Court Opinion

ID: 9792931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:39:34.804266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:49.453729
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge,
specially concurring.
I concur in the Court’s decision and compliment Judge Chapel on his analysis. The *1388opinion does cautiously interpret the record as it relates to the search of Appellant’s room in the victim’s house after he moved out and abandoned the items which were discovered by law enforcement officers. In addition, the Court graciously analyzes the supplemental documents submitted by the Appellant for the record on appeal. These items were not a part of the record developed by the District Court proceedings either as a part of the trial of the case or pursuant to a Motion for a New Trial. Ex parte submission of eviden-tiary material, which has not been subject to the rigors of• examination through the truth seeking and admissibility procedures required of the trial court, should not be allowed or considered by an appellate court. The record on appeal is that formed by the record of trial. If further record should be required, it is incumbent upon an appellate court to remand to the trial court to develop that record. In this case, I find the items discovered in Appellant’s room to have been abandoned, therefore Appellant does not have standing to contest the search. In addition, the ex parte material offered by the Appellant to supplement the record should not be considered as part of the record on appeal.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF MANDATE

Billy Keith McGregor was tried by jury and convicted of First Degree Murder (21 O.S.Supp.1982, § 701.7(A)) before the Honorable Gregg M. Smith in the District Court of Seminole County in Case No. CRF-89-38. During the sentencing phase of trial, the jury found the existence of two aggravating circumstances and sentenced McGregor to death.
By its October 25, 1994, published opinion, this Court affirmed McGregor’s convictions and sentences. McGregor is now before the Court on a Petition for Rehearing, Rule 3.14, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, 22 O.S.Supp.1993, Ch. 18, App. According to Rule 3.14, a Petition for Rehearing shall be filed for two reasons only:
(1) That some question decisive of the case and duly submitted by the attorney of record has been overlooked by the Court, or
(2) That the decision is in conflict with an express statute or controlling decision to which the attention of this Court was not called either in the brief or in oral argument. McGregor raised two propositions in his Petition for Rehearing which fail to meet the criteria set forth in Rule 3.14. Accordingly, these propositions will not be addressed.
IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE COURT that the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gary L. Lumpkin, GARY L. LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge
/s/ Charles A. Johnson, CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Vice-Presiding Judge
/s/ James F. Lane, JAMES F. LANE, Judge
/s/ Charles S. Chapel, CHARLES S. CHAPEL, Judge
/s/ Reta M. Strubhar, RETA M. STRUBHAR, Judge