Copling v. State, F-78-346

• Decision Date: 20 September 1979
• Docket Number: No. F-78-346,F-78-346
• Citation: 600 P.2d 353
• Parties: William Charles COPLING, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 353

600 P.2d 353

William Charles COPLING, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-78-346.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 20, 1979.

An appeal from the District Court, Comanche County; David W. Carter, judge.

William Charles Copling, appellant, was convicted of the offense of Robbery With Firearms; was sentenced to five (5) years' imprisonment, and appeals. AFFIRMED.

Jerry C. Cude, Cude & South, Lawton, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., William S. Flanagan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Danny K. Shadid, Legal Intern, for appellee.

OPINION

CORNISH, Presiding Judge:

The appellant, William Charles Copling, has appealed his conviction of Robbery With Firearms in the District Court, Comanche County, Case No. CRF-77-663. He contends that the evidence presented against him was insufficient to sustain a conviction, and that much of the evidence presented should have been excluded.

We will begin our discussion with the appellant's second assignment of error, that certain evidence was erroneously admitted by the trial court. He divides this assignment into three parts, which we will treat separately.

First, the appellant argues that a complete chain of custody was not established for certain evidence: a white bag, a sawed-off rifle and a billfold. A careful review of the testimony establishes a complete chain of custody. The appellant's contention is based upon contradictory testimony concerning the chain of custody given by Officer Larry Mahamad. However, the proof was still adequate to sustain the foundation necessary for admissibility, and any doubt concerning the evidence would go to its weight. See Racy v. State, Okl.Cr., 520 P.2d 375 (1974), and Contu v. State, Okl.Cr., 533 P.2d 1000 (1975).

Next, the appellant complains that his warrantless arrest by the police was unlawful and that the resulting evidence seized should have been suppressed. The arrest clearly falls within the provisions of 22 O.S.Supp. 1978, § 196. The test to be applied is whether at the moment the arrest was made the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man's belief that the arrestee had committed or was committing an offense. Duke v. State, Okl.Cr., 548 P.2d 230 (1976), and State v. McLemore, Okl.Cr., 561 P.2d 1367 (1977).

Application of this test to the instant case leads us to the conclusion that the arrest was lawful. The fact of the robbery was broadcast over the police radio, along with descriptions of the suspects. Officer Mahamad spotted and pursued two suspects, capturing one. The second suspect, whose description was the same as the appellant's, dropped a white bag containing a billfold with a badge and a sawed-off rifle, all similar to items used in the robbery. The billfold contained a driver's license, social security card, and other papers identifying the appellant. This information is of a sufficiently trustworthy nature to persuade a reasonably prudent man that the appellant had participated in the robbery. It follows that the police officer acted properly in arresting the appellant without a warrant, and the evidence which flowed from the arrest was therefore admissible.

The appellant's contention that the proceedings of the preliminary hearing were improperly considered by the trial court in determining the legality of the arrest and the admissibility of resulting evidence is without foundation. Since the transcript of the preliminary hearing is as much a part of the record as the trial transcript, it has been properly considered both at the trial and on appeal.

Finally, the...