Files - OCCA Opinions

SR-2022-250

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 20, 2023
Post category:SR

In OCCA case No. SR-2022-250, Dustin Daukei-Cole appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to dismiss the appeal. One judge dissented. Dustin Daukei-Cole was found guilty of possessing illegal drugs and was given a sentence of five years in prison, with three years of that sentence held back, called a suspended sentence. This meant that he wouldn't go to prison for those three years unless he broke the rules again. Later, the state wanted to take away those three years because they claimed he had violated the conditions of his suspended sentence. The trial court held a hearing and decided that they could only revoke one year of his sentence instead of the full three years because the law had changed. The state didn't agree with this decision and tried to appeal, asking the court to consider whether the law allowing this ruling was against the state constitution. However, the court explained that states can only appeal in certain situations, and this case did not fit that requirement. They highlighted that previous rulings allowed appeals only in cases where someone had been found not guilty or where there was a judgment preventing further prosecution. Since there wasn't a rule blocking further prosecution or an acquittal in this case, the court dismissed the appeal. In conclusion, the court said that the original decision to limit the time revoked was correct and the state could not appeal this issue. The judges decided not to change the trial court's decision.

RE-2021-1290

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 23, 2023
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2021-1290, Vernon Shawn Miller, Jr. appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking Miller's suspended sentences but vacated the part of the order that imposed post-imprisonment supervision. One member of the court dissented. Vernon Shawn Miller, Jr. had a serious legal history. He pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including kidnapping and domestic assault, and was given a sentence but had part of it suspended after he completed a special drug program. However, in August 2021, the State filed a motion to revoke his suspended sentence because he broke the rules of his probation, which included failing to complete a required assessment and getting arrested for a new crime. The trial court held a hearing and decided to revoke all of Miller's suspended sentence. Miller argued against this decision, claiming it violated the rules because he should not serve more time than the sentence he was given. The court explained during the hearing that it intended to revoke all of the suspended time left on his sentence. Miller raised several arguments during his appeal. He thought the sentence should not exceed what he had left to serve and believed that the facts used to revoke his sentence came from an earlier trial rather than the hearing itself. Miller also said he did not get good help from his lawyer during the process. The court reviewed Miller's arguments closely. It confirmed that the judge's decision to revoke the entire suspended sentence was valid and within their rights. They found no specific errors in what the trial court did, except for the imposition of post-imprisonment supervision, which should not have been added since it was not part of the original sentence. In the end, the court upheld the revocation of Miller's suspended sentence but removed the part about post-imprisonment supervision, meaning Miller had to serve the time his sentence required without additional conditions.

F-2018-790

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 21, 2023
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-790, the individual appealed his conviction for first-degree rape and kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the convictions and remand the case to dismiss it due to a jurisdictional issue. One judge dissented. The case began when the individual, Wadkins, was convicted of committing serious crimes in Oklahoma. He argued that he should not have been tried in Oklahoma courts because he is considered Indian, and the crimes happened in an area recognized as Indian Country. This argument was based on the Supreme Court's earlier decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which stated that certain areas, like those belonging to the Creek Nation, are still considered Indian Country under the law. The focus of the appeal was on whether Wadkins could prove he had Indian status at the time of the crimes. To determine this, the court needed to check two things: if Wadkins had Indian blood and if he was recognized as an Indian by a tribe or the federal government. The court found that he had some Indian blood but struggled with whether he was recognized as an Indian when the crimes took place. During a hearing, evidence was presented to show that Wadkins had some ties to the Choctaw Nation but was not an enrolled member at the time of the offenses. He had a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) and received health services reserved for Native Americans but was not yet a member of the tribe until after the crimes occurred. The court concluded that he did not meet the requirements to show he was recognized as Indian then and so ruled that Oklahoma had the right to prosecute him. However, upon appeal, the court found that the lower court made errors in its decisions regarding his recognition. They noted that even though Wadkins was not an official member at the time, he presented various forms of evidence, including his history of receiving medical care designed for Indians and family connections to the tribe, that showed he was, in fact, recognized as Indian. The final judgment stated that since Wadkins was recognized as Indian and the crimes occurred in Indian Country, Oklahoma courts did not have the authority to prosecute him. The decision concluded by saying that the charges against him were to be dismissed, meaning he would potentially face prosecution in a federal court instead. One judge expressed disagreement with this outcome, reflecting on the complex relationship of state and federal law regarding Indian issues.

