# Brown v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · January 23, 2008 · 177 P.3d 577

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9785305

## Case

- **Full name:** James Cheyenne BROWN, Appellant v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** January 23, 2008
- **Citations:** 177 P.3d 577; 2008 OK CR 3; 2008 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 3; 2008 WL 186207
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lumpkin
- **Judges:** Johnson, Chapel, Lewis, Lumpkin
- **Cited by:** 12 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/9785305

## Opinion text

LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge,
concurring in results.
¶ 1 As the U.S. Supreme Court enunciated in Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 , 103 S.Ct. 673 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983), “legislatures, not courts, prescribe the scope of punishment.” The Court’s decision in this case is dictated by the language of 21 O.S.2001, § 1024.1. The Legislature could have, but did not, make each individual image on a “CD-ROM” or in a “magnetic disk memory” a separate offense under the statute. Because such Legislative intent was not expressed by the language of the current statute, the cumulative images on a “CD-ROM” or in a “magnetic disk memory” constitute but a single offense. This does not seem consistent with the rest of the statute however as the statute does delineate that each separate photograph is a separate item subject to prosecution. This Court is required to apply the plain language of the statute. Under the present statutory language, this Court must reverse those counts that do not constitute a separate act. As a matter of public policy the Legislature could make the possession of each individual image a separate offense, but until they do so the present language of the statute controls. I therefore concur in the Court’s decision.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9785305. Public record. Not legal advice.