It seems you have provided a court document regarding a correction order related to a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma. The document includes information about the case and its parties, as well as directions for accessing a PDF version of the opinion. If you have any specific questions or need assistance regarding this court document or related matters, feel free to ask!
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **PHILIP JAN CANNON,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2018-923** **FILED** **AUG 15 2019** **Clerk** **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant Philip Jan Cannon was tried by a jury in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Case No. CF-2016-541, for Possession of Child Pornography, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2. The jury found Cannon guilty and assessed punishment at twenty years imprisonment and a $25,000.00 fine. The Honorable John Canavan, District Judge, who presided over Cannon's trial, sentenced him according to the jury's verdict. Cannon appeals, raising the issue of whether improper closing remarks by the prosecutor deprived him of a fair trial. Under 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1, Cannon must serve 85% of his sentence before he is eligible for parole consideration. We find relief is not required and affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. 1. Cannon complains of prosecutorial misconduct, arguing it deprived him of his right to a fair trial. Because the comments at issue were not objected to at trial, our review is for plain error only. *Harney v. State*, 2011 OK CR 10, ¶ 23, 256 P.3d 1002, 1007. To qualify for relief based on plain error, Cannon must demonstrate: (1) the existence of an actual error (a deviation from a legal rule); (2) that the error is plain or obvious; and (3) that the error affected his substantial rights, meaning it impacted the trial's outcome. *Hogan v. State*, 2006 OK CR 19, ¶ 38, 139 P.3d 907, 923. This Court only corrects plain error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings or represents a miscarriage of justice. *Stewart v. State*, 2016 OK CR 9, ¶ 25, 372 P.3d 508, 514. We evaluate alleged misconduct in the context of the entire trial, considering not only the propriety of the prosecutor's actions but also the strength of the evidence against Cannon and the arguments of defense counsel. Both parties have broad latitude to discuss the evidence and make reasonable inferences. Relief is granted only where the prosecutor's flagrant misconduct has so tainted the trial that it is rendered fundamentally unfair. *Jones v. State*, 2011 OK CR 13, ¶ 3, 253 P.3d 997, 998. It is rare that prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument necessitates reversal. *Pryor v. State*, 2011 OK CR 18, ¶ 4, 254 P.3d 721, 722. Cannon alleges the prosecutor argued facts not in evidence and appealed to the jury's sympathy for the victims. However, we find there was no plain error in these remarks. Therefore, this claim is denied. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE JOHN CANAVAN, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** **ADAM BANNER** **DUSTIN PHILLIPS** **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** 1900 N.W. Expressway, P.O. Box 926 Suite 601 Norman, OK 73070 **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** **ROBERT W. JACKSON** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** Oklahoma City, OK 73118 **ADAM PANTER** **COUNSEL FOR STATE** **MIKE HUNTER** Pottawatomie County Attorney General of Oklahoma 331 N. Broadway Shawnee, OK 74801 **DIANE L. SLAYTON** Assistant Attorney General 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 **OPINION BY:** ROWLAND, J. **LUMPKIN, P.J.:** Concur **LEWIS, V.P.J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **KUEHN, J.:** Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-923_1734954802.pdf)
**In The Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Keye Yarnell Smith,** Appellant, **v.** **The State of Oklahoma,** Appellee. **No. F-2018-0851** **Filed August 15, 2019** **Summary Opinion** **Presiding Judge Lewis:** On December 23, 2014, Keye Yarnell Smith was charged in Tulsa County Case No. CF-2014-6405 with: - Count 1: Possession of Controlled Drug (felony) - Count 2: Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (misdemeanor) - Count 3: Obstructing an Officer (misdemeanor) Smith pled guilty to all counts on August 26, 2015. Sentencing was deferred until August 17, 2018, pending successful completion of the Tulsa County Drug Court program, which would result in a four-year deferred sentence for Count 1, with Counts 2 and 3 dismissed. If terminated from the program, he would face six years imprisonment for Count 1 and one year in the County Jail for Counts 2 and 3, with sentences running concurrently and credit for time served. On July 5, 2018, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Smith’s participation in Drug Court, citing violations of program rules. After a hearing, Special Judge April Seibert ordered Smith's termination from the program and sentenced him per the plea agreement. Smith appeals this decision, claiming the trial court abused its discretion in terminating him from Drug Court. On appeal, Smith argues the court lacked adequate information due to the absence of the Performance Contract and Rules of Drug Court in the record. However, evidence provided during the hearing demonstrated that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Oklahoma Statute Title 22 O.S. § 471.7(E) outlines that drug court judges must recognize relapses and provide progressive sanctions, rather than automatic termination, unless the offender's conduct warrants such action. The judge has broad authority over program removal decisions as outlined in § 471.7(G). This Court reviews the lower