BONNER v. STATE

BONNER v. STATE
1981 OK CR 27
625 P.2d 1267
Case Number: F-79-488
Decided: 03/13/1981
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

An Appeal from the District Court of Kay County; Lowell Doggett, Judge.

JIMMY LEE BONNER, appellant was convicted of Armed Robbery With Firearms, After Former Conviction of a Felony in the District Court of Kay County, Case No. CRF-78-64 and punishment was set at twenty (20) years' imprisonment and appeals. AFFIRMED.

Shoemake & Briggs, George G. Briggs, Pawhuska, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Mary Bryce Leader, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

¶1 On appeal from the judgment and sentence rendered against him in Kay County District Court Case No. CRF-78-64, wherein he was convicted by a jury of Robbery with Firearms, 21 O.S.Supp. 1973 § 801 [21-801], AFCF, and given twenty (20) years imprisonment, appellant, Jimmy Lee Bonner, urges as his sole assignment of error that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.

¶2 The evidence of the State established that appellant was the driver of an automobile used in the armed robbery of a drive-in theater in Kay County on April 18, 1978. Evidence of the following facts was adduced by the State: (1) Appellant backed the car into an alley near the drive-in; (2) a passenger, one Bennett, put a nylon stocking over his head, walked to the theater office where he committed the armed robbery, returned to the car and got back in whereupon appellant drove away; (3) a theater employee pursued appellant in a high speed chase punctuated by gunshots fired from appellant's vehicle; (4) appellant's car was rammed by the other, and came to a stop; (5) officers summoned to the scene found a gun and money in the abandoned car, and discovered appellant hiding in a trash can nearby.

¶3 Where the prosecution establishes a prima facie case, the evidence is not insufficient as a matter of law, and conflicts in the evidence are for the trier of fact. See Renfro v. State, 607 P.2d 703 (Okl.Cr. 1980). [625 P.2d 1268] The evidence outlined above is clearly sufficient to make out a case against appellant as an aider and abettor, and hence a principal, in the armed robbery. See 21 O.S. 1971 § 172 [21-172]. This assignment of error is without merit.

¶4 The judgment and sentence appealed from is accordingly

¶5 AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P.J., and CORNISH, J., concur.