Opinion ID: 4453865
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Oklahoma Robbery

Text: When Godlock was convicted of robbery in 1993, Oklahoma defined robbery as “a wrongful taking of personal property in the possession of another . . . accomplished by means of force or fear.” Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 791 (1993). The next section clarified: To constitute robbery, the force or fear must be employed either to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking. If employed merely as a means of escape, it does not constitute robbery. Id. at § 792. The Oklahoma statute under which Godlock was convicted of robbery reads: Robbery, when accomplished by the use of force, or of putting the person robbed in fear of some immediate injury to his person, is robbery in the first degree. When accomplished in any other manner, it is robbery in the second degree. Id. at § 797. Thus, to have committed first-degree robbery in Oklahoma in 1993, one must have either used force against anyone to effectuate the taking or instilled fear of immediate injury in the robbed person himself. Godlock argues the law does not require more than minimal force, and therefore does not require Stokeling-level violence, even though it facially requires force or the threat of it. Relying on Woods v. State, 569 P.2d 1004 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977), he contends that one can be convicted of robbery in Oklahoma after using only de minimis force. In that case, a man was convicted of robbery when he hit his victim’s companion, 5 causing that companion to fall, before taking his victim’s purse. The defendant did not apply force to the robbery victim herself, and he did not have to overcome physical resistance from the woman whose purse he snatched. Id. at 1005–06. But the force that he applied to his victim’s companion was sufficient to knock the woman over and was necessary to effectuate the taking because it distracted the purse owner. In Woods, then, the defendant, in fact, used sufficient force to overcome his victim’s resistance and to satisfy the Stokeling standard. Because Woods does not stand for the proposition that only de minimis force is necessary to commit robbery, Godlock has not provided this court any evidence that robbery in Oklahoma can be effectuated by the sort of minimal force involved in the mere snatching of property. We have only found cases demonstrating that Oklahoma courts look for force greater than that involved in purse snatching. See, e.g., Guarino v. State, 491 P.2d 326, 328 (Okla. Crim. App. 1971) (“We would agree with the defendant’s contention that the mere snatching of the diamond wallet from Hillerman’s hand was not robbery; however, the defendant’s later actions in the using of the mace to retain possession of the wallet does constitute the offense of Robbery.”); Marks v. State, 102 P.2d 955, 959-60 (Okla. Crim. App. 1940) (holding that two girls robbing an elderly man did not use sufficient force to constitute robbery even when one hit him with an open hand and the other took his wallet). 6 In sum, one cannot be convicted of first-degree robbery in Oklahoma without the use of force or the threatened use of force that creates fear. Looking again to the language of the ACCA, it is clear that the Oklahoma robbery statute under which Godlock was convicted in 1993 fits within the requirements of § 924(e). Godlock’s sentence exceeded one year, and the crime had “as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i).