court’s decisions for abuse of discretion, which requires Smith to show that the court reached a clearly erroneous conclusion. No objections were raised by Smith regarding the allegations or the lack of understanding of the program's rules. **Decision:** The Court affirms the State’s Motion to Revoke Smith’s participation in Drug Court in Tulsa District Court Case No. CF-2014-6405. The mandate will be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision in accordance with Rule 3.15 of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. **Appearances:** - **Counsel for Appellant:** Stephanie Singer - **Counsel for Appellee:** Cindy Cunningham, Assistant District Attorney - **Attorney General:** Mike Hunter, Sher M. Johnson **Opinion By:** Presiding Judge Lewis **Concurred by:** Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn, Judge Lumpkin, Judge Hudson, Judge Rowland. [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-0851_1735123379.pdf)
In OCCA case No. F-2018-485, Scott Thomas Stout appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape and Sexual Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Scott Thomas Stout was found guilty by a jury in Kay County for forcing himself on a long-time friend and for sexual battery. The jury did not find him guilty of two other charges of Rape by Instrumentation. The judge sentenced him to twenty years for the rape charge and four years for the sexual battery charge, which he must serve consecutively. Furthermore, he must serve at least 85% of his sentence before being considered for parole. Stout raised two main points in his appeal. First, he argued that the prosecutor acted improperly and that these actions denied him a fair trial. Second, he claimed that the trial court made a mistake by allowing the prosecution to call a witness in the middle of his defense to present evidence. In the first point, Stout pointed out three specific issues with the prosecutor's conduct. He said the prosecutor tried to make the jury feel sorry for the victim, asked questions that seemed to give opinions on the victim's credibility, and used first names for witnesses inappropriately. The court looked at all of the evidence and determined that these actions did not distract from the overall fairness of the trial. The jury acquitted Stout on two of the charges and recommended lighter sentences for the others. Therefore, the court ruled that Stout did not experience unfairness due to prosecutorial misconduct. Regarding the second point in his appeal, Stout argued that it was wrong for the prosecutor to cause the defense to stop its case to bring in a detective to verify some evidence. The court noted that the prosecutor's interruption was related to a question raised by Stout's own lawyer and that the trial judge had acted fairly in allowing it. The judge ruled that this did not disrupt the trial's fairness. In conclusion, the court found no errors in how the trial was conducted and affirmed Stout's conviction, meaning the original decision stood.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-290, John Wesley Hart appealed his conviction for child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentences. One judge dissented. John Wesley Hart was found guilty by a jury on three counts of child sexual abuse that happened at different times. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, which means he will serve a total of sixty years. As part of the appeal, Hart argued that the jury did not receive proper instructions about what constitutes child sexual abuse, which he claimed violated his rights. Specifically, he believed the jury instructions on the definitions of lewd or indecent acts were confusing and could have led to non-unanimous verdicts. The court explained that the trial judge did instruct the jury correctly on the law and the acts that led to Hart's conviction. The judge pointed out that the acts Hart committed were clearly defined and separated by time, which meant they did not violate double jeopardy rights. The court also determined that it is not necessary for the jury to agree on every specific act as long as they are all considered part of the same crime of child sexual abuse. Hart also challenged the length of his sentence, claiming it was too harsh. However, the court noted that his sentences were justified based on the facts of the case and were within the limits of the law. The trial court had the discretion to make the sentences run one after another instead of at the same time, and the Court of Criminal Appeals found that there was no mistake in this decision. In conclusion, the court upheld Hart's conviction and the sentences given in the trial court.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-39, Robert Ephriam Smith appealed his conviction for two counts of Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentencing of life imprisonment on both counts, which were to run consecutively. One judge dissented. Robert Ephriam Smith was found guilty by a jury for abusing two children. The jury suggested that he should spend his life in prison for the acts he committed. The trial judge agreed and stated that Smith would serve his sentences one after the other. Smith raised several points in his appeal. He claimed that the instructions given to the jury were confusing. He believed they did not clearly explain what the jury needed to decide for his charges. He also said that evidence presented against him was unfair because it included things that weren't related to the case and might have made the jury feel negatively toward him. The judge's comments during the trial were also a point of concern for Smith. He thought the judge showed support for the young witnesses, which might have influenced the jury’s opinion unfairly. Moreover, he argued that notes from the forensic examiner and testimonies from his former