# Hammon v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · June 30, 1995 · 66 O.B.A.J. 2230

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9562327

## Case

- **Full name:** Richard Eugene HAMMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** June 30, 1995
- **Citations:** 66 O.B.A.J. 2230; 898 P.2d 1287; 1995 OK CR 33; 1995 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 38; 1995 WL 384982
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Lumpkin
- **Judges:** Strubhar, Chapel, Lane, Johnson, Lumpkin
- **Cited by:** 38 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9562327

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding defendant who used a firearm during a robbery cannot be punished for both felony murder and use of a firearm in commission of felony because both crimes punish the use of the firearm
- holding the element of carrying away merchandise was established even in absence of the challenged jury instruction, thereby, making the instruction superfluous

## Opinion text

LUMPKIN, Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur in the Court’s decision affirming the conviction for Murder in the First Degree and remanding for resentencing, and reversing to dismiss the conviction for Using a Weapon in the Commission of a Crime. However, I find the application of 21 O.S.Supp.1987, § 11 to the convictions of possession of a Stolen Vehicle and Concealing Stolen Property inconsistent with the analysis of the other crimes evidence pursuant to 12 O.S.1981, §§ 2403, 2404, and the facts in this case. If the acts are separate and independent for one purpose, they are separate and independent for both. Under the analysis in the opinion, a person who steals property could never be convicted of concealing that same property, regardless of how far it was transported or what actions were taken to conceal it. I believe this analysis goes far afield of the intent of Section 11. I would affirm both the Possession of Stolen Vehicle and Concealing Stolen Property convictions due to the evidence establishing these offenses were separate offenses based on the acts of the defendant.
I also disagree with the Court’s analysis of the report by A. Eugene Reynolds. This *1311 report is not a part of the record on appeal and this Court should not discuss what might have been if, in fact, it was a part of the records. The Motion to Supplement should be denied, period.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9562327. Public record. Not legal advice.