APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY HONORABLE
MARK R. SMITH, DISTRICT JUDGE
TERESSA WILLIAMS ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
CABELKA EVAN WATSON ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ATTORNEYS FOR
J. WALTERSCHEID ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
HUNTER ATTORNEY GENERAL ROBERT WHITTAKER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
VICE PRESIDING JUDGE
James Richard Irwin, Appellant, was tried in a non-jury trial
and convicted of Count 1, felony stalking, in violation of 21
O.S.Supp.2015, § 1173; and Counts 4 through 7, violation
of a protective order, a misdemeanor, in violation of 22
O.S.2011, § 60.6, in Comanche County District Court,
Case No. CF-2016-10. He also pled guilty before trial to
Count 2, assault and battery, and Count 3, malicious injury
to property. The Honorable Mark R. Smith, District Judge,
sentenced Irwin to five (5) years imprisonment and a $1, 000
fine in Count 1; ninety (90) days imprisonment, a $1, 000.00
fine, and $3, 028.73 restitution in Count 2; one (1) year
imprisonment, a $500.00 fine, and $661.20 restitution in
Count 3; and one (1) year imprisonment and a $500.00 fine in
each of Counts 4 through 7, ordering the sentences in Counts
3 through 7 served concurrently.
After a two-month relationship with the victim ended,
Appellant continued to make unwanted and threatening contact
with her. On one occasion, Appellant confronted and
physically assaulted a male friend of the victim. That same
day, Appellant vandalized the victim's car with spray
paint. The victim sought an emergency order of protection
against Appellant, which was served on him the following day.
In violation of the protective order, Appellant followed the
victim in his truck after she left a friend's house.
Appellant pulled in front of her and slammed on his brakes,
forcing her to take evasive action. Appellant then pointed a
handgun out the window and shot it at her car. Appellant also
continued to harass the victim and violate the protective
order by sending text messages and leaving notes on her car
In his only proposition of error, Appellant argues that his
convictions for felony stalking (Count 1) in violation of a
protective order, and four (4) violations of the protective
order (Counts 4-7), violate the statutory prohibition against
multiple punishments for a single criminal act, 21 O.S.2011,
§ 11, as well as the constitutional prohibition against
double jeopardy. He failed to raise these objections at
trial, waiving all but plain error. Simpson v.
State, 1994 OK CR 40, ¶ 2, 876 P.2d 690, 692-93.
Appellant must therefore show that a plain or obvious error
affected the outcome of the proceeding. Hogan v.
State, 2006 OK ...