Satterlee v. State
| Decision Date | 14 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. F--75--638,F--75--638 |
| Citation | 1976 OK CR 88,549 P.2d 104 |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
| Parties | John Wallace SATTERLEE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
Appellant, John Wallace Satterlee, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court, Tulsa County, Case No. CRF--74--2985, for the offense of Robbery With Firearms, After Former Conviction of a Felony, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.1973, § 801. At the conclusion of his two stage trial, the jury recommended, and the judge imposed, a sentence of one hundred (100) years' imprisonment. From said judgment and sentence, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
The State's first witness at trial was Gene Gates, a registered pharmacist and owner of Gene Gates Pharmacy. He testified that on December 19, 1974, at 9:05 a.m. which was shortly after he and his nephew opened the store, he observed a gunman, wearing a ski mask and jump suit, enter his pharmacy through the front door. Gates stated that he then attempted to leave through the back door, but as he opened the door he was confronted by two more gunmen who were also wearing ski masks and jump suits. He was then ordered back to the prescription area where his nephew was lying on the floor on his stomach with a gunman standing on his shoulder and gun at his head. One of the gunmen produced a zippered bag about 18 inches long and told him to 'Fill the bag with the narcotics.' After the witness had filled the bag with narcotics which had been labeled and coded, he and his nephew were directed to turn over money from the store and their persons which amounted to about $240.00. Gates further related that before the gunmen left, one of them stated that they wanted 'About half a dozen' syringes, whereupon Gates took a 'handful' and threw them into the bag.
Gates then identified certain of State's Exhibits including a brown case, blue stocking mask, and three pistols as 'similar' to the items he had seen on the day of the incident. He further identified several narcotic bottles as ones which were taken from his store. Gates further stated that he did not give defendant permission to take the items from his store.
Steven Gates, a pharmacy student who was working for his uncle, Gene Gates, during Christmas break in December of 1974, next testimony. Young Gates further uncle's testimony. Young Gates further related that after one of the gunmen pinned his shoulders to the floor with a knee on each shoulder the gunman struck him with the gun, three times on the head and then once on the forearm as the witness protected himself with his own arm. As a result the witness sustained lacerations on his head which required sutures.
Alan Handley, a Broken Arrow Policeman, testified that on December 19, 1974, while driving his patrol car north on 161st Street he met a white Cadillac with three subjects therein proceeding southbound and noticed clothing flying out of said automobile. Handley stated that prior to seeing the Cadillac he had heard a broadcast on KRMG, a commercial radio station, that Gates Pharmacy had been held up by 'three men wearing ski masks' and that they had escaped with an undetermined amount of drugs and money. The officer stated that soon after passing the Cadillac he stopped on the roadway and noticed the articles of clothing which had been thrown out of the car, including a blue ski mask. Thereupon he turned his patrol car around and made chase of the Cadillac when the radio broadcast 'went through his mind.' He then stopped the Cadillac, whereupon the driver exited the vehicle saying, 'Man, I'm a litterbug.' He asked the driver to sit in the patrol car and then radioed for a backup unit. The driver of the Cadillac produced a Texas' driver's license bearing the name, 'Robert Lee Green.'
Handley further related that two patrol cars driven by Detective Boze and Patrolman Steves responded to his request for a backup unit. Detective Boze was then sent to retrive the clothing. Officer Crosby then arrived whereupon Handley approached the suspects' vehicle, opened the left rear door and asked the remaining two occupants for identification. Handley stated that defendant produced an Oklahoma driver's license, bearing the name 'Satterlee.' The other occupant, who had no identification, stated that his name was 'Donald Holt.' The witness then identified the defendant. The officer further related that upon opening the car door he saw a brown bottle labeled 'Demerol,' laying face up on the floorboard. After radio communication was made with Tulsa authorities verifying the armed robbery, he and Officer Crosby removed the two subjects from the Cadillac, handcuffed them and placed them in patrol cars. Upon his return to the Cadillac Handley said that he noticed the back seat was pulled out approximately six inches, allowing him to observe syringe packages, a quantity of pill bottles and the corner of what he thought to be some money. The three subjects and their automobile were next transported to the Broken Arrow Police Station where Tulsa law enforcement Officers McCullough and Morris had been summoned. Handley then identified State's Exhibit No. 7 as the Demerol bottle which he had seen in the Cadillac.
On cross-examination, Handley testified that he had no knowledge that the drugs had not been legally prescribed, but did know that Demerol was a controlled drug. He further stated that he knew he had a good littering charge, but, in fact, stopped the Cadillac after he had seen articles on the roadway and become 'suspicious' because of the broadcast over the radio.
