Court Opinion

ID: 9540725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:19:19.073062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:14.205934
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
While I agree Appellant’s judgment should be affirmed, I must again respectfully disagree with my colleagues this case must be remanded for resentencing. I do this based on my dissents in Humphrey v. State, 864 P.2d 343, 345 (Okl.Cr.1993); Hain v. State, 852 P.2d 744, 753 (Okl.Cr.1993); and Salazar v. State, 852 P.2d 729, 741 (Okl.Cr.1993). I also dissent because I believe my colleagues’ reasoning is based on an erroneous interpretation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Salazar v. State, 859 P.2d 517, 519 (Okl.Cr.1993) (Lumpkin, P.J., dissenting to Order Denying Petition for Rehearing and Directing Issuance of Mandate). Fairness requires the rule of law be applied consistently, regardless of the gravity of the punishment assessed.
I also continue to assert this Court should adopt a more enlightened unified “Spuehler-type” rule of appellate review regardless of whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial. See White v. State, 900 P.2d 982, 996 (Okl.Cr.1995) (LumpHn, J. Specially Concurring). However, the evidence in this case is more than sufficient regardless of the standard applied.