Camp v. State, F-82-358
| Decision Date | 24 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. F-82-358,F-82-358 |
| Citation | 664 P.2d 1052 |
| Parties | Andrew Cheparney CAMP, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appellant Andrew Cheparney Camp was convicted of Burglary in the Second Degree and of Pointing a Firearm at Another, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. 21 O.S.1981, §§ 1435, 1289.16 and 51(B). Appellant burglarized a residence and threatened the owner with a handgun. He had been convicted of nine felonies in the 14 years preceding trial. The prosecutor recommended 999-year sentences. The jury set punishment at 700 years imprisonment on each crime, and the judge ordered that the sentences run consecutively.
This appeal involves several challenges to the punishment stage of the bifurcated trial. Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of eight of the nine prior judgments and sentences in that they contained indirect references to the State's pardon and parole system. Six of the instruments reflect sentences of "7 years with the last 4 years to be suspended for good behavior", while the other two indicate sentences of 20 years imposed some four and a half years prior to trial.
The introduction or refusal of evidence is a matter for the exercise of discretion by the trial court. Haury v. State, 533 P.2d 991 (Okl.Cr.1975). The judgment and sentence is a proper part of the proof of a former felony conviction. Honeycutt v. State, 432 P.2d 124 (Okl.Cr.1967). The danger of prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence. 12 O.S.1981, § 2463. Appellant suggests that portions of the instruments should have been excised by the trial court, but no such request was made by appellant at trial.
He further contends that the court erred in denying various motions for mistrial. One such motion was directed at the prosecutor's statement in closing argument that appellant had twice used a handgun in the commission of crime, when in fact only one such incident was proven at trial. However, the court sustained appellant's objection and admonished the jury, and the remark was not of such character as to have determined the verdict. Linam v. State, 569 P.2d 1006 (Okl.Cr.1977).
The other motion was prompted by questions posed by the jury after they commenced deliberations:
1. What was the reason for the district attory (sic) asking for 999 years?
2. Does a convicted felon have to serve a percentage of his term before he is eligible for parole?
* * *
* * *
3. Can the jury set a specific period of time with the stipulation of no perole? (sic)
The judge gave the following response:
I cannot answer any of these questions. I would say, however, that you are not to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rea v. State
...did not shock the conscience, the Court has noted a sentence of several hundred years is, in effect, a life sentence. Camp v. State, 664 P.2d 1052, 1054 (Okl.Cr.1983); Callins v. State, 500 P.2d 1333, 1335 23. 775 P.2d. 818, 820-21 (Okl.Cr.1989). 24. 445 U.S. 263, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d......
-
Trice v. State
...the preferred procedure of telling jury that it had all the instructions and that its questions could not be answered); Camp v. State, 664 P.2d 1052, 1054 (Okl.Cr.1983) (Failure to grant motion for mistrial proper where in response to jury's questions, trial judge stated he could not answer......
-
Kamees v. State
...were proven, this sentence does not shock the conscience of the Court. See Mornes v. State, 755 P.2d 91 (Okl.Cr.1988); Camp v. State, 664 P.2d 1052 (Okl.Cr.1983). At the time the trial court sentenced the appellant in this case, it also sentenced him in five other cases to which he plead gu......
-
Stewart v. State
...of the judgment and sentence is a proper part of the proof of a former felony conviction. Camp v. State, 1983 OK CR 74, ¶¶ 2–3, 664 P.2d 1052, 1053–54. A judgment and sentence which indicates that the defendant received a suspended sentence, standing alone, does not constitute plain error. ......