Williams v. State
Decision Date | 28 September 1988 |
Docket Number | No. F-86-933,F-86-933 |
Citation | 762 P.2d 983 |
Parties | Larry WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Larry Williams, appellant, was tried by jury and convicted of Second Degree Burglary of an Automobile (21 O.S.1981, § 1435), in Case No. CRF-86-184, in the District Court of Comanche County, the Honorable Jack Brock, District Judge, presiding. The jury set punishment at imprisonment for two (2) years. Judgment and sentence was imposed in accordance with the jury's verdict. We affirm.
On April 11, 1986, Ms. Donna Erwin drove her blue Oldsmobile to her job at the City National Bank in Lawton, Oklahoma, and parked in the employee parking lot. She closed her car windows and locked the doors before going to work. During the lunch hour, a fellow employee, Richard Garth, sat in his car about three spaces down from Ms. Erwin's car, reading his Bible. Mr. Garth heard a loud noise, turned toward the origin of the noise, and saw a black man rummaging around inside Ms. Erwin's car. Mr. Garth watched the man continuously for about two minutes and then watched him walk to the street corner. Another bank employee, Gary Pollard, walked onto the parking lot, and Mr. Garth asked him if he knew who owned the blue Oldsmobile. Mr. Garth pointed to appellant as the man he saw inside the car. Mr. Pollard said the car belonged to Ms. Erwin, shouted to appellant and ran towards him, followed by Mr. Garth. Appellant ran across the street and down the block for about a block and a half with the two bank employees in pursuit until a police car turned the corner, at which time the police officer ordered appellant to stop by using a loudspeaker in his car. The officer searched appellant for weapons and, at appellant's insistence, searched his backpack. After Ms. Erwin determined that a pair of jeans she had neatly folded on the back seat of her car were rumpled and about $2.00 in dimes were missing from a tray near the front seat, the officer searched appellant again but only found a few pennies, nickels and two dimes. When appellant ran from the bank employees, he crossed a large lawn and passed a storm sewer and a construction site. The officer searched the grass for the stolen dimes but could not find them.
Appellant testified he attended a class at college that morning and a friend gave him a ride to a used car lot near the bank, where he talked to a salesman about selling one of his old cars. Appellant could not remember the name of the friend or the salesman. He then walked through the bank parking lot and stopped at the street corner. While waiting for a break in the lunch hour traffic so he could cross the street, two white men started yelling and running towards him. Appellant testified he started running across the street out of fear for his safety, and when the police car came around the corner, it nearly hit him. This is contrary to the testimony of three eyewitnesses who testified appellant ran about a block and a half before the police officer stopped him. Appellant denied breaking into Ms. Erwin's car or stealing the money.
For his first assignment of error, appellant asserts he was denied equal protection of the law because the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to excuse the only black venireman from the jury. Appellant does not provide a transcript of voir dire, but does provide a transcript of the Batson hearing conducted in chambers:
(End of proceedings in chambers.) (Tr. at 2-3)
Appellant relies primarily on Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), in support of his proposition that the prosecutor improperly exercised a peremptory challenge for racial reasons.
The prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge to exclude the only black man on the venire. Assuming arguendo that appellant made a prima facie showing of a Batson violation, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Brown v. State
-
United States v. Hamilton
...also relies on Oklahoma opinions referring to the type of burgled property as an element of the offense. E.g. , Williams v. State , 762 P.2d 983, 986 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988) ("The elements of second degree burglary of an automobile are: (1) breaking; (2) entering; (3) an automobile ...."); ......
-
United States v. Hamilton
...appeal as "second degree of burglary of an ‘automobile’ " and separately listing "automobile" as an element. See Williams v. State , 762 P.2d 983, 986 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988) ; see also Branch v. Howard , No. CIV–10–54–W, 2011 WL 3584587, at *2 (W.D. Okla. July 6, 2011) (listing "elements" ......
-
State v. Ballard, S-91-769
...as we do complaints about other assessments, on an individual basis should the complaint be raised on appeal. See e.g., Williams v. State, 762 P.2d 983, 986 (Okl.Cr.1988); Moore v. State, 761 P.2d 866, 877 (Okl.Cr.1988) (dealing with amount of victim's compensation assessment). 6 A defendan......