Court Opinion

ID: 9796304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:54:50.182696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:49:55.255719
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Judge:
coneur in results.
' 1 Except for the modification of the sentence on Count 17, I agree with the results reached by the Court in this case and the Court's interpretation of the provisions of 22 ©.8.2001, $ 991f.
T2 As to the issue of failure of the trial court to adequately instruct the jury that Count 17, Racketeering, required a person convicted of the crime to serve at least 50% of the sentence prior to being eligible for parole, I agree error occurred. However, I cannot find prejudice resulted from that error. The record is void of a question by the jury, as in Carter v. State, 2006 OK CR 42, ¶5, 147 P.3d 243, 244, that required a modification of the sentence, ie, "the error [did not] result in a miscarriage of justice or constitute a substantial violation of a constitutional right." Id. The sentence was merely 5 years more than the minimum sentence. On the face of the sentence, it is clear it was based on a rational basis rather than an emotional response. Therefore, I cannot agree with the rationale set out for modification of the sentence, and I would find the error harmless.