Thomas v. State, A-13576
| Decision Date | 02 June 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. A-13576,A-13576 |
| Citation | 404 P.2d 71 |
| Parties | Alton M. THOMAS, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The fundamental rule of construction of a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature as expressed in the statute. To ascertain the intention of the Legislature in the enactment of the statute, the court may look to each part of the same, to other statutes upon the same or relative subjects, to the evils and mischiefs to be remedied, and to the natural or absurd consequences of any particular interpretation.
2. Attempted robbery with firearms after former conviction of a felony is punishable by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of not less than five years. Trial court's instruction under the provisions of Title 21 O.S.S.upp. (1963) § 51, Paragraph 1, held proper.
An appeal from the District Court of Hughes County; Bob Howell, Judge.
Alton M. Thomas was convicted for the offense of attempted robbery with firearms after former conviction of felonies, and appeals. Affirmed.
W. B. Ward, Jr., Ada, for plaintiff in error.
Charles L. Owens, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Alton M. Thomas was tried by a jury in the District Court of Hughes County and convicted for the offense of attempted robbery with firearms after former conviction of felonies, and appeals.
It is first contended by plaintiff in error that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that:
'If you find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty, as charged, of attempted burglary with a firearm, and also has been convicted of a felony, or felonies, you shall assess his punishment by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a period of time not less than five (5) years.'
It is the position of the plaintiff in error that the court erred in instructing the jury under the provisions of Title 21 O.S.Supp. (1963) § 51, Paragraph 1, which provides:
'Every person who, having been convicted of any offense punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, commits any crime after such conviction, is punishable therefor as follows:
* * *'
and that the court shall have instructed the jury under the provisions of Title 21 O.S.S.upp. (1963) § 51, Paragraph 3, the same being:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coddington v. State
...statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed in the statute. Thomas v. State, 404 P.2d 71, 73 (Okl.Cr.1965). "A statute should be given a according to the fair import of its words taken in their usual sense, in connection with the c......
-
Arganbright v. State
...Legislature as expressed in the statute. Wallace v. State, 1996 OK CR 8, ¶ 4, 910 P.2d 1084, 1086; Thomas v. State, 1965 OK CR 70, ¶ 4, 404 P.2d 71, 73.State v. Young, 1999 OK CR 14, ¶ 27, 989 P.2d 949, 955. It is the duty of the Court, whenever possible, to harmonize acts of the Legislatur......
-
State v. Hammond
...statutes upon the same or relative subjects, and to the natural or absurd consequences of any particular interpretation. Thomas v. State, 404 P.2d 71, 73 (Okl.Cr.1965). When two different provisions regulate the same subject matter, both provisions are to be given effect if such effect woul......
-
State v. Young
...Legislature as expressed in the statute. Wallace v. State, 1996 OK CR 8, ¶ 4, 910 P.2d 1084, 1086; Thomas v. State, 1965 OK CR 70, ¶ 4, 404 P.2d 71, 73. However, it is not our place to interpret a statute to address a matter the Legislature chose not to address, even if we think that interp......