State of Oklahoma v. Melvin Tyrone Perry

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with First Degree Murder, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, Kidnapping, Second Degree Burglary, and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, all After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies.

Melvin Tyrone Perry, appellant, was convicted of First Degree Murder, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, Kidnapping, Second Degree Burglary, and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, all After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CRF-86-2036, was sentenced to life imprisonment, ninety-nine (99) years, nine hundred ninety-nine (999) years, ninety-nine (99) years, ninety-nine (99) years imprisonment, respectively, and appeals. Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon is REVERSED with instructions to DISMISS; the remaining convictions are AFFIRMED.

* * *

¶27 In his next proposition, appellant asserts that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to give an instruction with regard to appellant concerning the defense of self-defense. Appellant does not contend that he presented evidence warranting such an instruction; rather, he argues that he is entitled to the instruction because self-defense was the theory presented by his co-defendant.

¶28 We find Diaz v. State, 728 P.2d 503, 510-11 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986) to be determinative of this issue. In Diaz, this Court stated that "appellant has failed to properly preserve this issue, however, as the record fails to indicate that defense counsel properly submitted a written request for an instruction on self-defense." Similarly, in the case at bar, defense counsel orally requested that a self-defense instruction be given but did not reduce the same to writing. Furthermore, in Diaz, this Court recognized that "appellant failed to present any evidence that he reasonably believed the force he employed was necessary to protect himself from imminent danger of bodily harm." Id. Again, in the present case, appellant presented no evidence which would warrant a self-defense instruction. This assignment of error is meritless.

¶34 For the aforementioned reasons, appellant's conviction for Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon is REVERSED, and the remaining convictions are AFFIRMED.