F-2021-1220

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 16, 2023
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-1220, Aaron Struble appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the case for resentencing to fifty years imprisonment, as originally assessed by the jury. One judge dissented. Struble was found guilty by a jury, which sentenced him to fifty years in prison. However, the trial court changed this sentence to life in prison, stating that the fifty years exceeded the maximum allowed. This was incorrect, as the fifty-year sentence was valid. The court acknowledged that the jury did not exceed the legal limits, and that the trial court’s change to life imprisonment was a mistake. Therefore, the case was sent back for proper sentencing. Struble also claimed that the prosecutor’s questions aimed at making the victim seem more sympathetic affected his right to a fair trial. However, since there were no objections during the trial to these questions, the court only looked for plain error. They determined that no major error had occurred in this matter. In summary, the court upheld the jury's conviction but pointed out the wrongfulness of the life sentence imposed by the trial court, sending the case back for the jury's original sentence to take effect.

C-2021-504

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 9, 2023
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2021-504, Starlyn Sean Hill appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including aggravated possession of child pornography and multiple counts of rape and sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his appeal, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented from the opinion. Hill had pleaded guilty to several counts, and upon sentencing, he received a lengthy prison term. After his plea, he filed a motion to withdraw it, arguing that he felt rushed into making his decision and that he was misinformed about the potential consequences. He also raised issues regarding the statute of limitations for some of the charges, claiming that ten of them should not have been prosecuted because they were filed too late. The court reviewed the case and found that the prosecution for some of the counts may indeed have been beyond the statute of limitations. They concluded there were errors in how Hill’s plea was accepted, particularly as he did not properly waive his right to challenge the statute of limitations on several counts. This led the court to determine that his guilty plea was not made voluntarily or intelligently. As a result, the court vacated Hill's judgment and sentence and instructed that he be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. The case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings that would not contradict this new decision.

RE-2021-1042

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 19, 2023
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2021-1042, Matthew Bryan Buttery appealed his conviction for a series of crimes including distribution of controlled substances and petit larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered that his new sentence run concurrently with a prior sentence from another case. One judge dissented on the issue of how the sentences should relate to one another. Matthew Buttery had previously pled guilty to several charges. He was given a ten-year suspended sentence, which means he didn't have to serve time in prison at that moment but had to follow certain rules. If he broke any rules, the court could take back that suspended sentence and send him to prison. The state claimed that Buttery did not report as required, did not pay his probation fees, and committed a new crime, for which they wanted to revoke his suspended sentence. During the hearing, the court found Buttery had violated the terms of his probation and revoked his suspended sentence. Buttery argued that the court made a mistake by not giving him credit for time he had already served and by ordering that his new sentence run after a different sentence from another county. The court explained that it had the right to revoke Buttery's suspended sentence because he violated the rules. They stated they didn't have to give him credit for time served because the suspended sentence is not changed by the violation. They also found that the judge improperly decided his new sentence would run after the one from the other county rather than at the same time. The judges clarified that when a sentence is revoked, it should not change how sentences from different cases affect each other. In the end, Buttery's appeal led to some changes. The court ordered that his new sentence should run concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time, rather than one after the other. However, the court upheld the overall decision to revoke his suspended sentence for breaking the rules of his probation. One judge agreed with the decision to affirm the revocation but disagreed with other parts of the analysis regarding the relationship between the sentences. So, to summarize, the main points from the case are that Matthew Bryan Buttery's suspension was revoked because he violated probation rules, but the court made a mistake when deciding how his new sentence should relate to an older sentence. He is to serve them at the same time now, according to the latest court ruling.

