Case Name: Linda FREEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
Court: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1986-07-07
Citations: 721 P.2d 1331
Docket Number: No. F-84-310
Parties: Linda FREEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
Judges: PARKS, P.J., dissents.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 2d
Volume: 721
Pages: 1331–1333

Head Matter:
Linda FREEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
No. F-84-310.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
July 7, 1986.
See also, 721 P.2d 1327.
E. Alvin Schay, Appellate Public Defender, Norman, for appellant.
Michael C. Turpén, Atty. Gen., Mary Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

Opinion:
OPINION
BUSSEY, Judge:
Linda Freeman was convicted together with her husband, Murrell Freeman, in Cherokee County District Court of Rapé in the First Degree, Forcible Sodomy, and Injury to a Minor Child. She received sentences of fifteen years', fifteen years', and ten years' imprisonment, respectively, to be served concurrently.
The facts are as set forth in Freeman v. State, 721 P.2d 1327 (Okl.Cr.1985) (see this publication).
She first asserts as error the joinder of all counts in one information and in one trial. We addressed this same assignment in Freeman, supra. For the reasons stated therein, we find it is meritless.
Appellant next assigns as error comments made by the prosecutor during closing argument. Defense counsel did not object to any comments now alleged to have constituted misconduct. Therefore, all but fundamental error was waived. Langdell v. State, 657 P.2d 162 (Okl.Cr.1982). We have reviewed the comments and find none grossly improper. Ellis v. State, 652 P.2d 770 (Okl.Cr.1982).
Finally, appellant complains her sentences are excessive under the facts and circumstances of the case. She argues that since her role in the crimes were secondary, she should receive reduced sentences. We note that her sentences are substantially reduced from those of her codefendant. He received sentences of forty years' imprisonment for the rape conviction and twenty years' on each of the other convictions.
All of the crimes were violent crimes against the victim. They occurred while appellant was entrusted with the care of the minor. We do not find the sentences so excessive as to shock the conscience of the Court, and therefore decline to modify them. Clark v. State, 678 P.2d 1191 (Okl. Cr.1984)
Finding no error warranting reversal or modification, judgments and sentences are AFFIRMED.
PARKS, P.J., dissents.
BRETT, J., concurs.