Court Opinion

ID: 9633704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:57:23.388699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:40.118979
License: Public Domain

LANE, Vice Presiding Judge,
specially concurring:
I agree with the majority on the theory and application in this matter. I write only to further explain why only one of the two additional charges was merged with the murder charge. As stated by the majority, Munson v. State, 758 P.2d 324 (Okl.Cr. 1988), cert. denied 488 U.S. 1019, 109 S.Ct. 820, 102 L.Ed.2d 809 (1989) is very much similar to the instant case in that the defendant was charged with armed robbery, kidnapping and murder. We held that the robbery charge was the underlying felony charge for the murder conviction and therefore merged with the murder charge. In so doing, we said:
Because the armed robbery was the initial felony which began the chain of events ultimately leading to the victim’s death, this offense merged with the felony-murder conviction. Id. p. 333.
We then found that the kidnapping was also an extension of the robbery and therefore did not form an underlying basis for the murder charge.
In the instant case, the burglary charge formed the underlying basis for the murder charge and like the robbery in Munson could not sustain an independent conviction. Like the kidnapping charge in Mun-son, the robbery charge was an extension of the burglary and did not form the underlying basis for the murder conviction. It could sustain an independent conviction.