Staff, Author at OCCA Opinions

F-2019-605

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

In OCCA case No. F-2019-605, Jerome Matthew McConell appealed his conviction for Obtaining Merchandise by False Pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court, except for certain parts which were stricken. One member of the court dissented. McConell was found guilty after a bench trial in the District Court of McCurtain County. He was sentenced to thirty months in prison, but he argued that his trial was unfair for three main reasons. First, he claimed he was not allowed to confront some witnesses properly because hearsay evidence was permitted. Hearsay is when someone testifies about what another person said outside of court, which usually isn't allowed as direct evidence. However, the court found no real error in this situation because McConell's lawyer brought up the same issues during questioning. Therefore, the court did not see a violation of his rights. Second, McConell argued that evidence from another incident should not have been allowed by the court because the state did not give proper notice about it. However, the court decided that the evidence was relevant and no mistakes were made in permitting it. Lastly, McConell noted that the written sentence and conditions after his trial did not match what was discussed in court. The judge had ordered conditions that he should not enter a casino and also mentioned costs for prosecution that were not allowed under the law. The court agreed that these parts of the judgment were incorrect and decided to strike them from his sentence. In summary, the appeals court did affirm McConell's conviction, meaning they upheld the trial's decision, but they corrected some errors in how his sentence was recorded and ordered the lower court to make those changes.

F-2019-82

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 27, 2020
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-82, Spencer Thomas Cato appealed his conviction for various crimes including possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm after a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed and dismissed one count against Cato. A judge dissented regarding the dismissal of that count. Cato had been found guilty of several offenses, including having a controlled substance and firearms while being a convicted felon. During the trial, the jury sentenced him to a total of several years in prison along with fines. The judge decided some of these sentences would be served at the same time, while others would be served one after the other. Cato appealed, arguing that his rights were violated because he was punished twice for what he saw as the same action. Specifically, he felt the charges of possessing a firearm after a felony and possessing a firearm while committing a felony were not separate. Cato believed that the law should prevent him from being punished for both crimes since they stemmed from the same act of possessing the same gun with no significant break in time between the two actions. Upon reviewing the case, the court agreed with Cato’s argument. They found that there was no new evidence that suggested he had used the firearm for a different purpose at different times. The trial revealed that Cato had the gun and drugs at the same time which led to the conclusion that punishing him for both counts was not appropriate. The court decided to reverse the lesser charge and direct that it be dismissed. In summary, while some of Cato's convictions and their sentences were confirmed, the court found that he could not be punished for both possessing a firearm after a felony and possessing it while committing another felony under the circumstances of his case. Hence, they instructed the lower court to dismiss the one charge.

S-2020-79

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 20, 2020
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2020-79, Stricker appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Desecration of a Human Corpse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling of the District Court that dismissed the alternative charge of First Degree Felony Murder during the commission of a kidnapping. None dissented. On April 17, 2019, Stricker was charged with serious crimes including First Degree Murder in Kingfisher County. Later, he faced an amended charge stating he could be guilty of First Degree Premediated Murder or First Degree Felony Murder related to kidnapping. During a hearing, the judge decided to dismiss the kidnapping charge based on insufficient evidence, which led the State to appeal the decision. The State argued that the judge’s decision was incorrect because they believed there was enough evidence to show that a crime occurred and that Stricker was involved. They said that at a preliminary hearing, it's essential to prove that probably a crime was committed and that the person involved might have done it. The judge ruled that although Stricker was in a position to manage his victim, there wasn't enough proof to suggest he intended to kidnap her. The second argument from the State was about the timing of Stricker's motion to quash the charges. They claimed the judge should not have considered this motion because it was filed after he pleaded not guilty. However, the court found that the judge did have the authority to hear the motion, even though the prosecution thought otherwise. Ultimately, the court found no error in the District Court's decision to dismiss the charge of First Degree Felony Murder related to kidnapping and decided to uphold that dismissal.

RE-2019-522

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 13, 2020
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-522, Leslie Ford appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentences in both cases but also instructed the lower court to correct a written order error regarding the duration of the revocation. One member of the court dissented. Leslie Ford had previously been sentenced in two cases for stalking, with each sentence being five years long but suspended, meaning he would not have to go to prison if he followed certain rules. However, he was accused of breaking these rules. The state said he didn’t pay the required fees, didn’t go to treatment for domestic abusers, drank alcohol, and even got in trouble for more offenses. At a hearing, the judge found that Leslie did indeed break the rules, leading to the full revocation of his sentences. Leslie then appealed the decision, bringing up several reasons why he thought the revocation was unfair. He argued about his mental fitness during the process and claimed there were time limit violations concerning the hearings. The court explained that they could only focus on whether the revocation was valid and that the evidence showed he broke the rules. They also found that a confusion on how long he was sentenced was a mistake, which they ordered to be fixed. Overall, Leslie did not manage to successfully argue for the reversal of his revocation, except for the correction regarding the error in the time of imprisonment mentioned in the written order.

F-2019-417

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 30, 2020
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-417, Henry Warren Kwe Kwe appealed his conviction for Conjoint Robbery, Shooting with Intent to Kill, Possession of a Sawed-Off Shotgun, and Leaving Scene of a Collision Involving Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Kwe Kwe's convictions on all counts except for the Victim Compensation Assessment for Count 4, which was vacated. Kwe Kwe dissented. Kwe Kwe was found guilty of several serious crimes stemming from an incident involving a robbery and a shooting. The trial revealed that he, along with accomplices, confronted the victim, demanding her money while one of them displayed a weapon. When the victim attempted to call for help, she was shot in the back with a shotgun. Following this, the robbers took her purse and fled. On appeal, Kwe Kwe raised numerous issues regarding his convictions. He argued that being convicted for both robbery and shooting violated laws against multiple punishments for a single act. However, the court found that the robbery and the shooting were distinct actions. The shooting was meant to prevent the victim from escaping and to eliminate her as a witness, rather than to take possession of her belongings. Kwe Kwe also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence against him, claiming he wasn't the shooter. However, the jury had enough circumstantial evidence to conclude he aided in the crime, as he orchestrated the robbery and knew one accomplice was armed. Also, he was found in possession of a sawed-off shotgun shortly after the incident. The court held that the evidence supported the conclusion he was culpable for aiding and abetting the shooter. Another argument from Kwe Kwe revolved around the legality of the sawed-off shotgun itself. He claimed the prosecution didn't prove the shotgun's barrel was less than 18 inches, which would classify it as sawn-off under the law. Nevertheless, the officer testified that the weapon was a modified sawed-off shotgun and that the jury could determine this after examining it. Moreover, Kwe Kwe claimed that the court’s language when discussing the victim's injuries went against the norms of a fair trial. However, the court found this testimony relevant, as it demonstrated the severity of the attack and the intent behind the actions taken by Kwe Kwe and his accomplices. Lastly, he argued that his legal counsel did not perform adequately by failing to raise certain legal defenses and objections during the trial. Yet, the court determined that any such failures did not adversely affect his rights or the outcome of the case. In summary, Kwe Kwe's convictions remained intact, and while some procedural missteps were noted, none were sufficient to reverse the verdict aside from the correction regarding the Victim Compensation Assessment linked to his charge. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision overall, while rectifying the single financial aspect.

RE-2019-19

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 30, 2020
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-19, Daniel Lee Hart appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that revoking his suspended sentence without him being present was a violation of his right to due process, and therefore, the revocation was reversed. One judge dissented. Daniel Lee Hart originally pleaded guilty in 2009 to trying to manufacture a controlled substance. He was given a 20-year sentence, with 12 years of that being suspended, meaning he didn't have to serve that part of the time as long as he followed certain rules. One of those rules was that he had to stay clean from drugs and check in regularly with his probation officer. In 2017, the state said that Hart had broken the rules. They said he had used drugs, didn’t show up for meetings with his probation officer in both Oklahoma and Kansas, didn’t register as a drug offender in Kansas, didn’t pay fees for his probation, and hadn’t completed his GED as he was supposed to. Hart later agreed to these claims but was able to be released for drug treatment for a few months before being sentenced. When the time came for his sentencing, Hart did not show up. Because he was absent, the court revoked the suspended part of his sentence completely. This meant he would have to serve the full 20 years instead of just the 8 years that he had left to serve. Hart appealed this decision, saying it was unfair for the court to make such a serious decision without him being there. The court looked at whether Hart's absence affected his right to defend himself. They said that everyone has the right to be present when decisions are made about their punishment. The court noted that Hart had not willingly chosen to skip the sentencing and that his absence could have greatly impacted the outcome. Because of these reasons, the court said Hart deserved a new hearing where he could be present to possibly explain why he wasn’t there and defend himself more fully. The final decision was to send the case back for another hearing. They wanted to make sure Hart had a fair chance to be present when the consequences of his actions were discussed again. In summary, because Hart was missing during a very important hearing, the court agreed that this was a mistake. They reversed the earlier decision and ordered a new hearing where he could be present.

RE-2019-619

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 30, 2020
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-619, the appellant appealed his conviction for endangering others while trying to avoid the police and possession of a stolen vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered the district court to give him credit for four days he had already served in jail. One judge dissented from this decision.

F-2018-894

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 2, 2020
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-894, Olubanji Milton Macaulay appealed his conviction for possession of counterfeit driver licenses. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm some counts but reverse others. One judge dissented. Summary: Olubanji Milton Macaulay was found guilty by a jury of seven counts of possessing counterfeit driver licenses after a trial in Oklahoma. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison, with sentences running at the same time for each count. He argued that law enforcement illegally searched his rental car, that he faced double punishment for the same crime, and that the trial court wrongly refused to instruct the jury about missing video evidence. When he appealed, the court looked closely at each of his claims. About the first point, the court ruled that the police had the right to search the car because Macaulay had given up any claim of privacy when he said he walked to the bank and did not indicate he owned the vehicle. Thus, his evidence was allowed in court. Regarding the second point, Macaulay claimed he should only be charged with one count since he possessed all the fake IDs in one event. The court agreed that multiple counts for a single act were not allowed. They found he should only be guilty of two counts: one for fake ID he took into the bank and another for the ID found in his car. On the third point about the jury instruction regarding the missing bank video, the court said there was no proof that the police acted in bad faith. Therefore, the request for a jury instruction explaining this did not need to be granted. In summary, the court upheld some of his convictions while reversing others, leading the case forward to dismiss those extra counts.

