Files

F-2018-749

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **RALPH WILLIAM SISCO, JR.,** ) Appellant, ) vs. ) **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** ) Appellee. ) **Case No. F-2018-749** ) **FILED** ) **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) **SEP 19 2019** ) **SUMMARY OPINION** JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK ROWLAND, JUDGE: Appellant Ralph William Sisco, Jr. appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Nowata County, Case No. CF-2017-123, for Lewd Molestation (Counts 1 and 2), in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 1123. The Honorable Curtis L. DeLapp, District Judge, presided over Sisco's jury trial and sentenced him, in accordance with the jury's verdict, to twenty-five years imprisonment on each count, ordered to be served consecutively. The trial court also imposed three years of post-imprisonment supervision. Sisco raises several issues on appeal: 1. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: He questions whether the evidence presented was sufficient to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt for Lewd Molestation in Count 2. The court holds that the State proved each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. **Preliminary Hearing**: Sisco challenges his binding over at the preliminary hearing due to the introduction of hearsay evidence. The court finds he waived his right to challenge this by failing to object during the hearing. 3. **Admission of Other Crimes Evidence**: He contends that the trial court erred by allowing evidence of other crimes and bad acts. The court concludes that the evidence was part of the res gestae of the charged offenses and was properly admissible. 4. **Jury Instructions**: Sisco claims the court erred in not instructing the jury on lesser offenses, including child abuse. The court finds no error; the lack of evidence to support such an instruction means it was not warranted. 5. **Effective Assistance of Counsel**: He argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel for various reasons, including failure to object to hearsay and other crimes evidence. The court holds that there were no deficiencies in counsel’s performance affecting the trial's outcome. 6. **Consecutive Sentences**: He contends the trial court abused its discretion in ordering his sentences to be served consecutively. The court finds no abuse of discretion in this decision. 7. **Cumulative Errors**: Sisco asserts cumulative errors warrant a new trial. The court finds no individual errors that, taken together, deprived him of a fair trial. **DECISION**: The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is **AFFIRMED**. **OPINION BY**: ROWLAND, J. **LEWIS, P.J.**: Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J.**: Specially Concur **LUMPKIN, J.**: Concur in Results **HUDSON, J.**: Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J., SPECIALLY CONCUR**: I agree that the convictions should be affirmed but note that as to Count II, the evidence does not support an instruction on a lesser offense due to the nature of the charge and the evidence presented. --- **[Full Text Document PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-749_1735218036.pdf)**

Continue ReadingF-2018-749

F-2018-867

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BILLIE WAYNE BYRD,** Appellant, vs. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. F-2018-867** **Not for Publication** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 19 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Billie Wayne Byrd was tried by jury and convicted of Child Sexual Abuse - Under 12 in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(F), in the District Court of Muskogee County, Case No. CF-2017-621. Following the jury's recommendation, the Honorable Norman D. Thygesen sentenced Appellant to twenty-five (25) years imprisonment, with a three-year term of post-imprisonment supervision. Appellant appeals this conviction and sentence. **Propositions of Error:** 1. Plain error occurred when the jury sought to see the judge but was directed to submit any question in writing. 2. Prosecutorial misconduct deprived Appellant of a fair trial. **Analysis:** After thorough consideration of the entire record, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits, and briefs, we find that the law and evidence do not require relief. **Proposition I: Jury Communication** We find that the trial court's failure to follow the mandatory procedure set forth in 22 O.S.2011, § 894 did not prejudice Appellant. He did not object to the use of written communication, so we review for plain error. Plain error must be an actual error that is evident and affects the defendant's substantial rights (Thompson v. State, 2018 OK CR 5). Jurors seeking information during deliberations must require the officer to conduct them into court, and answers must be given in the presence of, or after notice to, counsel and the defendant. The written response to a juror question is a plain violation of the statute (Nicholson v. State, 2018 OK CR 10). While we presume prejudice due to this error, it can be rebutted by demonstrating there was no actual prejudice. Here, the jury's questions were addressed accurately and appropriately. The judge's written response to the jurors' first inquiry did not prejudice Appellant. The second question resulted in a prompt indication for further written inquiries, which indicates communication continued rather than being foreclosed. Ultimately, no actual prejudice against the Appellant is evident on the face of the record. The minimum sentence imposed and lack of indications of serious jury concerns further support no shown prejudice. Thus, we find no error requiring reversal. **Proposition II: Prosecutorial Misconduct** The arguments presented in closing did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct. Attorneys have latitude in arguing evidence and its inferences unless such arguments negatively affect trial fairness (Barnes v. State, 2017 OK CR 26). Appellant did not object to the statements raised on appeal, so we review for plain error (Mathis v. State, 2012 OK CR 1). One contested statement asserted the victim's trustworthiness, which was in response to defense claims of inconsistency. While prosecutors should refrain from personal endorsements of credibility, the context mitigated the impact of this statement. In analyzing the comments regarding the victim's emotional struggles, the remarks were reasonable inferences drawn from evidence presented in trial. The overall context did not compromise the trial's fairness. **Decision:** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Muskogee County 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 the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MUSKOGEE COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE NORMAN D. THYGESEN** --- **Attorneys on Appeal:** **Counsel for Defendant:** Dan Medlock **Counsel for Appellant:** Jeremy Stillwell **Counsel for the State:** Morgan Muzljakovich, Mike Hunter (Assistant District Attorney), Julie Pittman (Assistant Attorney General) --- **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **HUDSON, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR

Continue ReadingF-2018-867

F-2018-940

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the case of LeJeanna Sue Chronister v. State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed several appeals raised by the appellant following her conviction for Aggravated Manufacture of a Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine) and her subsequent sentencing to twenty years in prison. The appellant raised three primary propositions of error: 1. **Violation of Rights Regarding the 85% Rule**: The appellant contended that her sentence was unconstitutional because she was not informed that the 85% Rule (requiring her to serve 85% of her sentence before becoming eligible for parole) applied to her case. The court concluded that this argument did not hold merit in a non-jury trial setting, stating that the judge, not a jury, was responsible for sentencing and presumed to know the law. The court found no plain error as the sentence was within the statutory range and was the minimum allowed. 2. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: The appellant claimed her counsel was ineffective for not informing her about the 85% Rule, impacting her decision-making during her trial. The court applied the Strickland standard to evaluate the ineffectiveness claim, concluding that the appellant did not demonstrate how the alleged deficiency in counsel's performance prejudiced her case or altered the outcome. 3. **Cumulative Error**: The appellant argued that the combination of errors denied her a fair trial. The court determined that since none of the individual claims of error warranted relief, the cumulative error argument also lacked merit. Ultimately, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court of LeFlore County, stating that the appellant had not demonstrated any error that would necessitate modifying the sentence or overturning the conviction. The ruling emphasizes the distinction between non-jury trials and jury trials concerning informing defendants about parole-related laws and the importance of counsel's performance under the criteria established by the Strickland case.

Continue ReadingF-2018-940

RE-2018-426

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CALVIN TAYLOR HERRIEN,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-426** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 19 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Calvin Taylor Herrien, appeals from the revocation of four years of his twenty-five year suspended sentences in Case No. CF-2011-4693 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, presided over by the Honorable Cindy H. Truong. **Background:** On November 2, 2012, Appellant entered a guilty plea to two counts of Lewd Acts With a Child Under Sixteen, resulting in a twenty-five year sentence for each count, both suspended under specific probation conditions. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence on November 1, 2017, alleging Appellant violated probation by failing to reside in a lawfully approved residence and not truthfully answering inquiries from the DOC and law enforcement. A hearing commenced on November 21, 2017, where evidence was presented, including testimony from police chief Allen Lane, who testified regarding Appellant's residence proximity to a park and his notification to Appellant to relocate. Further testimony came from probation officer Daniel Straka, who reported Appellant's admission about the residence, discrepancies about probation requirements, and additional violations not included in the revocation application. Appellant testified on his own behalf, offering explanations but ultimately, after considering arguments, Judge Truong found that Appellant had committed the two breaches alleged in the application. Following a continuance, on December 1, 2017, Judge Truong revoked four years of the suspended sentence. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Inadequate Notice:** Appellant contends that the consideration of testimony regarding uncharged violations denied him adequate notice, which impeded his ability to prepare a defense. 2. **Right to Confront:** Appellant alleges deprivation of his right to confront witnesses and due process during the hearing. 3. **Excessive Sentence:** Appellant argues that the four-year revocation of his suspended sentence is excessive. **Analysis:** The evidence presented at the revocation proceedings clearly showed that Appellant violated the terms of his probation. Appellant does not contest the findings concerning the recognized violations. He does not argue that he was unaware of the specifics related to the alleged probation violations or that he lacked the opportunity to defend himself against those violations. In regards to Propositions I and II, while Appellant claims other violations were improperly admitted, the court's finding that he committed the alleged violations outlined in the application suffices to validate the revocation. Furthermore, due process entitles Appellant to argue mitigating circumstances, which was provided by Judge Truong. Concerning Proposition III, revocation decisions are primarily at the discretion of the trial court and will only be overturned in cases of demonstrable abuse of that discretion. Appellant has not shown that the four-year revocation was disproportionate relative to the violations committed. **Decision:** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking four years of Appellant's twenty-five year suspended sentences in Case No. CF-2011-4693 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** to be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **Appearances:** **For Appellant:** Joshua C. Smith Attorney at Law 217 N. Harvey, Ste. 108 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **For Appellee:** Ryan P. Stephenson Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma County 320 Robert S. Kerr, Ste. 505 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **CONCUR IN RESULTS:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. *Click Here To Download PDF*

Continue ReadingRE-2018-426

F-2018-194

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-194, the appellant appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child under twelve and child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. The appellant, William Harold Pittman, was convicted by a jury for serious crimes against children. The jury gave him a punishment of thirty years in prison for each crime, and both sentences were meant to be served one after the other. The judge who oversaw the trial also ordered the appellant to pay various costs and fees. Pittman appealed his conviction, claiming that the trial court made a mistake by allowing expert testimony about something called the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS). He argued that this evidence was not relevant and should not have been allowed, saying it was not proven to be reliable. The court explained that the decision to allow expert evidence is usually up to the trial judge. If a specific objection is made during the trial, then the appeal cannot rely on a different argument later. Pittman did not object during the trial to the CSAAS evidence based on its relevance or reliability, which made his chance for appeal more difficult. To win an appeal based on a plain error, the appellant needs to show three things: that there was a real error, that it was obvious, and that the error affected the case's outcome. The court found that Pittman could not prove any such errors in this case. The court stated that previously, CSAAS had been accepted as reliable evidence in prior cases. This evidence can help explain why some children might take a long time to talk about the abuse or might change their statements after initially making claims. In this case, the court confirmed that the CSAAS evidence was relevant to the victim's delay in talking about the abuse. Pittman also claimed that there wasn't enough data to prove CSAAS was reliable and asked the court to reconsider accepting it as reliable evidence. However, the court refused to change its stance, stating that it would not revisit this issue. Lastly, Pittman argued that the CSAAS testimony was too supportive of the victim's story and could not be considered harmless. The court pointed out that this evidence was permissible because it only served to support what the victim and other witnesses testified about. The court ultimately found no errors in the trial regarding the way CSAAS evidence was handled, and therefore affirmed the judgments and sentences against Pittman.

Continue ReadingF-2018-194

F-2018-221

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-221, Kenneth Merle Hammick, II appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, burglary in the first degree, and larceny of an automobile. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Kenneth Hammick was convicted of serious crimes. The evidence showed that he broke into a house in Claremore, Oklahoma, on May 10, 2015. He threatened the people inside with a gun and stole a car from one of the victims to escape. He later tried to steal another car but took a pistol instead. The police found him hiding in some bushes the next day. During police questioning, Hammick made statements that suggested he was guilty, even though he initially denied doing anything wrong. After a while, he asked to speak to the police again and confessed to the robbery, even showing them where he had hidden the gun. Hammick's first argument was that the court should not have allowed his confession to be used against him because he had already asked for a lawyer. The court decided that since he started talking to the police again, his confession was valid, and he understood what he was doing. Next, Hammick claimed that the way the police identified him was unfair. He said that because he had a neck tattoo, he was easily recognizable in a photo lineup shown to the victims. However, the court found that the victims had a good opportunity to see him during the crime and provided reliable identifications. Lastly, Hammick argued that the court should not have allowed evidence of another crime he committed after the robbery. This was a theft of a gun. The court decided that this evidence was important to provide a complete picture of Hammick's actions and did not unfairly prejudice the jury against him. In the end, the court upheld Hammick's conviction and did not find any reason to change the original decision.

Continue ReadingF-2018-221

F-2018-309

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-309, Adrian Escajeda appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Adrian Escajeda was found guilty of first-degree murder by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. He was also convicted earlier of two drug possession charges, but those were not part of his appeal. During his trial, Escajeda claimed there were several errors that negatively impacted his case. First, he argued that it was wrong to have both his murder case and a separate child neglect case tried together in front of the same jury. He believed this made it hard for the jury to be fair. However, the court found that he didn't show how this joined trial actually harmed him because the jury had acquitted him of the child neglect charge. Additionally, the evidence against him for murder was very strong and unrelated to the child neglect, making the combined trial harmless. Escajeda also said his lawyer did not do a good job by not objecting to the charges being joined for trial. However, the court decided that his lawyer's performance wasn’t ineffective because there wasn’t any real prejudice; the outcome was not affected. The next point Escajeda raised was about some statements made during the trial. He believed hearsay was wrongly admitted, which violated his right to confront witnesses. The court looked into this and concluded that the statements in question were not hearsay, as they were used to explain the detective's investigation and did not assert the truth of those statements. Finally, Escajeda claimed that the prosecutor made unfair comments during the trial that made it hard for the jury to be impartial. The court examined these comments and found they were reasonable and based on the evidence presented. Since the comments did not create an unfair trial, the court dismissed this argument as well. In conclusion, the court reviewed all of Escajeda’s claims and found none of them warranted a change to his conviction or sentence. As a result, his conviction for first-degree murder remained in place, and he will serve the majority of his sentence in prison.

Continue ReadingF-2018-309

F-2018-313

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-313, Juan Jose Nava-Guerra appealed his conviction for Aggravated Trafficking in Illegal Drugs and Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence but modified it to lower the fees assessed. One judge dissented. Nava-Guerra was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to a total of 105 years in prison for each count, which would run at the same time. He argued that his rights were violated during the trial due to several reasons. First, he claimed the trial court allowed hearsay statements that should not have been presented as evidence. However, the court found that since Nava-Guerra himself had introduced similar evidence in his defense, he could not claim there was an error in allowing the State's evidence. Second, he argued that the search of the vehicle he was in was unlawful, claiming that the officer did not have a valid reason to stop the car. The court reviewed the details of the stop and found that there was a valid reason based on the car following too closely behind another vehicle, which justified the officer's actions. Third, he contested the admission of a specific exhibit, which was a transcription of audio from the car. The court decided that, like the first issue, since he used nearly the same exhibit in his defense, he could not argue it was wrong for the State to use it. Finally, Nava-Guerra challenged the fee for his defense attorney, saying it was too high. The court agreed that the fee assessed was higher than allowed by law and modified it to the correct amount. In summary, the court found no significant errors in the trial except for the fees, which needed to be reduced. The final decision was to uphold the conviction but change the fees owed.

