Fox v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Fox v. State

1984 OK CR 83, 686 P.2d 292, 1984 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 198

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedAugust 21, 1984

DocketNo. F-82-556

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1984 OK CR 83 (Fox v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fox v. State, 1984 OK CR 83, 686 P.2d 292, 1984 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 198 (Okla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PARKS, Judge:

On appeal from his conviction of Larceny of an Automobile After Former Conviction of a Felony, Case No. CRF-82-11, and sentence of ten (10) years imprisonment from the District Court of Pontotoc County, Oklahoma, the appellant, Donnie Lawayne Fox, hereinafter referred to as defendant, [293]*293raises a single assignment of error. The facts of the case need not be set forth for purposes of this appeal.

Defendant complains that the trial court committed error by refusing to give a requested instruction on the lesser included offense of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, which differs from Larceny of an Automobile only in that it requires the perpetrator intended to temporarily deprive the owner of possession of his vehicle as opposed to permanently depriving the owner of possession of his vehicle. The defense at trial was the defendant was in such a state of intoxication as to be unable to form the specific intent required at the time he took possession of the automobile. As such, there was no evidence presented that the defendant intended to deprive the owner only temporarily. Smith v. State, 544 P.2d 558 (Okl.Cr.1975). Where there is no evidence to support a lesser included offense of the crime charged, it is not error for the trial court to refuse to so instruct the jury. Johnson v. State, 632 P.2d 1231 (Okl.Cr.1981); Campbell v. State, 640 P.2d 1364 (Okl.Cr.1982); Wren v. State, 556 P.2d 1308 (Okl.Cr.1976).

In the present case, if the jury believed the defendant was so intoxicated that he could not form any criminal intent, they could not convict him of any crime; and therefore, there could be no lesser included offense. If the defendant’s mental facilities were so overcome by alcohol that he was incapable of forming the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his car, then he was also incapable of forming the intent to temporarily deprive him of it.

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

BUSSEY, P.J., and BRETT, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PARKS, Judge:

On appeal from his conviction of Larceny of an Automobile After Former Conviction of a Felony, Case No. CRF-82-11, and sentence of ten (10) years imprisonment from the District Court of Pontotoc County, Oklahoma, the appellant, Donnie Lawayne Fox, hereinafter referred to as defendant, [293]*293raises a single assignment of error. The facts of the case need not be set forth for purposes of this appeal.

Defendant complains that the trial court committed error by refusing to give a requested instruction on the lesser included offense of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, which differs from Larceny of an Automobile only in that it requires the perpetrator intended to temporarily deprive the owner of possession of his vehicle as opposed to permanently depriving the owner of possession of his vehicle. The defense at trial was the defendant was in such a state of intoxication as to be unable to form the specific intent required at the time he took possession of the automobile. As such, there was no evidence presented that the defendant intended to deprive the owner only temporarily. Smith v. State, 544 P.2d 558 (Okl.Cr.1975). Where there is no evidence to support a lesser included offense of the crime charged, it is not error for the trial court to refuse to so instruct the jury. Johnson v. State, 632 P.2d 1231 (Okl.Cr.1981); Campbell v. State, 640 P.2d 1364 (Okl.Cr.1982); Wren v. State, 556 P.2d 1308 (Okl.Cr.1976).

In the present case, if the jury believed the defendant was so intoxicated that he could not form any criminal intent, they could not convict him of any crime; and therefore, there could be no lesser included offense. If the defendant’s mental facilities were so overcome by alcohol that he was incapable of forming the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his car, then he was also incapable of forming the intent to temporarily deprive him of it.

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

BUSSEY, P.J., and BRETT, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1984 OK CR 83, 686 P.2d 292, 1984 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fox-v-state-oklacrimapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack