Fields v. State

• Decision Date: 31 July 1996
• Docket Number: No. C-94-414,C-94-414
• Citation: 1996 OK CR 35,923 P.2d 624
• Parties: Bobby Joe FIELDS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 624

923 P.2d 624

Bobby Joe FIELDS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent.

No. C-94-414.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

July 31, 1996.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1996.

An Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; before the Honorable James L. Gullett, District Judge.

Catherine Burton, Timothy Wilson, Assistant Public Defenders, Oklahoma City, for Petitioner at trial.

Robert H. Macy, District Attorney, Steve Deutsch, Assistant District Attorney, Oklahoma City, for the State at trial.

Wendell B. Sutton, Assistant Public Defender, Oklahoma City, for Petitioner on appeal.

W.A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General, William H. Humes, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, for the State on appeal.

OPINION DENYING WRIT OF CERTIORARI

LANE, Judge:

On February 7, 1994, Petitioner, Bobby Joe Fields, entered a blind plea to a First Degree Felony Murder charge in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case Number CF-93-1352, before the Honorable James L. Gullett, District Judge. The State had filed a Bill of Particulars alleging the presence of three aggravating circumstances: that the crime was committed to avoid or prevent lawful arrest or prosecution; that Petitioner was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person; and that Petitioner constituted a continuing threat to society. A sentencing hearing was conducted March 28-29, 1994. On April 7, 1994, the trial court formally sentenced Petitioner to death, finding that the State had sufficiently proven the existence of all three aggravators.

On April 15, 1994, Petitioner timely filed his motion to withdraw plea. On May 13, 1994, a hearing was held and the motion was denied. On November 14, 1994, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Certiorari appealing the denial of his motion to withdraw, and requesting mandatory death sentence review.

Petitioner raises the following propositions of error ¹ in support of his writ:

I. The District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to accept Petitioner's guilty plea because the Information failed to state facts to allege each element of First Degree Burglary Felony Murder;

II. Petitioner did not "knowingly" enter his blind plea of guilty;

III. The blind plea of guilty entered by Petitioner was a product of improper or undue influence, persuasion, fear, duress or coercion, and was thus not "voluntary";

IV. Petitioner had viable defenses which should be presented to a jury;

V. Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions;

VI. The evidence was insufficient to support the sentencer's finding that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing lawful arrest or prosecution;

VII. The evidence presented was insufficient to support the finding that Petitioner was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person;

VIII. The evidence presented was insufficient to support the finding of a probability that Petitioner would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society;

IX. The "continuing threat", "avoiding arrest" and "prior violent felony" aggravating circumstances are invalid because they are being applied in an unconstitutionally vague and overbroad manner;

X. Petitioner was denied a reliable sentencing trial to the extent the sentencing judge relied upon the same evidence to support the "prior violent felony" and "continuing threat" aggravating circumstances;

XI. One or more mitigating circumstances outweighed any or all of the remaining valid aggravating circumstances XII. The death penalty is excessive and disproportionate in this case considering both the crime and the defendant;

XIII. The sentencer erred in failing to weigh mitigating circumstances collectively against each of the aggravating circumstances separately under 21 O.S.1991, § 701.11;

XIV. The accumulation of errors in this case so infected the proceedings with unfairness as to deny Petitioner due process of law; and,

XV. If Petitioner's death sentence is vacated, he is entitled to a remand for jury sentencing.

FACTS

Petitioner is an admitted cocaine addict. On March 2, 1993, Petitioner, his girlfriend and her two adult daughters had already exhausted their combined March AFDC (Aid for Families with Dependent Children) money on crack cocaine. In an effort to procure funds for more crack, Petitioner asked a neighbor if he would like to purchase a T.V. and V.C.R. for $70. The neighbor was interested but did not have the funds to purchase the items. Likewise, Petitioner did not have either a T.V. or a V.C.R. to sell. Petitioner left the neighbor's house, telling the neighbor he would return shortly.

From the neighbor's house Petitioner went down the block to Louise Schem's house to burglarize it, thinking she was not at home. Schem knew Petitioner from the neighborhood. He had been to her house earlier in the day asking for work. Petitioner was hoping he could steal Schem's T.V. and V.C.R. Unfortunately, while in the process of burglarizing the victim's house, she emerged from a bedroom and confronted Petitioner with a gun. The two wrestled each other for the gun, out onto the front porch of the house and down the steps. A passerby heard the victim yell for help, and stopped his car. The witness heard a gunshot and saw Schem fall, but was unable to identify Petitioner as the shooter. After shooting Schem, Petitioner took the gun from her and sold it to the neighbor for $40 instead of selling him the promised T.V. and V.C.R. Petitioner then purchased more crack cocaine with the money. He was arrested several hours later at his girlfriend's house.

Petitioner admitted killing Schem, but claimed it was accidental. Petitioner alleged the victim's finger was on the trigger when the gun discharged.

Testimony from the medical examiner was that the gunshot wound entered behind the victim's ear, with a straight line trajectory, and exited out of her mouth, severing her spinal cord in the process. He also testified the wound was not a contact wound and the gun was at least 6 to 12 inches away from the victim when it was fired. The only witness to the crime, while unable to identify Petitioner as the shooter, testified the shooter looked at him (the witness), looked back at the victim, and then fired the gun.

There was additional testimony Petitioner claimed he was not sorry for the killing; that "white people deserved it" (Petitioner is black, the victim white); and that he wanted to be on "America's Most Wanted". Petitioner also admitted to having smoked crack cocaine the day of the killing.

Petitioner alleges at Proposition I that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea, because the Information failed to state the facts necessary to allege each of the elements of the underlying felony to support the felony murder Information. The Amended Information in this case read, in pertinent part, as follows:

On or about the 2nd day of March, 1993, A.D., the crime of Murder in the First Degree was feloniously committed in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, by Bobby Joe Fields, who while in the commission of Burglary in the First Degree, willfully and unlawfully killed Louise Schen (sic) by shooting her with a pistol, inflicting mortal wounds which caused her death on the 2nd day of March, 1993, contrary to the provisions of Section 701.7 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Oklahoma;

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

On or about the 2nd day of March, 1993, A.D., the crime of Murder in the First Degree was feloniously committed in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, by Bobby Joe Fields, who wilfully, unlawfully and with malice aforethought, killed Louise Schen (sic) by shooting her with a pistol, inflicting mortal wounds which caused her death on the 2nd day of March, 1993, contrary to the provisions of Section 701.7 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Oklahoma ...

An information is sufficient if it (1) contains every essential element of the offense charged, and (2) fairly informs the accused of the charges against which he must defend. See Tiger v. State, 900 P.2d 406, 408 (Okl.Cr.1995); Miller v. State, 827 P.2d 875, 877 (Okl.Cr.1992); Lambert v. State, 888 P.2d 494, 504 (Okl.Cr.1994); Plotner v. State, 762 P.2d 936, 940 (Okl.Cr.1988). The test to assess the sufficiency of the information is two-pronged: (1) whether the defendant was in fact misled by it, and (2) whether conviction under it would expose the defendant to the possibility of being put in jeopardy a second time for the same offense. Lambert, 888 P.2d at 504; Wolfenbarger v. State, 710 P.2d 114, 115 (Okl.Cr.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1182, 106 S.Ct. 2915, 91 L.Ed.2d 544 (1986); Jefferson v. State, 675 P.2d 443, 445 (Okl.Cr.1984). We have previously determined that the elements of the underlying felony are essential to a felony murder charge. Tiger, 900 P.2d at 408.

In Parker v. State, 917 P.2d 980 (Okl.Cr.1996), we reviewed our rulings in Tiger and Miller and held that an information need not allege each element of a crime in order to confer jurisdiction. Rather, the question is whether the information gives the defendant notice of the charges against him and apprises him of what he must defend against at trial. Id. at 986. The Information here alleged in the alternative that Petitioner was guilty either of malice murder or felony murder. The Information, while lacking specificity, gave the defendant sufficient notice of the charges against him. It recited the name of the defendant, the date, place, weapon, and method of the crime, identified the crime victim, and specified the statutes under which Petitioner was charged.

Additionally, Petitioner entered a blind plea to the felony murder charge filed against him. At the hearing where Petitioner entered...