Continue ReadingF-2018-313

F-2018-358

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-358, Sean Daniel Simmons appealed his conviction for domestic abuse by strangulation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Sean Daniel Simmons was found guilty by a jury for hurting his girlfriend on three occasions during a long argument at their apartment. The girlfriend's twelve-year-old son was in a nearby room sleeping at the time. The girlfriend testified that he choked her until she lost consciousness three times. Once, when he called 911, he slapped her when she tried to take the phone. After the incidents, she sought medical help and was diagnosed with a throat injury, although there were no visible marks on her throat, and she didn’t suffer any serious long-term effects. Simmons argued in his first claim that the evidence against him was not enough to support the conviction. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that it was reasonable for the jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for domestic abuse by strangulation. In his second claim, Simmons believed the trial court should have explained what “great bodily harm” meant to the jury. He wanted a clear definition because he felt the term was too vague. However, the trial court used standard jury instructions that explained the elements of the crime, including how strangulation was defined. Ultimately, the court held that the trial court did not make a mistake when it refused to define “great bodily harm” more specifically. The decision to not elaborate on this term was appropriate, as the standard instructions already provided enough information to the jury for them to make an informed decision. The judgment was affirmed, and the judges agreed that the trial court acted correctly in these matters.

Continue ReadingF-2018-358

F-2018-565

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** KIMBERLY ANN SMITH-GENTILE, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee. **No. F-2018-565** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 12 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Kimberly Ann Smith-Gentile, was convicted by a jury in Pottawatomie County District Court, Case No. CF-2017-342, of ten counts of Possessing Child Pornography. On May 31, 2018, the Honorable Dawson Engle, Associate District Judge, sentenced her in accordance with the jury's recommendation to ten years imprisonment on Counts 1-8 and twenty years imprisonment on Count 9, with all sentences to be served concurrently. Appellant must serve 85% of her sentences before parole consideration. 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1(16). Appellant raises two propositions of error in support of her appeal: **PROPOSITION I.** THE STATE'S EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT Ms. GENTILE KNOWINGLY POSSESSED 10 IMAGES OR VIDEOS OF JUVENILE PORNOGRAPHY. **PROPOSITION II.** UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, A SENTENCE OF 20 YEARS IS EXCESSIVE IN VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTIONS. After thorough consideration of these propositions, the briefs of the parties, and the record on appeal, we affirm. Appellant was convicted of finding child pornography on a smartphone belonging to her boyfriend, Jaymes Dean, but failing to notify authorities, and instead keeping the phone in her possession for several weeks after Dean left town. The fact that the phone contained multiple files of child pornography was not disputed. In Proposition I, Appellant claims the evidence was insufficient to show that she knowingly possessed the child pornography, particularly ten different items of pornography. Once Dean left the phone behind and traveled out of state, Appellant, with knowledge that the phone contained pornographic material, had the authority to control its disposition. At trial, Appellant claimed she was simply unsure of what to do with the phone. The fact remains, however, that she knew it contained child pornography, viewed a number of the images, and even recognized the daughter of a friend in one of the images. Yet at no time did she attempt to notify authorities, even after a social worker informed her that Dean was a convicted sex offender. Instead, Appellant's conduct suggested that she wanted to use the evidence on her own schedule and for her own purposes. Furthermore, Appellant's claim that she only viewed one video file was convincingly contradicted at trial. A rational juror could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Appellant knowingly possessed ten items of child pornography. **Jackson v. Virginia**, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); **Hamilton v. State**, 2016 OK CR 13, ¶ 4, 387 P.3d 903, 905. Proposition I is therefore denied. In Proposition II, Appellant claims her sentences are shockingly excessive. While the jury recommended the maximum term on one count, the prosecutor never requested a specific punishment, but expressly left that to the jurors' discretion. The trial court ordered concurrent service of all sentences. Finally, we note that the images in question were not simply collected from the internet or some other source; they were direct evidence of child rapes and other sex crimes that Dean himself had committed. Appellant recognized Dean as the adult perpetrator in some of the images. Considering all these circumstances, the cumulative sentences imposed are not shocking to the conscience. **Rea v. State**, 2001 OK CR 28, ¶ 5, 34 P.3d 148, 149. Proposition II is denied. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Pottawatomie County 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 the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE DAWSON ENGLE, ASSOCIATE DISTRICT JUDGE** **ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL** SHELLEY LEVISAY 318 NORTH BROADWAY SHAWNEE, OK 74801 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL** NANCY WALKER-JOHNSON INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **APPELLEE** ABBY NATHAN DAVID HAMMER MIKE HUNTER ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 331 NORTH BROADWAY SHAWNEE, OK 74801 JOSHUA R. FANELLI ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE STATE 313 NE 21 ST STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR --- [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-565_1735315294.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-565

F-2018-586

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

Here is a summary of the court's decision in the case of Traevon Dontyce Harbert: **Case Overview:** Traevon Dontyce Harbert was convicted by a jury in Oklahoma County for First Degree Murder (Count 1), Felon in Possession of a Firearm (Count 2), and Conspiracy to Commit Murder (Count 3). He received a life sentence for murder, two years for possession of a firearm, and four years for conspiracy, with sentences running consecutively. **Propositions of Error:** Harbert appealed his conviction, arguing two main points: 1. **Insufficient Evidence:** He contended that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish his identity as the shooter and that he had acted with malice. The court analyzed the evidence under the standard asserted in *Jackson v. Virginia*, determining that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. **Exclusion of Evidence:** Harbert argued that the trial court improperly excluded evidence regarding an arrest warrant for another suspect, which he felt was important for his defense. The court reviewed the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion, concluding that the trial court acted reasonably, as the excluded evidence was based on hearsay from witnesses rather than facts within the detective's personal knowledge. The court found that the defense was still able to effectively question the detective and present alternative theories. **Decision:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals denied both propositions, affirming the judgment and sentence against Harbert. The decision indicated that the evidence sufficiently supported the jury's conclusions and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings. **Opinion Author:** Judge Lumpkin. **Final Note:** The court's rulings underscore the importance of both the sufficiency of evidence required for a conviction and the adherence to procedural rules regarding evidence admission. For further details or to download the full opinion, visit [this link](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-586_1735313750.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-586

RE-2018-868

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS / OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 12 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** --- **MISTY DAWN BARRETT,** **Appellant,** **V.** **No. RE-2018-868** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Misty Dawn Barrett appeals from the revocation of her suspended sentences in Muskogee County District Court Case Nos. CF-2016-439, CF-2017-126, CF-2017-127, and CF-2017-129. Appellant faced multiple charges across these cases, including Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Larceny of an Automobile, and Identity Theft, among others. After entering pleas and being convicted, she received several sentences which were subsequently suspended to be served concurrently. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence in all four cases, leading to a partial revocation of five years of her suspended sentences on October 25, 2017. A second Application to Revoke was filed on July 25, 2018, for new alleged crimes, leading to a revocation hearing where the trial court, presided over by Judge Mike Norman, revoked her remaining suspended sentences in full. In her appeal, Appellant argues that the full revocation was excessive, asserting that her past actions should have been anticipated due to her struggles with drug addiction, and claiming that incarceration is not an effective remedy for her situation. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence falls within the sound discretion of the trial court. A revocation will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion (Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, ¶ 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565). The State established sufficient grounds for revocation through competent evidence presented during the hearing. Appellant had previously benefited from leniency when only part of her suspended sentence was revoked. After reoffending post-incarceration, Appellant demonstrated that a suspended sentence is a privilege rather than a right (Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, ¶ 8, 990 P.2d 894, 897). **DECISION** The full revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Muskogee County District Court Case Nos. CF-2016-439, CF-2017-126, CF-2017-127, and CF-2017-129 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 to be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MUSKOGEE COUNTY, THE HONORABLE MIKE NORMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT REVOCATION** **DANIEL MEDLOCK** 620 W. BROADWAY MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** **NICOLLETTE BRANDT** P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** **TIMOTHY KING** ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 220 STATE ST. MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 **COUNSEL FOR STATE** **MIKE HUNTER** OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL **CAROLINE HUNT** ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21st STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE** --- **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **HUDSON, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR RA/F --- [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-868_1734360560.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-868

RE-2018-1039

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **FRANK REVILLA PAIZ, JR.,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. --- **Case No. RE-2018-1039** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 12 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** On January 4, 2017, Appellant Frank Revilla Paiz, Jr., represented by counsel, entered guilty pleas to multiple charges including Possession of CDS - Methamphetamine (Count 2), Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Count 4), Driving Without a Driver's License (Count 5), Failure to Maintain Insurance or Security (Count 6), and Failure to Pay Taxes Due to the State (Count 7) in Woodward County Case No. CF-2016-114. He received an eight-year sentence for Count 2 and a one-year sentence for Count 4, with all but the first year suspended, subject to probation conditions. Sentences were concurrent. On the same day, Paiz pleaded guilty in Woodward County Case No. CF-2016-117 to Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance - Methamphetamine (Count 1) and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Count 2), receiving similar sentences. On June 2, 2017, the State filed an Application to Revoke Paiz's suspended sentences in Cases CF-2016-114 and CF-2016-117, citing new charges for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance in Case No. CF-2017-142 and failure to pay court costs. Paiz pled guilty to the new offense, receiving a suspended sentence of ten years, contingent on completing a drug treatment program. The State filed another Application to Revoke on August 14, 2018, due to new charges of Carrying Weapons and violations of probation. Following a revocation hearing on September 28, 2018, Paiz stipulated to the allegations, leading to the revocation of approximately 2,495 days of suspended sentences by the District Court of Woodward County. Paiz appeals, arguing the revocation was excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion. He cites that simple possession became a misdemeanor effective July 1, 2017, and criticizes the court for not exploring alternate sanctions. The scope of review in a revocation appeal focuses on the validity of the revocation order. This Court has held that even a single violation justifies revocation. Paiz admitted to multiple violations and new criminal activity, justifying the District Court's actions. **DECISION**: The revocation of Paiz's suspended sentences in Woodward County Case Nos. CF-2016-114, CF-2016-117, and CF-2017-142 is **AFFIRMED**. **Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.** **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WOODWARD COUNTY, THE HONORABLE DON A. WORK, ASSOCIATE DISTRICT JUDGE** --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL:** **CURTIS BUSSETT, ATTORNEY AT LAW** P.O. BOX 1494 CLINTON, OK 73601 **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** **CHAD JOHNSON** P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** **SUSAN K. MEINDERS** **MIKE HUNTER** ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY WOODWARD COUNTY 1600 MAIN STREET WOODWARD, OK 73801 **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** **CAROLINE E.J. HUNT** ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21 ST STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE** **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.:** **LEWIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **LUMPKIN, J.: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-1039_1734355896.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1039

F-2017-67

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document provided is an appellate court opinion regarding the case of Cedric Dwayne Poore, who was convicted in the District Court of Tulsa County for multiple counts of Murder in the First Degree and Robbery with a Firearm. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma ultimately affirmed the convictions and sentences. ### Key Points from the Opinion: 1. **Charges and Convictions**: - Cedric Dwayne Poore was convicted of four counts of Murder in the First Degree through felony murder and two counts of Robbery with a Firearm. - The underlying felony for the murder counts was robbery committed in the course of the murders of four victims. 2. **Evidence Against Appellant**: - Witnesses testified that Poore and his brother shot and killed four victims in a robbery at an apartment. - Testimony from Jamila Jones, who was in contact with both brothers before the murders, suggested that they were planning to rob the victims. - Forensic evidence included DNA found on a cigarette near the victims and .40 caliber shell casings linking both Poore and the weapon used in other crimes. 3. **Proposition of Errors Raised on Appeal**: - **Hearsay**: The trial court’s denial of an affidavit from a witness who invoked the Fifth Amendment was challenged, but the court found no plain error. - **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Poore challenged the sufficiency of evidence, claiming that he was not directly involved in the murders, but the court held that circumstantial evidence sufficiently supported the convictions. - **Other Crimes Evidence**: The admissibility of evidence from a separate robbery was upheld as relevant and probative to establish motive and identity. - **Identification Testimony**: The court found no error in the admission of identification testimony from witnesses. - **Accomplice Corroboration**: The testimony of accomplices was found to be sufficiently corroborated by other evidence. - **Cell Phone Records**: Although the use of cellphone records without a warrant raised Fourth Amendment concerns, the evidence was deemed admissible under the good faith exception. - **Search Warrant**: Poore's arguments regarding the invalidity of the search warrant and execution of the search were rejected by the court. - **Cumulative Error**: The cumulative effect of any errors did not warrant relief, as the court found no substantial errors during the trial. 4. **Final Ruling**: - The Court affirmed the District Court's judgments and sentences without finding any significant legal errors that would warrant reversal. ### Conclusion: The case demonstrates the complex interplay of various legal standards, evidentiary challenges, and the appeals process for criminal convictions. The appellate court's decision reflects a thorough examination of both the procedural and substantive issues raised by the appellant, ultimately leading to the affirmation of the convictions based on the evidence presented at trial.

