777 P.2d 1352 (Okla.Crim.App. 1989), F-87-413, Tyler v. State

Docket NºF-87-413.
Citation777 P.2d 1352
Party NameJohn Elwood TYLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
Case DateJuly 14, 1989
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oklahoma, Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 1352

777 P.2d 1352 (Okla.Crim.App. 1989)

John Elwood TYLER, Appellant,

v.

The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-87-413.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

July 14, 1989.

Elaine Meek, Asst. Public Defender, Tulsa, for appellant.

Robert H. Henry, Atty. Gen., M. Caroline Emerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION

PARKS, Presiding Judge:

Appellant, John Elwood Tyler, was tried by jury and convicted of Attempted Escape

Page 1353

from Lawful Custody (21 O.S.1981, § 444) After Former Conviction of Two Felonies (21 O.S.Supp.1985, § 51) in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CRF-85-4502, before the Honorable Donald C. Lane, District Judge. The jury set punishment during the second stage at twenty (20) years. Judgment and sentence was imposed accordingly.

On November 22, 1985, appellant and an accomplice were arrested by Officer Bob Jackson for the burglary of a tag agency. They were transported to the police station and placed into separate, but adjoining interrogation rooms. When Officer Jackson returned to the room in which appellant had been placed, the room was empty. The officer noticed that the light fixture had been removed and returned to its place, as though someone had gotten into the ceiling from that point. Police personnel were notified that the whereabouts of a prisoner was unknown. As Officer Jackson proceeded to the main detective division, he saw appellant fall through the ceiling to the floor.

Because appellant's second, third and fourth assignments of error concern alleged errors during the first stage of trial, we will address these propositions first. Appellant claims that the Information was insufficient as it failed to state all the necessary elements of the crime, that the State failed to present sufficient evidence on all elements of the charged crime and that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on all necessary elements of the charged crime. In all three issues, the central argument raised by appellant is that proof of a "felony charge" or "misdemeanor charge" is necessary to convict a person under 21 O.S.1981, § 444.

Section 444 reads as follows:

  1. It is unlawful for any person, after being lawfully arrested or detained by a peace officer, to escape or attempt to escape from such peace officer.

  2. Such person who escapes or attempts to escape after being lawfully arrested or detained for custody for a misdemeanor offense shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

  3. Such person who escapes or attempts to escape after being lawfully arrested or detained for custody for a felony offense shall be guilty of a felony.

After a careful study of this...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
13 practice notes
  • 785 P.2d 317 (Okla.Crim.App. 1989), F-86-356, Doyle v. State
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Court of Appeals of Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 26 Diciembre 1989
    ...notice of the State's intent to enhance punishment with the prior convictions and was not prejudiced by their use. See Tyler v. State, 777 P.2d 1352, 1354 (Okl.Cr.1989). Accordingly, this assignment of error is denied. Appellant argues next that the trial court erred in prohibiting his sist......
  • 34 P.3d 148 (Okla.Crim.App. 2001), F-2000-1452, Rea v. State
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Court of Appeals of Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 3 Octubre 2001
    ...557, 564 (1998); Wyoming: Smith v. State, 922 P.2d 846, 848 (Wyo.1996). [30] Day v. State, 784 P.2d 79, 85 (Okl.Cr.1989); Tyler v. State, 777 P.2d 1352, 1354 (Okl.Cr.1989); Jones v. State, 764 P.2d 914, 918 (Okl.Cr.1988); Lamb v. State, 756 P.2d 1236, 1238 (Okl.Cr.1988); Palmer v. State, 71......
  • 811 P.2d 593 (Okla.Crim.App. 1991), F-88-503, Armstrong v. State
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Court of Appeals of Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 18 Marzo 1991
    ...different ground. When one objection is made at trial, this Court will not address a different objection on appeal. Tyler v. State, 777 P.2d 1352 (Okl.Cr.1989); Fitchen v. State, 738 P.2d 177 (Okl.Cr.1987). The appellant argues that one question to which his objection was sustained amounts ......
  • 217 P.3d 116 (Okla.Crim.App. 2009), F-2008-236, Love v. State
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Court of Appeals of Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 30 Junio 2009
    ...See, e.g., Ezell v. State, No. F-2000-1543 (Okl.Cr. January 11, 2002) (not for publication). [15] Tyler v. State, 1989 OK CR 31, ¶ 8, 777 P.2d 1352, 1354....
  • Free signup to view additional results
13 cases
  • 785 P.2d 317 (Okla.Crim.App. 1989), F-86-356, Doyle v. State
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Court of Appeals of Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 26 Diciembre 1989
    ...notice of the State's intent to enhance punishment with the prior convictions and was not prejudiced by their use. See Tyler v. State, 777 P.2d 1352, 1354 (Okl.Cr.1989). Accordingly, this assignment of error is denied. Appellant argues next that the trial court erred in prohibiting his sist......
  • 34 P.3d 148 (Okla.Crim.App. 2001), F-2000-1452, Rea v. State
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Court of Appeals of Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 3 Octubre 2001
    ...557, 564 (1998); Wyoming: Smith v. State, 922 P.2d 846, 848 (Wyo.1996). [30] Day v. State, 784 P.2d 79, 85 (Okl.Cr.1989); Tyler v. State, 777 P.2d 1352, 1354 (Okl.Cr.1989); Jones v. State, 764 P.2d 914, 918 (Okl.Cr.1988); Lamb v. State, 756 P.2d 1236, 1238 (Okl.Cr.1988); Palmer v. State, 71......
  • 811 P.2d 593 (Okla.Crim.App. 1991), F-88-503, Armstrong v. State
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Court of Appeals of Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 18 Marzo 1991
    ...different ground. When one objection is made at trial, this Court will not address a different objection on appeal. Tyler v. State, 777 P.2d 1352 (Okl.Cr.1989); Fitchen v. State, 738 P.2d 177 (Okl.Cr.1987). The appellant argues that one question to which his objection was sustained amounts ......
  • 217 P.3d 116 (Okla.Crim.App. 2009), F-2008-236, Love v. State
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Court of Appeals of Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 30 Junio 2009
    ...See, e.g., Ezell v. State, No. F-2000-1543 (Okl.Cr. January 11, 2002) (not for publication). [15] Tyler v. State, 1989 OK CR 31, ¶ 8, 777 P.2d 1352, 1354....
  • Free signup to view additional results