Mack v. State, A--18192

Decision Date08 May 1973
Docket NumberNo. A--18192,A--18192
Citation509 P.2d 1372
PartiesDavid Lee MACK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
OPINION

BLISS, Presiding Judge:

In the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CRF--72--1608, appellant, David Lee Mack, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted for the offense of Robbery with Firearms. His punishment was fixed at twelve (12) years imprisonment. From that judgment and sentence, he has perfected his timely appeal to this Court.

Clark Adamson testified that on July 6, 1972, he was employed at the U-Tote-M convenience store, 3200 South Boulevard, Edmond, Oklahoma. Shortly before 1:00 a.m., two black males entered the store wearing paper sacks over their heads. The taller of the two, clad in a red maroon shirt, was armed with a revolver which had the same appearance and characteristics as State's Exhibit No. 1. The shorter of the two was clad in a green fatigue shirt. Both demanded the money contained in the cash register. Adamson delivered currency and the coin tray containing the coins, State's Exhibit No. 2, and the pair left the store. After they left, Adamson found the two sacks worn by the robbers outside of the store and placed them in a waste receptacle, later delivering them to the investigating officer at the scene.

Officer Bill McPherren, of the Edmond Police Department, testified he made the initial investigation at the scene of the robbery, obtained a description of the subjects, and broadcasted the description. Further, he stated he recovered at the scene two paper sacks with eyeholes cut in them.

David Washington testified he resides at 3217 Harvey Drive, Edmond, Oklahoma, approximately 100 yards from the above store. Between 12:30 and 1:00 a.m. on the above date, from his bedroom window, he observed a black Cadillac stop on 33rd street near his home, approximately 50 yards from the U-Tote-M Store. He observed two people emerge from the vehicle and walk toward and around the corner of the store. He also observed these individuals wearing something over their heads. A few minutes after these two persons walked around to the front of the store, he observed them run from the store area back to the same car and speed in the direction of Interstate 35. Finally, he stated he gave this description and information to investigating police officers from the Edmond Police Department.

Officers Wesley Wayne Dawson and John Charles Campbell testified they were on patrol during the early morning hours of July 6, 1972. At approximately 12:45 a.m. Dawson stated he received a broadcast reporting an armed robbery at the above store. The broadcast included the above descriptions of the suspected vehicle and occupants. At the 2700 block of Northeast 23rd, he and Campbell observed a black 1969 Cadillac traveling across Interstate 35. This vehicle resembled the vehicle in the broadcasted description. They stopped the vehicle at a Derby station near that intersection and upon approaching it observed, in the front seat, a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Pullen v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 4 Agosto 2016
    ...the charged offense. See , e.g. , Hardy v. State , 1977 OK CR 149, ¶¶ 15–16, 562 P.2d 943, 947 ; Mack v. State , 1973 OK CR 242, ¶ 7, 509 P.2d 1372, 1374 ; Fowler v. State , 1953 OK CR 71, 97 Okla.Crim. 34, 35, 257 P.2d 537, 538. Relief is denied for Proposition II.3. ¶ 10 Appellant timely ......
  • Luker v. State, F--75--624
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 26 Mayo 1976
    ...minutes after the robbery. The evidence of guilt, both direct and circumstantial, is overwhelming. For a similar case see Mack v. State, Okl.Cr., 509 P.2d 1372, wherein the identity of the defendant was established by circumstantial evidence. The defendant's first assignment is without The ......

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