C-2019-15

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 25, 2020
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2019-15, Nicholas Allan Daniel appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder (Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance) and Robbery with a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his request for a writ of certiorari, modifying his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder while reversing his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm. One judge dissented from this opinion. Nicholas Daniel faced serious charges after being accused of killing a man while trying to sell drugs and also robbing him. He pleaded guilty to these charges but later wanted to withdraw his plea. He felt that his lawyer did not help him enough during the process, and he raised several reasons for this claim. He argued that the lawyer had a conflict of interest, that he did not fully understand the consequences of his plea, that the plea lacked a good factual basis, and that he did not get effective help from his lawyer. The court carefully examined each of Daniel's arguments. In the first argument, the court found no real conflict of interest because Daniel’s dissatisfaction stemmed from the state’s evidence and the sentence, not from his lawyer's performance. In the second argument, it was decided that Daniel had entered the plea with a clear understanding that he would face sentencing and that it was done voluntarily. For the third argument, about the factual basis for his felony murder conviction, the court found that there were issues with how the charges were presented. It was determined that the way Daniel described the incident in his plea was inadequate to meet the legal requirements for felony murder because he was treated primarily as a buyer, not a seller of drugs. Thus, the combined crimes could not both stand. In terms of Daniel's claims against his lawyer's effectiveness, the court acknowledged that his lawyer could have done better. However, it ruled against some of Daniel's more serious arguments on the effectiveness of his lawyer, finding that he did not provide sufficient proof that his lawyer’s actions negatively affected his defense. In the final decision, the court adjusted Daniel's felony murder conviction based on the issues around how the charges were processed and reversed the robbery conviction, as it should not stand alongside the adjusted murder charge. Ultimately, the court confirmed Daniel's modified conviction for felony murder but sent the case back regarding the robbery count. One judge disagreed with parts of this conclusion, stating that the trial court had not made a mistake in the first place and therefore should not have granted the appeal. The judge argued that since Daniel's plea was expressed clearly and voluntarily, it should have been upheld without modification. The judge emphasized the importance of adhering to proper legal processes and rules when making such determinations. Thus, the outcome celebrated the importance of ensuring that legal principles and procedures are correctly applied, even as it affirmed Daniel’s conviction under modified circumstances.

S-2019-242

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 18, 2020
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2019-242, the State of Oklahoma appealed Wesley Warren Peritt Weaver, II's conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child Under 12. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that denied the State's request to introduce evidence of the defendant's prior sexual offenses as propensity evidence. One judge dissented. This case started on January 5, 2017, when the defendant, Weaver, was charged with sexually abusing his daughter, A.W., from 2011 to 2016. During a preliminary hearing, A.W. claimed that her father abused her and shared this information with her mother. The case involved testimonies from both A.W.'s mother and a forensic interviewer who assessed A.W. The State later sought to present evidence of previous sexual offenses allegedly committed by Weaver against another child, A.A., to demonstrate a pattern of behavior. A.A. testified that Weaver had molested her several years earlier. However, during a hearing, the trial court decided not to allow this evidence, stating that its probative value was less than the potential for unfair prejudice against Weaver. The State of Oklahoma appealed this ruling. They argued that the trial court made an error in not permitting the sexual propensity evidence, which could provide context for Weaver's behavior in the current case. The appellate court looked closely at the details of the case and the rules surrounding the admissibility of such evidence. Ultimately, the appellate court ruled to affirm the trial court's decision, meaning that the prior offense evidence would not be allowed during the trial against Weaver. The court concluded that the trial court's decision was reasonable and did not abuse its discretion. They found solid reasoning in the trial court's assessment of the evidence's relevance versus its potential negative impact on the jury's perception. One judge disagreed with the majority opinion, believing that the trial court had not fully considered the nuances of the sexual propensity laws and had conflated different types of evidentiary standards. This dissenting opinion emphasized the importance of acknowledging the differences between types of evidence when it comes to sexual offenses. In short, the case involved serious allegations against Weaver regarding his daughter, and while the State attempted to build a strong case by including prior incidents, the court ultimately felt that allowing such evidence would not be appropriate during the trial.

F-2018-1263

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 2, 2020
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-1263, Leatherwood appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree, Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Possession of a Firearm During Commission of a Felony, Maintaining a Place for Keeping/Selling Controlled Substances, and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. Travis Michael Leatherwood fatally shot Aaron Smith on Halloween night in 2017. They were once friends and worked together selling marijuana, but their friendship soured when Smith stole marijuana from Leatherwood. On the night of the shooting, Smith, upset by an exchange of insults with Leatherwood, went to confront him, unarmed. Leatherwood shot Smith with a rifle before he could say a word. Smith later died from the gunshot wound. After the shooting, police found a lot of evidence connecting Leatherwood to marijuana distribution at his home, including a rifle that he had used to shoot Smith and other drug-related items. Leatherwood argued in court that he acted in self-defense, but the jury did not agree. They concluded that he was the aggressor, especially since he called Smith a coward and provoked him. The jury found him guilty of first-degree murder, along with several drug-related charges. Leatherwood raised multiple issues on appeal, including claims that the state did not prove he acted outside of self-defense, that the court gave confusing jury instructions, allowed improper amendments to the charges, and that he had ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the court disagreed with all of his claims. In terms of self-defense, the court ruled that Leatherwood’s actions and words indicated he was not acting in self-defense but rather was the one who provoked the situation. He had armed himself before Smith arrived and shot him before any confrontation occurred. The court also discussed the jury instructions, concluding that the district court did not err by omitting instructions on a lesser charge of heat of passion manslaughter since there was no evidence to support that Smith's actions would provoke such a response from Leatherwood. As for the amendment of charges, the court determined that Leatherwood was sufficiently informed of the charges he faced and that he could defend against them adequately. The evidence showed that he had both the firearm and the controlled substances as part of his operations, fulfilling the requirements for his convictions. Leatherwood's claim that his lawyer was ineffective was also denied because the court found that the lawyer's strategies were reasonable given the overwhelming evidence against Leatherwood. The lawyer focused his arguments on the more serious murder charge rather than the drug offenses, which the jury could have easily decided against Leatherwood irrespective of those counts. Finally, the court ruled that Leatherwood's sentence was not excessive given the nature of the crime and his actions. The judge pointed out that the jury was aware of his age (20 at the time of the crime) and other circumstances, which did not make the sentence shockingly excessive. Ultimately, the court affirmed Leatherwood's convictions and ordered a separate hearing regarding the restitution amount, which needed to be calculated more accurately.

C-2019-489

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 26, 2020
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2019-489, Taheerah Ayesha Ahmad appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery by means likely to produce death, Child Neglect, and Arson in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to deny her petition for a writ of certiorari and affirmed the District Court's judgment. However, the case was remanded to the District Court to correct errors in the judgment regarding the imposition of costs. One judge dissented.

RE-2018-1233

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 5, 2020
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2018-1233, Joice appealed his conviction for obtaining cash or merchandise by bogus check/false pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the order revoking Joice's suspended sentence and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the State's application to revoke with prejudice. One judge dissented. Joice had originally entered a guilty plea in 2013 for writing a bogus check and received a twenty-year sentence, which was all suspended, meaning he would not serve time in prison if he followed the rules of his probation. However, in 2018, the State claimed he broke the rules of his probation and sought to revoke his suspended sentence. During the hearings, Joice argued that the original sentence was too long and that the State filed their application to revoke his probation too late. He also said his lawyer did not help him properly by not questioning the judge’s decision to revoke his sentence. The court agreed there were major issues with his original sentence and that the State was too late in trying to revoke it. They found that Joice did not get good legal help at his revocation hearing. Since the court recognized that the original sentence was illegal and the State's request to change it came too late, they decided to dismiss the application to revoke Joice’s probation. This means he won't have to serve time because the conditions under which his probation could be revoked were not met correctly.

F-2018-308

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 13, 2020
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-308, Deondrea Deshawn Thompson appealed his conviction for multiple counts related to robbery and possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Thompson was found guilty by a jury for several crimes, including robbery with a firearm, attempted robbery, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to a total of thirty-five years for the robbery counts and seven years for the other counts, with the sentences to run consecutively. Thompson raised multiple issues on appeal, including claims that he did not receive a fair trial because crucial evidence was kept from him, racial discrimination occurred during jury selection, and that the trial court made several errors in admitting evidence. The court addressed these issues one by one. It found that the trial court did not err in keeping the name of a confidential informant from Thompson since it was not shown to be necessary for his defense. The court also found that the State's reasons for excluding certain jurors were race-neutral and did not indicate discriminatory intent. Regarding the trial court's questioning of jurors, the court concluded that it did not improperly influence the jury. As for evidence related to cell phone records collected without a warrant, the court determined that the police acted in good faith based on laws that existed at the time. Thompson argued that other testimony during the trial unfairly presented him as having committed other bad acts, but the court found no abuse of discretion in how the trial was handled. The court also concluded that the trial court's decision not to give certain jury instructions on eyewitness identification was within its discretion since the identification was firm enough in this case. Thompson's claim about having multiple cases tried together was also rejected, as the court noted that the robberies were similar in nature and occurred close together in time. Finally, the court ruled that his separate firearm possession conviction did not violate double jeopardy laws. In summary, the court affirmed Thompson's conviction, saying that none of the claimed errors were significant enough to harm his case.

F-2018-901

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 13, 2020
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. F-2018-901** **NAJEE JAMALL COX, Appellant,** **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Najee Jamall Cox, appeals from the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2014-5486 in Oklahoma County, presided over by Judge Ray C. Elliott. On January 30, 2017, Cox entered a guilty plea to Burglary in the First Degree, and his judgment and sentencing were deferred for seven years, with probation conditions effective until January 29, 2024. On March 20, 2018, the State filed an application to accelerate the deferred sentence, citing multiple violations, including new criminal charges and failure to pay court costs. At the hearing on August 14, 2018, Judge Elliott denied Cox's request for a continuance to allow his co-defendant to testify, after which the hearing proceeded with the State's presentation of evidence from probation officers and law enforcement. **FINDINGS:** 1. **Evidence of Possession**: The court found sufficient evidence supporting that Cox had constructive possession of marijuana and related paraphernalia based on the circumstances surrounding the traffic stop and subsequent findings in his vehicle. 2. **Right to Present Testimony**: Cox was given the opportunity to present a defense but failed to secure the presence of his co-defendant through proper procedural channels. His claim of due process violation was denied due to lack of shown prejudice. 3. **Notice of Reimbursement Fee**: Sufficient evidence demonstrated that Cox was aware of his obligation to pay the District Attorney's fees. 4. **Judicial Notice**: The court's reference to Cox's counsel's reputation did not negatively impact his rights, as the violation found was supported by sufficient evidence regardless. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Cox did not demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient enough to have affected the outcome. Based on the analysis of these propositions, the order of acceleration issued by the District Court is **AFFIRMED**. **CONCLUSION**: The mandate will be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **Representatives:** - **Counsel for Appellant**: Matthew Tate Wise - **Counsel for State**: Kirk Martin, Mike Hunter **Decision by**: LEWIS, Presiding Judge **Concurrences**: KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. [Click here to download the full PDF of the opinion.](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-901_1735118825.pdf)

F-2018-1004

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 13, 2020
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SHANNON SHEREE JOHNSON,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-1004** **FILED FEB 13, 2020** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** On April 18, 2017, Appellant Shannon Sheree Johnson entered a plea of guilty in Oklahoma County District Case No. CF-2015-8771. The trial court delayed her sentencing in this case and suspended the probation requirements for her prior cases—CF-2013-2846, CF-2014-1596, and CM-2015-1832—pending successful completion of the Oklahoma County Mental Health Court program. According to the plea agreement, if Appellant did not successfully complete the Mental Health Court, the trial court would revoke her suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2013-2846 and CF-2014-1596, convert her deferred sentences to convictions with a one-year prison sentence in Case No. CM-2015-1832, and impose concurrent ten-year sentences for Counts 1 and 2 in Case No. CF-2015-8771. The State filed a motion to terminate Appellant’s participation in the Mental Health Court, alleging her non-compliance with the program, including failure to follow court rules, lack of progress, unauthorized departure from inpatient treatment, and not graduating from treatment. After a hearing, Special Judge Geary Walke terminated her participation in Mental Health Court and sentenced her in accordance with her plea agreement. Appellant contends that the termination was an abuse of discretion, arguing that the judge should have considered intermediate sanctions before imposing the sentences. She cites her period of sobriety prior to the hearing as a reason for less severe punishment options. However, evidence presented at the hearing indicated that Appellant had consistently missed meetings, court appearances, and drug tests, and had not made adequate efforts to complete her treatment. Appellant's counsel argues that Judge Walke should have recognized relapses as part of the rehabilitation process under 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 472(F). This section allows for discretion in determining whether conduct justifies revocation of a participant from the program. The record does not support Appellant's position that Judge Walke acted unreasonably or arbitrarily in the face of substantial evidence demonstrating her failure to comply with the program. As Appellant has not shown that the trial court's decision was contrary to law or the facts of the case, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The termination of Appellant's participation in the Mental Health Court program is AFFIRMED. The mandate is ordered to be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES** **ON APPEAL** Melissa French, Counsel for Defendant Andrea Digilio Miller, Counsel for Appellant Heather Coyle, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Oklahoma Attorney General Tessa Henry, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR

F-2019-224

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 13, 2020
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOSEPH EUGENE DEAN,** **Appellant,** **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. F-2019-224** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant, Joseph Eugene Dean, was tried and convicted by a jury in Muskogee County District Court, Case No. CF-2017-1030, of Endangering Others While Eluding or Attempting to Elude Police Officer, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies (Count 2), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 540(B). The jury recommended a sentence of twenty years imprisonment and a $2,500.00 fine. The Honorable Bret A. Smith, District Judge, presided at trial and sentenced Dean in accordance with the jury's verdict, including various costs and fees. The jury acquitted Appellant of Count 1 - Possession of a Stolen Vehicle. Dean appeals, raising the following proposition of error: **I. APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ART. II, §§ 7, AND 20, OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION.** After thorough consideration of the record, including transcripts and the parties' briefs, we find that no relief is warranted. **Proposition I:** Dean asserts that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request a cautionary eyewitness identification instruction (OUJI-CR (2d) 9-19). However, Dean fails to provide relevant authority or argument supporting his claim, thus forgoing appellate review of the issue as per Rule 3.5(C)(6) of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Moreover, we alternatively reject Dean's ineffectiveness claim on its merits. To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must demonstrate both that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). In this case, a cautionary eyewitness identification instruction was unwarranted as no serious question exist[ed] concerning the reliability of the [eyewitness's] identification[s] (Robinson v. State, 1995 OK CR 25, ¶ 56, 900 P.2d 389, 404). Counsel’s failure to request such instruction, therefore, was not ineffective since there was no merit to such a request (Logan v. State, 2013 OK CR 2, ¶ 11, 293 P.3d 969, 975). **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. **MANDATE** is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision, pursuant to Rule 3.15 of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. --- **APPEARANCES:** **AT TRIAL:** LARRY VICKERS 600 Emporia, Suite B Muskogee, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT **ON APPEAL:** DERECK J. HURT Oklahoma Indigent Defense System P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT SEAN WATERS Asst. District Attorney Muskogee District Attorney's Office 220 State Street Muskogee, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR KUEHN, V.P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR --- [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2019-224_1734779625.pdf)

RE-2019-155

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 13, 2020
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MICHELLE MARIE MESPLAY,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2019-155** **FILED** IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA FEB 13 2020 **JOHN D. HADDEN** CLERK --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant Michelle Marie Mesplay appeals from the revocation of her suspended sentences in Ottawa County District Court Case No. CF-2015-134. On October 2, 2015, Appellant entered a plea of no contest to Child Neglect under 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(C). The trial court accepted her plea, withheld a finding of guilt, and delayed proceedings for ten years. On December 23, 2016, the State filed an Application to Accelerate Deferred Judgment, to which Appellant stipulated. The court then accelerated her deferred sentence to a conviction, sentencing her to ten years imprisonment with all ten years suspended. On May 3, 2018, the State moved to revoke the suspended sentence, citing failures to pay supervision fees and court costs, continued methamphetamine use, repeated failures to report, and unknown whereabouts. Appellant stipulated to the motion, and the Honorable Robert Haney revoked seven and a half years of her remaining ten-year suspended sentence. Appellant contends this revocation was excessive and claims an abuse of discretion regarding the length of the revocation. The court's decision to revoke is grounded in the understanding that a suspended sentence is a matter of grace (Demry v. State, 1999 OK CR 31, I 12, 986 P.2d 1145, 1147). The State must demonstrate only one violation of probation to revoke a suspended sentence in full (Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, I 10, 306 P.3d 554, 557). In this case, Appellant’s stipulation to violating the terms of her suspended sentence validates the trial court’s revocation decision. The trial court’s discretion in revocations remains crucial, and disturbances to this discretion are reserved for clear abuse (Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, I 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565). Evidence presented to justify the revocation aligned with statutory requirements (22 O.S.Supp.2018, § 991b(A)), and Appellant has not substantiated any claim of abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Ottawa County District Court Case No. CF-2015-134 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2020), MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** **ANDREW MELOY** – Counsel for Defendant **MARK HOOVER** – Counsel for Appellant **ROGER HUGHES**, **MIKE HUNTER** – Counsel for Appellee **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR --- For the complete opinion in PDF format, [click here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2019-155_1734334834-1.pdf).

F-2018-113

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 6, 2020
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-113, the appellant appealed her conviction for multiple counts of child neglect and enabling child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and the sentences imposed. One judge dissented. The case involved Brenda Marie Huff, who was convicted by a jury of four counts of child neglect and one count of enabling child sexual abuse. The jury sentenced her to 25 years in prison for each count, which would be served at the same time. Brenda and her husband, co-defendant Andrew Huff, were accused of allowing their children to live in very poor conditions. Evidence showed the home was filthy, lacking running water, and filled with animal waste and sexual materials. The children were also exposed to troubling behavior, including sexual messages sent by Andrew to a young girl. Brenda was aware of this behavior but did not act to protect the child. Brenda raised several arguments in her appeal, including claims that the evidence against her was not enough to support the convictions, that there were problems with jury instructions, and that her sentence was too harsh. However, the court found that the evidence presented was sufficient for the jury to conclude that she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also noted that there were no errors in how the jury was instructed, and that the severity of her sentence was justified given the circumstances. The court upheld the jury's decision, concluding that Brenda had neglected the children and enabled her husband to harm them. Ultimately, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence, meaning Brenda would serve her time in prison as decided by the jury.

F-2018-114

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 6, 2020
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-114, Andrew Huff appealed his conviction for four counts of Child Neglect and one count of Child Sexual Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Andrew Huff was convicted of neglecting his children and sexually abusing a minor. He was sentenced to a total of twenty-five years for the neglect charges and thirty years for the sexual abuse, with all sentences running concurrently. He raised several arguments against his conviction, claiming his rights were violated through various means. First, Huff stated that his video-recorded statements to an investigator should not have been allowed in court because he didn't properly waive his right to counsel. The court found no error in admitting the statement, stating that Huff’s questioning did not clearly indicate he wanted a lawyer at that moment. Next, Huff argued that hearsay evidence was incorrectly allowed, which hurt his chance of a fair trial. However, the court found that any hearsay used was not harmful to the case since other clear evidence proved the charges. Huff also claimed improper admission of other crimes evidence during his police interview, but again, the court concluded there was enough evidence for a verdict regardless of those statements. Regarding jury instructions, Huff felt the jury did not receive proper guidance on the laws for child sexual abuse, which the court acknowledged but deemed harmless since overwhelming evidence supported the verdict. Huff’s claim of insufficient evidence was denied as the court found that evidence presented allowed for rational conclusions supporting the guilty verdicts on both child neglect and sexual abuse. He also brought up issues regarding prosecutorial misconduct during the trial. The court examined these claims and determined any alleged misconduct was not severe enough to warrant a reversal of the conviction. Huff argued that his counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the introduction of certain evidence and not properly advising him during the trial. The court disagreed, stating that the counsel's performance, while being scrutinized, did not affect the overall outcome of the trial as there was sufficient evidence against him. Lastly, Huff believed that his sentence was excessive, but the court noted that the punishment was within legal limits and that the nature of the crimes warranted the sentence imposed. The overall decision confirmed that there were no reversible errors during the trial, and the affirmance upheld Andrew Huff’s conviction and sentences.

F-2018-888

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 6, 2020
Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma regarding the appeal of Justin William Dunlap, who was convicted of First Degree Rape by Instrumentation of a Victim under the Age of Fourteen and sentenced to ten years in prison. Dunlap raised multiple propositions of error in his appeal, including claims of insufficient waiver of a jury trial, challenges to the credibility of the victim's testimony, allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, excessive sentencing, and inadequate defense representation, among others. The court considered each proposition in detail: 1. **Waiver of Jury Trial**: The court found that Dunlap's waiver was knowing and voluntary, supported by a written waiver signed by all necessary parties. 2. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: The court analyzed the testimony of the victim (D.H.) and found it sufficient to support the conviction, affirming that the evidence met the necessary legal standard. 3. **Prosecutorial Misconduct**: The court concluded there was no misconduct that affected the trial's fairness, finding that the prosecutor's comments did not misstate the evidence or improperly comment on Dunlap's failure to testify. 4. **Excessive Sentencing**: The court determined that the sentence was within statutory guidelines and did not shock the conscience given the serious nature of the crime. 5. **Right to Present a Defense**: The court upheld the trial court's decision to exclude certain evidence, finding no abuse of discretion in limiting what could be presented as a defense. 6. **Speedy Trial**: The court found no violation of Dunlap's right to a speedy trial, noting delays were justified and not solely attributable to the prosecution. 7. **Competency Evaluation**: The court ruled that since Dunlap did not request an evaluation and provided no evidence to support his claims, this argument was unmeritorious. 8. **Conflict of Interest**: The argument regarding conflicting interests between attorneys was found to lack merit as Dunlap did not demonstrate how this negatively impacted his defense. 9. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: The court scrutinized claims of ineffective assistance, applying the Strickland standard, and found that Dunlap did not demonstrate that any alleged deficiencies affected the trial's outcome. 10. **Cumulative Error**: The court dismissed this claim as there were no individual errors that would warrant a new trial. The court affirmed the judgment and sentence, upholding the findings of the lower court and denying Dunlap's requested evidentiary hearing related to ineffective assistance of counsel. Additionally, a concurring opinion emphasized the handling of extra-record materials submitted by Dunlap, noting the importance of adhering to established procedural rules and advocating for more careful consideration of supplementary materials going forward. In summary, the appeal was denied, and the conviction stands as affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

F-2018-1072

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 6, 2020
Post category:F

The document is a summary opinion issued by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma in the case of D'Angelo Keiyawn Threatt. The appellant, Threatt, was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to eight years in prison. The opinion addresses three propositions of error raised by Threatt on appeal: 1. **Admission of Prior Felony Conviction**: Threatt contended that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to name his specific prior felony conviction (forcible oral sodomy) despite his offer to stipulate that he had a felony conviction. He cited the case Old Chief v. United States to support his argument. The Court ruled that Threatt did not preserve this issue adequately for appeal due to the timing and nature of his objections and ultimately found that there was no plain error affecting his substantial rights. 2. **Prosecutorial Misconduct**: Threatt claimed that the prosecutor's closing argument included highly prejudicial statements that unfairly influenced the jury. The Court examined the statements and determined they were reasonable comments based on the evidence presented at trial. Thus, they did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct that would warrant relief. 3. **Cumulative Effect of Errors**: Threatt argued that the combined effect of the alleged errors warranted a new trial. The Court disagreed, noting that the individual errors did not affect the overall outcome of the trial and therefore did not justify relief. In conclusion, the Court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court of Oklahoma County, finding no reversible error in the trial proceedings. The opinion underscores the importance of proper procedural objections and the evaluation of trial conduct in the context of the entire trial. For more detailed information, a PDF of the full opinion can be downloaded from the provided link.

F-2018-1267

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 6, 2020
Post category:F

**Case Summary: Shelley Jo Duncan's Appeal** **Court:** Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals **Judge:** Rowland, Judge **Case Number:** CF-2017-31 **Verdict:** Affirmed **Background:** Shelley Jo Duncan, a teacher, was charged with Lewd Acts with a Child. Her trial was conducted in Cleveland County after a change of venue due to pre-trial publicity. Duncan was sentenced to six years in prison in accordance with the jury's recommendation. **Issues Raised on Appeal:** 1. The denial of a motion to strike two jurors for cause. 2. Claims of improper commentary on her right to remain silent. 3. The credibility of the alleged victim and sufficiency of evidence for conviction. 4. Admission of other crimes evidence regarding past drug use. 5. Allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. 6. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. 7. Challenge to the excessive nature of her sentence. 8. Cumulative errors affecting the fairness of the trial. **Findings:** 1. **Jurors for Cause:** The court did not err in denying the motion to strike jurors S.M. and J.S. Duncan did not preserve her claim regarding J.S. since a peremptory challenge was successfully used to remove her from the jury. 2. **Right to Remain Silent:** Testimony regarding the investigation did not comment on Duncan’s post-arrest silence. Any potential error was cured by the court's action in sustaining objections. 3. **Credibility of Victim:** The court found the victim's testimony credible and sufficient, supporting the conviction based on the preponderance of evidence, even without corroboration. 4. **Other Crimes Evidence:** Duncan’s argument related to drug use was denied as she had introduced this evidence herself. Inviting error prevented relief. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Duncan could not demonstrate that her counsel's performance was deficient or that it prejudiced her case sufficiently to impact the outcome. 6. **Prosecutorial Misconduct:** Claims of improper comments were denied, as the prosecutor’s comments did not exceed the acceptable limits of argument during closing statements. 7. **Excessive Sentence:** The six-year sentence was within statutory limits and did not shock the conscience of the court, thus it was upheld. 8. **Cumulative Effect of Errors:** The court found no cumulative errors that would necessitate a new trial or modification of the sentence, as no individual error was identified. **Conclusion:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court. Duncan was denied relief on all issues raised in her appeal, with the court finding no significant errors affecting her right to a fair trial. **Access the full opinion:** [Download PDF of the Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1267_1734782177.pdf)

J-2019-618

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 6, 2020
Post category:J

**State of Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Summary Opinion** **Case Title:** M.C.T. v. The State of Oklahoma **Case Number:** J-2019-618 **Filed:** February 6, 2020 **Judges:** Kuehn, Vice Presiding Judge; Lewis, Presiding Judge (specially concurring); Lumpkin, J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. **Background:** M.C.T. appeals the certification decision by Special Judge Scott Brockman in Cleveland County District Court Case No. CF-2019-470, where M.C.T. was certified for trial as an adult for crimes including Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Unlawful Use of a Computer. The case was expedited under the Accelerated Docket of the Court. **Legal Issues:** The core issue revolves around statutory interpretation regarding the certification of juveniles as adults under Oklahoma law, specifically focusing on 10A O.S.2018 § 2-5-204(H)(1). **Findings:** 1. **Statutory Interpretation:** The Court reviewed the statute, noting that once adjudicated as an adult, a youthful offender retains that status in subsequent criminal proceedings, as mandated by the law. M.C.T.'s prior stipulation to adult status in Oklahoma County was sufficient to affirm his status as an adult in Cleveland County. 2. **Precedent:** M.C.T. relied on D.J.B. v. Pritchett, but the Court distinguished this case based on its unique circumstances, emphasizing that M.C.T. had already been adjudicated as an adult prior to the Cleveland County proceeding. 3. **Judicial Efficiency:** Holding a certification hearing in Cleveland County after a prior adult conviction would be considered a waste of judicial resources, reinforcing the decision to affirm the district court's certification of M.C.T. as an adult. **Conclusion:** The Court affirmed the decision of the Cleveland County District Court to certify M.C.T. as an adult, highlighting that the statutory provisions were effectively applied in this case and that his prior plea as an adult eliminated the necessity for further certification hearings. **Decision:** The certification is AFFIRMED. The mandate is to be issued upon filing this decision. **Counsel:** - **For Appellant:** M. Karla Tankut, Jasmine Johnson (Indigent Defense System) - **For Appellee:** Kristi Johnson, Suanne Carlson (Assistant District Attorneys) **Special Concurrence:** Judge Lewis acknowledged the detailed writing of the opinion and expressed concern regarding the trial counsel's understanding of the consequences of simultaneous cases in different counties. Though counsel's actions were questionable, they did not alter the outcome, given M.C.T.'s unsuitability for youthful offender status. **Download PDF:** [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-618_1734430249.pdf)

J-2019-620

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 6, 2020
Post category:J

This document is a court opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of C.G., who was charged with First Degree Murder, First Degree Burglary, and Conspiracy to Commit Second Degree Burglary. The case revolves around the denial of C.G.'s motion to be certified as a juvenile or youthful offender, which would have allowed for a different legal treatment due to his age at the time of the offense (14 years old). Here is a summary of the key points: 1. **Background of the Case**: - C.G. was charged as an adult for serious crimes, and he filed a motion for certification as a juvenile or youthful offender. - The preliminary hearing and certification hearing took place, with conclusions drawn about C.G.'s amenability to treatment and public safety considerations. 2. **Court's Decision**: - The trial court denied C.G.'s request for certification, stating that the public could not be adequately protected if C.G. was treated as a youthful offender. - C.G. appealed this decision, raising several claims including abuse of discretion, evidentiary errors related to interrogation, and ineffective assistance of counsel. 3. **Ruling by the Court of Criminal Appeals**: - The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that there was no abuse of discretion. - It also found that certain evidentiary claims were not properly presented for appeal. 4. **Dissenting Opinions**: - Two judges dissented, arguing that the evidence did not support the trial court's conclusion about public safety. - They contended that C.G. was amenable to treatment and that the trial court could still have ensured public protection through existing safeguards while classifying him as a youthful offender. - The dissenters also criticized the majority's handling of evidentiary issues, arguing that the ability to challenge the decision not to certify C.G. should include a review of the evidence that influenced that decision. 5. **Final Notes**: - The decision underscores the complexities involving juveniles charged with serious crimes and the judicial considerations balancing public safety and the potential for rehabilitation. - It emphasizes the potential limitations in appealing certain evidentiary matters in the context of certification hearings for juvenile offenders. Overall, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, while dissenting opinions highlighted concerns regarding the treatment of juvenile defendants.