step-daughter, who said he abused her when she was young, should not have been allowed as they added to the unfairness of the trial. Smith also argued that the way the prosecutor spoke during the trial was not appropriate and might have made it harder for him to get a fair trial. He thought that these methods used by the prosecutor could have led the jury to make a decision out of anger instead of focusing only on the facts. When it came to his lawyer, Smith claimed that his defense was weak and did not raise objections when they should have. He thought this lack of action harmed his case. However, the court decided that since no major errors were found in the trial, his lawyer’s performance could not be considered ineffective. In the end, the court found no grounds to change the original decision. They determined that the trial was fair despite Smith's complaints, and his life sentences would remain. The mandate for this decision was ordered to be issued immediately.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CASE SUMMARY:** **Appellant:** Carey James Buxton **Appellee:** The State of Oklahoma **Case Numbers:** CM-2014-358, CF-2014-578, CF-2017-5 **Opinion Date:** August 8, 2019 **Judge:** Lumpkin --- **BACKGROUND:** Carey James Buxton appealed the termination of his participation in the Drug Court program and the imposition of sentencing by the District Court of Kay County, presided by Judge David Bandy. Buxton had entered pleas of no contest to multiple charges, including drug possession and burglary, and was sentenced to a Drug Court program where successful completion would lead to dismissal of the charges. However, after the State filed applications for his removal from the Drug Court program due to non-compliance, a hearing was conducted on this matter. The judge ultimately decided to terminate Buxton from the program and impose the sentencing terms outlined in the plea agreement. --- **PROPOSITION OF ERROR:** Buxton asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in terminating him from the Drug Court program. --- **ANALYSIS:** 1. **Standard of Review:** The decision to revoke or terminate a Drug Court participant lies within the trial judge's discretion. An abuse of discretion is defined as a clearly erroneous conclusion. 2. **Contentions by Appellant:** - Buxton argues that the court did not assess whether disciplinary measures short of termination would suffice. - He also claims that removal for cheating on drug tests is against Drug Court laws. 3. **Court Findings:** - The court ruled that violations needed to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Buxton repeatedly violated the terms of his Drug Court contract despite receiving multiple jail sanctions. - The appellate court noted that termination was not an automatic consequence of drug test failures; the trial court considered all relevant factors before making its decision. 4. **Conclusion:** - The appellate court determined that the trial court’s decision was supported by the evidence and was not an abuse of discretion. Buxton's proposition of error was denied. --- **DECISION:** The order terminating Buxton from the Drug Court and proceeding with sentencing as per the plea agreement is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is to be issued immediately following the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** - **For Appellant:** Jarrod Stevenson and Jeremy Stillwell (Appellate Defense Counsel) - **For Appellee:** Brian Hermanson (District Attorney), Mike Hunter (Oklahoma Attorney General), Tessa L. Henry (Assistant Attorney General) --- **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** - **Concur:** Lewis, P.J.; Kuehn, V.P.J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. --- For further details, the complete opinion is available in PDF format: [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-945_1734875235.pdf).
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1284, Jesse Earl Maupin appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child Under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Maupin was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. He raised several issues on appeal, arguing that there was not enough evidence to prove he was guilty, that his life sentence was not a valid punishment, that the sentence was too harsh, and that there were mistakes in his trial that required a new trial. The court carefully reviewed the evidence and found that there was enough proof for the jury to convict Maupin based on the law. They explained that juries can use both direct evidence and indirect evidence to make their decisions. Maupin also claimed that a life sentence should not have been an option given the laws around his charges. The court found that the sentence was legal and appropriate. They ruled that a life sentence is a valid punishment when the law does not specify a maximum sentence. Regarding the sentence itself, the court determined that the life sentence did not shock their conscience or seem overly harsh given the circumstances of the case. Finally, since the court found no errors in the trial, they also declined to grant a new trial based on the idea of cumulative errors. In conclusion, the court affirmed Maupin's conviction and sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-482, Sumeika D. Byrd appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Sumeika D. Byrd was found guilty of killing Brendon Turner. The trial took place in Oklahoma County, where the jury decided that Byrd should spend life in prison. Byrd argued that there wasn't enough evidence to prove she killed Turner unlawfully and that her trial wasn't fair because the court gave a flight instruction. The first argument was about whether Byrd acted in self-defense. Under the law, if someone believes they are in danger, they may use force to protect themselves, but the belief has to be reasonable. The jury saw proof that Byrd stabbed Turner multiple times, and they had evidence showing that she intended to kill him. Some of the wounds were very serious, and evidence suggested Byrd's actions weren't justifiable self-defense. Instead, the jury believed she had the intention to kill. Byrd's second argument was about the flight instruction. This instruction tells the jury that if someone runs away after a crime, it might mean they have guilt. Byrd did leave the scene, and since she claimed self-defense, the court decided it was right to instruct the jury about her leaving. The court found that this instruction was appropriate and that the trial was fair. In summary, the court reviewed all the evidence and decided that Byrd's conviction should stand. The dissenting judge disagreed with the decision, but the majority of the court felt there was enough proof to affirm Byrd's sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-211, Lewis Long, III appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. No judge dissented. The case began when Lewis Long, III was tried and found guilty by a jury in Beckham County. He was convicted for trafficking in methamphetamine after having previous felony convictions. The jury recommended a sentence of twenty years in prison, which the judge followed. Long was found not guilty of a separate charge involving drug paraphernalia. Long raised a few concerns in his appeal. He argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because police entered a place without properly announcing themselves. He also felt the state did not provide enough evidence to prove he had control or possession of the methamphetamine. Lastly, he believed there wasn't enough evidence for him to go to trial for the drug trafficking charge. The court looked closely at the evidence and procedures from Long's trial. They first addressed the entry of police into the motel room. Even if not knocking and announcing was an error, the court decided that this did not impact the overall case because the evidence found was still valid. Next, the court evaluated whether the evidence presented during the trial was strong enough to support a verdict of guilty. They determined that there was enough evidence to show that Long had joint possession of the methamphetamine found at the motel. Lastly, the court examined whether Long should have been able to challenge the charges before his trial but concluded that he did not show any clear error that would affect the outcome of his case. Since the state showed enough probable cause for his charges at the preliminary hearing, they found no reason to reverse the decision. In conclusion, the court decided not to grant any relief for Long's appeal, confirming his conviction and the sentence imposed.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-43, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction and falsely personating another to create liability. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. The appellant, Anthony Paul Ornder, was found guilty by a jury in the Washington County District Court of two counts of possession of a firearm after a prior felony conviction and one count of falsely impersonating another. The jury recommended a total sentence of forty years for each firearm count and forty-five years for the impersonation count, all to be served at the same time. Ornder raised several arguments on appeal. He claimed that the state did not have enough evidence to prove he possessed the firearm or to show that he gained any benefit from using a false identity. He also argued that his lawyer did not represent him properly, which hurt his chances of a good defense, and asked the court to reduce his sentence because it was too harsh. The court looked carefully at the whole case, including evidence, witness testimonies, and records. They found that there was enough evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that he was guilty. They explained that the law allows both direct and indirect evidence to support charges. The court determined that the claims about ineffective help from his lawyer were not strong enough because they were based on guesses without solid evidence. Lastly, regarding the length of the sentence, the court concluded that it did not seem overly severe given his past criminal record and the nature of his actions during the incident. They affirmed his judgment and sentence, meaning they agreed with the original decision without changes.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-512, Robert Neal Owens appealed his conviction for Sexual Battery and Child Abuse by Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Owens was found guilty by a judge in a non-jury trial for touching a victim inappropriately and causing harm to a child by putting the child in a chokehold. Owens argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough for a conviction. However, the court believed that enough evidence was presented to support both convictions. The court looked closely at the facts and found that a reasonable person could determine Owens was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge concluded that the punishment Owens received, which added up to fifty-five years in prison, was not excessive given his history of prior convictions and the nature of his crimes. Therefore, the court upheld the original sentences. Ultimately, Owens' appeal did not change the outcome of his case, and he remained sentenced to prison.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-350, Jonathan Brent Buccino appealed his conviction for three counts of embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Jonathan was found guilty in a trial where the judge decided the case without a jury. He was accused of taking money from an investment, which he was supposed to use for software development, but instead, he used the money for other purposes. The judge gave him five years in prison for each count, but these sentences were suspended, meaning he wouldn’t go to prison right away, if at all. During his appeal, Jonathan claimed that the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove he committed a crime. He argued that the only proof was what people said in their testimony, not any written documents. He believed that this meant the state did not meet its obligation to show he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court explained that when figuring out if there was enough evidence for a conviction, they look at it in a way that favors the state. This means they assume the evidence presented was correct and that the jury found the witnesses believable. Even if there were different opinions, the judge made the final call on what was credible. The court found that Jonathan was only allowed to use the invested money for software development, and the state showed he used it elsewhere, which was enough to prove he was guilty. In his second claim, Jonathan argued that the “Statute of Frauds” should have applied to his case. He thought that this statute meant any agreement needed to be in writing if it couldn’t be completed within a year, and since he didn’t have a written agreement, his case shouldn’t have been criminal. The court explained that embezzlement doesn’t need a contract, and whether or not there was a written agreement was not important. The crime was based on his actions, not on whether a written contract existed. The court also noted that the decision to bring a criminal case was the district attorney’s responsibility and that the evidence provided was enough to charge him with a crime, regardless of whether he might have been open to a civil case as well. In conclusion, the court affirmed Jonathan’s conviction, meaning they agreed with the original decision of the trial court.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-248, Mosi Abasi Dennis appealed his conviction for first degree murder and conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the verdict. One member dissented. Mosi Abasi Dennis was found guilty by a jury of first degree murder and conspiracy related to a robbery. The jury sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murder and ten years for conspiracy, with both sentences to be served one after the other. Dennis was involved in a plan to rob Antonio Walker. He and others went to Walker's house under the false pretense of purchasing drugs. When they arrived, Dennis refused to abandon the plan, even when it became clear that others were present in the house. Things escalated, and during the robbery attempt, Dennis shot Walker's father, Kenneth, who had entered the room to see what was happening. On appeal, Dennis raised several arguments. First, he claimed that there was unfair treatment in jury selection because a minority juror was removed while a white juror, who had similar issues, was allowed to stay. The court found no evidence of racial bias and held that the reasons given for removing the juror were fair. Second, Dennis argued that the prosecution made unfair comments during closing arguments, asking jurors to sympathize with a co-conspirator. The court ruled that this did not unfairly influence the jury as the statements were part of explaining the witness's behavior. Third, he contested the admission of graphic photographs of the victim, believing they were too prejudicial. The court decided that the images were relevant to the case and helped explain the events that unfolded during the crime. Dennis also claimed that the evidence presented was not enough to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the court disagreed, stating that the evidence adequately demonstrated that Dennis shot the victim during the robbery. Furthermore, Dennis believed he should have been given instructions for a lesser offense of second-degree murder, but the court found that there was no solid evidence supporting such a charge. Finally, Dennis argued that the combination of errors during the trial warranted a reversal of the conviction. The court concluded there were no significant errors that would have affected the trial's outcome. The court ultimately upheld the conviction and sentencing, stating that there were no legal errors that warranted overturning the jury’s decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1232, Adrian Luis Walker appealed his conviction for second-degree murder and robbery by two or more persons. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction on the robbery charge because it violated the law against being punished for the same crime more than once. The court affirmed the other parts of the sentence. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1149, Moore appealed his conviction for Permitting Invitees Under 21 to Possess or Consume Alcohol, Child Neglect, and Transporting a Loaded Firearm in a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court. One judge dissented. Moore was convicted for crimes related to a party where a fifteen-year-old boy named N.F. drank too much alcohol and died from alcohol poisoning. The party took place at the home of a sixteen-year-old friend, and although Moore was not there, the court had to decide if he was responsible for what happened because he was in a relationship with the boy's mother, who lived at that house. The first major point in the case was whether there was enough evidence to support Moore’s convictions. The court found that there was, especially because Moore admitted he lived with the mother and his driver's license listed that address. This was important as the law stated that he could be held responsible for underage drinking and neglect if he was living there. Moore also argued that he didn’t get a fair trial because his lawyer did not do a good job. He mentioned that his lawyer failed to object to certain testimonies from a worker in child protective services. The court looked into this claim but concluded that it didn’t affect the fairness of the trial enough to change the outcome. They thought that defense counsel did present evidence to support Moore's case, showing he may not have lived at the home when N.F. died. Another issue was about evidence presented during the trial. Moore’s lawyer did not object to the testimony from the child protective services worker, which led to the question of whether this testimony hurt his case. The court found that while this testimony might have been improper, it did not significantly affect the trial's result since the jury could have made their decision based on other evidence presented. Moore also claimed he should get credit for the time spent in jail before his sentencing. However, the court said it was up to the judge to decide about giving credit for time served, not mandatory. They believed the judge made the right choice and affirmed the decision. In conclusion, the court upheld Moore's convictions and sentences, affirming that there was enough evidence against him and that his rights to a fair trial were not violated. Moore was denied the motion to have a hearing about his lawyer's effectiveness in defending him.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1142, Daniel Ryan Chadwell appealed his conviction for forty counts of Lewd Acts with a Child Under 16. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Chadwell's judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Chadwell was found guilty by a jury of many serious offenses. He was accused of committing inappropriate acts with children who were under the age of 16. The jury decided he should spend a very long time in prison, giving him a total of several hundred years in sentences. He did not get found guilty on two of the counts. Chadwell's appeal included two main arguments. First, he claimed the jury received wrong instructions about how to decide his punishment. Specifically, he argued that the instructions mentioned the punishment for crimes against children under 12, which was not applicable to his case since he was charged with acts involving children under 16. The court found that while the instructions did have an error, the mistake was not serious enough to change the outcome. They noted that all the child victims were proven to be under 12 at the time of the crimes, so the error was harmless. Second, Chadwell argued that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial, which made it impossible for him to have a fair chance. However, the court looked at what happened during the entire trial and found that these actions did not make the trial unfair either. In the end, the court decided that Chadwell's appeal did not provide enough reason to change the original decision. Therefore, his sentences remained as decided by the jury.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1127, Jones appealed his conviction for robbery, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm after a previous felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Jones was found guilty of robbing someone with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, and having a gun after a felony conviction. He was sentenced to serve many years in prison for these crimes. Jones argued several points in his appeal. He believed it was wrong for him to stand trial for the gun possession charge when the earlier ruling had dismissed that part of his case. The court found that the process used to bring that charge back was okay. Jones also thought that statements he made after being arrested should not have been allowed in trial because he was scared and did not have a lawyer present. However, since he did not say this during the trial, the court looked at it carefully but decided it did not affect the trial in a serious way. Jones requested a special instruction for the jury about flight, meaning that if someone runs away from a situation, it might mean they are guilty. The court denied this request because Jones denied being at the crime scene, so the flight instruction was not needed. Finally, Jones claimed that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the closing arguments. The court concluded that while some comments might not have been ideal, they did not make the trial unfair. All in all, Jones's appeal did not lead to a change in his conviction or sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-802, Jestin Tafolla appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and Carrying a Weapon Unlawfully. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Tafolla was sentenced to life imprisonment for the assault and thirty days in jail for the misdemeanor charge, with the sentences served at the same time. His appeal raised several issues, mainly about whether his trial was fair. He claimed that evidence of his gang affiliation unfairly influenced the jury, that introducing certain statements violated his rights, and that errors occurred during the trial process. The court discussed the details of the case where Tafolla assaulted a man following a traffic dispute. Detectives witnessed Tafolla hitting the victim and confiscated brass knuckles he discarded. Witness statements indicated that racial slurs were part of the altercation. The court found that the evidence of Tafolla's gang membership was relevant to understand the incident and the motivations behind it. It ruled that the testimony related to his affiliation did not violate his rights and was permissible to show motive and intent. They also addressed Tafolla's complaints about the admission of the victim's statements, concluding that these did not prevent a fair trial. The admission of prior convictions for cross-examination purposes was also deemed appropriate as it was relevant to the prosecution's case. In issues raised about the prosecutor's conduct and jury instructions, the court determined that no significant errors impacted the trial. The arguments made by the prosecution were within the acceptable realm of discussing the evidence. Overall, the court found no individual errors that would require a new trial and concluded that the accumulation of complaints did not undermine the fairness of the proceedings. Thus, the original judgment was upheld, and Tafolla’s appeal was denied.