Full Opinion

OSCN Found Document:COX v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA COX v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA 2026 OK CR 21 Case Number: F-2025-285 Decided: 10/29/2026 Mandate Issued: 10/29/2026 THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Cite as: 2026 OK CR 21 , __ P.3d __ CLINTON JOSEPH COX, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee. SUMMARY OPINION MUSSEMAN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE: ¶1 Appellant, Clinton Joseph Cox, appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Kiowa County, Case No. CF-2024-5, Grand Larceny, in violation of 21 O.S.2021, § 1705 ¶2 The Honorable Rafe Hall, District Judge, presided over Appellant's jury trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Appellant guilty and assessed punishment of one year in county jail. At formal sentencing, Judge Hall sentenced Appellant in accordance with the jury's verdict. Appellant appeals his Judgment and Sentence and raises the following issues: I. whether the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to convict Appellant of grand larceny as defined by statute; and II. whether the trial court failed to adequately instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case. ¶3 We reverse the Judgment and Sentence and remand this matter to the trial court with instructions to modify the Judgment and Sentence. I. ¶4 In his first proposition, Appellant asserts that insufficient evidence was presented by the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed grand larceny. We agree. ¶5 Appellant challenges the interpretation of the 2018 amendment to Title 21, Section 1705 of the Oklahoma Statutes as adding firearm as an element of grand larceny. We will review de novo Appellant's claim, as it raises a question of statutory interpretation. State v. Allen , 2021 OK CR 14 492 P.3d 27 ¶6 A fundamental principle of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature. Gerhart v. State , 2015 OK CR 12 360 P.3d 1194 Newlun v. State , 2015 OK CR 7 348 P.3d 209 Jordan v. State , 1988 OK CR 227 763 P.2d 130 McKelvy v. State , 2026 OK CR 14 Johnson v. State , 2013 OK CR 12 308 P.3d 1053 State v. Stegall , 1953 OK CR 13 253 P.2d 183 ¶7 Title 21, Section 1701 of the Oklahoma Statutes defines larceny as the taking of personal property accomplished by fraud or stealth, and with intent to deprive another thereof. 21 O.S.2021, § 1701 21 O.S.2021, § 1703 21 O.S.2021, § 1704 Id. Sections 1701, 1703, and 1704 plainly set out the elements of petit and grand larceny. The plain and ordinary language of Section 1704 shows that grand larceny can only be accomplished when property is valued at $1,000.00 or more, or when lesser valued property is taken from the person of another. ¶8 Sections 1705 and 1706 then set forth the penalties for grand and petit larceny, respectively. See Lewis v. State , 1969 OK CR 26 449 P.2d 930 Newlun , 2015 OK CR 7 A. Grand Larceny is a felony punishable as follows: 1. If the value of the property is less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), the person shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not to exceed one (1) year or by incarceration in the county jail for one or more nights or weekends pursuant to Section 991a-2 of Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, at the option of the court, or by a fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such imprisonment and fine; 2. If the property is one or more firearms, the property is taken from the person of another, or the value of the property is One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or more but less than Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00), the person shall be punished by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term not to exceed two (2) years or in the county jail for a term not to exceed one (1) year, or by a fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such imprisonment and fine; 3. In the event the value of the property is Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) or more but less than Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00), the person shall be punished by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term not to exceed five (5) years or in the county jail for a term not to exceed one (1) year, or by a fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such imprisonment and fine; or 4. If the value of the property is Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) or more, the person shall be punished by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term not to exceed eight (8) years, or by a fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such imprisonment and fine. 21 O.S.2021, § 1705 ¶9 We find that the 2018 amendment to Section 1705 did not change the definition of larceny set out in Section 1701 or alter the elements of grand larceny set out in Section 1704. Thus, in order to sustain a conviction for the charge of grand larceny the State was required to prove that the defendant took and carried away personal property of another, either valued at least at $1,000.00, or from the person of another, by fraud or stealth, with the intent to permanently deprive. 21 O.S.2021, §§ 1701 ¶10 We must now turn to the evidence as presented at trial. The ultimate question of sufficiency of the evidence should be resolved with deference to the fact finder and in a light most favorable to the State. Dodd v. State , 2004 OK CR 31 100 P.3d 1017 see also Spuehler v. State , 1985 OK CR 132 709 P.2d 202 Coddington v. State , 2006 OK CR 34 142 P.3d 437 ¶11 The evidence presented at trial showed that Appellant took a firearm, valued at $250.00 to $300.00, from the unoccupied property of another. The evidence was sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed the offense of petit larceny, but insufficient to support a conviction of grand larceny. Appellant is therefore entitled to relief. II. ¶12 Appellant's second proposition alleges that the trial court improperly instructed the jury. As we have found above in Proposition I that Appellant is entitled to relief, we need not address Appellant's second proposition as this claim has been rendered moot. DECISION ¶13 The Judgment and Sentence is REVERSED , and the matter is REMANDED to the district court with instructions to MODIFY the conviction to misdemeanor petit larceny and to MODIFY Appellant's sentence to six months in the county jail. 22 O.S.2021, § 1066 Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals , Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2026), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF KIOWA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE RAFE HALL, DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES AT TRIA L APPEARANCES ON APPEAL JIM HINES ATTORNEY AT LAW 103 S. HUDSON STREET ALTUS, OK 73521 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER J. CAPRARO APPELLATE DIVISION WEST OKLAHOMA INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM 111 N. PETERS AVENUE, SUITE 100 NORMAN, OK 73069 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT JORDAN CABELKA ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY DAN JACOBSMA DISTRICT ATTORNEY 316 S. MAIN STREET HOBART, OK 73651 COUNSEL FOR STATE GENTNER F. DRUMMOND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA ASPEN J. LAYMAN SUPERVISORY ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21 ST STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE OPINION BY: MUSSEMAN, V.P.J. LUMPKIN, P.J.: Concur LEWIS, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Dissent ROWLAND, J.: Dissent FOOTNOTES See OUJI-CR(2d) (2019 Supp.) 5-93. ROWLAND, JUDGE DISSENTING: ¶1 I find myself in unfamiliar territory, arguing against what at first blush appears to be a plain reading of the statutory text by the majority. Upon closer inspection of these provisions, however, an ambiguity is revealed, necessitating the use of interpretative tools to ascertain and give meaning to the intent of the Legislature. In applying common rules of statutory construction, I conclude that the Legislature intended to make the theft of any firearm, regardless of value, felony grand larceny. ¶2 Traditionally, grand larceny in Oklahoma was the taking of personal property worth a certain dollar amount or the taking of property from the victim's person regardless of the property's value. See Camp v. State, 1912 OK CR 213 124 P. 331 Hughes v. Territory, 1899 OK 23 8 Okla. 28 56 P. 708 A. Grand larceny is a felony punishable as follows: 2. If the property is one or more firearms, the property is taken from the person of another, or the value of the property is One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or more but less than Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00), the person shall be punished by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term not to exceed two (2) years or in the county jail for a term not to exceed one (1) year, or by a fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such imprisonment and fine[.] 21 O.S.Supp.2018, § 1705 ¶3 The dilemma is that the Legislature neglected to add the word firearms to Section 1704 which defines grand larceny as taking property worth $1,000.00 or more or taking property from the person of another. My central disagreement with the majority is how to account for the Legislature's omission. As the majority correctly observes, there is nothing ambiguous by itself in Section 1704's language. Similarly, there is nothing ambiguous by itself in Section 1705's language; it clearly punishes the theft of a firearm as grand larceny. The ambiguity arises when the two statutes are read together, and it is our task to reconcile such ambiguities, giving meaning to both provisions and every word. See State v. Young, 1999 OK CR 14 989 P.2d 949 ¶4 To reconcile these statutes, we must consider the legislative intent behind the 2018 amendment to discern what the Legislature intended to accomplish by adding the word "firearms" to Section 1705. There can be but one answer in my view, namely, to exempt stolen guns from the value threshold and to make the theft of any stolen gun a felony. Admittedly, we must assume that, in expanding the reach of grand larceny to include all firearms regardless of value in 2018, the Legislature merely overlooked adding it to Section 1704. The alternative, apparently embraced by the majority, is to assume the Legislature intended nothing by adding "firearms" to Section 1705, which, of course, is contrary to the rule of statutory construction that presumes the Legislature does not engage in vain or useless acts. Nesbitt v. State, 2011 OK CR 19 255 P.3d 435 See Instruction No. 5-93, OUJI-CR(2d) (Supp. 2019). It was this instruction that was given by the trial court, followed by the jury, and is now ignored by this Court. ¶5 I would resolve the conflict in Sections 1704 and 1705 by finding that the clear intent of the Legislature in House Bill 2281 in 2018 was to make larceny of any firearm, regardless of the value, a felony. ¶6 I am authorized to state that Judge Hudson joins in this dissent. FOOTNOTES