Lamb v. State, s. A--15610

• Decision Date: 22 October 1970
• Docket Number: A--15670,Nos. A--15610,s. A--15610
• Citation: 475 P.2d 829
• Parties: Danny Ray LAMB and Odie Lee Reed, Plaintiffs 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

Page 829

475 P.2d 829

Danny Ray LAMB and Odie Lee Reed, Plaintiffs in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

Nos. A--15610, A--15670.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. 22, 1970.

Rehearings Denied Oct. 26, 1970.

Appeal Number A--15,610, affirmed.

Appeal Number A--15,670, affirmed.

Danny Ray Lamb entered a plea of Guilty to the charge of Burglary of an Automobile and was sentenced to two years imprisonment and appeals; Odie lee reed was tried by the court without a jury on a plea of Not Guilty, but stipulated to the fact of the state's presentment of evedence after which the court found him quilty of the charge of Burglary of an Automobile; was sentenced to two years imprisonment, and appeals. By stipulation of counsel both decisions are consolidated herein. Judgments and sentences affirmed.

Fred Gilbert, Public Defender, Tulsa, for plaintiffs in error.

G. T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., Hugh H. Collum, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM OPINION

BRETT, Presiding Judge:

This decision consolidates two separate appeals from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, to-wit: Danny Ray Lamb vs. The State of Oklahoma, No. A--15,610; and Odie Lee Reed vs. The State of Oklahoma, No. A--15,670. Both plaintiffs in error, hereafter referred to as defendants, were convicted for separate offenses of 'Burglary of an Automobile,' under Title 21 O.S. § 1435. Danny Ray Lamb was seventeen years of age at the time he entered a plea of Guilty to the charge against him, and was given a two year sentence of imprisonment. Odie Lee Reed was seventeen when he appeared before the trial judge on a plea of Not Guilty, but stipulated to the facts stated by the prosecutor as being the evidence which would be offered by the state's witnesses, if they were present; thereafter, the trial judge found Reed guilty, ordered that a pre-sentence investigation and report be provided by the Department of Corrections, and set the date for imposition of judgment and sentence to be had on November 7, 1969, when he was given a two year sentence of imprisonment.

During the period of trial of defendant Reed, defense counsel entered numerous special motions all of which were properly overruled by the trial court. ¹ In defendant Lamb's case, when judgment and sentence was imposed on September 23, 1969, defense counsel orally entered, 'for the purposes of the record' his oral motion in arrest of judgment, because the defendant was seventeen years of age; (tr.--18) the trial judge denied defendant's motion. On the following October 2nd, defense counsel filed a motion to withdraw the plea of guilty on grounds that his former plea of guilty was improvidently entered, which was denied by the trial judge at the hearing on October 10th on the motion for new trial which was likewise denied. Thereafter both appeals were lodged in this Court at state expense, insofar as both defendants were determined to be indigent defendants, counsel agrees that the decision in Lamb's appeal shall also be applicable to Reed's appeal, so the two appeals are herein consolidated.

Defendants' counsel has filed outstanding briefs, and he is to be commended for the manner in which he has presented these appeals, as well as for the diligence displayed in pursuing the matters. In arguing the appeal, both defendants set forth that they are not being provided 'equal protection' under the laws with that enjoyed by female persons under eighteen years of age. In...