Court Opinion

ID: 9548743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:08:08.904268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:22.973858
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
specially concurring:
I write separately only to comment on the issue of the form of the verdict. Title 22 O.S.1981, § 919 requires that a “verdict not in form” be sent back to the jury so that the verdict may be put in a form which may be clearly understood. In the present case, the jury returned a verdict of “six years suspended.” It was in proper form. The trial court, through the exercise of its discretionary powers, refused to suspend the sentence. This Court has repeatedly held that a jury’s recommendation of a suspended sentence may be treated as sur-plusage. King v. State, 556 P.2d 1306, 1308 (Okla.Crim.App.1976); Prevatte v. City of Tulsa, 542 P.2d 969, 976 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); Bowers v. State, 542 P.2d 950, 954 (Okla.Crim.App.1975). While it would have been best to send the jury back for further deliberations, the trial judge was not required to follow such a procedure. See Wofford v. State, 646 P.2d 1300, 1303 (Okla.Crim.App.1982). The judge was within his discretionary power to refuse to suspend the sentence.
Accordingly, I concur.