Court Opinion

ID: 9531535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:12:42.210382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:30.259390
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part/dissenting in part.
I concur with the Court’s decision to affirm the Appellant’s convictions in Count I and Count III and the modification of the sentence in Count I. However, while I agree with the Court’s application of the authority set forth in 22 O.S.Supp.1990, § 1066, I find the evidence is sufficient pursuant to our prior caselaw to affirm the conviction of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon.
The Court adopts the holding in State v. Suniville, 741 P.2d 961 (Utah 1987), as the analysis applicable to 21 O.S.1981, § 801. The Supreme Court of Utah determined that a “subjective” analysis could not be utilized to validate a conviction for Aggravated Robbery wherein a person “[u]ses a firearm or a facsimile of a firearm, knife or a facsimile of a knife or a deadly weapon ... ”, however, the Court did find the State had proved the offense of robbery [by force or fear] and reduced the conviction to robbery with a remand for resentencing. This Court possesses the same power and authority utilized by the Supreme Court of Utah to modify the judgment and remand for resentencing or modify the judgment and sentence. See 22 O.S.Supp.1990, §§ 929, 1066, 1067. The power to modify the judgment and sentence has always been a part of the authority granted to this Court. The authority to remand for resen-tencing was added to the statutory language of Section 1066 in 1990 with the enactment of Section 929.
However, a review of Suniville does not end the analysis of the issue presented in this case. The facts of this case show that the victim never saw a weapon because the Appellant kept a bag over his hand. However, the victim, at one time, did feel something “very hard and very sharp” in the bag pressed against her back. This Court has previously affirmed a conviction for the same offense even though the victim never *487saw the weapon. See Wilson v. State, 637 P.2d 900 (Okl.Cr.1981). The Court’s analysis sets forth:
Appellant first contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the verdict. He specifically argues that the dangerous weapon used, a six-inch bladed folding knife described in the information, was not introduced at trial. Ward testified at trial that Joseph Wilson held a knife at his throat. Although Ward did not testify that he saw the knife, he did feel it and cut his thumb on it. The information charged the use of a dangerous weapon. In State v. Hanna, 540 P.2d 1190 (Okl.Cr.1975), this Court ruled that violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 801, does not require the use of a dangerous weapon, per se, but that the way in which an instrument is used is the controlling factor in determining whether it is a dangerous weapon. In this case Ward testified that a sharp object was held at his throat and that Joseph Wilson threatened to cut his head off. There was competent evidence from which the jury could conclude that a dangerous weapon was used. Karlin v. State, 540 P.2d 1181 (Okl.Cr.1975). Id., 637 P.2d at 901
It is interesting to note the similarity in the fact situation in this case and in Wilson. The court fails to apply Wilson in properly resolving the issue presented by the facts of this case. The only real distinction between the two cases is that in Wilson the victim’s thumb was cut and here the victim felt the sharp point in her back. This is where the factual analysis differs from that presented in Suniville. The Court in Suniville was dealing with a purely “subjective” analysis because the witnesses did not have any independent evidence to support a finding that the defendant actually had a weapon in his pocket. In the case before this Court we are not dealing with a purely “subjective” analysis but an analysis which contains independent circumstances which support the finding that Appellant actually had a knife in the sack. The facts of this case contain both direct and circumstantial evidence which requires this Court to determine “whether, after reviewing the evidence in .the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.” Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202, 203-204 (Okl.Cr.1985). Since this case presents a determination based on direct and circumstantial evidence, and not just a “subjective” analysis, the judgment and sentence for Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon in Count II must be affirmed.