Heinz Steves, a Broken Arrow Police Officer, testified that he was on the scene where Handley had stopped the Cadillac on December 19, 1974. He further related that he observed the person sitting in the right rear seat of the Cadillac move his arm up and down near the top edge of the rear seat.
Tulsa Police Officer Jess McCullough testified that on December 19, 1974, he was assigned to the Broken Arrow Police Department regarding the Gates Pharmacy robbery. Upon arriving at the police station be observed a white Cadillac nearby. He further testified that standing outside the car, without opening the door, and looking inside he saw a brown bottle on the floorboard and behind the back seat he could see a brown zippered bag, syringes and bottles. The witness then identified State's Exhibit No. 7 as the bottle which was on the rear floorboard of the white Cadillac, and State's Exhibit No. 8 as the label which was on the bottle. He further identified State's Exhibit No. 1 as the brown zippered bag which he saw in the car and State's Exhibit No. 5 as the chrome weapon which was found, fully loaded and cocked, in the zippered bag. The witness then related that he followed the Cadillac, which was being towed, to A1 Storey Wrecker where it was placed in the custody of another officer. McCullough then left for some 30 to 40 minutes and upon returning he and Detective Dennit Morris, also of the Tulsa Police Department, then completed a search of the automobile. They opened the locked trunk with a key supplied by the wrecker service. In the trunk the witness found two revolvers, some cash, assorted clothing and a pair of brown or buckskin gloves. Officer McCullough then identified a number of State's Exhibits as items which were taken from the white Cadillac.
On cross-examination McCullough stated that he had neither an arrest warrant nor a search warrant at the time he took the three subjects into custody, or when he searched their vehicle. He further testified that none of the three subjects gave him permission to search the automobile. He stated that he was present in the Broken Arrow Police Station when Officer Dennit Morris administered the Miranda warnings to the three subjects He also stated that a total of approximately $180.00 had been found on the three subjects and in their vehicle.
The final witness for the State was Larry Johnson, an investigator for the Tulsa Police Department, who identified the defendant as the individual from whom he had taken a statement in the presence of Detective John Powell subsequent to advising him of his Miranda rights. Johnson then identified State's Exhibit No. 16 as a certificate of notification of rights form and waiver which had been signed voluntarily and knowingly by defendant in the presence of himself and Detective Powell prior to making a statement. The witness then related the fruits of the statement given by defendant which were, in essence, an admission of defendant's complicity of the crime charged.
Thereafter the State rested, the defendant put on no testimony and rested, and after arguments of counsel the jury returned a verdict of guilty.
Defendant, in his first assignment of error, avers that the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to remand his case for further preliminary hearing. Moreover, defendant contends that he did not receive a preliminary hearing before an impartial magistrate. The basis of the aforementioned argument is that the Honorable B. R. Beasley, who presided at defendant's preliminary hearing, had prosecuted co-defendant Robert Lee Green on a charge of murder only three years previous to the instant matter.
We note that 20 O.S.1971, § 1401, provides in part:
'(a) No judge of any court shall sit in any cause or proceeding in which he may be interested, . . . or in which he has been of counsel for either side, or in which is called in question the validity of any judgment or proceeding in which he was of counsel or interested, . . . without the consent of the parties to said action entered of record.'
We held in Sam v. State, Okl.Cr., 510 P.2d 978 (1973),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gomez v. State
..."reasonable suspicion" is a lesser standard than "probable cause." This argument is clearly without merit because as we held in Satterlee v. State, 1976 OK CR 88, ¶¶ 18-19, 549 P.2d 104, 108-09, an officer's description of his own level of suspicion does not determine whether there was prob......
-
Stout v. State
...knowledge or upon facts communicated to him by others, has reasonable cause to believe the person has committed a felony. Satterlee v. State, 549 P.2d 104 (Okl.Cr.1976). We find that the facts within the knowledge of the officer were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the......
-
Com. v. Darush
...1972); U. S. ex rel. Fletcher v. Maroney, 280 F.Supp. 277, W.D.Pa., 1968); State v. Maduell, 326 So.2d 820 (La., 1976); Satterlee v. State, 549 P.2d 104 (Okl.Cr., 1976); Sam v. State, 510 P.2d 978 (Okl.Cr., 1973); People v. Tartaglia, 73 Misc.2d 506, 342 N.Y.S.2d 998 (1973); Maloney v. Maxw......
-
Irvin v. State
...can only result in modification if necessary, but not reversal. Barnhart v. State, Okl.Cr., 559 P.2d 451 (1977); Satterlee v. State, Okl.Cr., 549 P.2d 104 (1976), and Webb v. State, Okl.Cr., 546 P.2d 642 While the appellant's objection to the statement regarding-"mitigating circumstances" w......