Court Opinion

ID: 9562719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:32:54.140574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:29.764721
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
I concur in that portion of the opinion affirming appellant’s conviction for Burglary in the First Degree. Although I do not believe 21 O.S.1981, § 886 is unconstitutionally vague, I do agree that the statute should be rewritten and modernized by the Legislature. See Clayton v. State, 695 P.2d 3 (Okl.Cr.1984). However, I dissent from that portion of the opinion vacating the conviction under section 886. The better result, I believe, would be to modify the conviction to the included offense of assault with intent to commit sodomy, and leave the punishment intact. Cf. Woolridge v. State, 97 OkI.Cr. 326, 263 P.2d 196 (1953) (failure to show essential element of penetration in rape conviction, although all other elements of crime were present, required Court of Criminal Appeals to modify the judgment to the lesser included offense of assault with intent to commit rape).