Gross v. State, F-83-719
| Decision Date | 12 September 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. F-83-719,F-83-719 |
| Citation | 706 P.2d 914 |
| Parties | Neil Gregg GROSS, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
The appellant, Neil Gregg Gross, was convicted of Possession of a Stolen Motor Vehicle, After Former conviction of Two or More Felonies in the District Court of Comanche County, Oklahoma, Case No. CRF-83-104. He was sentenced to a term of twenty (20) years imprisonment, and appeals. We affirm.
Because appellant alleges no irregularities stemming from the first stage of trial, a detailed statement of facts by this Court is unnecessary. It is sufficient to note that appellant was discovered in possession of a stolen automobile in Lawton, Oklahoma, on February 9, 1983.
Appellant's first assignment of error challenges the sufficiency of evidence used by the prosecution to prove appellant had suffered two or more felony convictions. See 21 O.S. 1981, § 51 B. In this regard, the record shows that the State produced certified copies of abstracts of judgments from the California courts. These documents revealed appellant had received three prior convictions in that State. Also introduced was a document from the California Department of Corrections containing a copy of the appellant's fingerprints and his California "mug shot."
It is asserted by the appellant that the State did not meet its burden of establishing the prior convictions. He claims the evidence showed only a similarity of names, and therefore did not provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant suffered the three prior convictions in question. We disagree.
We first note that the State produced the appellant's photograph in addition to the judgment abstract. Furthermore, even if the State had produced only the abstracts, the similarity of names would have provided a sufficient basis for the jury's finding.
In Williams v. State, 364 P.2d 702, 703 (Okl.Cr.1961), this Court first wrote:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hammer v. State, F-85-672
...The defendant has the burden of showing the crimes were all part of a single transaction or occurrence. Gross v. State, 706 P.2d 914, 915 (Okla.Crim.App.1985). In this case, appellant has failed to meet his burden of proof. Sequential case numbers and judgments entered on the same day do no......
-
Mornes v. State
...State, 669 P.2d 778, 780 (Okla.Crim.App.1983). The mere fact that the prior convictions were consecutively numbered, Gross v. State, 706 P.2d 914, 915 (Okla.Crim.App.1985), or that appellant pled guilty to three of these burglaries on the same day, Vowell v. State, 728 P.2d 854, 859 (Okla.C......
-
Lister v. State, F-87-16
...that the appellant was given an opportunity to rebut the evidence of convictions or show interrelationship of the crimes; Gross v. State, 706 P.2d 914 (Okl.Cr.1985); that the jury was properly instructed that it could not consider prior convictions unless proved by the State; and that there......
-
Day v. State
...arose out of the same transaction or series of events "closely related in time and location." See 21 O.S.1981, § 51B; Gross v. State, 706 P.2d 914, 915 (Okla.Crim.App.1985). This assignment is without Next, appellant seeks modification of sentence because docket sheets relating to his prior......