Court Opinion

ID: 9822086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 08:44:50.779318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:11:04.259511
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
§$1.The majority concludes, and I agree, that Lewallen's Judgment should be affirmed. I cannot agree, however, with the majority's conclusion that error raised in Proposition 1 requires the case be remanded for resentencing. I would reject Lewallen's claim that the district court erroneously instructed the jury on the range of punishment for child neglect after former conviction of two or more felonies. When a defendant with two or more felony convictions is convicted of an offense enumerated in 57 O.S. 2011, § 571, his punishment range is twenty years to life. 21 O.S.2011, § 51.1(B), Child abuse is an enumerated offense under $ 571. 57 O.S.2011, § 571(@)(w). "Abuse" is defined, in pertinent part, as "harm or threatened harm or failure to protect from harm or threatened harm to the health, safety, or welfare of a child[.]' 10A O.S.Supp.2012, § 1-1-105(2). "Harm or threatened harm to the health or safety of' a child" is further defined as "any real or threatened physical, mental, or emotional injury or damage to the body or mind that is not accidental including but not limited to sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, neglect, or dependency." Id. § 1-1-105(2)(a) (emphasis added). In other words, "neglect" is explicitly included in the definition of "harm or threatened harm to the health or safety of a child," a phrase used to define "child abuse." The inclusion of child abuse in § 571, therefore, automatically encompasses child neglect. The district court properly instructed the jury on the range of punishment under 21 O.S.2011, § 51.1(B). I would find, therefore, that because the jury instructions, as a whole, fairly and accurately stated the applicable law in effect at the time the erime was committed there was no abuse of discretion. See Hicks v. State, 2003 OK CR 10, ¶ 3, 70 P.3d 882, 883.
T2 I am authorized to state that Judge Smith joins this opinion.