Simmons v. State

• Decision Date: 13 January 1988
• Docket Number: No. F-85-237,F-85-237
• Citation: 748 P.2d 996
• Parties: Nicky Dean SIMMONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 996

748 P.2d 996

Nicky Dean SIMMONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-85-237.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 13, 1988.

An Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; William A. Saied, District Judge.

NICKY DEAN SIMMONS, appellant, was convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CRF-84-3492 of Burglary in the First Degree After Former Conviction of a Felony, and Oral Sodomy After Former Conviction of a Felony for which he received sentences of 500 years' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, and he appeals. AFFIRMED.

Thomas Purcell, Asst. Appellate Public Defender, Norman, for appellant.

Michael C. Turpen, Atty. Gen., Jean M. Le Blanc, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

The appellant, Nicky Dean Simmons, was convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CRF-84-3492 of Burglary in the First Degree After Former Conviction of a Felony, and Oral Sodomy After Former Conviction of a Felony, for which he received sentences of 500 years' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. He appeals raising seven assignments of error.

The evidence reveals that on July 22, 1984 in the early morning hours, A.V.P. was awakened in her Oklahoma City home by a noise. After investigating she called the police. While she was still talking to them, the appellant, a neighbor, entered the room with a pillow case over his head, and socks on his hands. He grabbed the seventy-nine year old victim around the throat, hung up the phone and forced her into the bedroom where he forced her to commit oral sodomy on him. While in the act the police arrived and the appellant fled to the bathroom where he was apprehended and placed under arrest.

During the trial, the appellant testified that he heard his neighbor scream, ran to her house, went inside, heard voices outside, got "paranoid" and took off running.

As his first assignment of error the appellant complains that the trial court erred in refusing to allow him a copy of the police incident report signed by the prosecutrix which allegedly charged attempted sodomy. The record reveals that during cross-examination of the victim, after the fact that she had signed an incident report was established, the defense counsel moved for a copy of the report, and the prosecutor objected. The trial court denied the motion. However, the testimony of the officer who filled out the report reveals that he examined it during his testimony, and that upon defense counsel's renewal of his motion, the court allowed him to review the report. Therefore, the appellant cannot show how he was prejudiced by the first denial of his motion, and we find no error. See Ozbun v. State, 659 P.2d 954 (Okl.Cr.1983).

As his second assignment of error the appellant urges that he was improperly bound over for trial because the only witness who could identify him stated that he had viewed mug shots before the preliminary hearing. However, the record also reveals that the witness was the arresting officer, and had not only arrested, but also interviewed the appellant. He testified that he would have been able to pick out the appellant even if he had not viewed the mug shots. We have held:

When there is competent evidence in the record from which the magistrate, as a trier of fact, could reasonably conclude that there was probable cause to believe a crime was committed and that defendant committed it, the reviewing court will not interfere with the determination of the finder of fact. Tabor v. State, Okl.Cr., 582 P.2d 1323 (1978); Jones v. State, Okl.Cr., 557 P.2d 447 (1976).

Shriver v. State, 632 P.2d 420, 427 (Okl.Cr.1980). After reviewing the preliminary hearing transcript, we find that there was sufficient evidence presented to bind the appellant over for trial. Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.

The appellant's third assignment of error contends that he was restricted in presenting his defense by the trial court when his landlord was not allowed to testify concerning another burglary in the area on the same night as the offense at bar. The refusal of evidence is a matter solely within the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse of that discretion is shown. Camp v. State, 664 P.2d 1052 (Okl.Cr.1983). " 'Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is...