for violating the Mary Rippy Violent Crime Offenders Registration Act is excessive where Appellant was at least partially compliant.

[¶3] After thorough consideration of the entire record before us, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits and briefs, we find that the convictions must be reversed with instructions to dismiss.

[¶4] In Proposition I Appellant argues the State failed to show he had notice that he was required to register with local law enforcement under the Mary Rippy Violent Crime Offenders Registration Act, 57 O.S.2011, § 594. Notice is a basic requirement of due process. Horn v. State, 2009 OK CR 7, ¶ 21, 204 P.3d 777, 783.

[¶5] Prior to determining if notice was proven to the jury, we must determine if the Act requires notice to the offender. The Act provides that persons subject to its provisions shall register:

(1) with the Department of Corrections (DOC) within three business days after release; and

(2) with local law enforcement in the jurisdiction where the person resides or intends to reside, within three days after entering that jurisdiction; and

(3) a person must also register with both the DOC and local law enforcement within three days before moving or leaving a previously registered address. 57 O.S.2011, § 594(A).

[¶6] This Court has yet to interpret the provisions of Section 594. However, we have interpreted the notice provision in the methamphetamine registration statute, 63 O.S. § 2-701(B), and it is analogous to the Act. Wolf v. State, 2012 OK CR 16, ¶ 17, 292 P.3d 512, 517-18. In Wolf, we held due process requires that persons subject to the methamphetamine registry must be notified of that status, as that "specific conduct is considered a criminal offense." Wolf, ¶ 5, 292 P.3d at 514. We now adopt this finding for the Mary Rippy Violent Crime Offenders registry, holding that before offenders may be charged with a crime for violating the Act, they must have notice that they are subject to the registry. Undeniably, the Act meets this notice requirement, as it provides that persons subject to its registry must be notified...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP