Roberts v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Roberts v. State

1972 OK CR 222, 501 P.2d 220, 1972 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 612

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 13, 1972

DocketNo. A-17549

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1972 OK CR 222 (Roberts 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

Roberts v. State, 1972 OK CR 222, 501 P.2d 220, 1972 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 612 (Okla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Appellant, Melvin Louis Roberts, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County, for the offense of Robbery with Firearms, After Former Conviction of a Felony; hi.s punishment was fixed at forty (40) years imprisonment, and from said judgment and sentence, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

Defendant was tried jointly with Co-defendants Ricky Leon Green and Eddie Dean Taylor. We do not deem it necessary to reiterate the statement of facts as the same was set forth in Green v. State, Okl.Cr., 501 P.2d 219.

The first proposition contends that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. We, have consistently held that where there is competent evidence in the record from which the jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty as charged, this Court will not interfere with the verdict even though there is a sharp conflict in the evidence and different inferences may be drawn therefrom, since it is the exclusive province of the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the facts. Jones v. State, Okl.Cr., 468 P.2d 805.

The second proposition contends that the punishment is excessive. Suffice it to say that we cannot conscientiously say that under all facts and circumstances the sentence is so excessive as to shock the conscience of this Court.

The judgment and sentence is accordingly affirmed.

SIMMS and BRETT, JJ., concur.

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

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Appellant, Melvin Louis Roberts, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County, for the offense of Robbery with Firearms, After Former Conviction of a Felony; hi.s punishment was fixed at forty (40) years imprisonment, and from said judgment and sentence, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

Defendant was tried jointly with Co-defendants Ricky Leon Green and Eddie Dean Taylor. We do not deem it necessary to reiterate the statement of facts as the same was set forth in Green v. State, Okl.Cr., 501 P.2d 219.

The first proposition contends that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. We, have consistently held that where there is competent evidence in the record from which the jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty as charged, this Court will not interfere with the verdict even though there is a sharp conflict in the evidence and different inferences may be drawn therefrom, since it is the exclusive province of the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the facts. Jones v. State, Okl.Cr., 468 P.2d 805.

The second proposition contends that the punishment is excessive. Suffice it to say that we cannot conscientiously say that under all facts and circumstances the sentence is so excessive as to shock the conscience of this Court.

The judgment and sentence is accordingly affirmed.

SIMMS and BRETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1972 OK CR 222, 501 P.2d 220, 1972 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-state-oklacrimapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack