Blog

F-2018-793

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

Martin Ochoa Medina v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2018-793

Filed: Aug. 29, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

**Martin Ochoa Medina appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. Hudson dissented.** In this case, Martin Ochoa Medina was convicted of a serious crime where he assaulted someone with a deadly weapon. After a trial, he was sentenced to life in prison. Medina argued that the way the prosecutor acted during the trial was unfair and that it affected his sentencing. He believed that the prosecutor talked too much about his previous crimes and tried to make people feel sorry for the victim. The court looked at Medina's claims and decided that even though some comments made by the prosecutor were not ideal, they didn’t change the overall fairness of the trial. Because of this, they confirmed the life sentence. One judge, Hudson, disagreed with part of the decision, saying that the comments about Medina's possible future crimes may have crossed a line, but he still agreed with the overall decision not to change the sentence.

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.

Issues

  • was he denied a fair sentencing proceeding because of prosecutorial misconduct during the second stage of his bifurcated trial
  • did the prosecutor improperly introduce details of his prior conviction and emphasize those details during closing argument
  • did the prosecutor appeal to sympathy for the victim in his closing argument
  • did the prosecutor improperly comment on the possibility that he would commit future crimes

Findings

  • Relief is not required and the Judgment and Sentence of the district court is affirmed.
  • Medina did not establish the commission of an error, plain or otherwise, regarding the prosecutorial misconduct claims.
  • The prosecutor's remarks about Medina's prior conviction fell within the wide latitude of acceptable argument on the evidence.
  • Medina's claim of improper victim sympathy by the prosecutor was without merit.
  • The prosecutor's comments on the possibility of future crimes were inappropriate but did not affect the overall fairness of Medina's sentencing proceeding.

F-2018-793

Aug. 29, 2019

Martin Ochoa Medina

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

ROWLAND, JUDGE: Appellant Martin Ochoa Medina appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Beckham County, Case No. CF-2017-275, for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, After Former Conviction of a Felony in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 652. The Honorable Doug Haught, District Judge, presided over Medina’s jury trial and sentenced him, in accordance with the jury’s verdict, to life imprisonment.

Medina raises a single issue on appeal: (1) whether he was denied a fair sentencing proceeding because of prosecutorial misconduct throughout the second stage of his bifurcated trial.

Under 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1, Medina must serve 85% of his sentence of imprisonment before he is eligible for parole consideration. We find relief is not required and affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court.

1. Medina contends he was denied a fair sentencing proceeding because of prosecutorial misconduct during the second stage of his bifurcated trial. He argues the prosecutor erroneously introduced details of his prior conviction and emphasized those details during closing argument, appealed to sympathy for the victim, and improperly commented on the possibility that he would commit future crimes. Because Medina failed to object, he has waived review of this claim for all but plain error. He must show the commission of a plain or obvious error affected the outcome of his trial. If he does so, this Court will correct plain error only where it seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the proceedings.

This Court evaluates claims of prosecutorial error within the context of the entire trial, considering not only the propriety of the prosecutor’s actions, but also the strength of the evidence against the defendant and the corresponding arguments of defense counsel. We have long recognized that both parties enjoy a wide latitude in closing argument to argue the evidence and reasonable inferences from it. It will be the rare instance when a prosecutor’s misconduct during closing argument requires relief.

Nevertheless, this Court does not permit evidence or argument of the underlying details of a defendant’s prior conviction(s) or argument on the possibility that a defendant may commit future crime(s). The crime of which Medina had been previously convicted, by its name, informed the jury that Medina assaulted a police officer with a deadly weapon. The fact that the weapon was identified and that the offense was originally charged as attempted capital murder and amended to aggravated assault on a police officer were included on the documentation concerning the offense and prejudice, if any, was mitigated by the four year sentence imposed. That sentence showed that the conduct and circumstances of the underlying offense were not all that dire.

This simply is not a case where the witnesses or documents erroneously provided specific details of the underlying felony offense and we find Medina has not established the commission of an error, plain or otherwise. Furthermore, the prosecutor’s remark about Medina’s prior conviction, read in context, falls within the wide latitude of acceptable argument on the evidence.

Medina’s claim that the prosecutor improperly invoked victim sympathy is likewise without merit. The challenged remark was based on the trial evidence and there was no commission of any error. Medina’s claim that the prosecutor improperly commented on the possibility that he would commit future crimes requires brief discussion. The prosecutor argued, He’s done that before with a meat cleaver. Look at that. Think about the next person, the next person. Think about our community and the safety of our community.

It is error to comment on the possibility that a defendant may commit crimes in the future. The prosecutor’s exhortation to think about the next person and the next in fixing punishment in this case makes reference to a probability that Medina would commit future crimes if not given the maximum sentence. The point was further made as the prosecutor went on to ask for life imprisonment so he can’t hurt anyone else for a long time.

Generally, a jury is free to consider the relevant proof of a prior conviction and both parties are afforded wide latitude to discuss the evidence and make sentence recommendations in the second stage of trial since the point of sentence enhancement is to take into account the defendant’s recidivism. The prosecutor’s remark in this case, however, crossed that line.

No criminal trial is perfect. From time to time, counsel, in the heat of argument, make remarks not justified by the evidence and which are, or may be, prejudicial to the accused. Nevertheless, a criminal conviction is not to be lightly overturned on the basis of a prosecutor’s comments standing alone, for the statements or conduct must be viewed in context; only by doing so can it be determined whether the prosecutor’s conduct affected the fairness of the trial.

The record shows that Medina sealed his fate when he elected to testify in second stage, against the advice of counsel, and claim, after being found guilty, that he was not the perpetrator because he was in jail serving a sentence on another ticket. His disingenuous narrative showed he was a liar unwilling to take responsibility for his unprovoked criminal behavior against a defenseless teenager. Based on his conduct in this case and because he had perpetrated a potentially deadly assault in the past, the jury understandably found him dangerous, volatile, and deserving of the maximum punishment.

Viewing the error in context, we cannot find on this record that the prosecutor’s isolated improper remark affected the overall fairness of Medina’s sentencing proceeding. Relief is not warranted and 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.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

  1. 21 O.S.2011, § 652
  2. 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1
  3. Bivens v. State, 2018 OK CR 33, I 20, 431 P.3d 985, 994
  4. Nicholson v. State, 2018 OK CR 10, I 9, 421 P.3d 890, 895
  5. Lee v. State, 2018 OK CR 14, I 6, 422 P.3d 782, 785
  6. Lamar v. State, 2018 OK CR 8, I 54, 419 P.3d 283, 297
  7. Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19, I 36, 422 P.3d 788, 800
  8. Brewer v. State, 1982 OK CR 128, I 8, 650 P.2d 54, 58
  9. Baker v. State, 1967 OK CR 178, I 9, 432 P.2d 935, 938
  10. Powell v. State, 2000 OK CR 5, I 152, 995 P.2d 510, 539
  11. United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 11, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1044, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985)
  12. Terrell v. State, 2018 OK CR 22, IT 7, 425 P.3d 399, 401
  13. Mathis v. State, 2012 OK CR 1, I 27, 271 P.3d 67, 77
  14. Richardson v. State, 1979 OK CR 100, I 19, 600 P.2d 361, 367
  15. Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 243, 118 S. Ct. 1219, 1230, 140 L. Ed. 2d 350 (1998)
  16. 21 O.S.Supp.2018, § 51.1
  17. 22 O.S.2011, §§ 926.1, 928.1
  18. Fogle v. State, 1985 OK CR 50, 700 P.2d 208
  19. Moore v. State, P.3d_, 2019 OK CR 12, I 28
  20. Jones v. State, 2009 OK CR 1, I 57, 201 P.3d 869, 885

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 652 - Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1 - Parole Eligibility
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 926.1 - Sentencing Recommendations
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 928.1 - Sentence Enhancement for Prior Convictions
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 51.1 - Enhancement of Punishment for Recidivism
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 - Sentencing of Habitual Criminals
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.9 - Definition and Implications of Recidivism

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

No US Code citations found.

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

  • Bivens v. State, 2018 OK CR 33, I 20, 431 P.3d 985, 994
  • Nicholson v. State, 2018 OK CR 10, I 9, 421 P.3d 890, 895
  • Lee v. State, 2018 OK CR 14, I 6, 422 P.3d 782, 785
  • Lamar v. State, 2018 OK CR 8, I 54, 419 P.3d 283, 297
  • Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19, I 36, 422 P.3d 788, 800
  • Brewer v. State, 1982 OK CR 128, I 8, 650 P.2d 54, 58
  • Baker v. State, 1967 OK CR 178, I 9, 432 P.2d 935, 938
  • Terrell v. State, 2018 OK CR 22, IT 7, 425 P.3d 399, 401
  • Powell v. State, 2000 OK CR 5, I 152, 995 P.2d 510, 539
  • United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 11, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1044, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985)
  • Fogle v. State, 1985 OK CR 50, 700 P.2d 208
  • Roberts v. State, 550 P.2d 971 (Okl.Cr.1976)
  • Conway v. State, 581 P.2d 40 (Okl.Cr.1978)
  • Mathis v. State, 2012 OK CR 1, I 27, 271 P.3d 67, 77
  • Richardson v. State, 1979 OK CR 100, I 19, 600 P.2d 361, 367
  • Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 26, 113 S. Ct. 517, 521, 121 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1992)
  • Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 243, 118 S. Ct. 1219, 1230, 140 L. Ed. 2d 350 (1998)
  • Jones v. State, 2009 OK CR 1, I 57, 201 P.3d 869, 885

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,