Court Opinion

ID: 9534842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:43:05.995008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:32:49.031861
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part/dissenting in part:
I concur in the decision reached by the majority as to appellant Cole. However, I strongly disagree with the majority decision to modify appellant Turner’s sentence from five hundred (500) to four hundred (400) years.
The majority properly concludes the trial court gave an erroneous enhancement of punishment instruction as to appellant Turner and that this error was of a fundamental nature. Despite the error, the majority reasons the “recommended sentence speaks for itself that the jury was not influenced by the minimum sentence authorized.” (Maj. at 1159). This analysis simply does not survive a close reading of Ellis v. State, 749 P.2d 114 (Okl.Cr.1988). *1160In Ellis, the jury was likewise improperly instructed that the defendant’s maximum punishment was twenty (20) years in accordance with 21 O.S.1981, § 51(B). We concluded, however, that the applicable statute was 21 O.S.Supp.1982, § 801, which provides for a ten (10) year minimum sentence. Accordingly, this Court modified defendant Ellis’ sentence from sixty (60) years to ten (10) years imprisonment. The analysis proposed by the majority in the instant case was equally available in Ellis. However, I conclude that such reasoning was implicitly rejected therein when we stated:
“Since it is impossible to determine what a jury would have done under a proper instruction, we are unable to affirm ... appellant’s sentence.” Novey v. State, 709 P.2d 696, 700 (Okl.Cr.1985). Thus, the failure of the trial court to properly instruct the jury regarding punishment pursuant to Section 801 requires this Court to modify the punishment imposed upon the appellant to the minimum allowed under Section 801.
Ellis, 749 P.2d at 116 (emphasis added).
It is unreasonable that the majority can conclude that error of a fundamental nature occurred, that Ellis is controlling in the instant case, and yet pretend that modifying appellant Turner’s sentence to four hundred years will “correct” such an error. I would modify appellant Turner’s sentence from five hundred (500) years to ten (10) years, as mandated by Ellis.