Tiffie v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Tiffie v. State

1971 OK CR 77, 481 P.2d 786

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 24, 1971

DocketNo. A-15376

StatusPublished

This text of 1971 OK CR 77 (Tiffie 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

Tiffie v. State, 1971 OK CR 77, 481 P.2d 786 (Okla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NIX, Judge:

The defendants, Tiffie & Lackey, were charged by information in the District Court of Canadian County with the crime of Grand Larceny, After Former Conviction of a Felony. They were tried before a jury, convicted, and sentenced to serve ten years in the penitentiary. The defendants lodged their appeal in this Court within the time prescribed by law, asserting one contention of error. Defendants contend that the court erred in instructing the jury on “good time” allowed prisoners as prescribed by Title 57, O.S.1968, Supp. § 138.

In the instant case, the instruction did not apply because the defendants had a previous conviction. He was excluded by the beginning paragraph of the statute which reads as follows:

“Every convict who shall have no infraction of the rules and regulations of the prison or laws of the State recorded against him shall be allowed * *

This Court has held said statutes given in the form of an instruction is unconstitutional, but given in the second stage of a two-stage proceeding is not reversible error. Williams v. State, Okl.Cr., 461 P.2d 997. However, this Court has consistently held it to be grounds for modification.

Therefore, we conclude the jury could easily have been prejudiced by said instruction and in view thereof, we feel justice would be best served by modifying said sentence from Ten (10) Years to Five (5) Years in the penitentiary, and it is so ordered.

Modified and affirmed.

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

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NIX, Judge:

The defendants, Tiffie & Lackey, were charged by information in the District Court of Canadian County with the crime of Grand Larceny, After Former Conviction of a Felony. They were tried before a jury, convicted, and sentenced to serve ten years in the penitentiary. The defendants lodged their appeal in this Court within the time prescribed by law, asserting one contention of error. Defendants contend that the court erred in instructing the jury on “good time” allowed prisoners as prescribed by Title 57, O.S.1968, Supp. § 138.

In the instant case, the instruction did not apply because the defendants had a previous conviction. He was excluded by the beginning paragraph of the statute which reads as follows:

“Every convict who shall have no infraction of the rules and regulations of the prison or laws of the State recorded against him shall be allowed * *

This Court has held said statutes given in the form of an instruction is unconstitutional, but given in the second stage of a two-stage proceeding is not reversible error. Williams v. State, Okl.Cr., 461 P.2d 997. However, this Court has consistently held it to be grounds for modification.

Therefore, we conclude the jury could easily have been prejudiced by said instruction and in view thereof, we feel justice would be best served by modifying said sentence from Ten (10) Years to Five (5) Years in the penitentiary, and it is so ordered.

Modified and affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1971 OK CR 77, 481 P.2d 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tiffie-v-state-oklacrimapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack