Court Opinion

ID: 9790883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:00:50.617117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:32.354218
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Judge:
concurs in part/dissents in part.
I concur in the Court’s decision to affirm the conviction in this case, however, I must dissent to the modification of the sentence.
The Court determines that the arresting officer’s testimony regarding the arrest of Appellant is not relevant to this case and requires a modification of the sentence from fifty-five (55) years to twenty (20) *499years to “... neutraliz[e] any effect this testimony may have had.” I cannot agree to speculation that the testimony may have had an effect on the case when none is shown in the record. The Court correctly finds that there was strong evidence against Appellant based on the eye-witness identification and his own statement after arrest. The Appellant was convicted of Grand Larceny, After Conviction of Two or More Felonies. The evidence presented to the jury shows the Appellant was previously convicted of the crimes of Robbery by Force on April 23, 1979, in Tulsa County Case No. CRF-79-166 and Robbery by Force After Former Conviction of a Felony on October 9, 1980, in Tulsa County Case No. CRF-80-2187. While the relevancy of the Appellant’s actions at the time of the arrest may be questionable, the testimony was not sufficient to require modification of the sentence in light of the record presented to us.
I would affirm the judgment and sentence in this case.