DeLaune v. State, No. F-76-768

CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Writing for the CourtBRETT
Citation569 P.2d 463
PartiesDorothy DeLAUNE and Carroll DeLaune, Appellants, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. F-76-768
Decision Date13 September 1977

Page 463

569 P.2d 463
Dorothy DeLAUNE and Carroll DeLaune, Appellants,
v.
The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
No. F-76-768.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
Sept. 13, 1977.

Page 465

An appeal from the District Court, Caddo County; Sam W. Williams, judge.

Amos E. Black, III, Anadarko, for appellants.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Robert McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., Janet Cox, Legal Intern, for appellee.

OPINION

BRETT, Judge:

Appellants, Dorothy DeLaune and Carroll DeLaune, hereinafter referred to as defendants, were charged, tried by jury and convicted in District Court, Caddo County, Oklahoma, for the offense of Embezzlement of State Funds, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 341. Punishment was set at five (5) years' imprisonment, with two and one-half (21/2) years suspended, and a fine of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars for defendant Dorothy DeLaune; and, three (3) years' imprisonment, with two (2) years suspended, and a fine of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars for defendant Carroll DeLaune. Defendants have perfected this timely appeal.

Defendants, employees of the Kiowa Housing Authority (a State agency created under 63 O.S.1971, § 1057), were charged along with four others with embezzling more than $10,000.00 between July 3, 1973, and February 1, 1975. Defendant Dorothy DeLaune was originally employed by the Authority as a clerk, and became Acting Executive Director on August 15, 1973. Her husband, defendant Carroll DeLaune, was employed by the Authority as an overseer on a housing rebuilding project.

Frances Oheltoint, an investigator for the Oklahoma Indian Rights Association, testified that defendant Dorothy gave her three containers of documents shortly before the Caddo County Grand Jury met in early 1975. Her stated reason was to aid the grand jury, and to "get Vincent Bointy," chairman of the Authority at the time, and a co-defendant. When asked what defendant Dorothy told her about the documents, the witness stated that:

"A. She told me that they had falsified some of the bills and to give them amounts of money that they were not entitled to. She told me that they had paid for fences that were not built, and that they had falsified other things to give Mr. Bointy money which he needed when he was in the hospital.

"Q. And she said 'they' falsified them. Who is 'they', Mrs. Oheltoint?

"A. Herself and the people she was making reference to, LaVerne Satepeahtaw and Vincent Bointy."

Following a Jackson-Denno hearing out of presence of the jury, the court overruled a motion to suppress, and allowed into evidence grand jury testimony of both defendants.

In that testimony defendant Dorothy said she often signed blank checks and left them in her desk as she was often away from the office, and bills had to be paid. As executive director, hers was one of two signatures needed on all Authority checks. She testified she signed a check for $1,704.08 to LaVerne Satepeahtaw for drilling a water well that, in fact, never was drilled.

Page 466

She admitted taking $50.00 in Authority funds for her own use and cashing a $500.00 check for Bointy, entered on the books as a payroll advance for her. She said she authorized her own salary to continue when she left the job for a time in early 1974, and when asked if she were justified in doing it she responded:

"A. No, not now.

"Q. You did at the time?

"A. I don't think anything that went on there was justified.

"Q. Do you think this was illegal to do this?

"A. Yes, very much so. I should have come forward with this a long time ago. . . ."

During his grand jury testimony, defendant Carroll said:

"A. There was two occasions where I gave him (Vincent Bointy) some money on a kick-back on a deal.

"Q. Can you explain the circumstances surrounding this transfer of money?

"A. There was one occasion where he and I split up a thousand dollars. He got five hundred and I got five hundred.

"Q. How was this done?

"A. Well, a check was made out to me and I cashed the check and brought $500.00 back to him.

"Q. What were you to do, if anything, for the $500.00 that you testified that you received when you cashed that check?

"A. What was I supposed to do? Nothing, but just go cash the check and bring the money back.

"Q. Just the cashing of the check and bringing the money back?

"A. Right. That was all.

"Q. No promise to do anything?

"A. No, there was no promise to do anything at all. Just the use of my name to cash the check and that was the only thing."

Defendant Carroll said that similar transactions occurred when he received a check for $1,181.25. He said he deposited the check in his personal account, took out $473.00, and split this amount with Bointy. The amount he actually deposited $708.00 was owed him for work already done. The grand jury asked defendant if he knew this to be unlawful, and the defendant responded, "Yes, I knew that, but I needed to get paid."

