Appellant: Robert Larue Jones
Appellee: State of Oklahoma

( C. Johnson )

(np)

SUMMARY OPINION

Appellant, Robert Larue Jones, was convicted after jury trial in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2005-6445, of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies.i The jury assessed punishment at thirty years imprisonment.2 The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly. It is from this Judgment and Sentence that Appellant appeals to this Court.

Appellant raises the following propositions of error:

1. The evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict Mr. Jones.

2. Mr. Jones was denied due process of law and a fair trial by the State's intentional use of false evidence and misleading argument.

After thorough consideration of the propositions, and the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we affirm Mr. Jones' Judgment and Sentence. As to Proposition I, we light most favorable to the State, a trier of fact could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Appellant was guilty of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon. Head v. State, 2006 OK CR 44, 6, 146 P.3d 1141, 1144. See also Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04.

We find with regard to error alleged in Appellant's second proposition that the testimony and argument at issue did not deprive Appellant of his constitutional right to due process.3 Omalza v. State, 1995 OK CR 80, 77, 911 P.2d 286, 307; McCarty v. State, 1988 OK CR 271, 9, 765 P.2d 1215, 1219.

DECISION

The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2012), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY THE HONORABLE DONALD L. DEASON, DISTRICT JUDGE

OPINION BY C. JOHNSON, J. A.

JOHNSON, P.J.: CONCUR

LEWIS, V.P.J.: CONCUR

LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR

SMITH, J.: CONCUR

(FOOTNOTES):

1 This was Appellant's third trial on this charge. His first trial ended in a mistrial after a State's witness testified about Appellant's prior convictions during the first stage of trial. Appellant's second trial ended with a conviction but was overturned on appeal in an unpublished opinion due to instructional error. Jones v. State, Case No. F-2006-1339 (March 27, 2008).

2 Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon is an 85% crime. find that when the evidence is viewed in its totality and in a

3 In conjunction with his Brief-in-Chief, Appellant filed a Motion to Supplement the Record pursuant to Rule 3.11(A), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2012). Rule 3.11(A) provides: "After the Petition in Error has been timely filed in this Court, and upon notice from either party or upon this Court's own motion, the majority of the Court may, within its discretion, direct a supplementation of the record, when necessary, for a determination of any issue; or, when necessary, may direct the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue." This provision is seldom used and need not be used to supplement the record in the instant case as the supplemental material requested is not necessary to determine the issue raised. Thus, the Motion to Supplement the Record is DENIED.