Mason v. State
| Decision Date | 28 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. F--76--862,F--76--862 |
| Citation | 560 P.2d 1048 |
| Parties | William Joe MASON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
William Joe Mason, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court, Oklahoma County, Case No. CRF--75--4631, for the crime of Petit Larceny, After Former Conviction of a Felony in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 1701. In accordance with the verdict of the jury, the defendant was sentenced, on the 17th day of May, 1976, to serve a term of three (3) years' imprisonment. From said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
Briefly stated, the evidence of the State consisted of the testimony of Mr. Kim Houston, who testified that on the 5th day of December, 1975, he was employed as the manager of the men's department of Dillard's Department Store, Shepherd Mall, in Oklahoma City; that to the best of his knowledge no one in the store gave anyone permission to remove a book entitled, Love Is An Active Verb, from the store without paying for the same.
The next witness for the State was David Mercer, who testified that he was a full-time Oklahoma City Police Officer and a part-time Security Guard for Dillard Department Stores. On December 5, 1975, at about 5:00 p.m., he was at the store and observed the defendant, who was about seven feet away, remove a book from the book rack and walk behind another rack and then out of the store. The witness testified that he never did see the book, but confronted the defendant at the store exit just outside. After the defendant denied knowing anything about a book, the witness asked the defendant to open his jacket. The witness then saw the book under the defendant's arm. Mercer testified that at no time did the defendant go near the cash register. The book was priced to the public at the value of $1.50, but the witness was unable to testify if any had been actually sold at that price.
The final witness was Officer Isaac of the Oklahoma City Police Department, who testified that on December 5, 1975, at the request of David Mrecer, he took custody of the defendant and transported him to the Oklahoma City Police Department.
The defendant did not testify in his own behalf, nor offer any evidence. The After Former portion of the trial was stipulated to by the parties. This consisted of four previous felony convictions: two for Larceny and two for Obtaining Merchandise by Means of a False and Bogus Check; the oldest being some four and one half years old and the most recent a 1975 case.
For his first assignment of error the defendant argues that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. A careful examination of the record transmitted to this Court reveals that there was more than adequate evidence from which the jury could have arrived at a verdict of guilty. In the fourth paragraph of the Syllabus in Fields v. State, Okl.Cr., 322 P.2d 431 (1958), we held:
'The function of the Criminal Court of Appeals is limited to ascertaining whether there is a basis in the evidence, on which the jury can reasonably conclude that accused is guilty as charged.'
Furthermore, this Court has stated on many occasions that where there is competent evidence in the record from which the jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty as charged, the Court of Criminal Appeals will not interfere with the verdict. See Williams v. State, Okl.Cr., 373 P.2d 91 (1962). We therefore, find this assignment of error to be without merit.
For his final assignment of error the defendant urges that the punishment imposed by the jury is excessive. First, we observe that the defendant voluntarily stipulated and agreed that he had four previous felony convictions, all involving some form of larceny. In Johnson v. State, Okl.Cr., 386 P.2d 336 (1963), in the fifth paragraph of the Syllabus, we held:
'The question of excessiveness of punishment must be determined by a study of all the facts and circumstances in each particular case, and the Court of Criminal Appeals does not have the power to modify a sentence unless we can conscientiously say that under all facts and circumstances the sentence is so excessive as to shock the conscience of the court.'
Further, in Benson v. State, Okl.Cr., 483 P.2d 1160 (1971), we held that a sentence of five years' imprisonment for Petit Larceny, After Former Conviction of a Felony, was not excessive. We, accordingly, find this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayes v. State
...his announcement of ready for trial and request a continuance." Diaz v. State, 728 P.2d 503, 513 (Okl.Cr.1986); Mason v. State, 560 P.2d 1048, 1050 (Okl.Cr.1977). See Fisher v. State, 668 P.2d 1152, 1155 (Okl.Cr.1983). Therefore, we review for fundamental error We have reviewed the list of ......
-
Diaz v. State
..."must do more than simply object; he must withdraw his announcement of ready for trial and request a continuance." Mason v. State, 560 P.2d 1048, 1050 (Okl.Cr.1977). See Fisher v. State, 668 P.2d 1152, 1155 (Okl.Cr.1983). As noted in Riggle v. State, 585 P.2d 1382, 1389 [T]his Court has spe......
-
Chisler v. State
...failure to request a continuance or other remedy at that time weighs against defendant's claim of prejudice here. See Mason v. State, 560 P.2d 1048 (Okl.Cr.App.1977); Reed v. People, 171 Colo. 421, 467 P.2d 809 (1970); People v. Dees, 46 Ill.App.3d 1010, 5 Ill.Dec. 598, 361 N.E.2d 1126 Fina......
-
Thomas v. State
...See also Fisher v. State, 668 P.2d 1152 (Okl.Cr.1983); Blanton v. City of Oklahoma City, 568 P.2d 288, 290 (Okl.Cr.1977); Mason v. State, 560 P.2d 1048 (Okl.Cr.1977). In Diaz, we quoted the rule established in Paschall v. State, 96 Okl.Cr. 198, 252 P.2d 175 The trial court in the exercise o......