Turner v. State, F-88-1021
| Decision Date | 05 February 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. F-88-1021,F-88-1021 |
| Citation | 786 P.2d 1251 |
| Parties | Robert Earl TURNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
ROBERT EARL TURNER, Appellant, was tried by jury for the crimes of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Attempted Escape from County Jail, and Kidnapping for the Purpose of Extortion in Case no. CRF-87-5972 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, before the Honorable Bryan C. Dixon, District Judge. Appellant was found guilty on all charges and was sentenced to fifty (50) years, three and one-half years (3 1/2) and seventy-five (75) years imprisonment, respectively. From this judgment and sentence Appellant has perfected his appeal. AFFIRMED.
Lee Ann Jones Peters, Oklahoma County Public Defenders Office, Oklahoma City, for appellant.
Robert H. Henry, Atty. Gen., A. Diane Hammons, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.
On October 14, 1987, while an inmate in the Oklahoma County Jail, Appellant grabbed a nurse and demanded that the jailers open the gates and release him from custody. When his demands were refused, he cut the woman several times on her hands and neck with a knife, which he had made out of an aluminum meal tray. He released his hostage only after being overpowered by several deputies. As a result of his actions, Appellant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (21 O.S.1981, § 645), Attempted Escape From the County Jail (21 O.S.1981, § 444) and Kidnapping for Purposes of Extortion (21 O.S.1981, § 745).
After a trial by jury in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CRF-87-5972, Appellant was convicted of all three counts. He was sentenced to terms of fifty (50) years, three and one half (3 1/2) years and seventy-five (75) years respectively on the charges. He has perfected his appeal and argues two grounds for reversal: that his three convictions for incidents arising out of the same transaction have resulted in a violation of his right to be free from double jeopardy and that there is insufficient evidence to justify his conviction of Kidnapping for Purposes of Extortion. We disagree with each of Appellant's contentions and affirm the convictions.
As his first proposition of error, Appellant claims that because all the crimes charged against him occurred during a single escape attempt, prosecution of all three crimes is the equivalent of double jeopardy. Appellant properly points out that this Court has adopted two tests for use in determining whether, in fact, the prosecution for multiple offenses violates his rights against double jeopardy 1. See Johnson v. State, 611 P.2d 1137 (Okl.Cr.1980) cert. denied 449 U.S. 1132, 101 S.Ct. 955, 67 L.Ed.2d 120 (1981). We summarized the test in Hale v. State, 750 P.2d 130, 137 (Okl.Cr.1988):
First, a "same transaction test" should be applied to determine whether the various crimes should be joined in a single trial. If the various charges arose from a single criminal episode, the defendant should be protected from having to defend himself in multiple prosecutions.
* * * * * *
The second test addressed in Johnson is known as the "same evidence test." ... [T]his test, which was set forth in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932):
Where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not ...
After applying both of these tests to the facts in the instant case, we come to the conclusion, as has Appellant, that there is no question that the acts giving rise to the crimes charged all occurred during the same criminal incident. Our inquiry, then, must focus upon whether the "same evidence" is relied upon to support the convictions for each count.
In Thompson v. State, 748 P.2d 526, 528 (Okl.Cr.1988), we held:
The Supreme Court has further clarified this test by holding that "[i]f each [statutory provision] requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Blockburger test is satisfied, not withstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes."
We find that the test supplied by the Supreme Court in Blockburger answers the question at hand. Appellant seeks to convince this Court that his convictions for Kidnapping and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon must be reversed because those crimes were merely the means by which he sought to make his escape; thus, they are essential evidence in support of the Attempted Escape conviction. We disagree. While all the crimes committed by Appellant were directed toward his goal of escape, each crime other than the attempted escape requires proof of more than the elements of escape. Likewise, the completion of the other crimes is not an integral part of the crime of Attempted Escape. The jury was instructed that in order to convict Appellant for Attempted Escape, they must find that the "defendant formed the specific intent to commit the crime of Escape from County Jail" and that the "defendant performed a perpetrating act or acts toward committing the crime of Escape From County Jail, but defendant was prevented from committing that crime." O.R. 66. The evidence that Appellant demanded to be freed from the jail clearly establishes that he had the specific intent to escape from the jail. He grabbed the nurse as means to accomplish or "perpetrate" his goal. These two actions support the conviction for Attempted Escape.
In order to be convicted of Kidnapping for Purposes of Extortion, the jury had to find four essential elements: that there had been (1) an unlawful, (2) forcible seizure and confinement (3) of another (4) with the intent to extort a valuable thing or advantage from any person. O.R. 68. While it is true that the evidence required to prove the extortion of a "valuable thing or advantage from any person" (the opening of the jail gates) is the same evidence which proves the intent element of the escape charge, proof that there had been a unlawful, forcible seizure and confinement of another is separate and distinct from the proof involved with the Escape conviction. This meets the Blockburger test.
Similarly, we find that elements of the crime of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon are not included in the proof of either of the other two offenses. Most...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hale v. Gibson
...and confinement (3) of another (4) with the intent to extort a valuable thing or advantage from any person." Turner v. State, 786 P.2d 1251, 1254 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). Upon looking at the elements that need to be proven by the State, it becomes clear that under each statute the state or ......
-
Hale v. State, F-92-162
...for same act--this analysis is contrary to the plain language of § 11 and does not appear in subsequent cases).2 Turner v. State, 786 P.2d 1251, 1253 (Okl.Cr.1990) (not § 11, assault with a deadly weapon/kidnap/attempted escape same criminal episode but different elements, completion of oth......
-
In re Adoption of 2013 Revisions to Okla. Unif. Jury Instructions Criminal
...does not appear to be any requirement of asportation (i.e., carrying away) in section 741. See Turner v. State, 1990 OK CR 6, ¶ 13, 786 P.2d 1251, 1255 (finding no requirement of asportation or transportation in § 745, the kidnapping for purposes of extortion statute).OUJI–CR 4–123RAPE—MENT......
-
Cannon v. State
...of the individual crimes requires proof of an additional fact or facts which sets it apart from the other offenses. Turner v. State, 786 P.2d 1251 (Okl.Cr.1990). In this case, the only proof which the three crimes at issue have in common is that they were all committed at Addie Hawley's hom......