finding avoid arrest aggravator constitutional because it "requires a predicate crime separate from the murder for which a defendant seeks to avoid arrest," and also "requires a determination of the state of mind of the defendant"
How later courts described this case
- finding avoid arrest aggravator constitutional because it "requires a predicate crime separate from the murder for which a defendant seeks to avoid arrest," and also "requires a determination of the state of mind of the defendant"
- State introduced evidence that defendant during incarceration stabbed several inmates and fought with a prison guard
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LUMPKIN, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the Court’s decision but would hold that Appellant’s exhibits A & B, attached to his brief, are not a proper part of the record on appeal. The exhibits were not offered and admitted as a part of the trial court proceedings and should not be considered here.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF MANDATE
Loyd Winford LaFevers was tried by jury before the Honorable Thomas C. Smith in the District Court of Oklahoma County. In Case No. CRF-85-3254 he was convicted of First Degree Malice Aforethought Murder in violation of 21 O.S.1991, § 701.7, and Third Degree Arson in violation of 21 O.S.1981, § 1403(A), After Former Conviction of a Felony. At the conclusion of the first stage of trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. During sentencing, the jury found 1) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; 2) there was a probability that LaFev-ers would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society; and 3) the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution. LaFevers was sentenced to death for the murder conviction and forty years incarceration for arson.
By its May 16,1995, published opinion, this Court affirmed LaFevers’ convictions and sentences. LaFevers is now before the Court on a Petition for Rehearing, Rule 3.14, Rules of the Court of Cnminal Appeals, 22 O.S.Supp.1995, Ch. 18, App. According to Rule 3.14, a Petition for Rehearing shall be filed for two reasons only:
(1) That some question decisive of the case and duly submitted by the attorney of record has been overlooked by the Court, or
(2) That the decision is in conflict with an express statute or controlling decision to which the attention of this Court was not called either in the brief or in oral argument.
LaFevers raises four propositions in his Petition for Rehearing which fail to meet the criteria set forth in Rule 3.14. Accordingly, these propositions will not be addressed. 1
*313 IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE COURT that the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Charles A. Johnson CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Presiding Judge
/s/ Charles S. Chapel CHARLES S. CHAPEL, Vice-Presiding Judge
/s/ Gary L. Lumpkin GARY L. LUMPKIN, Judge
/s/ James F. Lane JAMES F. LANE, Judge
/s/ Reta M. Strubhar RETA M. STRUBHAR, Judge
. LaFevers mistakenly suggests the Court's opinion is contrary to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Davis v. United States, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2350 , 129 L.Ed.2d 362 *313 (1994). In fact this Court determined the interrogating officer acted in conformity with Davis when he questioned LaFevers in order to clarify his ambiguous statement. LaFevers v. State, 897 P.2d 292 , - (Okl.Cr.1995).