Court Opinion

ID: 9822945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 09:33:39.015777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:12.446343
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Judge,
concurring in result.
T1 I concur in the decision to affirm the Judgment and Sentence on Count 4. I further agree with the decision to affirm Stewart's conviction on Count 1 as well as with the decision to remand the matter for resen-*516tencing because of the admission of prejudicial material (Form 18.8(A)) submitted with the Judgment and Sentence documents offered for sentence enhancement.. I cannot join, however, in the majority's plain error analysis in Proposition I because I find the prosecutor erred by exhorting the jurors to review Judgment and Sentence documents, including the dates, that clearly showed Stewart had received suspended sentences. See Hunter v. State, 2009 OK CR 17, ¶ 10, 208 P.3d 931, 933-34. Furthermore, I continue to adhere to the plain error review discussed in Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19, ¶ 38, 139 P.3d 907, 923 that is based on the federal statutory plain error review explained in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734-35, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1777-78, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).
12 I am authorized to state that Judge Smith joins in this opinion concurring in result.