F 2017-1074
In OCCA case No. F 2017-1074, Brown appealed his conviction for Drug Court termination. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination, stating the trial court acted within its discretion. One judge dissented.
PC-2017-322
In OCCA case No. CF-2004-4488, the petitioner appealed his conviction for murder and shooting with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed the conviction, stating that his consecutive sentences do not violate constitutional protections against cruel punishment. One judge dissented on the reasoning. [occa_caption]
C-2018-225
**COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. C-2018-225** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Petitioner:** STEVEN LEON GRIMMETT **Respondent:** THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **Opinion by: LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Steven Leon Grimmett (Petitioner) was charged with multiple felony counts and entered a blind plea of no contest. After sentencing, he sought to withdraw his plea, claiming coercion and misunderstandings regarding his sentence. His motion was denied, and he appealed the decision, raising several propositions of error. 1. **Coercion and Voluntariness of Plea**: Petitioner claimed his plea was coerced and involuntary. The court evaluated whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently, emphasizing the importance of confirming that the plea was not the result of force or threats. The court concluded that evidence demonstrated the plea was voluntary. 2. **Advice on Sentencing Requirements**: The Petitioner contended he was not adequately informed about the 85% rule applicable to his sentence or the post-imprisonment supervision requirement. However, since these claims were not raised in his Motion to Withdraw Plea, the appellate court found he waived the right to contest these issues. 3. **Clerical Error Argument**: Petitioner argued there was a clerical error in the judgment regarding the requirement of post-imprisonment supervision. The court did not find this to be an obvious error but remanded the matter to the district court to address the claim. 4. **Effective Assistance of Counsel**: The court assessed his claims of ineffective assistance of both plea and withdrawal counsel using the Strickland test, which evaluates counsel's performance and whether any deficiencies prejudiced the defense. The court determined that Petitioner was sufficiently informed about his plea and that withdrawal counsel's performance did not constitute ineffective assistance. **DECISION**: The court affirmed the denial of the Motion to Withdraw Plea and remanded for the district court to address the clerical error regarding post-imprisonment supervision. **Counsel Information:** - **Counsel for Petitioner at Trial and Appeal**: Shelley Levisay, Kimberly D. Heinze - **Counsel for the State**: Adam Panter, Mike Hunter, David Hammer, Joshua Fanelli **Opinion filed: May 9, 2019** **Mandate ordered upon filing**. For full opinion documents, refer to [the PDF link here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-225_1734103367.pdf).
F-2017-356
In OCCA case No. F-2017-356, Elizabeth A. Jennings appealed her conviction for Permitting Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed her conviction. One judge dissented. The case took place in Tulsa County, where Jennings was found guilty of allowing child sexual abuse to happen, which is against the law. The jury decided she should go to prison for 14 years. She was very unhappy about this and wanted to challenge the ruling. Jennings raised three big points in her appeal: 1. She said the prosecutor made a wrong hypothetical question during jury selection, which is called voir dire, and that this violated her rights. 2. She also argued that a lot of evidence was shown about her co-defendant's sexual misconduct, which she thought made it hard for her to get a fair sentence. 3. Lastly, she complained that the judge didn't tell the jury that she would have to register as a sex offender after her conviction, which she thought was an important piece of information. The court looked at everything carefully, including the evidence, the transcripts, and the arguments from both sides. It decided that Jennings did not deserve any relief from her conviction based on her arguments. For the first point, the court said that the prosecutor's question was okay. It was meant to see if jurors could be fair and follow the law without making decisions before hearing all the evidence. In the second point, the court agreed that the evidence about the co-defendant was relevant and helped to show Jennings' knowledge of the situation. The court found that this evidence was not unfairly hurtful to her case. On the third point, the court decided that it was not wrong for the judge to skip giving out the information about sex offender registration because it wasn't necessary for the case. In the end, the court upheld Jennings' sentence of 14 years in prison. The judges considered all the arguments but concluded that everything was handled correctly during the trial.
F-2017-1146
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1146, Scott Milton Donley appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold his convictions. One judge dissented. Scott Milton Donley was found guilty of two crimes during a bench trial: Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery. He received a sentence that included twenty years for the first crime and one year for the second crime, with both sentences running at the same time. Donley argued that he should not be punished for both crimes based on double jeopardy rules, meaning he shouldn’t be charged twice for what he claimed was the same act. The court examined whether there was proof for each crime that did not overlap. They found that Donley committed separate acts of pushing and slapping the victim before threatening her with a knife, which were seen as different offenses that required different evidence. Therefore, the court decided there was no double punishment. Donley also claimed there wasn't enough evidence to show he committed Assault with a Dangerous Weapon because he argued that the knife he used wasn't sharp. However, the court reviewed the evidence, including testimonies from him, the victim, and officers. They concluded that any reasonable person could find he intended to cause harm with the knife and that it was indeed a dangerous weapon. Lastly, Donley argued that he didn’t willingly give up his right to a jury trial. However, the court found clear proof that he had done so. The process was completed in court, and both he and the prosecutor waived the jury trial properly. In conclusion, the court affirmed the judgments and sentences against Donley, stating that all his claims were without merit.
F-2017-1285
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1285, Isaac Avila appealed his conviction for multiple counts of kidnapping, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Isaac Avila was found guilty by a jury for kidnapping his estranged wife and his own children, along with possessing a firearm during these events and resisting an officer. The jury gave him various sentences, including a total of 50 years in prison for the kidnappings and other convictions. Avila argued that his convictions for kidnapping his children were not valid since he believed he had the right to be with them as their parent. He also claimed there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him for these crimes. The court examined the law and the evidence. They found that, while parents do have rights, Avila acted in a way that was not allowed by law when he took his children. The court also decided that the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions, meaning it was strong enough for a reasonable person to believe he was guilty. Avila further argued that the jury should have been told about the defense of consent, which is when someone allows an action to happen, and that his lawyer didn’t do a good job helping him. However, the court ruled that the trial instructions were adequate and that his lawyer's performance did not harm his case. Lastly, Avila thought his sentences were too harsh. The court agreed that, while they were serious, they were reasonable given the facts of the case. Overall, the court upheld Avila's convictions and sentences, deciding that he had received a fair trial and that the evidence against him was strong enough to support the jury's decisions.
F-2017-639
In OCCA case No. F-2017-639, Christopher Lantz Wildman appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided that his conviction would be upheld. One judge dissented. Christopher Wildman was found guilty by a jury of killing someone and was sentenced to 12 years in prison. He was awarded credit for the time he served before the trial. Wildman argued several points in his appeal, claiming that his rights were violated during the trial. First, he said the evidence didn’t prove he wasn’t acting in self-defense, which is an important legal argument in these cases. He believed that if the evidence did not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with wrongful intent, he should not have been convicted. However, the court found that there was enough evidence suggesting he did not act in self-defense. Wildman also claimed that his trial was unfair because some evidence showed bad character, and that the trial court did not properly instruct the jury on how to consider that evidence. The court reviewed this point and decided that the evidence presented was not overly prejudicial, so it allowed the trial to continue without a limiting instruction. He argued prosecutorial misconduct, which means he felt the prosecutor acted inappropriately during the trial. Wildman argued that remarks made by the prosecutor affected his right to a fair trial. The court noted that comments made by the prosecutor were not serious enough to change the outcome of the trial and were in response to claims made by Wildman. Wildman believed that his attorney did not perform well and that he should have had a better defense. The court examined this claim closely. It stated that for someone to prove their lawyer was ineffective, they need to show that their lawyer's performance was very poor and that it influenced the trial's outcome. The court found that Wildman's lawyer did not make serious mistakes. Additionally, he felt that some evidence about the victim’s habits was improperly allowed into the trial. However, since he did not object to this evidence during the trial, it made it harder for him to appeal this point later. Finally, Wildman argued that all these errors combined led to an unfair trial. The court did not find any significant errors, so they upheld the conviction. In conclusion, the court affirmed Wildman's conviction and sentence, stating that the original trial was fair and proper according to the evidence and legal standards.
F-2017-1140
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1140, Michael Harold Denham appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Michael Harold Denham was found guilty of a crime related to domestic abuse. The jury, which is a group of people that decides if someone is guilty or not, recommended that he be sentenced to three years in prison. The judge who oversaw the trial followed this recommendation and also ordered that Denham pay some fees and receive credit for the time he had already spent in jail before the trial. Denham's appeal claimed that several mistakes had occurred during his trial. He listed five main points where he believed the trial had not been fair: 1. The trial court allowed the state to have an expert witness testify about domestic abuse. Denham argued that this was a mistake. 2. He said that one of the witnesses who testified about domestic violence was not properly qualified to do so. 3. Denham claimed that some evidence was admitted that should not have been according to the rules of evidence. 4. He argued that the court did not let his defense team ask questions about one juror, which meant they could not see if the juror was biased. 5. Finally, he said that all these mistakes happened together and made the whole trial unfair. The court looked closely at Denham's claims and the evidence from the trial. They decided that the court did not make errors that were significant enough to change the outcome of the trial. For the first point about the expert witness, the court ruled that Denham did not show why his defense would have benefited from having his own expert witness. His claim of needing a continuance (more time) to prepare for the trial was not justified because he could not show how it would have helped his case. For the second point, the court decided that the qualifications of the expert witness were acceptable. The judge found that the officer had enough training and experience in domestic violence matters to testify. Regarding the third point, Denham did not follow the right procedure to complain about the late disclosure of the expert witness. As a result, the court found no major violations that would affect the trial's fairness. For the fourth point, the court reviewed how the trial judge handled questions for the jurors. They found that the process was fair because the juror had given no indication beforehand that she would be biased. Lastly, for the fifth point about the overall fairness of the trial, the court did not agree that the combined claims could show any level of unfairness. They found no cumulative error that would merit a different outcome. In conclusion, the court upheld Denham's conviction, deciding that he received a fair trial and that the claims of error did not have enough merit to change the verdict. The appeal was denied, and the conviction was confirmed, meaning Denham would serve his sentence as decided by the jury.
F-2017-1191
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1191, Leroy Edward Gilbert, Jr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One justice dissented. The case involved the murder of Erma Jean Goodou, who was killed in 1994. For many years, the murderer remained unknown. Goodou was found dead in her home, showing signs of a violent struggle. There were indications that someone entered through a window, attacked her, and fled. Despite extensive investigation, her murder stayed unsolved for almost twenty years. In 2013, some of the evidence was retested, which produced DNA that identified Gilbert as the suspect. He had previously denied knowing Goodou despite having been a high school acquaintance. His fingerprints were also found at the crime scene. During the trial, Gilbert testified, claiming they had a secret relationship and tried to explain the presence of his DNA and prints, but the evidence was compelling against him. Appellant's arguments in the appeal included claims of improper jury instructions regarding the 85% Rule, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that while there were errors in jury instructions, specifically about the 85% Rule not being applicable to his case, these did not affect his substantial rights or the outcome. The comments made by the prosecutor during the trial were also deemed not to have harmed Gilbert's defense. Ultimately, despite a dissenting opinion regarding the impact of those errors, the court upheld the trial's decision, maintaining Gilbert's conviction for First Degree Murder and sentencing him to life without the possibility of parole.
F-2017-1230
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1230, Oleithia June Cudjo appealed her conviction for second degree murder while in the commission of felony driving under the influence, driving while privileged suspended, and transporting an open container of liquor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction. One judge dissented.
F-2018-83
In OCCA case No. F-2018-83, the appellant appealed his conviction for terminating his participation in a drug court program. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of the appellant's participation in the Kay County Drug Court Program. One judge dissented. The case began with the appellant being charged with domestic abuse, followed by several other charges which led to his participation in the drug court program. He had previous sentences but entered a plea agreement that allowed him to avoid immediate incarceration if he completed the program successfully. However, after multiple instances of non-compliance, the state requested to terminate him from the program. During a hearing, the judge evaluated whether the appellant had violated the terms of his performance contract in the drug court. The judge determined that he had. The appellant argued that the judge should have given him more chances to comply with the rules of the program, but the judge concluded that the appellant's actions warranted termination. The court ultimately agreed with the judge's decision, stating that he had not abused his discretion in terminating the appellant’s participation in the drug court program. The termination was deemed appropriate given the appellant's repeated violations.
F-2018-617
This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of Douglas Edward Scott. Scott was convicted of Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation and Petit Larceny in a non-jury trial and was sentenced to eight years in prison for the first charge and six months in county jail for the second, with both sentences running concurrently. ### Key Points from the Opinion: 1. **Proposition I - Sufficiency of Evidence**: - Scott challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his domestic assault conviction. - The court reviewed the evidence favorably toward the prosecution and concluded that a rational trier of fact could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. - The trial court rejected Scott's claim of innocence, and the court affirmed that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. 2. **Proposition II - Sentence Excessiveness**: - Scott argued that his eight-year sentence was excessive. - The court noted that the sentence was within the statutory range and considered the facts of the case. - The court determined that the sentence did not shock its conscience and denied the proposition of excessive sentencing. ### Conclusion: - The court affirmed Scott's judgment and sentence, denying both of his propositions of error. - The mandate for the decision was ordered upon the delivery and filing of the opinion. ### Representations: - The trial representation included Charles Michael Thompson for the appellant and Richard Smothermon as the District Attorney for the State. - The opinion was written by Judge Lumpkin, with all other judges concurring. For more detailed information or legal context, you can download the full PDF of the opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-617_1735229379.pdf).
M-2017-1021
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. M-2017-1021** *BYRIN CARR, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.* **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA APR 25 2019 JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** The Appellant, Byrin Carr, appeals from his misdemeanor Judgment and Sentence entered after a jury trial before the Honorable Timothy D. Haworth, Associate District Judge, in Case No. CM-2016-655 in the District Court of Garfield County. Appellant was convicted of Threaten to Perform Act of Violence, and was sentenced to a term of six months in the Garfield County Jail. **PROCEDURAL HISTORY** On June 28, 2016, Appellant was charged with Threaten to Perform Act of Violence, misdemeanor, 21 O.S.2011, § 1378(B), for threatening to kill Garfield County judges and prosecutors. Subsequently, the case was assigned to Judge Haworth who appointed a different District Attorney before the trial proceeded on September 19, 2017. **FACTS** At trial, Brian Dickson, a news photographer for KOCO-TV, testified about an incident on June 27, 2016, where Appellant approached him and his co-worker while they were parked at McDonald's. Appellant made threatening statements about harming local judges and prosecutors, leading to Dickson recording their conversation. The recording included Appellant’s comments about killing judges and district attorneys. After the incident, the news supervisors contacted local law enforcement. Appellant, in his defense, argued that he meant no harm and merely sought to share his grievances about local authorities. His defense included proposed jury instructions regarding subjective intent and political speech, which were denied by the court. **ANALYSIS** **PROPOSITION I:** The court addressed whether the denial of Appellant's requested jury instructions constituted error. The court held that the crime outlined in § 1378(B) does not necessitate proof of the threat being a true and credible threat and is a general intent crime. Therefore, the judge's refusal to give the requested instruction was not an error. **PROPOSITION II:** Appellant contested the jury instructions regarding the term willfully. The court affirmed that proof of general intent suffices under § 1378(B) and that the judge's definitions were proper and aligned with legal requirements. **PROPOSITION III:** Finally, Appellant argued that he was denied the right to present a defense, specifically regarding the characterization of his speech as political. The court reasoned that the threats made by Appellant fell outside the bounds of protected political speech and were not relevant to the presented case. **DECISION** The Appellant’s misdemeanor Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** JAMES L. HANKINS Attorney at Law Edmond, OK **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** BRIAN T. HERMANSON District Attorney, 8TH District Counsel for the State --- **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **CONCURRING:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. *(Refer to the official document for textual fidelity and details of legal references.)*
RE-2017-113
In the case of Ruben Geraldo Velasquez v. The State of Oklahoma, the appellant appealed the revocation of his suspended sentences across multiple cases in the Caddo County District Court. The appeals were addressed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The appellant had pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including possession of a firearm after conviction, driving under the influence, and domestic assault. His sentences were imposed with significant portions suspended, and he was placed on probation. However, the State filed a petition to revoke his suspended sentences citing several violations, including failure to pay fees, failure to report, changes in address, and new criminal offenses. The trial court revoked the appellant's suspended sentences in full after a hearing, and the appellant raised several propositions of error on appeal. The court determined that the first two propositions, which challenged the validity of the original sentences, were not properly resolved through this appeal and needed to follow certiorari procedures instead. The court found that the amendment to the revocation order, which removed post-imprisonment supervision, rendered one of the propositions moot. Regarding claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated any deficiency in counsel's performance nor shown any resulting prejudice. The appellant's argument that the trial court abused its discretion by denying credit for time served was found to have no supporting legal authority, as the court indicated that there is no statutory requirement for such credit to be granted. Lastly, the court rejected the appellant's assertion that the revocation was excessive. The evidence presented to the trial court satisfied the standard necessary to revoke the suspended sentences, affirming that the burden of proof for violations is preponderance of the evidence, and that the decision to revoke is within the discretionary power of the trial court. Ultimately, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to revoke the appellant's suspended sentences across all cited cases, concluding that there was no abuse of discretion in the revocation. The mandates for this decision were ordered to be issued following the filing of the opinion. The decision is summarized as follows: **The revocation of Ruben Geraldo Velasquez's suspended sentences is AFFIRMED.**
RE-2018-644
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DUSTIN ARDELL CRUCE,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-644** **FILED APR 25 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** ROWLAND, JUDGE: This appeal arises from the revocation of Dustin Ardell Cruce’s suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2016-143, adjudicated by the Honorable Lawrence W. Parish. On February 22, 2017, Cruce entered a guilty plea to multiple charges, including Assault With a Dangerous Weapon and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, resulting in a total sentence of ten years for the most serious counts, suspended in part. On October 31, 2017, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence, citing Cruce's failure to pay ordered reimbursement fees and alleged new criminal activity. However, the State subsequently abandoned the new crime allegation as part of a plea agreement in a separate case, leaving only the failure to pay as the basis for revocation. At the revocation hearing on May 2, 2018, the trial court determined that Cruce had indeed violated his probation by failing to fulfill financial obligations. Despite Cruce's claims regarding his employment status and efforts to comply, he provided no evidence of bona fide attempts to make the required payments. The standard for revocation allows the State to meet its burden by a preponderance of the evidence, and one proven violation is sufficient to justify a full revocation of a suspended sentence. Judge Parish opted to revoke only half of Cruce's remaining suspended sentence, demonstrating leniency. Cruce’s appeal asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing revocation. However, as established in previous case law, including *Sparks v. State* and *Livingston v. State*, the court has broad discretion in these matters. The trial court was within its rights to revoke the suspension based on the stipulated violation of payment obligations. The decision of Judge Parish is affirmed, as Cruce has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2016-143 is AFFIRMED. **Legal Representation:** Counsel for Appellant: CURT ALLEN Counsel for Appellee: EMILY MUELLER, ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY **OPINION BY:** ROWLAND, J. **Concur:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J. (Concur in Results); LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.
F-2017-147
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BRIAN A. STALEY, Appellant,** **Case No. F-2017-147** **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA APR 25 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, JUDGE:** Appellant Brian A. Staley was convicted in Caddo County District Court for various drug-related offenses and possession of a firearm. He appealed, raising eleven propositions of error. **Propositions of Error:** 1. Denial of motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless search. 2. Admission of evidence concerning other controlled substances. 3. Conviction for an uncharged offense. 4. Insufficient evidence on acquiring proceeds from drug activity. 5. Insufficient evidence linking firearms to trafficking. 6. Prejudicial statements by a state trooper. 7. Improper prosecutorial arguments. 8. Insufficient evidence of knowing possession of marijuana. 9. Improper admission of irrelevant handwriting evidence. 10. Cumulative effect of errors denying a fair trial. 11. Excessive sentences. **Court Decision:** After reviewing the record, the Court affirmed Staley's convictions. **Key Findings:** - **Proposition I:** The traffic stop and subsequent consent to search were lawful, thus the motion to suppress was denied. - **Proposition II:** The evidence of other controlled substances was admissible as res gestae; hence, no abuse of discretion in its admission. - **Proposition III:** Any scrivener's error in statute citation for Count 2 did not affect substantial rights and was denied plain error review. - **Propositions IV, V, and VIII:** The evidence was sufficient for a conviction on all counts when viewed favorably to the prosecution. - **Propositions VI and VII:** Claims of evidentiary harassment and improper argument did not impede a fair trial; the trial court’s admonishments mitigated any potential prejudice. - **Proposition IX:** The handwritten note was relevant and supported the themes of trafficking and possession designed by the prosecution. - **Proposition X:** Cumulative error doctrine was not applicable as no significant errors occurred that affected the outcome. - **Proposition XI:** The sentences did not shock the conscience and were not excessive in light of the offenses committed. **Opinion of the Court:** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. --- **APPEARANCES:** - **For Appellant:** Albert Hoch, Norman, OK - **For Appellee:** Alan Rosenbaum, Caddo County District Attorney; Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma; William R. Holmes, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK **Opinion by:** Hudson, J. **Concurrences:** Lewis, P.J.; Kuehn, V.P.J. (concurring in part/dissenting in part); Lumpkin, J.; Rowland, J. **Concurring/Dissenting Opinion by Kuehn, V.P.J.:** While I agree with the majority on other claims, I dissent regarding the admission of evidence about extraneous controlled substances and the handwritten notes. I believe such evidence was improperly admitted and could have imparted an unfair prejudice. Nonetheless, this evidence did not materially affect the trial's outcome. For a detailed opinion and further reading, access the [full opinion here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2017-147_1734273240.pdf).
F-2016-375
This document is the opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the appeal of James Stanford Poore from his convictions of four counts of First Degree Murder and two counts of Robbery with a Firearm, which occurred in Tulsa County District Court. The jury recommended sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder convictions and life imprisonment for the robbery charges. The opinion outlines the factual background of the case, including the brutal murders of four victims during a robbery and the subsequent evidence linking Appellant Poore and his brother Cedric Poore to the crime. Key pieces of evidence included witness testimonies, DNA analysis, and ballistic evidence connecting the Poores to both the murders and an earlier robbery. The appellate court addressed several propositions raised by Poore, reviewing the admission of expert testimony, the exclusion of certain third-party perpetrator evidence, the relevance of other crimes evidence, the legality of the search warrant executed at Poore's mother's residence, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. After careful consideration, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence or denying Poore's requests for different evidence and upheld the sufficiency of the search warrant. The court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court, providing a detailed legal rationale for its decisions. The final decision includes an order for the mandate to be issued upon the filing of this opinion. The judgment for both the defendant and the state was documented, with all judges concurring in the decision. For those interested in viewing or downloading the original document, a link is provided at the end of the summary.
F-2017-1042
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1042, Vincent Ray Perosi appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. The case began when Perosi, who had recently divorced, was ordered to leave the house he had been living in by January 1, 2016. After that date, his ex-wife, Pamela Perosi, returned to the house with two friends to change the locks because he had not moved out. This led to a confrontation. Perosi shot and killed Pamela and another friend, Buddy Weber, while wounding Karen Priest, who was also present. Perosi claimed he shot in self-defense, saying he was scared of Weber. However, evidence showed that he had a history of threats against his ex-wife and evidence contradicted his version of events. The court ruled that he did not qualify for immunity under the Stand Your Ground law and denied his request for related jury instructions. In reviewing the evidence, the court found sufficient proof to support the convictions, rejecting Perosi's claims of self-defense and that shooting Pamela was accidental. Further, his videotaped confession was admitted as evidence, despite defense claims it was coerced; the court found it was voluntary. In addition, the court allowed testimony about Perosi's bad character and a victim impact statement from Pamela’s family. Ultimately, the court upheld the trial’s decisions and affirmed the conviction, denying any errors raised in the appeal.
F-2017-1167
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1167, Revival Aso Pogi appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Revival Aso Pogi was convicted of murdering Steven Qualls in Oklahoma City in April 2014. Qualls was found dead in his home, and the scene was very bloody. An autopsy showed he had been beaten and stabbed over fifty times. Pogi was arrested after his wallet and bloody handprints were found at the crime scene. During police questioning, Pogi initially denied any involvement but later admitted to killing Qualls, stating he acted in self-defense after being held captive. Pogi’s appeal raised several arguments. He claimed that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction and that the trial court made mistakes. He argued that the jury should have been given instructions on a lesser charge of manslaughter, that his statements to police were made under duress, and that evidence of the victim's past conduct was improperly excluded. Pogi also challenged the use of a graphic photograph of the victim and claimed that the cumulative impact of all errors warranted a new trial. The court rejected Pogi's claims. They found that the jury had enough evidence to conclude that Pogi intentionally killed Qualls and that his self-defense claim wasn’t justified. They ruled that the trial court made appropriate decisions about jury instructions and evidence. The court noted that even if there were errors, they were harmless and did not affect the outcome of the trial. Ultimately, the court upheld Pogi's conviction for First Degree Murder and confirmed the life sentence imposed by the trial judge.
F-2017-1231
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1231, Antonio Tiwan Taylor appealed his conviction for two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One member of the court dissented. Antonio Tiwan Taylor was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma for harming his girlfriend's seven-year-old daughter in December 2014. The girl talked about what happened to her, and the State also shared letters that Taylor wrote to the child's mother where he seemed to admit his actions and apologize. Furthermore, a young woman testified that Taylor had raped her before, which was included to show his tendency to commit such acts. Taylor appealed his conviction on several points. First, he argued the trial court should not have allowed the woman’s testimony, claiming it was more harmful than helpful to his case. The court reviewed this claim and found no error in allowing her testimony; they saw it as relevant and not unfairly prejudicial to Taylor. Second, during the trial, the woman who made the earlier accusation did not show up, and Taylor argued that her absence meant her prior testimony shouldn’t be used. The court decided she was unavailable and allowed her earlier testimony to be read to the jury. Taylor disagreed but the court believed the State made enough effort to locate her, and they maintained that her previous testimony was still valid and credible. Next, Taylor made a claim based on collateral estoppel. This is a legal principle that says if someone was found not guilty of a crime, they shouldn’t be tried again for the same issue. Taylor believed that because he was acquitted of raping the woman in question, her testimony should not have been used against him in this case. However, the court explained that an acquittal does not mean the person is innocent but that there was reasonable doubt about their guilt. Thus, they could still consider the facts of the earlier case for a different purpose. Lastly, Taylor argued that even if the trial had a few errors, they added up to a reason for a new trial. Since the court found no errors in the previous claims, this argument was also denied. The court ultimately affirmed the decisions made during the trial, meaning Taylor's convictions and sentences remained in place.
F-2017-1270
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1270, Bryan James Abner appealed his conviction for several offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the decision to terminate him from drug court and sentence him according to the plea agreement. One judge dissented. Bryan James Abner was involved in multiple criminal cases related to theft, guns, drugs, and burglary. He was given the chance to join a Drug Court program to help him with his drug addiction instead of going straight to prison. However, if he did not follow the rules of the program, he would be sentenced for his crimes. Abner did well in the Drug Court for the first six months, but then he started to have problems. He tested positive for methamphetamine several times, had legal troubles, and missed appointments. The State's attorney asked to terminate him from the Drug Court because of these issues. During the hearing, witnesses testified about Abner's behavior. One officer found drugs on him, and a supervisor explained that Abner had many chances to improve but did not make enough progress. Abner's counselor testified that he had learned from some difficult experiences, including the death of his son, and asked for another chance in the program. The judge decided against Abner, saying that despite what the counselor said, Abner's problems continued. She noted that he had broken the rules of the Drug Court many times and had not responded to the chances he had been given. In summary, the court ruled that Abner needed to be removed from the Drug Court program for not following the rules, and he was sentenced based on his plea agreement. The court found that the evidence supported this decision, and there was no abuse of discretion by the judge.
F-2018-184
In OCCA case No. F-2018-184, Juanita Martinez Gomez appealed her conviction for First Degree Malice Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction. One judge dissented. Juanita, a 49-year-old woman, was found guilty of killing her daughter, Geneva Gomez, who was 33 years old, in Oklahoma City. The events took place in August 2016 after a violent encounter at Juanita's home. Geneva had previously lived with her boyfriend but went to collect her belongings with her mother. The boyfriend later became worried when he could not communicate with Geneva. The trial revealed that when the boyfriend visited Juanita's home, he found Geneva's body. She had severe injuries on her head and signs that she had been beaten. Instead of asking for help, Juanita showed strange behavior, claiming that Geneva was possessed. Evidence showed that Juanita attempted to clean up the crime scene and tried to prevent her boyfriend from leaving. At trial, Juanita did not testify, and her lawyers claimed that her odd behavior and statements meant she did not kill her daughter with intent. The jury, however, found that the evidence showed a clear intention to kill, considering the violent nature of the attack and Juanita's actions afterward. Juanita raised multiple claims of error in her appeal, but the court found that she had not been denied a fair trial. Her statements to the police about her motive for killing Geneva were not allowed in court because they were considered hearsay. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that it was sufficient to support the conviction for malice murder, rejecting Juanita's claims for lesser charges or defenses. The court ultimately affirmed the judgment of the District Court.
RE-2017-801
**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case Summary** **Appellant:** Donald Antwan Mayberry **Appellee:** State of Oklahoma **Case No:** RE-2017-801 **Judges:** John D. Hudson (Chief Judge), Lewis, Kuehn (Vice Chief Judge), Lumpkin, Rowland (Judges) **Date Filed:** April 18, 2019 **Overview:** Donald Antwan Mayberry appealed the full revocation of his ten-year suspended sentences imposed by the District Court of Oklahoma County, presided over by Judge Timothy R. Henderson. Mayberry had previously pleaded guilty to two counts of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, which resulted in concurrent ten-year suspended sentences under probation. **Revocation Proceedings:** The State filed an application to revoke Mayberry's suspended sentences, alleging several violations, including: 1. Committing new crimes (including Manufacturing or Possessing an Explosive Device). 2. Using methamphetamine while on probation. 3. Failing to pay probation fees. 4. Driving while his license was suspended. At the revocation hearing, the State presented evidence from law enforcement officers and Mayberry’s probation officer. Notable testimony included: - Sergeant Anthony Lee described a traffic stop of Mayberry's vehicle, where he discovered drugs and an ammo box containing bomb components. - Scott Dawson, a bomb technician, testified about the nature of the device found, indicating it could function as an improvised explosive device (IED). - Probation officer Brooke LeFlore reported Mayberry’s positive drug test for methamphetamine. Mayberry did not present any evidence in his defense. Judge Henderson concluded that Mayberry violated probation terms by committing the new crimes and using drugs, leading to the full revocation of his suspended sentences. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Insufficient Evidence for Manufacturing an Explosive Device:** - Mayberry argued that the State failed to establish his intent to use the bomb or to send it to another person, as required by statute. - The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to infer intent to intimidate or unlawfully damage property, and that one proven violation of probation was enough to justify revocation. 2. **Abuse of Discretion in Revocation Decision:** - Mayberry contended that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his sentence in full, arguing that the punishment was excessive. - The court maintained that the presence of bomb-making materials and other violations substantiated the revocation decision. **Conclusion:** The Court affirmed the trial court's decision to revoke Mayberry's ten-year concurrent suspended sentences in full, finding that the evidence was adequate to support the conclusions of the trial judge. **Final Order:** Appellant's revocation of suspended sentences is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is ordered to be issued. **Counsel for Appellant:** Pierce Winters, Marva A. Banks (Oklahoma County Public Defender’s Office) **Counsel for Appellee:** Kelly Collins, Mike Hunter (assistant district attorneys); Theodore M. Peeper (assistant attorney general) **Opinion Issued By:** Judge Hudson **Concurrences:** Judges Lewis, Kuehn, Lumpkin, and Rowland each concurred with the decision. [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2017-801_1734709994.pdf)
RE-2018-128
In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, Milton Roger Hornsby appealed the revocation of his suspended sentence from the McIntosh County District Court, overseen by Judge James D. Bland. This appeal arose from convictions in two cases, CF-2012-45 and CF-2012-60, covering multiple charges including possession of a firearm after conviction and assault with a dangerous weapon. Hornsby initially received a twenty-year suspended sentence for one charge and six-month suspended sentences for others, all to be served concurrently. The State's motion to revoke the suspended sentences, filed on September 19, 2016, was due to an alleged new crime involving assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Following a hearing on December 29, 2016, Judge Bland revoked ten years of Hornsby's suspended sentences. Hornsby raised several legal arguments on appeal: 1. **Burden of Proof**: He argued that Judge Bland imposed a lower burden of proof than required. However, the court affirmed that Judge Bland properly articulated the standard during the hearing, which was that the State needed to show it was more likely than not that Hornsby violated his probation. 2. **Suppressed Evidence**: Hornsby contended that evidence pertaining to the use of a knife, previously suppressed in a related case, was improperly considered at the revocation hearing. The court noted that Hornsby did not object during the hearing and thus waived his right to raise this issue on appeal apart from claiming plain error, which he failed to establish. 3. **Intent to Harm**: Hornsby claimed there was insufficient evidence to prove he intended to inflict bodily harm. The court stated that the evidence presented was sufficient to suggest that it was more likely than not that Hornsby had such intent. 4. **Cumulative Errors**: Lastly, Hornsby argued that the accumulation of errors deprived him of a fair hearing. The court found no merit in this argument, as each proposition raised was without merit. The Court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in Judge Bland's decision to revoke the suspended sentence, affirming the revocation. The mandate was ordered to issue following the filing of the decision.
C-2018-410
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEAN ALAN REYNOLDS,** Petitioner, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Respondent. **Case No. C-2018-410** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **APR 18 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- ### SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Petitioner Sean Alan Reynolds entered a negotiated plea of guilty in the District Court of LeFlore County, Case No. CF-2016-1365, to Soliciting Sexual Conduct or Communication with a Minor by Use of Technology (Count 1), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1040.13a, and Possession of Juvenile Pornography (Count 3), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2. On March 7, 2018, the Honorable Marion D. Fry, Associate District Judge, accepted Reynolds' guilty plea and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment on Count 1. On Count 3, Reynolds was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment with all but the first ten years suspended. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. Reynolds filed a timely motion to withdraw his plea, which was denied after a hearing. He now appeals the denial of that motion and raises the following issues: 1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying his plea withdrawal on the grounds that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered; 2. Whether the district court erred by failing to conduct the requested competency hearing; 3. Whether the special condition of probation restricting his internet use is overly broad and infringes upon his rights; 4. Whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel. **1. Denial of Motion to Withdraw Plea** Reynolds argues that his plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily, claiming the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw. The standard of review for such cases is whether there was an abuse of discretion. The district court's decision, based on testimony, demeanor, and the plea form, supports that Reynolds' plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plea withdrawal. **2. Competency Hearing** Reynolds contends that the trial court erred in not ordering a mental health evaluation before ruling on the plea withdrawal motion. However, the record reflects that the district court established Reynolds' competency when accepting his plea. There was no indication during the plea hearing of any mental incapacity, and therefore, the court acted within its discretion by not ordering further evaluation. **3. Condition of Probation** Reynolds challenges a condition of probation prohibiting internet usage for five years, arguing it's overly broad. However, this issue was not raised in his motion to withdraw the plea, leading to a waiver of appellate review on this matter. **4. Effective Assistance of Counsel** Finally, Reynolds argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. To succeed, he must demonstrate both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. He claims his counsel did not address his alleged mental health issues, but there was no evidence presented at the plea hearing to suggest incapacity. Additionally, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to cite non-binding cases. Therefore, Reynolds has failed to show he was denied effective assistance of counsel. ### DECISION The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is **DENIED**. The district court's denial of Petitioner's motion to withdraw plea is **AFFIRMED**. The MANDATE is ordered issued. --- **APPEARANCES IN THE DISTRICT COURT** **CYNTHIA VIOL** ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER **KIMBERLY D. HEINZE** PLEA COUNSEL **MATTHEW R. PRICE** MOTION TO WITHDRAW COUNSEL **MIKE HUNTER** ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA --- **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur in Results **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-410_1734106115.pdf)