Clark v. State, A--18128
| Decision Date | 08 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. A--18128,A--18128 |
| Citation | 509 P.2d 1398 |
| Parties | Ronnie Lee CLARK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Ronnie Lee Clark, Mosley Lee Allen, Jr., and Conway Jmill Hubbard, hereinafter referred to as defendants, were charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, for the offense of Burglary Second Degree, After Former Conviction of a Felony. The trial of all defendants was had jointly to a jury which fixed their punishment as follows: Clark, ten (10) years; Allen, ten (10) years; and Hubbard, twelve (12) years. From said judgments and sentences, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
At the trial Willie Mae Wooten testified that on May 12, 1972, she lived at Route 1, Box 360, Spencer, Oklahoma, and that she left for work at approximately 7:00 a.m. on that date after locking her house. Upon returning from work at approximately 5:00 p.m. she observed that the glass in her bathroom window was broken and the bathroom curtain and some blood were on the bathroom floor. Upon further inspection of her house, she discovered that her portable black and white television set was missing as well as a pink hand towel fram the bathroom. Thereafter, she immediately reported the burglary to the Oklahoma City Police Department. She further testified that she had given no one permission to enter her house or remove her television set. Witness Wooten then identified State's Exhibit No. 1 as the television set which was taken from her home.
Frances Williams next testified that on May 12, 1972, she lived in Spencer, Oklahoma, at 4417 N. Diane, behind which was Mrs. Wooten's house. Mrs. Williams testified that on the day in question she was home and at approximately 2:00 or 3:00 defendant Allen arrived with defendants Hubbard and Clark in a beige or gray Volkswagon with Hubbard driving. The witness then identified the three defendants as being the persons who had arrived in the Volkswagon. She further testified that defendant Allen came to her door and asked if her husband was home, then stated he wanted to go into her backyard. Thereafter, all three defendants then went into the back of her house. Approximately fifteen or twenty minutes later the three defendants returned and defendant Allen asked her for a sheet, which she refused. She observed that his arm was cut and asked how it happened. He stated that he cut it on her fence and she told him she didn't have a fence out back. She asked where Conway and Ronnie were and defendant Allen stated that Hubbard was 'in the backyard with the merchandise.' She observed that defendant Allen had a little towel around his cut arm. She asked what the merchandise was and instead of answering, they asked if they could bring it through the yard. She told them they could not and told them to move the car from in front of her house. Thereafter, she saw the three defendants bring a large brown square box covered with an old rag through her yard. They placed the box in the backseat of the Volkswagon and Clark got in the backseat with it and they drove away.
Enox Ables testified that he was employed by the Oklahoma City Police Department on May 12, 1972. At approximately 5:15 p.m. on that day, he investigated Mrs. Wooten's burglary and noticed her bathroom window was broken and that blood was around the bathroom window and on the floor. He talked to Mrs. Williams and obtained names of the three defendants as suspects and their car description. Ables had noticed a car fitting this description and three Negro males standing beside the car at N.E. 36th and Anderson Road with a flat tire on his way to investigate the burglary. Upon returning, no one was there and Ables called for police assistance. While returning to the burglary scene, he heard a radio report and returned to the car with a flat tire where he found the three defendants. Allen had a cut on his right arm.
Donald J. Miller next testified for the State that on May 12, 1972, he was employed as a mechanic at Strawn's Automotive and at approximately 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. on that date two men came to the station and sold him a television set for twenty-seven ($27.00) dollars. Later that evening he resold the set for the same price. The two men were driving an old gray Volkswagon. Witness Miller further testified that State's Exhibit No. 1 was similar to the television that he had purchased from the two men, which he later had sold and then recovered and turned over to the police.
James O. Parsons testified that on May 13, 1972, he was employed with the Oklahoma City Police Department as a detective with the Stolen Goods Division and on that date he made a follow-up investigation of this case. He first went to the Oklahoma City jail where he interviewed defendant Allen, whom he identified in the courtroom. He advised defendant Allen of his constitutional rights from a waiver of rights form, which defendant Allen signed. Defendant Allen then related to Officer Parsons that he and defendants Hubbard and Clark went to the residence of Frances Williams where he told her they were going through her yard to get something. They went to the Wooten's residence where he broke the bathroom glass window out and in doing so, cut his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powell v. State
...See also Edmondson v. State, 515 P.2d 1158, 1161 (Okl.Cr.1973); Monroe v. State, 512 P.2d 214, 216 (Okl.Cr.1973); Clark v. State, 509 P.2d 1398, 1401-02 (Okl.Cr.1973).7 This issue routinely arises when separate verdict forms are not used. We affirmatively endorse and strongly urge the use o......
-
Williams v. State
...presented to the trial court until the above evidentiary hearing and after the jury was empanelled. The defendant cites Clark v. State, Okl.Cr., 509 P.2d 1398 (1973), in support of this proposition. However, we there held that a timely defense motion for severance should have been granted s......
-
Neill v. State
...Goodson v. State, 562 P.2d 897, 901 (Okl.Cr.1977); Edmondson v. State, 515 P.2d 1158, 1161 (Okl.Cr.1973); Clark v. State, 509 P.2d 1398, 1401-02 (Okl.Cr.1973); Fugett v. State, 461 P.2d 1002, 1005 Here, the statement made by Johnson directly implicated Neill. The introduction of the stateme......
-
Sands v. State, F--74--816
...330 P.2d 209 (1958); Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968); Fugett v. State, supra; Clark v. State, Okl.Cr., 509 P.2d 1398 (1973); Monroe v. State, Okl.Cr., 512 P.2d 214 (1973). The foregoing cases, with the exception of Clark, are not in point, and to ......