Hutton v. State, A--15108
| Citation | 473 P.2d 303 |
| Decision Date | 15 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. A--15108,A--15108 |
| Parties | Arnell Billy HUTTON, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Record examined and HELD warnings to accused given in substantial compliance with Miranda v. Arizona and Story v. State.
2. Where the undisputed evidence overwhelmingly supports the verdict of the jury, the punishment imposed is well within the range provided by law, and the record is free of any error which would justify modification or reversal, the judgment and sentence appealed from will be affirmed.
Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; John A. Brett, Judge.
Arnell Billy Hutton was convicted of the crime of Attempted Larceny of an Automobile, was sentenced to serve one year in the state penitentiary, and appeals. Affirmed.
Don Anderson, Public Defender, for plaintiff in error.
G. T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., W. Howard O'Bryan, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Arnell Billy Hutton, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County for the crime of Attempted Larceny of an Automobile; his punishment was fixed at one year imprisonment in the state penitentiary, and he appeals.
The evidence adduced on the trial reveals that Officers White and Johnson of the Oklahoma City Police Department were cruising in the vicinity of the 900 block North Broadway on October 20, 1968, about 7:00 p.m., when they noticed a Mustang automobile in a parking lot with the hood raised. The defendant's brother was inside the car and the glove compartment was open and the contents were strewn about the floor. A screwdriver and a pair of pliers were on the car seat and the ignition switch had been removed and was dangling by the connecting wires. The defendant was outside with his head under the hood at the motor. When asked what they were doing they replied that their uncle had asked them to get the car started.
The car had been parked by one Charlie Lutke, who was the owner, and the next day he discovered a coathanger that had not before been in the car. The coathanger was bent in such a manner that it could have been used to enter the locked car.
Detective King of the Oklahoma City Police Department testified that he talked to defendant in custody at the police station on October 21, 1968, and defendant, after being warned of the rights against self-incrimination, told the detective he and his brother were at the car for the purpose of stealing it.
The defendant did not testify in his own behalf nor offer evidence.
The single assignment of error seriously urged on appeal is that defendant's confession was improperly admitted into evidence for the reason that he had not been advised of his constitutional rights in accordance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, and Story v. State, Okl.Cr., 452 P.2d 822. We believe the following excerpt of testimony (R 28), taken outside the hearing of the jury, amply disposes of this issue in that it establishes substantial compliance with Miranda v. Arizona and Story v. State, supra:
'BY MR. FUNK: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boutwell v. State
...U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), were not violated and the confession was properly admitted into evidence. Hutton v. State, 473 P.2d 303 (Okl.Cr.1970); Arnold v. State, 548 P.2d 659 The appellant next claims he was denied due process of law because Juror Nichols was not excus......