F-2021-554

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 15, 2022
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-554, Robert Willie Wilson, Jr. appealed his conviction for accessory to burglary in the second degree and carrying weapons. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Count 1 (accessory to burglary) with instructions to dismiss the charge, while affirming Count 2 (carrying weapons). One member of the court dissented. The case revolved around Wilson's alleged involvement in a burglary at a laundromat. The jury found him guilty of being an accessory rather than guilty of the burglary itself. They sentenced him to twenty years for the accessory charge and thirty days for carrying a weapon, to be served at the same time as his other sentence. Wilson challenged his conviction, arguing that the evidence was not enough to prove he was an accessory to the burglary. He claimed that the State failed to show he actively concealed or helped another person, named Justin White, who committed the burglary. The law requires that to be an accessory, someone must help the offender escape arrest or punishment after the crime. During the trial, the evidence suggested that while Wilson was present in the vehicle during the time of the burglary, there was no proof that he helped White in any way after the crime. The court pointed out that Wilson's mere presence did not make him guilty. It highlighted that the State only showed he knew about the burglary, which was not enough to convict him as an accessory. Ultimately, the court concluded that the evidence did not support a conviction for accessory to burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, they reversed Wilson's conviction for that charge, but they did maintain the conviction for carrying a weapon. The remaining claims in Wilson's appeal were no longer necessary to consider due to this decision.

S-2022-41

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 15, 2022
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2022-41, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Joshua Kyle Rhynard for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, possession of a controlled dangerous substance (marijuana), and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the appeal was improperly brought and dismissed it. One judge dissented, arguing that the State made a sufficient case for review based on the importance of the evidence that had been suppressed. The dissenting opinion believed that the trial court made an error in suppressing the evidence found during a search because the officers executing the warrant used reasonable belief about the address they were searching.

RE-2021-1202

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 10, 2022
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2021-1202, Jimmy Dale Jackson, Jr. appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his probation. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of his suspended sentence to six months instead of a longer term. One judge dissented. Here’s a summary of the case: Jimmy Dale Jackson, Jr. had a suspended sentence from a previous conviction for Lewd Molestation, which means he was not in prison but had to follow certain rules. In 2021, the State of Oklahoma accused him of breaking those rules. They said he did many things wrong, such as driving with a gun, using drugs, not paying the fees he needed to, and talking to a girl who was a minor, which he was told not to do. When Jackson went to the court for a hearing, the judge decided that he had indeed broken the rules, and as a result, revoked his suspended sentence completely. Jackson then appealed this decision. He argued that the judge's decision was too harsh and that he should not have been punished so severely for what he called technical violations. He also claimed that the judge improperly used the results of a lie detector test (polygraph) against him during the hearing. The court had to consider whether the judge had made a real mistake. They found out that Jackson's violations were mostly technical, meaning they were not serious crimes but rather rule-breaking issues. According to Oklahoma law, if a person on probation has technical violations for the first time, the judge can only revoke their suspended sentence for up to six months. The court decided that Jackson's violations did not include breaking any serious laws because he had never been told to follow specialized rules for sex offenders, which would have been more serious. They noted he was only accused of violating standard probation rules. Since the judge revoked his sentence for a period longer than what the law allows for technical violations, the court agreed that was a mistake. Regarding the polygraph results, Jackson's team had talked about them first, so the court said that Jackson could not complain about that now. They concluded that even without the polygraph, there were enough other reasons to revoke his probation. In the end, the court said Jackson's sentenced revocation would be adjusted to six months, meaning he would have to follow the suspension rules for just that amount of time instead of facing a longer prison term. The court emphasized that everyone must understand the rules when they are on probation and that following proper legal steps is important to ensure fairness. So, in summary, the court reduced Jackson's punishment because they found he was not given proper notice about the rules he had to follow and that he should not have been penalized so harshly for technical violations alone.

F-2021-522

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 6, 2022
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-522, Trevor Leif Toppah appealed his conviction for Aggravated Assault and Battery, After Former Conviction of Three Felonies (Count 1), and Conspiracy to Commit Assault and Battery (Count 2). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court but modified the indigent defense fee. One judge dissented regarding the evidence for the conspiracy conviction.

F-2019-912

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 25, 2022
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-912, Charles Issac Jacobs appealed his conviction for Aggravated Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Jacobs was charged in McCurtain County after a jury found him guilty and sentenced him to two years in prison. During his appeal, he raised several points: 1. **Jurisdiction**: Jacobs argued that the State did not have authority to prosecute him because the victim was an Indian, and the crime happened in Indian Country. The trial court found that Jacobs was not an Indian according to legal standards, while the victim was. The court also determined that the crime took place within the boundaries of the Choctaw Reservation, meaning the State had the jurisdiction to proceed with the case. 2. **Self-Defense**: Jacobs claimed that he acted in self-defense when he assaulted the victim. The court noted that self-defense is a legal reason for actions that would typically be considered crimes. However, the court found there was enough evidence to show that Jacobs did not have a reasonable belief that he was in danger when he attacked the victim. 3. **Jury Instructions**: Jacobs requested that the jury be given a specific instruction about standing your ground during the trial. The court stated that whether to give specific jury instructions is up to the trial judge. They found that Jacobs did not meet the legal requirements for this instruction because there wasn’t enough evidence showing he was in a situation where he could lawfully defend himself. 4. **Monetary Fine**: At sentencing, the jury did not impose a fine, but the court record incorrectly showed a fine of $500 was imposed. The State and Jacobs both agreed that this was a mistake. The court instructed that this clerical error should be corrected. The main decision reached by the court was that Jacobs' conviction was upheld. They affirmed that the State had the right to prosecute him, and there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction. However, the court also ordered that the punishment record should be corrected to show that no fine was actually imposed.

F-2021-785

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 25, 2022
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-785, Kyle Robert Forsyth appealed his conviction for sexual battery and larceny of merchandise from a retailer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Forsyth's conviction but remanded the case for a hearing to determine whether he should receive credit for time served in jail. One justice dissented. Forsyth was tried without a jury and found guilty of sexual battery and larceny. The judge gave him a ten-year sentence for the sexual battery and thirty days in jail for the larceny, with the sentences to run one after the other. Forsyth argued that his rights were violated because the same judge presided over both the preliminary hearing and the trial, which he claimed broke the two-judge rule in legal procedures. However, the court found that the judge listed on the preliminary hearing was not the one who actually presided over it, so there was no error. Forsyth also argued that he should have received credit for the time he stayed in jail before sentencing. He was unable to pay bail and was in jail for nearly ten months. His lawyer pointed out that it is unfair to make someone serve a longer sentence just because they cannot afford to pay bail. The court agreed that this issue of credit for time served needed more examination. They sent the case back to see if there were other reasons that kept Forsyth in jail other than his inability to pay bail. Overall, the court upheld Forsyth’s convictions but wanted to further investigate whether he should get credit for the time he had already spent in jail.

F-2021-49

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 18, 2022
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-49, the Appellant appealed his conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate intentional discharge of a weapon, assault and battery with a deadly weapon, and feloniously pointing a firearm. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate the discharge of a firearm and for pointing a firearm but reversed and remanded the conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented regarding the interpretation of the statutes involved.

F-2021-512

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 4, 2022
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-512, Trevor Leif Toppah appealed his conviction for Burglary in the Second Degree and Obstructing an Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his judgment and sentence, except for modifying the fee assessed for his indigent defense. One judge dissented. Toppah was found guilty of second degree burglary and obstructing an officer by a district court. The burglary charge was based on the fact that he broke into a parked automobile with the intent to commit theft. During his trial, the judge considered if there was enough evidence to support the burglary conviction, focusing on whether Toppah used force to enter the vehicle and if he had the intention of stealing anything. The court reviewed the evidence and determined that it was enough for a reasonable person to believe Toppah was guilty of burglary. They noted that breaking into a car, even by just opening the door, is considered a form of breaking necessary for a burglary charge. The court also mentioned that proving intent could be done through either direct or indirect evidence, which they found sufficient in Toppah's case. Toppah raised some issues regarding money charged for his defense costs. He argued that the court charged him too much and that it should be less, as stated in the law. Although his lawyer didn’t object to this during the trial, the court noticed that they had made a mistake. They admitted that the fee should have been $250 instead of the $500 that was charged. Lastly, Toppah argued that a series of errors during his trial caused him not to receive a fair trial. However, the court found that the only error that needed correcting was the higher fee, and that this error did not affect the overall fairness of his trial. In summary, the court upheld Toppah's conviction for burglary but corrected the amount he had to pay for the public defense.

F-2021-636

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 4, 2022
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-636, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of explosives, possession of a stolen vehicle, using a security camera or system while committing a felony, and possession of a firearm after a former conviction of a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial on the charge of using a security camera while committing a felony. The court affirmed the judgment on all other counts. One judge dissented. Eric Casey Zeiset was found guilty after the jury trial in Grady County. He was sentenced to a total of 620 years in prison for multiple offenses, including possession of explosives and firearms. Zeiset challenged several aspects of the trial, specifically arguing there was not enough proof of his intent or possession of the explosives. He also claimed the trial court made mistakes in jury instructions and that his long sentence was excessive. The court examined the evidence presented during the trial. Four improvised explosive devices were found in Zeiset's home. Experts testified that the way the explosives were packaged suggested they were intended to be used harmfully. The court noted that Zeiset had a history of being armed and had surveillance cameras around his house, which supported the jury's decision on his intent to use the explosives for illegal purposes. The court addressed errors in jury instruction regarding one of the charges, ruling that the absence of required instructions on using a security camera was a significant mistake that needed to be corrected. However, the other convictions, including possession of explosives, were upheld based on the evidence provided. Overall, the court found that while there were significant points raised in the appeal, the conviction for possession of explosives was supported by enough evidence. The decision emphasized the importance of appropriate jury instructions for fair trials.

F-2021-123

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 7, 2022
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-123, Airick William Fuller appealed his conviction for kidnapping and first-degree robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Fuller was found guilty by a jury in Custer County for two counts of kidnapping and one count of robbery, having prior felony convictions. The jury gave him sentences of ten years for each kidnapping count and thirty years for the robbery, all to be served concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time. Fuller argued that the evidence used in the trial was not enough to prove he committed first-degree robbery and that the trial court did not inform the jury about a lesser crime, second-degree robbery. The court carefully reviewed the entire case, including the evidence and arguments from both sides. Regarding the first argument, the court stated that there was enough evidence to show that Fuller threatened a victim, Jason White, with serious harm during the robbery. Even though White did not actually see a gun, the court noted that he had reason to fear for his safety because of what had happened earlier. The court concluded that the jury could justifiably find Fuller guilty based on this evidence. For the second argument, the court explained that since Fuller did not ask for the jury to consider the lesser charge of second-degree robbery, it was difficult for him to claim a mistake was made. The court found that no errors that would have changed the outcome of the trial were made. The court confirmed the original sentences but also instructed the District Court to make sure that the official record reflected that the sentences were to be served concurrently if that had not already been done. Overall, the court affirmed the conviction and rejected Fuller’s arguments.

F-2021-211

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 30, 2022
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-211, Michael Ray Dawkins appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon, felon in possession of a firearm, and maiming. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon and felon in possession of a firearm but reversed the conviction for maiming and instructed to dismiss it. A dissenting opinion was not noted. The case involved a jury trial where Dawkins was found guilty on all counts after shooting a woman named Krystal Traylor. He received a sentence of 45 years for the assault and battery, 25 years for the firearm possession, and another 45 years for the maiming, with some sentences running concurrently and others consecutively. Dawkins raised several claims on appeal, including that his constitutional right to an attorney of his choice was violated, that he faced double punishment for the same act, and that there were errors in admitting certain evidence during his trial. Upon review, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Dawkins's request for a new attorney, as he did not provide valid reasons for wanting to change lawyers. It was also determined that Dawkins’s convictions for assault and battery and maiming stemmed from a single act, which should not result in multiple punishments. Therefore, the court reversed the maiming conviction. Further, the court found that the identification of Dawkins by the victim was correctly admitted as evidence, dismissing the hearsay claim. Dawkins's assertions about prior bad acts being admitted were also rejected, as they were deemed relevant and essential for establishing motive and intent. The court noted that a limiting instruction had been provided to jurors, mitigating concerns over the impact of these past acts. Finally, regarding Dawkins's claim for a speedy trial violation, the court found that the delays were mainly attributable to him or his defense strategies, concluding that he was not prejudiced by the delay. Overall, most of Dawkins's claims were denied, leading to the affirmation of his main convictions and the reversal of the maiming charge.

C-2021-163

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 23, 2022
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2021-163, April Dawn Summers appealed her conviction for child abuse, child neglect, and enabling child abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court denied her appeal. One judge dissented. Summers was charged in Grady County with several serious offenses related to child abuse. She decided to plead guilty to these charges in December 2019. The judge accepted her plea but decided to wait to give her a sentence until a presentence investigation report was completed. In January 2021, after looking at evidence and hearing from lawyers, the judge sentenced Summers to fifty years in prison for each charge. However, she only had to serve twenty-five years, as the rest of her sentence was suspended. After sentencing, Summers wanted to change her guilty plea and claimed that she didn’t fully understand what she was doing when she pleaded guilty. She argued that her plea was not made knowingly or willingly, and she did not grasp the full consequences. She also said that she should not have to pay for the costs of her incarceration because of her mental health issues. The court reviewed her case and found that her plea was made voluntarily. They determined that she understood the charges and the risks of her guilty plea. Therefore, the court did not believe there was a reason to let her take back her plea. Regarding the costs of her incarceration, the court noted that Summers didn’t raise this issue when she tried to withdraw her plea. However, they acknowledged that her mental health might exempt her from such costs. Thus, they decided to investigate whether she is indeed considered mentally ill under the law, which could mean that she wouldn't have to pay. In summary, the court decided to keep her guilty plea in place, but they also said that it needs to be checked whether she qualifies as mentally ill to decide if she should be charged for her time in prison. The case was sent back to the lower court for further decisions on her mental health status.

C-2020-691

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 9, 2022
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2020-691, Raheem Travon Walker appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery on an Employee of a Juvenile Detention Facility. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Walker's request to withdraw his guilty plea and go to trial. One judge dissented. To explain further, Walker was 17 years old when he pleaded guilty to the crime. He entered into a deal, thinking he would be part of a special program for young adults where his sentence would be delayed. However, later it was discovered that he was not eligible for this program due to a past juvenile record for robbery. Because of this ineligibility, the judge gave him a different sentence, which he believed was not what he had agreed to. After realizing that he did not get what he had bargained for, Walker asked if he could change his mind about the plea. A hearing took place, but his request was denied. He then appealed the decision, arguing that he was not helped properly by his lawyer during the process. The court found that he had a valid point since he entered the agreement expecting specific benefits, which were not provided. Because of this, the court decided he should have another chance and allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea. The dissenting opinion argued that Walker had not raised the issue of not having a proper plea form and thus had waived that right. They believed there was no mistake about the plea agreement and questioned whether Walker's claim had enough basis to warrant this new decision. Regardless, the majority found that Walker’s concerns about his plea and the sentence should be addressed by allowing him to go to trial.

RE-2020-501

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 26, 2022
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2020-501, Kaylen Harrison Rice appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but vacated the portion that required him to remain under supervision. One judge dissented. Kaylen Harrison Rice had previously been given suspended sentences for his crimes. He was supposed to follow certain rules instead of serving time in jail, but the rules changed to make his crime less serious. A new law stated that if someone is being revoked for a crime that is now seen as less serious, their punishment must follow the new law's limits. Kaylen argued that his one-year revocation was too long given the new law. However, the court found that the existing rules and his situation didn’t allow for the changes he suggested. During his revocation hearing, Kaylen raised concerns about being supervised after his jail time, saying that the law did not allow for that kind of supervision for his crime. The State acknowledged this point but later dropped the argument, which meant the court didn't consider it. The court decided that since the State had waived its right to challenge this part, it could not revisit it in Kaylen's appeal. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to revoke Kaylen's suspended sentences but overturned the requirement that he be supervised, which was not allowed under the new law.

F-2020-818

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 28, 2022
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2020-818, the appellant appealed his conviction for child sexual abuse and other related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute the appellant. One judge dissented. The case involved Joseph Scott Bennett, who was convicted of several crimes, including child sexual abuse and possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. The jury sentenced him to life in prison without parole for the most serious crimes and additional years for firearm possession. Bennett argued that the State didn't have the right to prosecute him because the crimes took place on lands that are part of the Cherokee Nation, and he is recognized as a member of the Cherokee Nation. During the trial, Bennett tried to dismiss the charges based on the argument that the state court did not have jurisdiction because of a Supreme Court case known as McGirt v. Oklahoma. This case stated that some crimes committed by Native Americans on certain lands could only be prosecuted in federal court rather than state court. The trial court did not agree with Bennett's argument but allowed the issue to be reviewed later on appeal. The appeals court found that, following McGirt, it was established that the area where the crimes occurred was indeed a Cherokee Reservation, and since Bennett proved he was a member of the tribe, the state courts should not have held the trial. As a result, the court vacated Bennett's judgment and sentence, which meant that his convictions were canceled, and they instructed that the matter be dismissed. The case shows how legal rulings can change depending on new interpretations of jurisdiction and tribal rights under U.S. law.

C-2021-218

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 7, 2022
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2021-218, the petitioner appealed her conviction for outraging public decency and violation of a protective order. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the appeal. The court agreed that her due process rights were violated when the district court denied her motions to withdraw her pleas while she was absent from the hearing. No one dissented.

