Staff, Author at OCCA Opinions

RE-2014-810

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 9, 2015
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-810, Simpson appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Simpson's suspended sentence but vacated the imposition of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. Simpson had entered a guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance in 2013 and was given a ten-year suspended sentence. His sentence was suspended as long as he followed the rules of probation. However, in 2014, the State accused him of violating these rules by committing a new offense of possession of a controlled substance. After a hearing, the judge decided to revoke Simpson’s suspended sentence and send him to jail for ten years. Simpson raised three main issues in his appeal. First, he argued that the judge's decision to revoke the whole sentence was too harsh given his situation. He was struggling with drug addiction and believed that this should be taken into account. However, since he had previously had several felony convictions and had violated the terms of his probation, the court did not find this argument convincing. Second, Simpson claimed that the judge should not have added post-imprisonment supervision to his sentence after revoking it. The law states that this supervision is required only for those who are in prison after being sentenced, which was not the case for Simpson at the time of his original sentencing. Therefore, the court agreed with Simpson and removed the requirement for post-imprisonment supervision. Lastly, Simpson noted that he had already served ten days of his sentence before it was revoked and argued that the judge should not have ordered him to serve a full ten years in prison. The court acknowledged that the judge had indeed made an error by ordering a full ten years instead of the correct amount of nine years and 355 days, taking into account the time already served. In summary, the court upheld the revocation of Simpson’s suspended sentence, meaning he would go to prison. However, they corrected the total time he needed to serve to reflect the time he had already completed, and they took away the added supervision requirement after his prison term.

C-2014-854

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 6, 2015
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-854, Cory James Leon Whiteside appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery and Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition, allowing him to withdraw his pleas. One member of the court dissented. Whiteside pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges involving domestic violence. The court sentenced him to one year in jail for each charge, with the sentences to run one after the other. Shortly after pleading guilty, Whiteside asked to change his plea from guilty to not guilty, stating he had not understood the consequences of his plea. His request to withdraw his plea was denied by the court. Whiteside then appealed this decision, arguing two main points. First, he claimed he did not knowingly and voluntarily give up his right to have an attorney represent him during the case. Second, he argued that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because he didn't fully understand what he was agreeing to. The court reviewed the entire record of the case. It found that Whiteside's waiver of his right to counsel was not made in a knowing and voluntary way, meaning there was no clear record showing that he understood what self-representation involved or that he had been advised of the risks of not having a lawyer. The state even agreed with this point. Because this error was significant, the court decided to let Whiteside withdraw his guilty pleas. Following this decision, the other issue Whiteside raised became unnecessary to address. Therefore, the court ordered that Whiteside be allowed to withdraw his pleas.

F-2014-396

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 29, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-396, Jenkins appealed his conviction for Burglary in the Second Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Jenkins' 30-year sentence to 20 years. The decision was reached after the court found some errors occurred during the sentencing stage. Jenkins was convicted of breaking into a house with the intent to steal. He argued that the evidence did not prove he broke into the home. However, the court found that the doors being open and a window being broken were enough to show that he did break in. The court also determined that his behavior, like giving a false name and running away, suggested he intended to steal. Although the court found the conviction valid, they acknowledged that the prosecution made mistakes when discussing Jenkins' past criminal record, which prompted them to lower his sentence. The original sentence of 30 years was too harsh given the errors, leading the court to adjust it to 20 years. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction but modified the length of the sentence.

C 2014-920

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 27, 2015
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2014-920, John Edward Oxford appealed his conviction for several serious crimes including robbery, burglary, and conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but also ordered a hearing to review the amount of restitution he was ordered to pay. Oxford was charged with multiple counts and, on July 10, 2014, he entered a blind plea, which means he pleaded guilty without negotiating a deal, to all the charges. The court sentenced him to a total of over 70 years in prison and ordered him to pay about $67,539 in restitution to the victims. After his sentencing, Oxford tried to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he did not understand the charges and was not fully informed about his rights. The trial court held a hearing on this and ultimately denied his request. Oxford then appealed this decision, arguing several points. First, he believed he should not have been sentenced for certain counts because it violated laws against double punishment. However, the court noted that his arguments about double jeopardy were not raised in the earlier stages and thus were not considered. Second, he argued there wasn't enough evidence to support the restitution amount, but again the court found this issue had not been raised before and rejected it. Oxford also claimed he did not receive effective legal help during his plea and the hearing to withdraw it. The court agreed that there were problems with how his attorney handled the restitution order, focusing mainly on the lack of detailed documentation justifying the restitution amount. This lack of evidence meant the restitution order was not valid. While the court found that Oxford's guilty plea was made voluntarily, it did acknowledge inadequate support for the restitution order. Therefore, it denied his appeal regarding the guilty plea but vacated the restitution order, sending the case back to the lower court for a proper review of how much compensation was truly owed to the victims. One judge dissented, noting that the case should have been looked at more closely regarding the earlier claims. So, in summary, the appeal was mainly denied except for the part about restitution, which was sent back to the lower court for further review.

J-2015-353

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 27, 2015
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2015-353, E.A.F. appealed his conviction for robbery and attempted robbery. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order to sentence E.A.F. as an adult and instructed for a new hearing to be held before a different judge, only after a psychological evaluation was completed. Two judges dissented.

RE 2014-0777

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 13, 2015
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2014-0777, Rogelio Solis, Jr. appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking his suspended sentence but found merit in his argument regarding post-imprisonment supervision and remanded the case to modify that part. One judge dissented.

C-2014-584

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 6, 2015
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-584, Gilbert Paz appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, Shooting with Intent to Kill, Conspiracy, Attempted Robbery with a Firearm, and Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the District Court's denial of Paz's Motion to Withdraw Plea and remanded the case for further proceedings. One member of the court dissented. Gilbert Paz was involved in a serious crime case where he initially pleaded guilty to multiple charges. After some time, he wanted to take back his guilty pleas, claiming that he didn’t fully understand what he was doing when he agreed to the plea deal. He felt confused and believed his lawyer wasn't helping him properly. The case started when a burglary went badly, resulting in one person being killed and another being hurt. After his guilty pleas were accepted in court, Paz tried to withdraw them, but the judge said no. The judge continued to give him time to get a new lawyer but did not allow him to take back his pleas. Paz argued five main points in his appeal. He claimed that the judge helped too much during his plea negotiations, that his guilty plea was not made knowingly or intelligently, that he was denied his right to have a lawyer present during important parts of the trial, and that his lawyer did not provide effective help. He also claimed that all these issues together made it unfair for him. The court reviewed everything and determined that the main issue was that Paz did not receive the help of a lawyer when trying to withdraw his guilty pleas. Both Paz and the State agreed that he should have had a lawyer to assist him in this situation. The court recognized that without proper counsel, Paz's claim that his pleas were not voluntary could not be dismissed as harmless. As a result, the court decided to vacate the previous decision and send the case back to the District Court so they could properly address Paz's request to withdraw his pleas.

S-2014-812

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 6, 2015
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2014-812, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Adam Clayton Zilm for Sexual Abuse of a Minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling of the District Court that suppressed certain child hearsay statements. One judge dissented. The case started when Adam Clayton Zilm was charged with sexually abusing a minor in Tulsa County. Before the trial began, there was a hearing to determine if the statements made by the child victim, K.A., could be used as evidence in the trial. During this Reliability Hearing, the child made statements to a forensic interviewer and a neighbor about the alleged abuse. However, K.A. later testified that she had not been abused and said she had been influenced to make claims about the abuse. The State argued that the trial court was wrong to suppress the child’s statements because they believed the statements should have been allowed to support the case against Zilm. The court had to decide if these hearsay statements were trustworthy to be presented at trial. According to Oklahoma law, a child’s hearsay statements can be used if the court finds them to be reliable based on several factors. The trial court decided that K.A.'s statements to the forensic interviewer and neighbor were not reliable enough. They allowed K.A. to give her testimony because it was necessary to determine if her earlier statements could be trusted. The court found inconsistencies in her testimony compared to her earlier claims, which made the hearsay statements questionable. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that they did not abuse their discretion by suppressing the hearsay statements from the child victim. They believed the trial court made the right choice by considering the total context around the statements. Meanwhile, one judge disagreed. This judge felt that the earlier statements made by K.A. should still be considered admissible. They argued that the trial court focused too much on K.A.'s later testimony, which could have been influenced and not truly reflected what had happened earlier. Overall, the court decided that the suppression of the hearsay evidence was appropriate, allowing the earlier ruling to stand and ensuring that K.A.'s inconsistent statements were not used in the trial against Adam Clayton Zilm.

RE 2014-0536

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 4, 2015
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2014-0536, Matthew Carl Eddings appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Substance and Driving Under the Influence of Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Eddings' suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Eddings was originally given a deferred sentence with rules for probation and fines for his crimes. However, over the years, he struggled to meet the conditions of his probation, which included paying fines and child support. The state moved to revoke his sentence because of these issues. When the court reviewed Eddings' case, they found enough evidence to support the revocation. Eddings had not made required payments for over a year and had not shown a good faith effort to comply with the rules. The court also noted that since there were new facts presented during the latest revocation hearing, the principle of res judicata, which prevents re-judging the same issue, did not apply. However, there was an issue identified with an added requirement for supervision after imprisonment. The court agreed that the requirement for one year of supervision after his sentence was not appropriate, as new laws did not apply to his case. In conclusion, while Eddings’ suspended sentence was revoked, the court ordered that the requirement for post-imprisonment supervision be removed.

S-2014-759

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 31, 2015
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2014-759, #x appealed his conviction for #y. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court’s dismissal of the case. #n dissented. In this case, the State of Oklahoma charged Chad Allan Lunsford with serious drug crimes. The police found a large amount of methamphetamine and other drug-related items in a car after they stopped the driver for a traffic violation. The driver, Gloria Caffey, was arrested, and Lunsford was also taken into custody after the police found the drugs. Lunsford said the case should be thrown out because the State didn’t prove that he owned or knew about the drugs. He argued that just being in the car wasn’t enough to show that he controlled the drugs. The judge in the district court agreed with Lunsford and dismissed the case, saying there wasn’t enough evidence to show that he had control over the drugs. The court explained that just being near drugs doesn’t mean someone is guilty. There has to be more proof, showing that the person really knew the drugs were there and had control over them. For example, in this case, the drugs were found in a bottle with Caffey's name on it, and she admitted they were hers. Also, there was no clear evidence that Lunsford was trying to hide anything, and he didn’t try to run away when he could. When the State appealed the judge’s decision, the higher court looked at the facts carefully. They reviewed whether the lower court made a mistake in its decision. The higher court found that the lower court was correct in dismissing the case because they didn’t have the right evidence to show Lunsford was guilty. Thus, they agreed to keep the lower court's dismissal. However, one judge did not agree with the decision. This dissenting judge thought that the trial court made a mistake by not considering some evidence that could connect Lunsford to the drugs. They felt that there were enough signs showing Lunsford might have had knowledge and control over the drugs, and the matters should have been decided by a jury. Ultimately, the court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the case against Lunsford, agreeing that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he was guilty of the drug charges.

F-2014-580

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 28, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-580, Christopher M. Turner appealed his conviction for Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences but vacate the Victims Compensation Assessment and remand the case for a full hearing to properly consider the required factors related to the assessment. One judge dissented.

RE-2014-575

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 21, 2015
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-575, Jason Duane Barnes appealed his conviction for violating his probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the decision to revoke his suspended sentences. The judges noted that the evidence was not enough to support the revocation because the prosecution failed to show that the judgment related to his new crime was final. One judge dissented.

F-2014-889

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 17, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-889, Klayton Jordan Kitchens appealed his conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substances, specifically methamphetamine and marijuana, as well as unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of the convictions related to marijuana possession but affirmed the other convictions. The events leading to the case began when the police served a search warrant at Kitchens' home in Lawton, Oklahoma, and found methamphetamine and marijuana. They initially found meth but returned later with a new warrant, where they found both drugs and drug paraphernalia in his room. Kitchens argued that having two convictions for possession of different controlled substances violated the law against double jeopardy, which means a person cannot be punished for the same offense twice. The court agreed, stating that both drugs were found as part of one act—meaning one violation of the law. Therefore, he should not have been punished twice for the two different drugs since they were found in the same piece of furniture. On the other hand, Kitchens also argued that the judge made a mistake by making his sentences run consecutively, rather than concurrently. The court disagreed, saying that it was within the judge's authority to decide how the sentences should be served, and there wasn't enough reason to change this decision. In summary, the court reversed the conviction for possession of marijuana since it felt that Kitchens should not be punished twice for the same action, but it upheld the decision on the other drug offenses. The case was sent back to the lower court just for that change.

F-2014-336

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 15, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-336, Deandre Bethel appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, Robbery with a Firearm, Transporting a Loaded Firearm in a Motor Vehicle, and Public Intoxication. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for First Degree Felony Murder and the other charges except for Robbery with a Firearm, which was reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss that charge. One judge dissented. Bethel was convicted by a jury in Tulsa County for crimes related to the death of a victim during a robbery. The jury sentenced him to life in prison for murder, along with additional sentences for the other charges. During the appeal, Bethel raised several issues, arguing that there was not enough evidence for his convictions, that he should not be punished for both murder and robbery based on the same incident, and that he did not receive a fair trial for various reasons, including how the jury was instructed and what evidence was allowed. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to convict him of murder and upheld that conviction. However, they agreed that having separate convictions for robbery and murder from the same act violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause, so they reversed the robbery conviction. Bethel also argued that the trial court made errors in not instructing the jury about lesser offenses and in handling jury questions, but the court found these claims did not warrant a new trial. Other claims, such as the admission of jail phone calls and victim impact statements, were also rejected. In the end, the court affirmed the convictions for murder and the other charges, but dismissed the robbery charge, allowing Bethel to focus his appeal on the correct aspects of his case.

C 2014-693

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 9, 2015
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2014-693, a person appealed his conviction for child neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to allow him to withdraw his no contest plea due to receiving bad advice from his attorney, which made his plea not knowing and voluntary. One judge dissented.

F-2014-524

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 9, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-524, Robert Dewayne Cox appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, and public intoxication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Cox's conviction for misdemeanor possession of marijuana should be reversed, but the other convictions were affirmed. One judge dissented. Cox was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Bryan County. The jury recommended a ten-year prison sentence for the methamphetamine charge, one day in jail for marijuana possession, and five days for public intoxication. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Cox raised several claims in his appeal. He argued that having two convictions for different drug possessions from the same incident was unfair and violated his protections against double punishment. The court found this claim valid and indicated it was a plain error, meaning it was obvious even though it was not raised during the trial. Next, Cox argued the law enforcement did not properly prove that the drugs taken from him were the same ones tested by the crime lab. The court found that he did not show this as an error as there was enough evidence to link the substances to the case. Cox also stated that the jury was influenced by evidence of other bad acts that should not have been admitted. However, the court decided that this evidence was relevant to the case and did not count as an error. Cox claimed that his attorney did not do a good job of defending him, especially regarding the issues he raised in his appeal. The court concluded that since they found a plain error regarding the possession charge, the claim about ineffective assistance was not necessary to address. Finally, Cox argued that the mistakes in the trial added up to deny him a fair trial. The court determined that while there was a mistake in charging him for both drug possessions, it was an isolated incident and did not create a pattern of errors that would warrant a new trial. In summary, the court upheld Cox's convictions for possession of methamphetamine and public intoxication but reversed the conviction for possession of marijuana because he should not have been punished twice for the same action. The case was sent back to the lower court for necessary actions related to this decision.

F-2014-22

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 9, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-22, Padillow appealed his conviction for rape and sexual offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but reversed a citation for direct contempt of court and vacated the associated sentence. One judge dissented. Earnest Eugene Padillow faced serious charges in two cases related to the sexual abuse of young girls. The first case involved the abuse of his nine-year-old great-niece, S.G., during a single day in August 2007, and the second case involved the sexual assault of his 11-year-old niece, D.P., in 2011. In both instances, Padillow was accused of serious crimes, including rape and inappropriate sexual contact. During the trial, Padillow had a tumultuous relationship with his attorneys. He expressed dissatisfaction with their defense strategies and at times chose to represent himself. This led to a chaotic scene in the courtroom where Padillow violently attacked one of his attorneys, resulting in his removal from the courtroom. Despite his outbursts, the trial proceeded, and he was found guilty. The court sided with the trial judge's decision that Padillow waived his rights to be present during certain trial stages due to his disruptive conduct. Padillow also claimed that his constitutional right to testify was violated when he was removed from the courtroom. However, the court ruled that his violent actions constituted a waiver of that right. In another point of contention, Padillow argued that he should have been given the chance to respond to a direct contempt charge when the judge found him guilty of contempt for his outburst. Although the court acknowledged he did not have the opportunity to be heard, they decided to reverse the contempt finding rather than require a new hearing given the context of his other convictions. Lastly, it was determined that some of the judgment documents contained errors regarding sentences, which the court directed to be corrected. Overall, the court upheld the significant portions of Padillow's convictions while addressing some procedural errors related to his contempt citation and record-keeping in the judgments.

S-2013-509

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 9, 2015
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-509, Julio Juarez Ramos and Isidro Juarez Ramos appealed their convictions for first-degree murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling granting the Appellees immunity from prosecution under Oklahoma's Stand Your Ground law. #1 dissented.

S-2013-510

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 9, 2015
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-509 and S-2013-510, two individuals appealed their convictions for first-degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against them based on their claim of immunity under the Stand Your Ground law. The court found that the appeal by the State of Oklahoma was not authorized to challenge the dismissal order. One judge dissented.

C-2014-270

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 2, 2015
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-270, Gabriel Brian Solis appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for resentencing before a different trial court. Solis had entered a plea where he maintained his innocence but accepted the plea for reasons other than guilt. He was sentenced to eighty years in prison and a fine, needing to serve 85% of the time before being eligible for parole. After feeling he was unfairly treated, he tried to withdraw his guilty plea, but the trial judge did not allow it. Solis then sought a higher court's intervention, which granted him a new hearing with a different lawyer. During the new hearing, it was found that the judge had shown bias against Solis and that his attorney had not done enough to protect his rights. This bias and the lack of effective legal representation were key reasons for the court’s ruling that Solis had been denied a fair trial. The court ultimately agreed that there were serious issues with how the plea was handled and the sentencing process. In summary, the court ruled in favor of Solis due to the unfairness he experienced in his initial trial, which led to the decision to have the case heard again, ensuring a fair process moving forward.

RE-2014-96

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 2, 2015
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-96, Blackwell appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Blackwell's suspended sentence but remanded the case to determine whether Blackwell is entitled to credit for time served as a Youthful Offender. One member of the court dissented. Blackwell was charged with First Degree Rape but later pleaded guilty to Child Abuse, and his sentence was delayed for five years on probation. After violating several terms of his probation, the state requested to revoke his suspended sentence. Blackwell claimed that the court did not have the right to revoke his sentence because he argued he was a youthful offender and that his adult conviction was improper. The court explained that the appeal focused on if the revocation was valid rather than the underlying conviction's correctness. Blackwell’s claims related to his conviction need to be addressed through a different legal process, not this appeal. The court also pointed out that issues about the correctness of laws mentioned in the documents were not within their authority to correct in this appeal. Additionally, Blackwell argued that his entire sentence revocation was too harsh. However, the court mentioned that breaking even a single probation rule is enough to revoke the suspended sentence. Finally, Blackwell maintained he should get credit for the days he spent under juvenile custody, and the court agreed to look into this matter further, sending the case back for clarification on this issue. They affirmed the revocation overall but allowed for the investigation into how much credit Blackwell should receive.

F-2014-310

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 29, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-310, Jeffery Alan Patton appealed his conviction for Manufacture of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, but reversed the conviction for possession of a firearm after felony conviction. One judge dissented on the decision regarding the firearm convictions. Appellant Patton was found guilty by a jury of manufacturing methamphetamine and possessing firearms while committing a felony, as well as possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first charge, and ten years and two years for the other firearm charges, respectively. Patton argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough and that his lawyer did not effectively defend him. The court reviewed his claims that there was not enough proof that he manufactured methamphetamine and did not actually possess the firearms during the crime. However, the court found that there was enough evidence presented at trial, which could lead any reasonable person to believe he was involved in the crime. The first two propositions were denied, meaning they did not agree with Patton on those points. In regards to his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court found that his lawyer's actions during the trial did not fall below the necessary standards of proper legal representation. Therefore, this proposition was also denied. One of Patton's major contentions was about double jeopardy, saying he should not have been convicted for both firearm charges that arose from the same incident. The court agreed, recognizing that both convictions came from the same act, leading them to dismiss the second firearm possession conviction. As for Patton’s claim that his sentences were too harsh, the court concluded they were within legal limits and not excessively severe. They also noted that Patton didn’t ask for his sentences to run at the same time, leading them to decide there was no error in making his sentences consecutive. Patton also argued he should receive credit for time served before his sentencing; however, because he did not bring this up in court earlier, he could not successfully appeal this point. Lastly, he claimed the evidence should have been suppressed since the search was illegal, but the court determined that the deputies had a good reason for their actions due to public safety concerns. In summary, the court upheld most of Patton's convictions and sentences, highlighting the principle that sufficient evidence and procedural rules were followed during his trial, while reversing one conviction related to firearm possession.

S-2014-564

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 27, 2015
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2014-564, Christopher Knight appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to suppress the evidence found during the search. One judge dissented. Christopher Knight was walking late at night in Ardmore, Oklahoma, when an officer saw him and decided to approach him. The officer, who was still in training, had been told by his supervisor to check on people out late at night. The officer stopped in front of Knight and asked if he could talk to him. Knight agreed to talk, and during their conversation, the officer asked if he could search Knight, to which Knight also said yes. However, the officer later admitted that Knight was not doing anything wrong at the time and there was no good reason for stopping him. Knight argued that the way the officer stopped him made him feel like he had to talk and that he was not free to leave. The court needed to decide if Knight was stopped in a way that violated his rights. The court found that it was not clear that Knight's encounter with the officer was truly voluntary. The State needed to show that Knight felt free to walk away, but there was no evidence that he could easily avoid the officer. Because of this, the court agreed with the trial judge that the evidence collected during the search should not be used against Knight. As a result, the court affirmed the trial court's ruling to suppress the evidence and ordered the case to go back for more proceedings, as long as they followed the decision made. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing that the officer should not be blamed for simply talking to Knight.

F 2014-3

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 26, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-3, Edwin Jermaine Daniels appealed his conviction for several serious crimes including burglary, robbery, kidnapping, and assault. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the trial court's decisions but did vacate some of the fines associated with his sentences. One judge dissented. During the trial, Daniels was found guilty of multiple counts connected to violent crimes he committed with a co-defendant. The judge sentenced him to a total of many years in prison and imposed fines for each count. Daniels raised several issues on appeal, arguing that there were mistakes made during his trial that affected the fairness of the process. First, he claimed that the jury instructions were confusing and reduced the State’s burden to prove guilt. The court found that since there were no objections to the instructions during the trial, they did not affect the trial's result. Second, Daniels objected to being told the fines were mandatory, but the court found that this was also a mistake that the State admitted to; thus, the fines were removed for certain counts. He also claimed prosecutorial misconduct, arguing that comments made by the prosecutor during the trial unfairly influenced the jury. The court ruled that these comments did not significantly change the trial's outcome. Daniels further contended that he did not receive effective legal assistance. The court concluded that his lawyer's performance did not meet a standard of failure that would have changed the trial's result. In the end, while the court affirmed the convictions, it removed the fines that were wrongly imposed, ensuring that Daniel's rights were respected where the trial process fell short.

M-2013-1049

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 26, 2015
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2013-1049, Wilson appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Wilson was charged with Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery in 2012. In February 2013, after a trial without a jury, he was found guilty. The judge sentenced him to one year in jail, with thirty days to be served, and imposed a $500 fine. Wilson challenged his conviction by raising several issues, including that he was not properly informed about his right to a jury trial and that he did not knowingly waive that right. The court found that there was no valid waiver of Wilson's right to a jury trial in the court record. They explained that for a waiver to be valid, the defendant must clearly understand what they are giving up. Since there were no documents or transcripts showing that Wilson knew about his right to a jury trial or chose to waive it, the court ruled that there was fundamental error. The majority opinion concluded by reversing Wilson's conviction and ordering a new trial because of the issues surrounding the jury trial waiver. One judge disagreed and believed that the record showed Wilson had been properly informed about his rights and that he had made a competent choice to proceed with a bench trial. However, the majority decision carried the ruling, leading to a new trial for Wilson.