Walton v. State, F-76-510

Decision Date20 June 1977
Docket NumberNo. F-76-510,F-76-510
PartiesHarry J. WALTON and Edsel Jerone Crawl, Appellants, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
OPINION

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

The Appellants, Harry J. Walton and Edsel Jerone Crawl, hereinafter referred to as defendant Walton and defendant Crawl, were conjointly charged by Information in the District Court, Jackson County, Case No. CRF-75-115, with the offense of Robbery with Firearms in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 801. Following a trial on December 26, 1975, the jury returned a verdict of guilty against both defendants and recommended a sentence of twenty (20) years' imprisonment. Judgments and sentences were imposed on January 9, 1976, for each defendant, from which they have perfected this timely appeal.

At the trial, Patricia Ferrell testified that on July 22, 1975, she was employed at the Jiffy Food Store # 202; that between 2:30 and 3:00 a. m. while she was working in the back of the store she heard the front bell jingle. An armed male with a stocking mask over his face entered the store. He informed her that "it was a hold-up." (Tr. 39) She removed the bills and coins from the cash register and placed them on the counter. He asked her if that was all the money in the store and she replied affirmatively. The man grabbed the money from the counter and went out the front door. A police cruiser arrived approximately three minutes later. She indicated the direction in which the robber fled. She identified defendant Walton as the person who had robbed the store.

Gary Jones testified that he lived in an apartment across the street from the Jiffy Store; that on July 22, 1975, at approximately 3:00 a. m., he observed a dark red maroon car back into a parking area across the street. A subject got out of the car and went down the street. The subject entered the Jiffy Food Store with what appeared to be a gun in his right hand. He called the police. Shortly thereafter the subject came running out of the Jiffy Store, got in the passenger side of the car and drove away. He observed that a police car was directly behind the maroon automobile.

Officer Bob Lane testified that on July 22, 1975, at approximately 2:45 a. m., he received a radio call concerning the Jiffy Store. Just as he arrived at the store he received another dispatch that the subject had left the store. The clerk in the store motioned him toward an easterly direction. He turned on Thomas Street and received another dispatch that he was behind the suspect. He observed a dark colored reddish-orange Pontiac. He followed the car for several blocks until a back-up unit arrived. He turned on his red lights and stopped the car. He identified defendant Crawl as the driver and defendant Walton as the passenger in the vehicle. He further identified State Exhibits 1 and 3 as weapons which were removed from the vehicle, and Exhibit 2 as $53.00 which defendant Walton removed from his person stating, "Here it is." (Tr. 99)

Officer Eddie Becerra testified that in the early morning hours of July 22, 1975, he assisted Officer Lane in the arrest of the defendants and the search of their vehicle. He further testified that he found State Exhibit 1, a .38 caliber Special Revolver, State Exhibit 3, a .25 caliber automatic, State Exhibit 4, a box of .38 caliber shells and State Exhibit 5, a roll of quarters that he removed from the vehicle.

Officer Ronald Meyers testified that he was riding with Officer Becerra on the morning in question. His testimony did not differ substantially from that of Officer Becerra.

Frank Brady, a polygraph examiner for the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, testified concerning a test administered to defendant Crawl. Defendant Crawl, having previously stipulated with the State that the results of such test would be admissible, testified that in his opinion defendant Crawl attempted deception in response to questions concerning the armed robbery.

For the defense, Officer Bob Lane was re-called and testified that defendant Walton was wearing light green pants when he was arrested. (Witness Patricia Ferrell had previously testified on cross-examination that the robber was wearing light tan or white pants).

Defendants assert, in the first assignment of error, that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling their Motion for Continuance to adequately prepare for trial. The record reflects that defendants orally moved for a continuance on the date of trial, stating that the preliminary hearing transcript had not been completed. The trial court, thereupon, conducted a lengthy inquiry as to whether counsel for defendants were adequately prepared to proceed to trial. The trial court ascertained that twenty-two pages of the preliminary hearing transcript had been furnished to defendant the evening prior to trial; twenty pages had been furnished defendants prior to the selection of the jury; and the final twenty pages would be available at the conclusion of the jury selection. The trial court further ascertained that counsel for defendant Crawl, Mr. Stansel Whiteside, had been present at the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Cooper v. State, F-92-533
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • January 10, 1995
    ...only. See e.g., Perez v. State, 798 P.2d 639, 640 (Okl.Cr.1990); State v. Neal, 604 P.2d 145, 147 (Okl.Cr.1979); Walton v. State, 565 P.2d 716, 718 (Okl.Cr.1977). Appellant, however, responds those rulings were based on federal caselaw which was overruled by We recognize this, but find it h......
  • Burleson v. Saffle
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • March 27, 2002
    ...apply to cases pending on collateral review). 11. Burleson v. Saffle, 278 F.3d 1136, 1141, n. 5 (10th Cir.2002). 12. Walton v. State, 1977 OK CR 208, 565 P.2d 716, 718 (general rule of law that decisions of the highest court overruling a prior decision are prospective in application unless ......
  • Ferrell v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • September 15, 1995
    ...decisions of the highest court are prospective in application unless specifically declared to have retroactive effect. Walton v. State, 565 P.2d 716, 718 (Okl.Cr.1977). Burke was not declared to have retroactive effect. Moreover, even if a change in the law rises to constitutional dimension......
  • Nguyen v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • July 14, 1994
    ...enunciated in Mitchell should be applied retroactively to final decisions, and we are not now persuaded to do so. See Walton v. State, 565 P.2d 716, 718 (Okl.Cr.1977) ("decisions of the highest court overruling a prior decision are prospective in application unless specifically declared to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT