Court Opinion

ID: 9548929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:10:52.036474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:38.303993
License: Public Domain

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE OF MANDATE
On September 16, 1974, this Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction for the offense of Delivery and Distribution of Her--oin, After Former Conviction of a Drug Offense, in violation of 63 O.S.1971, §§ 2-401(B)(1) and 2-401 (C), pursuant to which Appellant was sentenced to forty (40) years imprisonment and a $40,000.00 fine. Appellant now petitions for a rehearing.
 On rehearing, the only argument raised by Appellant which was not adequately disposed of in our original opinion, is his contention that the sentence was excessive. As we have held on many occasions, this Court will not modify a sentence alleged to be excessive unless it is convinced from an examination of the entire record that the verdict and sentence based thereon was manifestly excessive and apparently given under passion and prejudice. See Thigpen v. State, Old.Cr., 449 P.2d 932 (1969), quoting Epperson v. State, Okl.Cr., 406 P.2d 1017. In the instant case the sentence imposed was within the statutory limit, and no evidence of passion or prejudice appears in the record. Under such circumstances we decline to disturb the jury’s sentence, and must accordingly deny Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing.
In addition to the Petition for Rehearing, Appellant has filed a Motion to Stay the Issuance of the Mandate until he can file a proceeding in the United States District Court, and until he has exhausted his Federal review. We are of the opinion that the Motion to Stay the Mandate should be, and the same is hereby, denied, and the Clerk of this Court is directed to issue the Mandate forthwith.
It is so ordered.