Court Opinion

ID: 5149178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-02 01:48:50.697274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:57.102002
License: Public Domain

[1] Alice Marie Stigall, hereinafter referred to as defendant, entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of Tulsa County to the offense for Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer, After Former Conviction of a Felony, and received a two-year suspended sentence. Thereafter, on January 29, 1970, an application to revoke the suspended sentence was heard, and upon hearing, the two-year suspended sentence was ordered revoked, and from said Order Revoking Suspended Sentence, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
[2] Defendant's sole proposition does not assert that defendant involuntarily entered a plea of guilty, nor does it assert that the court erred in revoking the suspended sentence. Defendant argues that the *Page 1183 
punishment is excessive, and should be modified. We have consistently held that the question of excessiveness of punishment must be determined by a study of all the facts and circumstances in each particular case, and that the Court of Criminal Appeals is without authority to modify a sentence, unless we can conscientiously say that under all facts and circumstances the sentence is so excessive as to shock the conscience of the Court. Ransom v. State, 453 P.2d 301.
[3] We are of the opinion that a two-year sentence for Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer, After Former Conviction of a Felony does not shock the conscience of this Court. We observe that the trial court was in a much better position to determine the physical ability of the defendant to serve the sentence imposed, than is this Court.
[4] The judgment and sentence is accordingly affirmed.
[5] BRETT and NIX, JJ., concur.