Court Opinion

ID: 9536777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:06:55.591007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:14.871364
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Presiding Judge
(specially concurring) .
The distinguishing features found in the instant case concern the elements of time and location. In the case of Hochderffer v. State, 34 Okl.Cr. 215, 245 P. 902, relied on by defendant, these two elements were the same. However, in the instant case, both elements were different in both charges. The armed robbery of the Davis Drug was completed when defendant left the store; whereas, at a different time and place the defendant was apprehended with the narcotics in his possession. Likewise, the proof required in each offense is different. The fact that the “dilaudid” was part of the property stolen by defendant is only incidental to the offense of possession of narcotics. Therefore, I CONCUR in Judge Bussey’s opinion herein.