Court Opinion

ID: 9542876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:39:48.84718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:09.330571
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
specially concurring:
I write separately to address appellant’s contention that the trial court committed fundamental error in instructing the jury to enhance under the general enhancement provisions of 21 O.S.1981, § 51, rather than the specific enhancement provisions of 21 O.S.Supp.1982, § 801. The specific enhancement provisions of Section 801 are triggered by conviction of three (3) separate and distinct violations of Section 801. Sealy v. State, 738 P.2d 521, 524 (Okla.*539Crim.App.1987). In Ellis v. State, 749 P.2d 114, 116 (Okla.Crim.App.1988), this Court held that “where a defendant has been convicted of three (3) separate and distinct violations of 21 O.S.Supp.1982, § 801, and the State seeks to enhance punishment, such enhancement must be done in compliance with the specific enhancement provisions of Section 801, rather than the general enhancement provisions of 21 O.S.1981, § 51.”
In Ellis, the defendant’s prior convictions were all for violations of Section 801. Here, appellant had prior convictions for four (4) separate and distinct violations of Section 801, and one prior drug related felony conviction. (Tr. 160; State Ex. 15-18) Since it would have been proper for the State to seek enhancement under either Section 801 or Section 51, I would find the State elected to proceed under Section 51 by introducing a prior felony conviction which did not fall within Section 801. See Blunt v. State, 743 P.2d 145, 148 (Okla.Crim.App.1987) (Parks, J., Specially Concurring). Accordingly, I concur.