Lewis v. State, O-85-153

Decision Date30 June 1987
Docket NumberNo. O-85-153,O-85-153
Citation739 P.2d 534
PartiesLarry David LEWIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
OPINION

BRETT, Presiding Judge:

This is an appeal from an order revoking a suspended sentence.

Appellant, Larry David Lewis, was convicted on September 9, 1983, on a plea of guilty in the District Court of Carter County, Case No. CRF-83-283, of four counts of Uttering a Forged Instrument. Appellant was sentenced to three (3) years' imprisonment on each of the counts to be served consecutively. The court then suspended the sentence on all but the first count on certain conditions imposed by the court and made part of the record.

On June 4, 1984, the State filed an application to vacate the order suspending execution of the sentence on the ground that the appellant had committed the crime of uttering a forged instrument on May 26, 1984. A hearing was held on the application on September 26, 1984, with the appellant present and represented by counsel. Upon completion of the hearing, the trial court revoked the suspended sentence and sentenced the appellant to three (3) years' imprisonment on each of the three counts to run consecutively.

Appellant urges this Court to find the evidence was insufficient to justify revocation of his suspended sentence. We find the evidence was sufficient and, therefore, affirm the trial court.

On May 26, 1984, appellant was a passenger in a pickup truck at a drive-through teller lane at the American National Bank in Ardmore, Oklahoma. A check in the amount of one thousand dollars made payable to Ty Lewis, the appellant's father, and apparently endorsed by him was presented. The apparent maker of the check was a Benny Humphrey. The record is silent as to whether the appellant or the driver of the pickup truck placed the check in the vacuum tube in the drive-through lane.

The teller remembers talking with the appellant through the speaker about the somewhat unusual transaction. A piece of paper presented with the check instructed the teller to deposit five hundred dollars in the account of Ty Lewis and to return five hundred dollars cash. The paper instructed the teller as to what bill denominations should be tendered. When the teller discovered the bill denominations added up to only four hundred eighty dollars, she asked the appellant whether she should return four hundred eighty dollars or five hundred dollars. The appellant leaned across the driver to discuss the situation. The teller's entire conversation was with the appellant. He instructed her to return five hundred dollars. The teller then conferred with another teller and decided to deposit five hundred dollars and return five hundred dollars. She placed an envelope containing five hundred dollars in cash in the vacuum tube and saw the driver of the pickup truck hand the envelope to the appellant. The next day the bank president advised the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Tilden v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • July 12, 2013
    ...1991 OK CR 44, ¶ 3, 809 P.2d 1320, 1322;Fleming v. State, 1988 OK CR 162, ¶ 4, 760 P.2d 206, 207;Lewis v. State, 1987 OK CR 138, ¶ 9, 739 P.2d 534, 535. Tilden argues that the State did not prove that his failure to report and failure to pay probation fees was willful, and therefore has pre......
  • Hagar v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • September 27, 1999
    ...sentence. See Robinson v. State, 809 P.2d 1320, 1322 (Okl.Cr.1991); Fleming v. State, 760 P.2d 206, 207 (Okl.Cr.1988); Lewis v. State, 739 P.2d 534, 535 (Okl.Cr.1987). ...
  • Robinson v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • April 11, 1991
    ...Third, violations of conditions of suspended sentence need only be shown by a "preponderance" of the evidence. Lewis v. State, 739 P.2d 534 (Okl.Cr.1987); Fleming v. State, 760 P.2d 206 (Okl.Cr.1988). Fourth, the decision to revoke a suspended sentence lies within the discretion of the tria......

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