Wright v. State
| Decision Date | 25 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. F--76--582,F--76--582 |
| Citation | 559 P.2d 852 |
| Parties | Steavean Bruce WRIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
The appellant, Steavean Bruce Wright, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged in the District Court of Cleveland County, Case No. CRF--75--438 with the crime of Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon While Acting in Concert With Another. After the preliminary hearing the defendant was bound over on a charge of Robbery By Force While Acting in Concert With Another and was subsequently jointly tried before a jury with a co-defendant, Billy Glenn Watson, and convicted. Punishment was assessed at a term of five (5) years under the direction and control of the Department of Corrections of the State of Oklahoma. From a judgment and sentence in accordance with the verdict the defendant has perfected his timely appeal.
Briefly stated the evidence adduced at trial is as follows: Jamshied Safatian, an Iranian student at the University of Oklahoma, testified that at approximately 1:25 a.m. on the morning of August 14, 1975, he was walking across campus towards his apartment when he was stopped by the defendant Wright, Watson and another individual who asked for cigarettes. After a brief conversation the three left and the witness continued on across campus. Shortly thereafter the three again approached the witness and asked him where they could sleep since they were lost in the city. At that point co-defendant Watson asked Safatian if he had a knife. After receiving a negative reply the defendant gave an opened pocket knife to Watson who informed the witness that 'this is a hold up'. Safatian told Watson that he was a stranger and did not understand and Watson sat down on the curb and, digging the knife in the asphalt, attempted to explain. Evidently failing, the four men continued to walk across the campus. Shortly thereafter defendant Wright punched the witness twice in the face and Watson kicked him in the back. The defendant then searched Safatian's pockets, took his key chain and $2.00 and then proceeded to smash his glasses. After a final punch and kick the attackers ran off. The witness then made his way to Walker Hall where he reported the robbery and the police were called. He further testified that Officer Holland of the Oklahoma University Police Department took him to the hospital where he was treated for a broken nose. At that time he gave Holland a description of the defendants. After treatment he was returned to his apartment where at approximately 3:35 a.m. he received a phone call from police who asked him to come to Sambo's restaurant. Upon his arrival Officer Holland asked him if he could recognize anyone and the witness identified both Wright and Watson. During trial the witness identified a pocket knife with tar on it as being the one held by the defendant but the trial court subsequently refused to admit in into evidence.
Officer Walter Mauldin then testified that he was advised by radio of the robbery and received a rough physical description of three individuals reportedly involved. He then proceeded to the scene of the attack to investigate. At approximately 2:37 a.m. he noticed a vehicle containing three individuals who met the rough physical description drive slowly by the scene. The individuals were stopped but it was determined that they were not involved. Approximately 30 minutes later the three returned and as a result of a conversation with them Mauldin directed Officer Holland to Sambo's restaurant.
Humberto Vidaillet then testified that he was a student at the University and that he was in the Walker Tower recreation lounge on campus between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m. on the 14th with Gonzala Robles when an individual came in who appeared to be badly beaten. After overhearing a description of the incident they decided to go to Sambo's restaurant and out of curiosity first drove around the campus where they were stopped by authorities and qustioned. They then went to Sambo's where they saw three individuals who matched the description they heard earlier that night. They then returned to campus and reported what they had seen to police officers.
Officer Mark Holland then testified that on August 14, 1975, he responded to a call concerning a robbery and a beating victim at Walker Tower. While taking the victim to the hospital he was given a description of the attackers. After he went back on patrol he received a call from the dispatcher to proceed to Sambo's. When he arrived a Norman police officer was speaking with three suspects in the parking lot. Holland questioned the suspects and obtained identification but did not place them under arrest. He then contacted the dispatcher to arrange for the victim to come to Sambo's. Safatian arrived shortly and Holland told him that they had some suspects who might be involved. After walking closer to the suspects Safatian identified Wright and Watson. Holland explained that Safatian had trouble identifying them from a distance because he had lost his glasses.
Holland then identified a pocket knife which he had removed from the defendant's pocket and noted that there was a black substance on the blade. Holland further testified that the suspects were then taken to the police department. The trial court would not admit the pocket knife into evidence.
Officer Michael Feurborn then testified that on August 14, 1975, he obtained a search warrant to search two vehicles which were then located in the locked University of Oklahoma Police Department compound and that the vehicles had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riggle v. State
...fact that transcripts of the preliminary hearing were not delivered into their possession until the day before trial. In Wright v. State, Okl.Cr., 559 P.2d 852 (1977), this Court "From our examination of the record as a whole it is our opinion that the defendant was not prejudiced by the la......
-
Frederick v. State, F-81-728
...responsibility to provide sufficient support from the record in order to allow appellate review of an alleged error. See, Wright v. State, 559 P.2d 852 (Okl.Cr.1977); McGaha v. State, 492 P.2d 1101 (Okl.Cr.1971). Since the appellant has failed to provide such support, this Court cannot prop......
-
Guthrie v. State, F-83-51
...before us. It is the responsibility of the defendant to present enough of the record to allow review of alleged error. Wright v. State, 559 P.2d 852 (Okl.Cr.1977). Appellant further contends that his motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence was improperly denied. Appe......
-
Yates v. State, 0-85-448
...at his request. Applying the above rules to this case and because no alleged error has been preserved for appeal, see Wright v. State, 559 P.2d 852 (Okl.Cr.1977); Woods v. State, 526 P.2d 944, 950 (Okl.Cr.1974), the order revoking appellant's suspended sentences is BRETT, P.J., and PARKS, J......