F-2020-510

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 13, 2022
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2020-510, Dewayne Shomo appealed his conviction for Possession of a Firearm, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented. Dewayne Shomo was found guilty during a non-jury trial and sentenced to eighteen months in prison. He argued that the state did not have the right to prosecute him because he is a member of the Choctaw Nation and the alleged crime happened within the Choctaw Reservation. The case's outcome was based on a ruling made in another case, McGirt v. Oklahoma, which established that certain crimes committed by or against Indians within Indian territory must be prosecuted in federal court, not state court. After reviewing his case, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed that Shomo’s crime was indeed committed within the boundaries of the Choctaw Nation, and he meets the criteria to be regarded as an Indian for jurisdiction purposes. As the state did not have the authority to prosecute him for this crime, his conviction was deemed invalid, and thus, the court instructed the lower court to dismiss the case against him.

RE-2019-80

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 14, 2021
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JODY LYNN BAILEY,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. RE-2019-80** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Appellant Jody Lynn Bailey appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2016-2879. On February 1, 2017, Appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas to four counts of Identity Theft (21 O.S.Supp.2011, § 1533.1) and two counts of Using a Computer with the Intent to Defraud (21 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1953(A)(2)). He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for fifteen years on each count with all but the first four years suspended. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. On November 1, 2018, the State filed an application to revoke the suspended sentences, alleging Appellant committed the new crime of robbery. A hearing on the application was held on January 22, 2019, before the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge. Judge Elliott granted the State's application and revoked Appellant's suspended sentences in full. On appeal, Appellant asserts the revocation was excessive. We disagree. **ANALYSIS** At the hearing where the State seeks revocation of a suspended sentence, the court must determine whether the suspended portion of the sentence should be executed based on whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated. A violation need be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, a trial court's decision to revoke a suspended sentence should not be overturned unless there is an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when there is an unreasonable or arbitrary action taken without proper consideration of the facts and law, or a clearly erroneous conclusion that goes against the logic and effect of the evidence presented. In this case, we find no abuse of discretion in Judge Elliott's decision to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences. The determination of witness credibility and the weight given to their testimony is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the trier of fact. Therefore, Judge Elliott's decision to revoke the suspended sentences has not been established as an abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended judgments and sentences in Case No. CF-2016-2879 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** **THOMAS P. HURLEY** ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE 611 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **HALLIE BOVOS** ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE 400 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **DAN POND** ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE 505 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR STATE **MIKE HUNTER** OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL **CAROLINE HUNT** ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21st STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** **LEVIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** **ROWLAND, J.: Concur** --- For further information, you may download the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2019-80_1734335833.pdf).

F-2017-1300

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 2, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1300, Emmitt G. Sam appealed his conviction for first-degree murder and robbery with a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Emmitt G. Sam was found guilty of committing serious crimes in Tulsa County. The jury decided his punishment would be life in prison for murder and several years for the robberies, with fines. However, during his appeal, he raised important questions about whether he should have been tried in state court at all. Sam argued that he is a member of the Cherokee Nation and that his crimes occurred in an area recognized as Indian land. He claimed that under previous court rulings, the state did not have the authority to prosecute him because those crimes fell under federal jurisdiction due to their location on Indian territory. The court needed to determine two main things: if Sam is considered an Indian and if the crimes happened within the historic boundaries of the Creek Nation's Reservation. After looking into these questions, the trial court found that Sam had Indian blood and was recognized as an Indian by his tribe, even though he was not formally enrolled at the time of the crimes. The parties agreed the crimes took place in Indian Country. The trial court examined evidence presented in a hearing, including testimonies from witnesses who said that Sam was part of the Cherokee community and received benefits meant for Native Americans throughout his childhood. The evidence showed he lived in a supportive environment that aligned with his claims of being recognized by his tribe. Since the appeals court agreed with the trial court's findings, it ruled that Sam could not be prosecuted by the state but instead should face trial in federal court, where such cases are decided for crimes committed on Indian lands. As a result, the earlier judgments and sentences against Sam were overturned, and the case was sent back for dismissal by the district court. The ruling highlighted the intersection of state and federal law regarding Indian affairs, confirming that the rights of Native Americans must be respected within the court system.