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **GARRET TAYLOR MANKIN,** Appellant, Case No. F-2018-595 **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. --- **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, JUL 11 2019** John D. Hadden, Clerk --- ### SUMMARY OPINION **HUDSON, JUDGE:** **Background:** Garret Taylor Mankin was tried and convicted in a nonjury trial in Pontotoc County District Court (Case No. CF-2015-347) for two counts of Lewd Acts with a Child Under Twelve (Counts 1 and 3), violating 21 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1123(A)(2). He was sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment for each count, with the last five years of both sentences suspended. Originally charged with eleven counts, the trial court dismissed the majority by agreement of the parties. Mankin must serve eighty-five percent of his sentence before being eligible for parole. **Propositions of Error:** Mankin raises two propositions of error concerning the trial court's admission of hearsay statements from the alleged victims, P.M. and F.Y. 1. **Admittance of P.M.'s Hearsay Statements:** Mankin argues that the hearsay statements made by P.M. were not inherently trustworthy. The court found that the statements were admissible under 12 O.S.Supp.2013, § 2803.1, which allows for the admission of hearsay statements made by children under twelve regarding sexual contact against them if deemed reliable. Upon review: - P.M. disclosed the inappropriate touching to both her mother and a forensic interviewer, with consistent elements in her accounts. - Merely due to the nature of her disclosure or the method of questioning, the statements remained trustworthy. - The court determined that there was no abuse of discretion in this ruling. 2. **Admittance of F.Y.'s Hearsay Statements:** Mankin contends that F.Y.’s statements were not spontaneous or consistent, arguing similar points regarding terminologies used and that they lacked reliability. Upon review: - F.Y. made statements on the same day she was seen being inappropriately touched. - The mother’s questioning was open-ended and not leading. - F.Y.'s use of child-appropriate language (referring to the genitalia as a fat leg) supported the statement’s reliability. - The trial court's decision to admit the statements was upheld due to sufficient indicia of reliability. **Outcome:** After thorough consideration of the entire record and the propositions raised, the Court found no error that warranted relief. The judgments and sentences imposed by the District Court were affirmed. **Concurrences:** - Lewis, P.J. - Kuehn, V.P.J. - Lumpkin, J. - Rowland, J. **Opinion Filed:** Hudson, J. **Note**: For further details, you can download the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-595_1735312387.pdf).
In OCCA case No. F-2018-284, Carl Wayne Gundrum, Jr. appealed his conviction for first-degree rape and lewd acts with a child under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Gundrum was found guilty by a jury in Cleveland County and received a 30-year sentence for the rape and a 20-year sentence for the lewd acts. Both sentences are to be served consecutively, meaning he must serve them one after the other. Before the appeal, he argued several things regarding his trial. First, he claimed that his right to a speedy trial was violated because there was a delay of about 21 months from his arrest to the trial. The court looked at four things to decide if his right was violated: how long the delay was, why it happened, whether he asked for a speedy trial, and whether he was hurt by the delay. The court found that the delay was not enough to violate his speedy trial rights. Second, Gundrum argued that the court made a mistake by allowing evidence of another child molestation case to be shown in his trial. His lawyer objected to this evidence being used, and the court said that it was appropriately admitted, so they found no error here. Third, Gundrum claimed there was bad behavior from the prosecutors that made his trial unfair. Many of these actions were not objected to during the trial, so the court only looked at the ones that were considered plain errors. They decided that the prosecutor's actions did not change the outcome of the trial significantly enough to cause an unfair result. Fourth, he argued that his lawyer did not do a good job by not objecting to the prosecutor's misconduct. The court reviewed this situation and found that Gundrum could not prove that he was harmed by this lack of action, so his claim did not work out. Finally, Gundrum sought relief by stating that all these errors together made his trial unfair. However, since the court found no individual errors, they concluded that there could not be an accumulation of errors either. In the end, the court affirmed Gundrum's conviction and stated that he must serve a significant portion of his sentences before he could be considered for parole.
The document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the appeal of Ashley Dawn Bost. She was convicted of several offenses in LeFlore County District Court, including trafficking in illegal drugs and possession of a controlled substance, along with additional charges related to a firearm and drug paraphernalia. In her appeal, Bost raised a single proposition of error arguing that her convictions for trafficking in methamphetamine and possession of oxycodone violated the prohibition against multiple punishments for a single offense, as outlined in 21 O.S.2011, § 11. The court found that Bost did not preserve this argument for appeal as she failed to raise it during the trial, thus waiving her right to full review, except for considering it for plain error. The appellate court applied a three-part test for assessing plain error and determined that Bost did not demonstrate actual or plain error. The court explained that the analysis under Section 11 focuses on the relationship between the crimes and whether they require different proofs. Since the two charges involved different drugs and amounts required for trafficking and possession, the court concluded that they were indeed separate and distinct offenses and affirmed the trial court's judgments and sentences. The court's final decision was to affirm Bost's convictions and sentences, with the mandate ordered to be issued promptly. The opinion included a list of counsel for both the appellant and the appellee. For more information, a link to the full opinion is provided at the end of the summary.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-513, Bobby Lee Ruppel, Jr. appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and robbery with a weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Ruppel's conviction but vacated the restitution order, meaning a proper determination of the victim's economic loss must take place. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-411, Joey Elijo Adames appealed his conviction for Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold his convictions and the order revoking his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when Adames was charged with several serious offenses. After a trial, a jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to a total of 45 years in prison. This included 35 years for the conspiracy charge and 10 years for the gun possession charge, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. Adames had previous felony convictions, which affected his sentences. Furthermore, Adames had prior suspended sentences due to earlier charges, including Domestic Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. The state decided to revoke those suspended sentences after Adames committed the new crimes. During the trial, Adames argued that the prosecutor acted unfairly by making comments that hinted he should have testified, which he did not. He believed this made it hard for him to get a fair trial. However, the court examined Adames' claims. They found that the prosecutor’s comments did not directly force attention to the fact he did not testify and were within the acceptable limits of court arguments. The judges believed the jury was properly instructed to not hold his silence against him, and thus they did not see an error in the trial process. Adames also complained about the sentencing part of the trial, saying the prosecutor made remarks that were inappropriate and could have influenced the jury to give him a harsher sentence. Again, the court found that the comments focused more on his past behavior and did not unfairly sway the jury’s decision. Lastly, about the revocation of Adames' previous suspended sentences, he argued that he should have had a hearing within 20 days after pleading not guilty to the revocation. The court reviewed the record and concluded that Adames had waived his right to that fast hearing when he entered his plea of not guilty. Therefore, the court ruled that since no rule was broken, the revocation of his suspended sentence was valid. In summary, the court found no significant errors in Adames' trial or the revocation order. As a result, his convictions and the revocation of his suspended sentences were upheld, affirming the decisions made by the lower court.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1099, Willie Donnell Jackson appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree-Victim Unconscious. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Jackson's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Willie Donnell Jackson was found guilty by a jury for a serious crime involving a victim who was unconscious. The jury suggested that he spend life in prison without the chance to get out, but the trial judge decided to give him a chance for parole after a long time instead. Jackson didn't agree with this decision and said there were errors made during the trial that affected his rights. Jackson raised five main arguments on appeal. First, he said that the prosecutor acted improperly during the trial, which made it unfair. He claimed this had a cumulative effect and harmed his chance for a fair trial. Second, he thought the judge didn't give the jury the right instructions, which was another error. The third point was about his lawyers not helping him enough, meaning that he didn't get the proper support he needed during the trial. Fourth, Jackson believed that the prosecutor's actions led to a sentence that was too harsh compared to what happened. Finally, his last argument was that all the mistakes added up to deny him a fair trial and the legal protections he should have received. After looking at everything presented during the appeal, the judges decided there were no significant errors that would change the outcome of the trial. They did not agree with Jackson's claims, concluding that his trial was fair. As a result, they upheld the original decision and affirmed his sentence, meaning Jackson must serve a long time in prison. The judges, in concise language, rejected all of Jackson's claims, confirming that he did not prove that any errors affected the fairness of his trial or the severity of his sentence, leading to the final ruling.