F Archives - Page 10 of 39

F-2018-359

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-359, Antonio Tiwan Taylor appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, conspiracy to commit a felony, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. Taylor was found guilty of robbing a home along with two other men. During the robbery, they used guns and threatened the residents, forcing them to the floor and taking their belongings. After the robbery, one of the witnesses, Felicia Alvarado, identified Taylor as one of the robbers. Alvarado explained that even though Taylor wore a bandanna over his face, she saw his face clearly when it fell off for a moment. A couple of weeks later, the police found jewelry that had been taken during the crime in Taylor's possession. Another accomplice in the robbery, who had pleaded guilty, also testified against Taylor, naming him as a participant. Although that person changed his story during Taylor's trial, the court still considered his initial statement as evidence. Taylor raised multiple points in his appeal. He argued that the evidence wasn’t enough to prove he was guilty. The court disagreed, stating that the witness's strong identification of him and the jewelry found with him provided enough evidence. Taylor also argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury to be cautious about eyewitness testimony. The court ruled that since there was solid evidence, the instruction wasn't necessary. Next, Taylor claimed it was unfair to convict him for both robbery and gun possession since they were connected to the same crime. The court found no issue with this and explained that the laws allowed for separate convictions in these cases. Finally, Taylor argued that all these points together should lead to a new trial. However, since the court found no errors in the points raised, they denied this request as well. In conclusion, the court upheld the original sentences of thirty years for the robbery counts and ten years for the other charges.

F-2018-339

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-339, Gary Julian Gallardo, Jr., appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Methamphetamine) and Conspiracy to Commit Trafficking. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One member of the court dissented. Gary Gallardo was found guilty of two serious crimes related to drugs. This happened in Jackson County. The jury decided to give him a very long sentence of 40 years in prison for each crime, and these sentences would happen one after the other. When Gallardo appealed, he pointed out a few reasons he believed he should not have been convicted. First, he claimed that the court did not have the right to try him in Jackson County because he believed the crime happened somewhere else. However, the court explained that the issue was actually about where the trial should be held, not whether the court had the power to judge the case. Next, Gallardo said there wasn't enough evidence to prove he was involved in the drug trafficking. The court disagreed after looking at all the evidence and decided that it was enough to show he was part of the crime, even though he was in prison at the time. Gallardo also thought that his trial wasn’t fair because the jury heard about other bad things he had done. The court said this evidence was important to understand his ability to carry out the crime in question. He raised concerns about the way the prosecutors behaved in court, but the court found that their actions did not make the trial unfair or wrong. Gallardo argued that the long sentences he received were too harsh but the court affirmed that his punishments were right given his previous criminal record. Lastly, Gallardo claimed that all the errors during the trial together made it unfair. The court stated that because they didn’t find any actual errors in the trial, there was no unfairness. In summary, the court upheld Gallardo's conviction and sentence, stating there was sufficient evidence, no unfair trial conditions, and that the sentences were appropriate based on his prior convictions.

F-2018-289

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-289, Anthony Douglass Crisel, Jr., appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Anthony Douglass Crisel, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for engaging in inappropriate conduct with a child. The jury decided that he should spend six years in prison, and he has to serve 85% of that time before he can ask for parole. Crisel claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly during the trial, which he believed went against his rights. He said his attorney made mistakes in three important areas: not opposing a witness’s testimony, not bringing in a witness who was related to the victim, and not challenging the qualifications of an expert witness who testified against him. The court looked closely at these claims and the complete record of what happened during the trial. They explained that to show his lawyer was ineffective, Crisel needed to prove that his lawyer didn’t do their job well and that this affected the outcome of the case. The judges noted that there is a strong assumption that a lawyer’s actions are based on good judgment. For the first claim, Crisel argued his lawyer should have stopped a witness from talking about some old accusations against him. However, the court found that the information the witness shared was already given to the jury through other evidence. Therefore, the lawyer's choice to not object was a reasonable decision. For the second claim, Crisel wanted his brother to testify but did not show how having his brother's testimony would have helped him win the case. The court stated that the lawyer's decision to not call the brother was likely a strategic choice and they won’t question that. Lastly, regarding the expert witness, the court found that the lawyer did question the qualifications of this expert, and since many lawyers might handle this differently, having a different strategy does not necessarily mean the lawyer did a bad job. After reviewing everything, the court concluded that Crisel’s lawyer did not act ineffectively. The judges affirmed the decision of the lower court, and the request for more evidence or hearing on this issue was denied.

F-2018-202

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-202, the appellant appealed her conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, conspiracy to commit a felony, kidnapping, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. The case involved Katherine Marie Houser, who was found guilty by a jury for several serious crimes. The jury gave her a variety of sentences, including five years for robbery, two years for possession of a firearm during a felony, and six months for kidnapping. Some of these sentences were set to run at the same time, which is called concurrent sentences. Katherine argued that her lawyer did not represent her well, especially by not challenging one of the counts against her (the possession of a firearm). Although this count was eventually dismissed by the state, she felt that just being tried for it affected the jury’s decisions on other counts. The court looked at this claim and decided that even if the lawyer made a mistake, it wouldn’t have changed the outcome. The evidence against her for the other charges was strong, and the jurors weren’t likely swayed by having one extra charge against her. In her second argument, Katherine said that a fine imposed on her should not count because the judge did not mention it during the sentencing, even though she hadn’t complained about it at that time. The court found that since she didn’t raise an issue at the right time, she had a harder time proving there was an error worth correcting. Ultimately, both of Katherine's arguments were denied, and the court decided to uphold her convictions and sentences.

F-2018-167

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-167, Roland G. Torgerson, Jr. appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing. One member of the court dissented. The case began when Torgerson entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest) in 2015 for concealing stolen property. His sentencing was delayed for three years, during which time he was required to make payments for restitution and district attorney fees. However, he failed to make these payments, leading the State to request that his deferred judgment be accelerated. Torgerson admitted he had not made the payments and asked for more time to do so several times. His illness and difficulty finding work made it hard for him to pay. At the hearing, he stated that he was trying to get Social Security to help his financial situation. Despite his claims, the judge decided he had not done enough to show he was unable to make the payments, and therefore, he was sentenced to a five-year suspended sentence. Torgerson raised two main arguments in his appeal. First, he claimed the court was wrong to accelerate his sentence based on his failure to pay, stating that doing so violated his constitutional rights. Second, he argued that the five-year suspended sentence was too harsh. However, the court found that Torgerson had not proven he could not pay and ruled that the judge exercised proper discretion in his decision. Ultimately, the court affirmed the decision to accelerate Torgerson's sentencing, while one judge dissented and expressed concern that the failure to pay was more about his financial situation than a willful disregard of the court's orders.

F-2018-112

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-112, Christopher Lewis Whinery appealed his conviction for first-degree murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. No one dissented. Mr. Whinery was found guilty by a judge without a jury. The case took place in Creek County, where he was sentenced to life in prison and fined $500. His main argument was that the judge made a mistake by allowing his statements to the police to be used against him during the trial. He said that he was in custody and had not been told his rights, which needs to happen before police can question someone. However, the court looked at what happened and found that Mr. Whinery was not in custody when he spoke to the police. This means he wasn’t formally arrested, and his freedom wasn't limited like it would be if he were arrested. Because of this, the police did not need to read him his rights at that time. Since the court agreed that there was no error in allowing his statements, they decided to keep his conviction as is, meaning he will remain in prison for life.

F-2018-103

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-103, the appellant appealed his conviction for manslaughter in the first degree, heat of passion. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. David Wayne Ellis was charged with first degree murder, but the jury found him guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter in the first degree. This happened after a trial in which the jury decided on a sentence of life imprisonment. The judge took into account the time Ellis had already served in jail. Ellis raised several issues in his appeal: 1. He argued that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self-defense when he stabbed the victim. The court looked at the evidence and decided that the jury had enough information to find that Ellis was not acting in self-defense. The court noted that Ellis had confronted the victim with a knife and had made threats, showing he was the aggressor. 2. Ellis claimed that the prosecutor made a mistake by calling the decedent's death a murder during the trial. He believed this was wrong because it was up to the jury to decide on the nature of the death. However, the court found that since the jury had been instructed correctly and had not convicted him of murder but rather manslaughter, this was not a mistake that would affect the trial's fairness. 3. Ellis argued that he did not receive effective legal help during the trial. The court considered this argument but found that his lawyer’s performance did not fall below what is acceptable. Moreover, since there was no error established in the previous points of appeal, this claim also failed. 4. Finally, he objected to the admission of a photograph of the decedent that he felt was unfairly prejudicial. The court determined that the photo was allowed under the law because it provided context about the victim and was relevant to the trial. They did not find any error in allowing it. Overall, the court affirmed the conviction and determined that there were no significant mistakes made during the trial that would change the outcome.

F-2018-15

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-15, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of drugs causing great bodily injury, felony eluding, running a roadblock, and assault with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. The case involved Marcus Ray Smith, who was found guilty in a non-jury trial of several serious offenses related to a high-speed police chase. The judge sentenced Smith to ten years for some crimes and thirty years for others, but with some time suspended, allowing for parole. Smith appealed for multiple reasons. He argued that he was being punished too harshly for actions that were part of one event. According to the law, people usually can't be punished multiple times for the same act. However, the court found that the crimes he committed were separate incidents. For example, running a roadblock is recognized as a distinct crime, and his actions while fleeing from the police qualified as two separate acts that endangered others. Smith also claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he had intended to cause harm with his vehicle when he drove recklessly towards others. The court disagreed and stated that the way he drove clearly showed that he intended to hurt someone. Lastly, Smith said his lawyer didn't do a good job by not arguing about the double punishment issue during the trial. However, the court found that since his double punishment claim was not valid, there was no failure on his lawyer's part. In conclusion, the court upheld Smith's convictions, deciding he had received a fair trial and that his legal arguments were not strong enough to change the outcome.

F-2017-1247

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1247, Michael Wesley Watters appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury and Misdemeanor Domestic Assault and Battery in the Presence of a Minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order to accelerate Watters' deferred judgment and sentencing. There was one dissenting opinion. Watters had entered a plea of no contest for his charges and was given a deferred judgment. This meant that if he followed the rules for a certain period, he would not have to serve time. However, the state claimed that he violated the terms of his deferred sentence, which led to this appeal. The court examined various issues presented by Watters regarding his case, including whether there was enough evidence for his probation violation, if the judge used proper evidence to make decisions, and if he received fair representation from his lawyer. The court found that the state's evidence, which included testimony from Watters' former spouse, was sufficient to show that he had violated a protective order. It also decided that while some issues regarding how jail costs were calculated were raised, these issues were moot because earlier court rulings had already addressed them. Watters argued that he did not get a fair hearing because of the prosecutor's behavior and that his lawyer did not do a good job representing him. However, the court felt that any mistakes made by his lawyer did not affect the outcome of the case significantly. Watters claimed his sentence was too harsh, but the court explained that questions about the length of a sentence in this situation need to be addressed in a different kind of appeal, not this one. Ultimately, the court found no significant errors in the proceedings and affirmed the decision to accelerate Watters' sentencing, meaning he was required to serve his time in prison.

F-2017-1098

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1098, Rodger Dale Stevens appealed his conviction for performing a lewd act in the presence of a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Stevens' conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Stevens was found guilty of a serious crime because he masturbated in front of a seven-year-old boy. The court looked closely at the evidence to see if it proved Stevens was doing this for sexual gratification. The victim testified and provided strong evidence that Stevens derived satisfaction from what he did. Even though Stevens argued that he was just trying to help the boy feel comfortable with his body, the jury did not believe him. Stevens also argued that his punishment was too harsh. Since he had previous felony convictions, his sentence was enhanced under a specific law that allows for harsher penalties for repeat offenders. Stevens said the law was applied wrongly and that he should have received a lighter sentence, but the court found that the jury was correctly instructed on the range of punishment. He raised several other issues, including claims that irrelevant and prejudicial evidence was admitted, and that his lawyer did not defend him properly. However, the court upheld that the lawyer's actions did not negatively impact the trial's outcome. Stevens argued that the life sentence he received was excessive, even claiming the situation was not severe enough for such a strong punishment. The court disagreed, noting the nature and seriousness of the crime and confirming that the sentence was within legal limits and did not shock the conscience. In summary, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence, ruling that the evidence supported the jury's decision and that the legal procedures followed were appropriate.

F-2017-622

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-622, Dakota William Stewart appealed his conviction for two counts of First Degree Manslaughter and one count of Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Stewart's judgment and sentence. One member of the court dissented. Stewart was involved in a car accident where his vehicle collided with another, resulting in two deaths. He was critically injured and taken to the hospital, where, without a warrant or his consent, a nurse drew blood to test for drugs. The blood tests showed the presence of methamphetamine and marijuana. Stewart contested the legality of the blood draw, arguing it violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Initially, the district court denied his motion to suppress the blood evidence, citing Oklahoma law that permits blood draws without a warrant in severe vehicle accidents. The court referenced previous rulings that support this statute. However, the higher court reviewed these past decisions, particularly focusing on whether the law upheld constitutional protections. The decision highlighted that legal procedures must include an individualized assessment of probable cause by a neutral magistrate to justify warrantless searches. The court found that the law in question, while attempting to streamline procedures for serious accidents, created a blanket rule that bypassed this necessary step. Ultimately, the court ruled that even if the blood draw violated constitutional principles, the good faith reliance on the statute by law enforcement meant the results could still be admitted as evidence. Therefore, the court upheld Stewart's conviction, emphasizing the importance of proper procedure while acknowledging the complexities involved in such tragic incidents.

F 2017-1074

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2017-1074, Brown appealed his conviction for Drug Court termination. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination, stating the trial court acted within its discretion. One judge dissented.

F-2018-272

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-272, Lavonte Antonio Johnson appealed his conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of his deferred sentence to 27 years in prison. One judge dissented. Lavonte Johnson entered a guilty plea in 2014, which was followed by a five-year deferred sentence. However, in 2018, the state sought to accelerate this sentence, claiming Johnson had violated probation by possessing a firearm and committing bail jumping. During a traffic stop, police found Johnson could not provide a driver's license and that he had a gun with him. Johnson argued that the police had to give him a Miranda warning before asking about the gun, as he believed it was a custodial interrogation. The court found that because this was a routine traffic stop, the police were not required to issue a Miranda warning. Johnson's statements about the gun were deemed admissible. The court reviewed the decision to accelerate Johnson's sentence and found no abuse of discretion. Therefore, Johnson’s appeal was denied, and the original sentence was upheld.

F-2018-104

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-104, Dameon Tyrese Lundy appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Dameon Tyrese Lundy was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for having drugs and cash that suggested he intended to sell drugs. He was sentenced to sixty years in prison and had to pay a fine. He was acquitted of another charge related to money from drug sales. Lundy had two main arguments in his appeal. First, he said the trial court made a mistake by not allowing his lawyer to suppress evidence found by the police. He argued that the police did not have the right to approach him outside a bar. However, the court found that the police were allowed to speak to him in a public place and had a good reason to suspect him because they could smell marijuana and he acted suspiciously. So, they decided there was no mistake by the trial court. Secondly, Lundy claimed there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he intended to sell drugs. His defense was that the drugs were for personal use, but the court said that a reasonable jury could think that Lundy was selling drugs due to the large amount of different drugs and cash he had. This means that the evidence was enough to support his conviction. Lundy then argued that his sentence was too harsh. He pointed out that the laws changed after his crime, meaning someone charged now would face a lower maximum sentence. However, the court stated that the new laws couldn’t be applied to Lundy's case because his crime was committed before the law changed. They concluded that the sentence was proper because of his past convictions. In the end, the court upheld the original decision from the district court, meaning Lundy will have to serve his sentence.

