Simmons v. State
| Decision Date | 27 August 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. M-84-532,M-84-532 |
| Citation | 725 P.2d 309 |
| Parties | Johnnie S. SIMMONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
The appellant, Johnnie S. Simmons, was charged in Beckham County District Court with Failure to Display Current Tag, Failure to Exhibit Drivers License, and Transporting a Loaded Firearm, Case Nos. CRM-84-27, CRM-84-28, and CRM-84-29, respectively. The jury found him guilty of Failure to Display Current Tag and he was sentenced to a fine of one hundred dollars ($100), plus costs, he now appeals, raising five assignments of error.
Briefly stated, on December 30, 1983, appellant was stopped and arrested by Beckham County deputy sheriff officers after they observed the appellant driving his white Chevrolet pickup truck on a public street in Sayre, Oklahoma with an expired registration sticker in violation of 47 O.S.1981, § 22.23-1(A)(5), a misdemeanor. At trial, Steve McCoy, an employee of the Motor Vehicle Division of the Oklahoma Tax Commission, testified that the pickup's registration had expired in December of 1980.
In his first assignment of error, appellant asserts that his arrest was unlawful because the law enforcement officers did not have the authority to arrest him for this traffic offense since it did not create an "immediate" threat to public health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public, and he further contends that such alleged illegal arrest deprived the trial court of jurisdiction. This assignment of error is meritless. Initially, we find that this arrest was properly made because 22 O.S.Supp.1984, § 196 gives police officers authority to arrest a person for misdemeanor violations, and this authority extends to arrests made pursuant to traffic offenses observed by the police. See, Thompson v. State, 453 P.2d 314 (Okl.Cr.1969). Moreover, the alleged illegal arrest would not have affected the jurisdiction of the court. See, Hightower v. State, 672 P.2d 671 (Okl.Cr.1983), and Raymer v. City of Tulsa, 595 P.2d 810 (Okl.Cr.1979).
In a subproposition, appellant contends that the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to demand proof, on the record, of its jurisdiction at every step of the proceedings. Here, the controlling statute is 22 O.S.1981, § 121, which places jurisdiction in the state and county wherein the offense is consummated. We find that as there was competent evidence from which the jury could conclude that the offense charged was consummated in Beckham County, Oklahoma, it is clear that the trial court had jurisdiction and committed no error.
In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for a grand jury indictment and proceeding against him by information rather than by indictment. We cannot agree. We find that the trial court properly denied appellant's request for an indictment since 22 O.S.1981, § 301 expressly provides that misdemeanors must be prosecuted by information. Further, the Oklahoma Constitution allows the prosecution of a misdemeanor to proceed by either indictment or information, as they are alternative modes. See, Okla. Const. Art. II, § 17, and Bennett v. State, 448 P.2d 253 (Okl.Cr.1968). Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.
In his third assignment of error, appellant alleges that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right, under the United States Constitution, to a common law jury by denying his request for a twelve-person jury and allowing only a six-person jury in his misdemeanor trial. The appellant relies on three very early Supreme Court cases, Thompson v. Utah, 170 U.S. 343, 18 S.Ct. 620, 42 L.Ed. 1061 (1898); Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276, 50 S.Ct. 253, 74 L.Ed. 854 (1930); Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516, 25 S.Ct. 514, 49 L.Ed. 862 (1905). However, as noted in Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223, 98 S.Ct. 1029, 55 L.Ed.2d 234 (1978), all these earlier cases had "assumed" the number 12 to be constitutionally compelled and were subsequently set to one side by a majority opinion in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970), because they had not considered history and the function of the jury. In Williams, supra, the United States Supreme Court held...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State, M-84-77
...20, of the Oklahoma Constitution is not violated by requiring that counsel be licensed to practice law in Oklahoma. Simmons v. State, 725 P.2d 309, 311 (Okl.Cr.1986). An examination of the relevant authorities has persuaded us that the Sixth Amendment does not require a contrary result. The......
-
Nickell v. State, F-85-293
...We disagree. We initially observe that an allegedly illegal arrest does not affect the jurisdiction of a court. Simmons v. State, 725 P.2d 309, 310 (Okla.Crim.App.1986). Furthermore, the arrest made by Lt. Peugh while outside his jurisdiction was lawful under either of two alternative First......
-
Gille v. State, M-85-524
...(Okl.Cr.1969). Furthermore, 22 O.S.1981, § 301 expressly provides that misdemeanors must be prosecuted by information. Simmons v. State, 725 P.2d 309, 311 (Okl.Cr.1986). As to the claim that the information was defective because it was not signed, the appellant is in error. The original cop......