Orville Brewer, supervisor auditor of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), testified that defendant Dorothy began drawing biweekly paychecks of $230.00, which increased to $375.00 when she was named Acting Executive Director on August 17, 1973. On January 3, 1974, her salary checks increased to $550.00. Brewer said he could find no authorization for that increase, although admitted that copies of Authority minutes and resolutions were missing for a period during that time. Brewer determined that between August 17, 1973, and July 11, 1974, defendant should have received a gross salary of $8,812.50, figured at the authorized $375.00 biweekly level. Her bank account, however, reflected deposits of $13,075.20 identified as "salary" and $3,075.24 not identified as salary. This made a total excess payment to defendant Dorothy of $7,262.94.

Brewer said the overpayment could have been the result of reimbursement for mileage, per diem, or travel expenses, but added that other employees were issued separate checks for travel expenses.

Curtis J. Greer, a private accountant hired by the Authority, testified that his investigation reflected an overpayment of salary and other Authority funds to defendant Dorothy of $7,392.81. He, like Brewer, found no support for the salary increase to $550.00. He said Authority records reflected $8,129.13 in collections which were never deposited, and that overpayments in salaries to other employees totalled $23,256.32. He said that all the checks were signed by defendant Dorothy and one of the Authority officials, usually Bointy.

Greer said that in computing defendant Dorothy's overpayment he used a salary figure of $550.00 biweekly. If he had used the highest authorized figure of $375.00, the

Page 467

overpayment would have been $2,975.00 greater.

George Poolaw, former Authority commissioner, said defendant Dorothy never had been authorized to receive more than the former executive director had received, $375.00 biweekly.

Vincent Bointy, former chairman of the Authority and a co-defendant, testified for the defense that he did not recall whether the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Parks v. State, No. F-79-3
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • August 26, 1982
    ...having been committed .... There is no evidence of it and, consequently, it's Murder One or nothing. (Tr. 543) See also, DeLaune v. State, 569 P.2d 463 (Okl.Cr.App.1977) quoting Hall v. State, 538 P.2d 1113, 117 ... The general rule is that in every criminal prosecution the burden rests on ......
  • Davis v. State, No. F-86-530
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • August 12, 1988
    ...from a single act. We reject this contention under the facts of this case for Page 1035 the reasons set forth in De Laune v. State, 569 P.2d 463, 467 (Okl.Cr.1977), wherein this Court held that, "if the two crimes charged each require the proof of at least one fact which is not required to ......
  • Clay v. State, No. PC-79-37
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • April 9, 1979
    ...of the double jeopardy proscriptions. Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977); Delaune v. State, Okl.Cr., 569 P.2d 463 (1977) and Burks v. State, Okl.Cr., 568 P.2d 1311 Further, this Court has repeatedly held that the statutory prohibition on multiple punishment of......
  • Vowell v. State, No. F-84-755
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • November 19, 1986
    ...encouraged the State to join for trial as many offenses as is permissible. Allison v. State, 675 P.2d 142 (Okl.Cr.1983); DeLaune v. State, 569 P.2d 463 (Okl.Cr.1977); Dodson, supra. Judicial economy is thereby promoted. Rather than forcing the State to isolate and prosecute single transacti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Parks v. State, No. F-79-3
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • August 26, 1982
    ...having been committed .... There is no evidence of it and, consequently, it's Murder One or nothing. (Tr. 543) See also, DeLaune v. State, 569 P.2d 463 (Okl.Cr.App.1977) quoting Hall v. State, 538 P.2d 1113, 117 ... The general rule is that in every criminal prosecution the burden rests on ......
  • Davis v. State, No. F-86-530
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • August 12, 1988
    ...from a single act. We reject this contention under the facts of this case for Page 1035 the reasons set forth in De Laune v. State, 569 P.2d 463, 467 (Okl.Cr.1977), wherein this Court held that, "if the two crimes charged each require the proof of at least one fact which is not required to ......
  • Clay v. State, No. PC-79-37
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • April 9, 1979
    ...of the double jeopardy proscriptions. Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977); Delaune v. State, Okl.Cr., 569 P.2d 463 (1977) and Burks v. State, Okl.Cr., 568 P.2d 1311 Further, this Court has repeatedly held that the statutory prohibition on multiple punishment of......
  • Vowell v. State, No. F-84-755
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • November 19, 1986
    ...encouraged the State to join for trial as many offenses as is permissible. Allison v. State, 675 P.2d 142 (Okl.Cr.1983); DeLaune v. State, 569 P.2d 463 (Okl.Cr.1977); Dodson, supra. Judicial economy is thereby promoted. Rather than forcing the State to isolate and prosecute single transacti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT