Staff, Author at OCCA Opinions

F-2018-830

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 8, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-830, Charles Michael Cooper appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder, First Degree Arson, First Degree Burglary, and Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Cooper because he is an enrolled member of the Chickasaw Nation and the crimes occurred within the boundaries of the Chickasaw Nation Reservation. The judgment and sentence were vacated, and the matter was remanded with instructions to dismiss the case. A Judge dissented regarding the conclusion about the Chickasaw Reservation's status.

F-2019-115

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 8, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-115, Beck appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including First Degree Burglary and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have the authority to prosecute him because he is recognized as an Indian and the crimes occurred in what is considered Indian Country. The result was that Beck's convictions were overturned, and the case was sent back with instructions to dismiss the charges. There was a dissenting opinion regarding the application of the law.

C-2017-1027

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 1, 2021
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-1027, Matthew Steven Janson appealed his conviction for aggravated possession and distribution of child pornography. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and dismiss the case. One judge dissented. Matthew Steven Janson was charged with two serious offenses related to child pornography in Tulsa County. He entered a plea on February 27, 2017, and was sentenced to ten years in prison with some of his time suspended. Later, Janson filed to withdraw his plea, but the judge denied his request. Janson argued that the court did not have the right to accept his plea because he is a citizen of the Cherokee Nation and the crimes were said to have occurred on the Creek Reservation. This question about jurisdiction went back to the District Court to gather more facts about his Indian status and the crime's location. After looking at the needed evidence, the District Court found that Janson has Cherokee blood and is recognized as an Indian. It also agreed that the crimes took place on land considered to be Indian Country. With these facts, the court concluded that the State of Oklahoma did not have the right to prosecute him. In the end, the court granted Janson's request and reversed his conviction, stating that the case should be dismissed.

C-2019-263

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 1, 2021
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2019-263, Floyd Joseph Ball, Jr. appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree and Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have the right to prosecute Ball because he is considered an Indian under federal law, and the crimes occurred in Indian Country. The judgment and sentence were reversed, and the case was remanded to the District Court with orders to dismiss it. One judge dissented from this decision.

C-2019-853

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 1, 2021
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2019-853, the petitioner appealed his conviction for first degree murder and larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case involved a woman who entered a guilty plea for two crimes: first degree murder and larceny of merchandise. She was sentenced to life in prison for the murder and thirty days for the larceny, with both sentences running at the same time. Later, she wanted to change her guilty plea and filed a motion to withdraw it. During the appeal, one major issue raised was whether the State of Oklahoma had the right to prosecute her. The woman argued that the state didn’t have jurisdiction because of her status as a member of a federally recognized tribe and the nature of the crime being committed within the reservation boundaries. The court looked at a recent Supreme Court decision, McGirt v. Oklahoma, where it was determined that certain lands in Oklahoma are still recognized as Native American reservations. The court agreed with the petitioner about the jurisdiction issue. Both the petitioner and the state agreed on certain facts regarding her tribal membership and the location of the crime. Since the court found that the state did not have the right to prosecute the petitioner, it decided to vacate the earlier judgment and sentence. The decision meant that the petitioner would not face charges in state court but rather would need to be prosecuted in federal court because of her tribal affiliation and the location of the crime committed. This ruling highlighted the importance of understanding jurisdiction, especially when it involves Native American rights and lands.

F-2017-889

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 1, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-889, Joseph Stanley Harjo appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case to the District Court of Muskogee County with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Harjo was convicted in a trial where the jury sentenced him to life imprisonment. He argued that the court did not have the right to try him because he is a member of the Creek Nation, and the crime occurred within the Creek Reservation. This raised important questions about whether he is legally recognized as an Indian and if the crime took place on tribal land. The case was sent back to the District Court for a fact-finding hearing, where it was determined that Harjo is 1/4 Indian blood, a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and that the crime took place within the jurisdiction of the tribe. Both parties agreed on these facts, leading the District Court to conclude that the state did not have the authority to prosecute Harjo. After careful review of the case and the findings from the evidentiary hearing, the court determined that Harjo was indeed an Indian under federal law, and the crime occurred in Indian Country. Therefore, the state had no jurisdiction over the case. The court reversed the judgment and sent the case back to be dismissed.

F-2020-46

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 1, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2020-46, Robert William Perry, II appealed his conviction for five counts of sexual abuse of a child under 12. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case to the lower court with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Perry was originally found guilty and sentenced to lengthy prison terms, including life imprisonment. He claimed that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him for these crimes. This claim was supported by federal law and a recent Supreme Court decision. The court agreed to hold a hearing to look into Perry's status as an Indian and whether the crimes took place within the boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, which is a federally recognized tribe. During the hearing, both parties agreed on certain facts: Perry was a registered member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and had tribal blood, and the crimes occurred within that Nation's historical boundaries. The lower court found that Perry is considered an Indian under the law and confirmed that the crimes happened on the reservation. Following this, the appeals court determined that the state court did not have the authority to prosecute Perry based on the legal principles established in the recent Supreme Court case. Therefore, the appeal led to the decision to reverse Perry's conviction and dismiss the case.

F-2020-208

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 1, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2020-208, Ryan Cortland Johnson appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Ryan was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison, meaning he would have to serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. He argued that the state court did not have the right to try him based on a Supreme Court decision from 2020 called McGirt v. Oklahoma. In this case, it was determined that certain crimes committed by members of federally recognized tribes on tribal land could not be prosecuted in state courts. Ryan Johnson claimed he was a member of the Chickasaw Nation and that the murder happened on Creek Nation tribal land, which is considered a reservation. The court allowed him to challenge its jurisdiction. The case was sent back to the district court for an evidentiary hearing, but the parties involved agreed on certain facts, which meant a hearing was not necessary. They confirmed that Ryan is a member of the Chickasaw Nation and that the crime took place on land owned by the Creek Nation. After reviewing the facts, the district court found that Ryan is indeed an Indian under federal law and that the crime took place in the Creek Nation boundaries. Therefore, the state court did not have the authority to charge him with murder based on the findings in the McGirt case. Because of this ruling, the court granted Ryan's appeal, decided the state court had no jurisdiction, and instructed that the case be dismissed.

F-2016-937

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 25, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-937, Erik Sherney Williams appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the district court did not have jurisdiction to try Williams for murder because of the victim's status as an Indian and the location of the crime being on the Muscogee Creek Nation Reservation. The court vacated the judgment and sentence and instructed to dismiss the case. One judge dissented.

F-2019-68

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 25, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-68, Johnny Edward Mize, II appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter (Heat of Passion). In a published decision, the court decided that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Mize. Mize had claimed that the State of Oklahoma did not have the authority to prosecute him because the victim was part of a federally recognized tribe and the crime occurred within a reservation. The court supported this claim after an evidentiary hearing, confirming that the victim had Indian status and that the crime happened in the boundaries of the Muscogee Creek Reservation. As a result, the original judgment and sentence were vacated, and the matter was sent back to the district court with instructions to dismiss the case. The decision relied on previous case law stating that Oklahoma does not have jurisdiction over crimes involving Indian victims that take place on tribal land.

RE-2019-850

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 25, 2021
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-850, Jade Christian Nichols appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking four years of Appellant's suspended judgment and sentence and remanded the case for a new hearing before a different judge. One judge dissented.

C-2017-998

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 18, 2021
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-998, Arnold Dean Howell appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate Howell's convictions and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented. Howell had pleaded guilty to the charges in the District Court of Creek County and was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction and twenty-five years for the robbery conviction, with both sentences served one after the other. After the guilty plea, Howell filed a motion to withdraw it, which the district court denied. Howell then raised several issues in his appeal, questioning the state's authority to prosecute him, his competency to plead guilty, if his plea was made knowingly and voluntarily, whether he received good legal help, and if his sentence was too harsh. The important part of the appeal was Howell's claim regarding jurisdiction. He argued that the state did not have the right to prosecute him because he is considered an Indian under federal laws and the crimes happened within the Muscogee Creek Nation Reservation. This argument was based on a specific legal case called McGirt v. Oklahoma, which changed how certain cases with Indian individuals should be treated. In response to Howell's appeal, the court ordered a review of his case to determine if he was an Indian and if the crimes occurred on the reservation. During this review, both sides agreed on a few facts: Howell has Indian blood, is a registered citizen of the Muscogee Creek Nation, and the crimes did occur within the reservation. The district court accepted these facts. Following this information, the court concluded that Howell is legally an Indian and that the state did not have authority over the case. As a result, the court decided Howell's conviction could not stand, and they vacated the lower court's judgment and ordered the case to be dismissed. In conclusion, Howell's legal challenges about how his case was handled were significant enough to require a reversal of his convictions based on the jurisdictional issues brought up by the McGirt decision. This decision demonstrates how important it is to understand the laws regarding tribal lands and individual rights within the legal system.

C-2018-640

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 18, 2021
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2018-640, Jimmie Dewayne Starr appealed his conviction for multiple crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate his convictions and remand the case for dismissal. One judge dissented. Starr had entered a guilty plea for crimes in three different cases, including endangering others while trying to escape from police, failure to wear a seatbelt, possession of a controlled substance, resisting an officer, and bail jumping. He received several sentences that were ordered to be served concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time, rather than one after the other. After his sentencing, Starr wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, so he asked the court to allow it. The court held a hearing on Starr's request but ultimately denied it. This led to Starr appealing the decision, raising several issues including whether the court had the right to sentence him, whether he had good legal help, whether improper evidence led to an unfair sentence, and whether the state had jurisdiction in his case. The court looked closely at one of Starr's arguments about jurisdiction. He claimed that the State of Oklahoma didn't have the right to prosecute him based on a previous Supreme Court decision known as McGirt v. Oklahoma. This case said that certain crimes committed by Native Americans on tribal land must be handled in federal court, not state court. To investigate his claims, the court sent the case back to the lower district court to gather facts, specifically focusing on Starr's status as an Indian and whether the crime happened within the boundaries of the Muscogee Creek Reservation. Both sides agreed on several important facts about Starr's Indian blood, his membership in the Creek Nation, and that the crime occurred on Creek land. The district court accepted these facts and concluded that under federal law, Starr was indeed considered an Indian, and the crime took place on the reservation. Because of the ruling in the McGirt case, the appellate court decided that the state court did not have the authority to prosecute Starr. As a result, the appellate court vacated all of Starr's convictions, which means they were canceled, and they instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. This decision emphasized that Starr should be prosecuted in federal court instead of state court.

F-2016-453

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 18, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-453, Grant N. Jackson, IV appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Jackson due to the circumstances of the case. Jackson's conviction was found to be invalid, and the court instructed to dismiss the case. One judge dissented.

F-2017-1186

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 18, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1186, Shannon James Kepler appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Kepler. The court found that he is an Indian and that the crime happened within the boundaries of the Muscogee Creek Nation Reservation. Therefore, the court granted his appeal and vacated the conviction. One judge dissented.

F-2018-78

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 18, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-78, Jordan Batice Mitchell appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him. This means that the court could not judge this case because it involved issues concerning his status as an Indian and the location of the crime being within the Muscogee Creek Reservation. The finding was based on a previous case, McGirt v. Oklahoma, which affected how certain crimes involving Native Americans are prosecuted. Consequently, the court vacated Mitchell's sentence and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it. There was a dissenting opinion regarding the decision, as one judge expressed concerns about the implications of the ruling.

F-2019-420

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 18, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-420, Donta Keith Davis appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon and assault with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate Davis's judgment and sentence, meaning he would no longer be convicted of the crimes he was charged with. The court also instructed for the case to be dismissed. One judge dissented from the majority opinion.

F-2019-369

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 4, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-369, Collins appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment but vacated and remanded the restitution and fees due to errors in their assessment. One judge dissented. Joseph Willis Collins was found guilty by a jury for committing assault with a dangerous weapon. He faced this trial in Comanche County where he was sentenced to spend twenty-five years in prison and was ordered to pay restitution and court costs. Collins claimed that several things went wrong during his trial that justified overturning his conviction. First, Collins argued that when he asked police if he could go back downstairs, it meant he wanted to stop talking to them, and police should have immediately respected that request. He believed this request was an important part of his rights, which should not have been pushed aside during the questioning. However, the court decided that even though admitting his statements without considering his right not to speak was a mistake, it was not significant enough to change the outcome of the case because there was a lot of clear evidence proving he was guilty. Next, Collins argued that some embarrassing information from his cellphone should not have been used against him during the trial. He thought that this evidence made it hard for him to get a fair trial because it focused on his relationships in a negative way. However, the court did not find this evidence to be unfairly prejudicial, as it was used to help explain details relevant to the case. Collins also believed that his lawyer did not competently defend him, especially regarding the use of the testimony linked to the cellphone and the earlier statements made to police after he asked to stop being questioned. The court looked at all these claims and found that there were no significant mistakes made by Collins’s lawyer that affected the trial's outcome. The other issues Collins raised were about financial matters from his sentencing. Collins was ordered to pay $7,504 in restitution for the victim’s losses, but the court admitted this amount wasn't properly justified, so they decided it should be determined again. The court also acknowledged a mistake in charging Collins a $1,500 indigent defense fee instead of the maximum allowed of $1,000. There was also a dispute about the juror fees that Collins thought were incorrectly calculated, but since he did not raise this objection during the trial, the court decided not to change this part of the decision. In the end, the court upheld the conviction and the lengthy sentence Collins received. They ordered the lower court to redo the calculations for restitution and the indigent defense fee to comply with the law and ensure a fair process. The judgment of conviction and the twenty-five-year prison sentence were upheld, while the restitution and indigent fees were vacated and remanded for further action.

RE-2019-683

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 21, 2021
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-683, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but modify it to be limited to six months. One member dissented. The case involved the appellant who had earlier been sentenced for multiple crimes, including possession of a controlled substance and driving under the influence. Initially, he was given a suspended sentence where he would serve time in jail only on weekends. However, he violated the terms of his probation several times by failing to report, pay fees, and complete required programs. After a while, he faced new charges for more serious crimes, which led to the state seeking to revoke his suspended sentence altogether. During the hearing for the revocation, the judge decided to revoke all five years of his suspended sentence. However, the court found later that this action was not appropriate. The court ruled that even though the appellant had committed technical violations, he could only be punished with a maximum of six months because the alleged new crimes occurred after his probation had expired. The court concluded that the trial judge had made a mistake when revoking the whole five years instead of just six months based on the technical violations proven. Thus, the revocation punishment was modified by the court to six months instead of five years.

F-2018-336

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 21, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-336, Donnie Graham appealed his conviction for first degree rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to include three years of post-imprisonment community supervision but otherwise affirmed the conviction. One judge dissented. The case began when Donnie Graham was found guilty of first degree rape after a jury trial. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and a fine. The case was heard in the District Court of Comanche County. Graham's main argument was about his right to have effective legal help during his trial. He claimed that his lawyer did not investigate earlier rape claims made by the victim and did not present evidence that could have proved those claims were false. He insisted that because of his lawyer's mistakes, he did not get a fair trial. The court looked closely at this claim. They first checked if Graham’s lawyer did not do their job properly according to professional standards. They needed to see if the lawyer's performance was bad enough to have affected the trial's outcome. After reviewing everything, the court decided that Graham did not show enough proof that his lawyer was ineffective. They denied Graham's request for a hearing to further examine his claims. Overall, the court changed his sentence to include three years of supervision after his prison time but upheld the decision regarding his guilt.

C-2019-815

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 14, 2021
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2019-815, the petitioner appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary, Second Degree Burglary, and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and remand the case for a new hearing. One member of the court dissented. The case began when the petitioner, after entering guilty pleas for the charges, expressed a desire to withdraw those pleas. He believed he had not been properly represented by his attorney and filed a letter to withdraw his plea. A hearing was held where the petitioner appeared without his attorney. During this hearing, he claimed that he felt misled regarding the likely outcome of his plea. The petitioner argued that the hearing to withdraw his plea was unlawful because he was not given proper legal representation. He said that he didn’t effectively waive his right to counsel at that hearing and claimed there was a conflict of interest since his attorney had represented him in the original plea. The court found that there was no valid waiver of his right to counsel, meaning he didn’t fully understand the implications of representing himself. The trial court had not thoroughly questioned him about his need for counsel or his rights, leading to confusion about whether he was proceeding with an attorney or alone. The state agreed that the hearing had issues because the petitioner didn’t receive conflict-free representation. Therefore, the court ruled that the previous denial of his motion to withdraw his plea was a mistake and sent the case back for a new hearing where these issues could be properly addressed.

F-2019-588

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 14, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-588, Ricky Eugene Spencer appealed his conviction for two counts of Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Ricky Eugene Spencer was found guilty of shooting at two people, which led to his conviction. The trial took place in Muskogee County, where the jury decided on a twenty-year sentence for each count. However, the judge allowed for some of that time to be suspended and had conditions for probation. During his appeal, Spencer raised several issues, but one stood out: the jury was given the wrong instructions about transferred intent. This is a legal concept that says if someone means to hurt one person but accidentally hurts someone else, the intent to harm can still apply to the actual victim. The court found there was indeed an error in how the jury was instructed. Spencer did not challenge the instruction during the trial, so the court reviewed the mistake under plain error, meaning it was an obvious error that affected the fairness of the trial. The judge explained that the jury was incorrectly told they could find Spencer guilty of intent to kill based on a lesser intention to injure or scare someone else. This meant they could convict him without the proof needed for a serious crime like shooting with intent to kill. The prosecution argued that Spencer aimed to kill one person and mistakenly shot two bystanders. However, the trial's instructions could have allowed the jury to convict him based on weaker proof than required. During discussions, the jury showed they weren't completely convinced, asking questions that suggested they were unsure. The prosecutor's arguments during the trial also emphasized the wrong aspects of the law, pushing the jury toward an improper conclusion. Overall, the court could not be sure that the jury understood what they needed to prove. Therefore, they ruled that the error affected Spencer's rights significantly, requiring a new trial to ensure fairness. The decision means that Spencer would get another chance to defend himself in court, as the guidelines for convicting him were not properly explained the first time.

F-2019-310

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 10, 2020
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-310, Kedrin Ray Dixon appealed his conviction for first-degree burglary, sexual battery, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for sexual battery to ten years imprisonment, making it consecutive to the other sentence, and otherwise affirmed the convictions. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence for sexual battery. Dixon was found guilty by a jury on multiple counts after a trial in the District Court of Washington County. The jury sentenced him to twenty years in prison for burglary and sexual battery, and one year for possession of a controlled substance. The trial judge ordered the sentences for burglary and sexual battery to be served back-to-back. Dixon then appealed, raising several points of error, including issues related to jury instructions and evidence. The first issue was about the trial judge not mentioning that he was presumed innocent in the instructions at the start of the trial. The court found this error was not significant since the final instructions did include the presumption of innocence. Next, Dixon claimed that the evidence was not strong enough for the first-degree burglary conviction. The court disagreed, stating that there was enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find him guilty. Dixon also argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence regarding his intoxication at the time of the crime. The court ruled that the trial judge had the right to refuse his request since the evidence did not clearly support intoxication as a defense. Another point of concern for Dixon was what he called evidentiary harpoons, which are when comments are made that suggest knowledge of other crimes. The court found that he did not object to these comments at the trial and they did not seriously affect the verdict. Dixon claimed that he was unfairly prevented from presenting a full defense regarding reports of his previous erratic behaviors. The court decided that these reports were not very relevant to his defense and that excluding them did not significantly harm his case. A notable issue was a mistake in how the jury was informed about the potential punishment for sexual battery. The trial judge incorrectly stated that it could be punished by twenty years, which was incorrect. The State agreed that this was an error. Instead of sending Dixon back for a new trial, the court decided to lower his sentence for sexual battery to ten years because of this error. Dixon stated that his total sentences were too harsh, but after reviewing the circumstances, the court determined that the sentences were acceptable even after the changes made to one of them. Lastly, Dixon argued that there were too many errors in the case that made it unfair for him. The court did acknowledge the instructional error but believed there were no other significant errors affecting the outcome of the trial. In summary, the court modified Dixon's sentence for sexual battery and kept the other parts of his conviction intact. The final decision still upheld his guilty verdicts on all counts.

F-2019-149

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 8, 2020
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-149, Kimberli Sue Dunham appealed her conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to terminate her from Drug Court and impose her sentences. One judge dissented. Dunham had been placed in the Delaware County Drug Court program after pleading guilty to several drug-related charges. The program was intended to help her recover from substance abuse. According to her agreement, if she was successful in the program, the charges would be dismissed. However, if she failed, she would face prison time. During her time in Drug Court, Dunham had several violations, including testing positive for methamphetamine. After admitting to more violations, the State sought her removal from the program. In a hearing, evidence of Dunham’s past violations was presented. The judge decided to terminate her from the program, leading to her appeal. In her appeal, Dunham claimed the termination was improper because she was sanctioned for previous violations. She also argued that the court did not follow proper procedures as required by the Oklahoma Drug Court Act, which aims to support individuals in recovery. Dunham claimed that a relapse should not automatically lead to termination and that the court should have used progressively increasing sanctions instead. The court reviewed these claims and found that Dunham had indeed admitted to new violations that justified her termination. Her request to consider her actions as mere relapses was denied, as the judge believed more severe action was necessary to maintain the integrity of the Drug Court program. Lastly, Dunham argued that she was misinformed about her rights to withdraw her guilty pleas. The court agreed that she should have been informed of her rights but ruled that her termination and conviction would still stand. The court upheld the trial court's decision but noted that it should have properly advised Dunham regarding her rights, allowing her the option to appeal her plea. Thus, while her conviction was confirmed, the case was remanded to correct the error about her rights.

M-2019-664

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 24, 2020
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2019-664, the appellant appealed his conviction for illegal entry with unlawful intent, outraging public decency, and assault on a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for illegal entry but affirmed the convictions for outraging public decency and assault on a police officer. One judge dissented. James Brewer was accused of several misdemeanors after the police were called to his neighbor's house because he was trying to break in. The neighbor's children had reported the incident to their mother, who called the police. When officers arrived, they found Brewer in a neighboring home, naked on the floor, being restrained by his brother. He was not cooperative when the police tried to arrest him. During the trial, the court heard from police officers but did not hear directly from the neighbor or her children. The prosecution's case relied on the officers' testimonies about what they found and how they arrested Brewer. He represented himself during the trial with the help of standby counsel. Brewer raised several issues on appeal. First, he argued that he should have received credit for the time he spent in jail before the trial. The court explained that it is up to the trial judge to decide whether to give this credit and stated that there was insufficient information showing that he was unable to pay for a bond that would have let him out of jail before the trial. He also claimed the prosecutor made mistakes during the trial, like bringing up parts of his attitude that were not relevant and making comments during closing arguments. The court decided that the prosecutor's actions did not unfairly affect the trial. Brewer argued that there was not enough evidence for his conviction for illegal entry. The court agreed that the evidence was weak because the neighbor and her children did not testify and there was no direct proof linking him to tampering with the air conditioners. His other claims related to cross-examination and the wording of the charges against him were found to be insufficient to overturn the convictions for the other two charges. His conviction for the illegal entry was reversed, meaning the prosecution could not pursue it further, but the convictions for outraging public decency and assault on a police officer were upheld. One judge had a different opinion and dissented from the majority ruling.