F-2017-1248

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1248, Aislyn Jonelle Miller appealed her conviction for five counts of Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Miller was found guilty by a jury of not taking care of her two young children, which included not providing them with enough food and not getting them the medical care they needed. The jury suggested that she be sentenced to thirty years in prison for four of the counts and ten years for one count, with the sentences to be served one after the other. Miller argued several points on appeal. First, she claimed that two of her convictions for neglecting one child should not count separately, as they were for the same offense – one for not feeding the child and the other for not getting medical care. She also made a similar claim regarding her neglect of her other child. However, the court found that failing to feed the children and failing to get medical care for them were different acts, so her separate convictions were valid. Miller’s next argument was that she did not have good legal representation during her trial. The court explained that to prove this, she needed to show that her lawyer made big mistakes and that these mistakes changed the outcome of her case. Since the court deemed her convictions valid, it concluded that any issues raised about her attorney’s performance would not matter since those objections would not have made a difference. Lastly, Miller claimed that the judge should have allowed her to serve her sentences at the same time instead of one after the other, which would have meant a shorter time in prison. The court pointed out that judges have the right to decide how to run sentences, and in this case, the judge acted reasonably and considered all the facts before deciding to run them consecutively. Overall, the court did not find any errors in the trial process that would have changed the outcome, and so they upheld the original sentence given to Miller.

F-2017-1240

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1240, Kevin Eugene Fowler appealed his conviction for five counts of Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Kevin Eugene Fowler was found guilty by a jury of neglecting his children, which included not providing them enough food and medical care. The jury recommended that he be sentenced to 30 years in prison for four of the counts and 10 years for the last count, with all sentences to be served one after the other, totaling 130 years. Fowler was required to serve 85% of his sentences before being eligible for parole. Fowler raised several points during his appeal, arguing that there were issues with how evidence was presented in court. He claimed that comments made by a police officer were unfair and that he did not receive a fair trial because of them. However, the court found that these comments were relevant and did not harm his case. Fowler also argued that he was wrongly punished multiple times for the same actions regarding his children, but the court ruled that his separate actions of failing to provide food and medical care could be treated as different crimes. He accused the State of misconduct during the trial, but the court concluded that the comments made were either allowed within the context of the trial or did not unfairly influence the jury. Another point raised was about his attorney not doing a good job. Fowler claimed his lawyer failed to object to improper arguments and was not sufficiently prepared. The court found that his lawyer's actions were not deficient and that there was no actual conflict of interest in defending both him and his co-defendant. Fowler believed that his lengthy sentences were excessive. Yet, the court determined that the sentences fell within the legal limits, and the trial judge had considered all relevant facts before deciding to make the sentences consecutive. Lastly, Fowler argued that all these issues combined made it impossible for him to get a fair trial, but since the court did not find any individual errors significant, they ruled against this claim as well. Overall, the court affirmed Fowler's multiple convictions and sentences, concluding that no errors were made that would warrant a new trial or a change in sentencing.

F-2017-825

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-825, Ryan Paul Farr appealed his conviction for burglary in the second degree and possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences. There was one dissenting opinion. The case began when Farr was found guilty by a jury in Carter County. He faced two counts: one for burglary after having previous convictions, and another for having a firearm despite also having previous convictions. The jury decided that he should serve 25 years for the burglary and 15 years for the firearm possession, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. Farr raised many complaints in his appeal, mentioning problems he believed occurred during the trial. He argued that the trial court made mistakes when it allowed the case to be reopened for more witness testimony and that he did not get a fair trial due to evidence of other crimes being presented. He also expressed concern about the prosecutor’s comments, which he thought made it seem like he was guilty before the jury could decide. The court looked closely at each of Farr's points. For the first complaint, the court said that letting the State present more witness testimony was a reasonable choice and didn’t hurt Farr's case. About the evidence of other crimes, the court noted that Farr didn’t object at the time these details were shared, which meant he couldn’t complain later. Farr also had issues with how his prior convictions were brought up during the trial, but the court found no major errors there either. When it came to the prosecutor’s behavior, the court decided that while the prosecutor made some points during arguments, they did not sway the trial's fairness. Farr's claims about not having enough evidence supporting his burglary and firearm possession were rejected since the court believed the evidence presented was sufficient to prove his guilt. Lastly, although Farr thought his sentences were too long, the court reminded him that sentences are usually left to the discretion of the judge unless they are extremely unfair, which in this case they weren’t. Because the court found no errors in the trial process, they confirmed the decision made in the lower court. In conclusion, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence against Farr, stating that all of his arguments were without merit.

F-2017-444

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-444, Haskin appealed his conviction for child neglect and child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. No one dissented. Haskin was found guilty of neglecting children and sexually abusing them. The jury gave him several long prison sentences, including ten years for each count of neglect and many decades for sexual abuse. The judge ordered these sentences to be served one after the other. Haskin raised seven main arguments against his conviction during his appeal. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes that affected his rights. For example, he said that evidence was unfairly used against him, and that the trial did not follow the rules properly. He argued that a police investigator should not have gone back to his property without a warrant, and that his rights were violated in other ways as well. However, the court found that the police acted reasonably and that Haskin's claims of error did not hold up because he did not provide enough details to support them. The court carefully reviewed everything and decided there was no need to change the outcome of the trial. They ruled that Haskin's conviction and the long sentences would stand. The decision means he will serve a considerable time in prison for his actions.

F-2017-1285

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 2, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1285, Isaac Avila appealed his conviction for multiple counts of kidnapping, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Isaac Avila was found guilty by a jury for kidnapping his estranged wife and his own children, along with possessing a firearm during these events and resisting an officer. The jury gave him various sentences, including a total of 50 years in prison for the kidnappings and other convictions. Avila argued that his convictions for kidnapping his children were not valid since he believed he had the right to be with them as their parent. He also claimed there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him for these crimes. The court examined the law and the evidence. They found that, while parents do have rights, Avila acted in a way that was not allowed by law when he took his children. The court also decided that the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions, meaning it was strong enough for a reasonable person to believe he was guilty. Avila further argued that the jury should have been told about the defense of consent, which is when someone allows an action to happen, and that his lawyer didn’t do a good job helping him. However, the court ruled that the trial instructions were adequate and that his lawyer's performance did not harm his case. Lastly, Avila thought his sentences were too harsh. The court agreed that, while they were serious, they were reasonable given the facts of the case. Overall, the court upheld Avila's convictions and sentences, deciding that he had received a fair trial and that the evidence against him was strong enough to support the jury's decisions.

F-2017-1146

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 2, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1146, Scott Milton Donley appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold his convictions. One judge dissented. Scott Milton Donley was found guilty of two crimes during a bench trial: Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery. He received a sentence that included twenty years for the first crime and one year for the second crime, with both sentences running at the same time. Donley argued that he should not be punished for both crimes based on double jeopardy rules, meaning he shouldn’t be charged twice for what he claimed was the same act. The court examined whether there was proof for each crime that did not overlap. They found that Donley committed separate acts of pushing and slapping the victim before threatening her with a knife, which were seen as different offenses that required different evidence. Therefore, the court decided there was no double punishment. Donley also claimed there wasn't enough evidence to show he committed Assault with a Dangerous Weapon because he argued that the knife he used wasn't sharp. However, the court reviewed the evidence, including testimonies from him, the victim, and officers. They concluded that any reasonable person could find he intended to cause harm with the knife and that it was indeed a dangerous weapon. Lastly, Donley argued that he didn’t willingly give up his right to a jury trial. However, the court found clear proof that he had done so. The process was completed in court, and both he and the prosecutor waived the jury trial properly. In conclusion, the court affirmed the judgments and sentences against Donley, stating that all his claims were without merit.

F-2017-356

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 2, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-356, Elizabeth A. Jennings appealed her conviction for Permitting Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed her conviction. One judge dissented. The case took place in Tulsa County, where Jennings was found guilty of allowing child sexual abuse to happen, which is against the law. The jury decided she should go to prison for 14 years. She was very unhappy about this and wanted to challenge the ruling. Jennings raised three big points in her appeal: 1. She said the prosecutor made a wrong hypothetical question during jury selection, which is called voir dire, and that this violated her rights. 2. She also argued that a lot of evidence was shown about her co-defendant's sexual misconduct, which she thought made it hard for her to get a fair sentence. 3. Lastly, she complained that the judge didn't tell the jury that she would have to register as a sex offender after her conviction, which she thought was an important piece of information. The court looked at everything carefully, including the evidence, the transcripts, and the arguments from both sides. It decided that Jennings did not deserve any relief from her conviction based on her arguments. For the first point, the court said that the prosecutor's question was okay. It was meant to see if jurors could be fair and follow the law without making decisions before hearing all the evidence. In the second point, the court agreed that the evidence about the co-defendant was relevant and helped to show Jennings' knowledge of the situation. The court found that this evidence was not unfairly hurtful to her case. On the third point, the court decided that it was not wrong for the judge to skip giving out the information about sex offender registration because it wasn't necessary for the case. In the end, the court upheld Jennings' sentence of 14 years in prison. The judges considered all the arguments but concluded that everything was handled correctly during the trial.

F-2016-375

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 25, 2019
Post category:F

This document is the opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the appeal of James Stanford Poore from his convictions of four counts of First Degree Murder and two counts of Robbery with a Firearm, which occurred in Tulsa County District Court. The jury recommended sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder convictions and life imprisonment for the robbery charges. The opinion outlines the factual background of the case, including the brutal murders of four victims during a robbery and the subsequent evidence linking Appellant Poore and his brother Cedric Poore to the crime. Key pieces of evidence included witness testimonies, DNA analysis, and ballistic evidence connecting the Poores to both the murders and an earlier robbery. The appellate court addressed several propositions raised by Poore, reviewing the admission of expert testimony, the exclusion of certain third-party perpetrator evidence, the relevance of other crimes evidence, the legality of the search warrant executed at Poore's mother's residence, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. After careful consideration, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence or denying Poore's requests for different evidence and upheld the sufficiency of the search warrant. The court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court, providing a detailed legal rationale for its decisions. The final decision includes an order for the mandate to be issued upon the filing of this opinion. The judgment for both the defendant and the state was documented, with all judges concurring in the decision. For those interested in viewing or downloading the original document, a link is provided at the end of the summary.

F-2017-147

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 25, 2019
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BRIAN A. STALEY, Appellant,** **Case No. F-2017-147** **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA APR 25 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, JUDGE:** Appellant Brian A. Staley was convicted in Caddo County District Court for various drug-related offenses and possession of a firearm. He appealed, raising eleven propositions of error. **Propositions of Error:** 1. Denial of motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless search. 2. Admission of evidence concerning other controlled substances. 3. Conviction for an uncharged offense. 4. Insufficient evidence on acquiring proceeds from drug activity. 5. Insufficient evidence linking firearms to trafficking. 6. Prejudicial statements by a state trooper. 7. Improper prosecutorial arguments. 8. Insufficient evidence of knowing possession of marijuana. 9. Improper admission of irrelevant handwriting evidence. 10. Cumulative effect of errors denying a fair trial. 11. Excessive sentences. **Court Decision:** After reviewing the record, the Court affirmed Staley's convictions. **Key Findings:** - **Proposition I:** The traffic stop and subsequent consent to search were lawful, thus the motion to suppress was denied. - **Proposition II:** The evidence of other controlled substances was admissible as res gestae; hence, no abuse of discretion in its admission. - **Proposition III:** Any scrivener's error in statute citation for Count 2 did not affect substantial rights and was denied plain error review. - **Propositions IV, V, and VIII:** The evidence was sufficient for a conviction on all counts when viewed favorably to the prosecution. - **Propositions VI and VII:** Claims of evidentiary harassment and improper argument did not impede a fair trial; the trial court’s admonishments mitigated any potential prejudice. - **Proposition IX:** The handwritten note was relevant and supported the themes of trafficking and possession designed by the prosecution. - **Proposition X:** Cumulative error doctrine was not applicable as no significant errors occurred that affected the outcome. - **Proposition XI:** The sentences did not shock the conscience and were not excessive in light of the offenses committed. **Opinion of the Court:** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. --- **APPEARANCES:** - **For Appellant:** Albert Hoch, Norman, OK - **For Appellee:** Alan Rosenbaum, Caddo County District Attorney; Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma; William R. Holmes, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK **Opinion by:** Hudson, J. **Concurrences:** Lewis, P.J.; Kuehn, V.P.J. (concurring in part/dissenting in part); Lumpkin, J.; Rowland, J. **Concurring/Dissenting Opinion by Kuehn, V.P.J.:** While I agree with the majority on other claims, I dissent regarding the admission of evidence about extraneous controlled substances and the handwritten notes. I believe such evidence was improperly admitted and could have imparted an unfair prejudice. Nonetheless, this evidence did not materially affect the trial's outcome. For a detailed opinion and further reading, access the [full opinion here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2017-147_1734273240.pdf).

F-2018-617

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 25, 2019
Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of Douglas Edward Scott. Scott was convicted of Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation and Petit Larceny in a non-jury trial and was sentenced to eight years in prison for the first charge and six months in county jail for the second, with both sentences running concurrently. ### Key Points from the Opinion: 1. **Proposition I - Sufficiency of Evidence**: - Scott challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his domestic assault conviction. - The court reviewed the evidence favorably toward the prosecution and concluded that a rational trier of fact could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. - The trial court rejected Scott's claim of innocence, and the court affirmed that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. 2. **Proposition II - Sentence Excessiveness**: - Scott argued that his eight-year sentence was excessive. - The court noted that the sentence was within the statutory range and considered the facts of the case. - The court determined that the sentence did not shock its conscience and denied the proposition of excessive sentencing. ### Conclusion: - The court affirmed Scott's judgment and sentence, denying both of his propositions of error. - The mandate for the decision was ordered upon the delivery and filing of the opinion. ### Representations: - The trial representation included Charles Michael Thompson for the appellant and Richard Smothermon as the District Attorney for the State. - The opinion was written by Judge Lumpkin, with all other judges concurring. For more detailed information or legal context, you can download the full PDF of the opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-617_1735229379.pdf).

F-2018-83

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 25, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-83, the appellant appealed his conviction for terminating his participation in a drug court program. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of the appellant's participation in the Kay County Drug Court Program. One judge dissented. The case began with the appellant being charged with domestic abuse, followed by several other charges which led to his participation in the drug court program. He had previous sentences but entered a plea agreement that allowed him to avoid immediate incarceration if he completed the program successfully. However, after multiple instances of non-compliance, the state requested to terminate him from the program. During a hearing, the judge evaluated whether the appellant had violated the terms of his performance contract in the drug court. The judge determined that he had. The appellant argued that the judge should have given him more chances to comply with the rules of the program, but the judge concluded that the appellant's actions warranted termination. The court ultimately agreed with the judge's decision, stating that he had not abused his discretion in terminating the appellant’s participation in the drug court program. The termination was deemed appropriate given the appellant's repeated violations.