Continue ReadingF-2017-67

F-2017-1176

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1176, Anthony Dean Wilkerson, Jr., appealed his conviction for seven counts of Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence given to him. One judge dissented. Wilkerson was convicted by a jury for serious crimes against a child. The jury decided on the punishments for each count, giving him long sentences, including life imprisonment for some of the counts. The trial court judge sentenced him to serve these sentences one after the other, meaning he would spend a long time in prison. Wilkerson raised several issues in his appeal, saying that his trial was not fair. He argued that he was punished too harshly for the same crime (double punishment), that the trial court made mistakes during the trial, and that the total effect of these mistakes made it unfair for him. The court looked at all the evidence and decided that Wilkerson's arguments were not strong enough to change the original decision. For his first point about double punishment, the court noted that the crimes were separate acts, so it was okay for him to be convicted on all counts without violating laws against multiple punishments. For his second and third points, the court said the trial judge was allowed to let the state ask questions that helped the young victim, J.W., remember her experiences better and to clarify her testimony about what happened to her. Regarding the length of his sentences and how they were administered (running consecutively), the court found no reason to change what the jury and trial judge decided. The punishments fell within legal limits, and the court didn't find that they were too harsh when considering the seriousness of the crimes. Wilkerson also claimed there was an error about a fine that was not mentioned at his sentencing. The court agreed that it was a simple mistake and ordered the lower court to correct this. Finally, the court did not find any combined errors that affected the fairness of the trial, so they rejected his last claim about cumulative error. In conclusion, the court upheld the original decision and confirmed Wilkerson's convictions, but instructed the lower court to fix the written sentencing document to remove the fine.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1176

J 2019-0283

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2019-0283, D. J., III appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the order granting the imposition of an adult sentence. One judge dissented. D. J., III, who was born on November 1, 2000, faced serious charges after taking part in a hazing incident at school. The state wanted to try him as an adult, which is a significant step for a young person. This happened after a court decided that D. J. could not be helped enough through the juvenile system and that the public needed more protection. The court had a hearing on April 5, 2019, where the judge reviewed evidence and decided that D. J. should face adult charges. The main arguments in the case included whether the earlier ruling was correct and if it used the right laws to make its decision. D. J. argued that the state did not show strong enough evidence to justify moving him to adult court. When D. J. appealed, he claimed two main problems with how the trial was handled. First, he believed the state did not provide clear evidence for why he should be seen as an adult rather than a juvenile. Next, he said that the judge applied the wrong law when making the decision. However, the court found that the judge's decision was reasonable and based on the facts presented during the hearing. The court stated that judges have the right to decide which witnesses to believe and how to weigh their testimonies. The judges on the court agreed that even though there was a mistake in mentioning the wrong law, this did not harm D. J.'s case because both laws were similar. The important aspects of the case were clear, and ultimately, D. J. was seen as not being able to complete rehabilitation in the juvenile system. In the dissenting opinion, the judge expressed concern that the law limits how long juveniles can be kept under the juvenile system, and this may not allow for fair treatment when they are close to being adults. The dissenting judge felt that D. J. still had the potential for rehabilitation and disagreed with moving him to adult court. In summary, the court decided to uphold the decision to treat D. J. as an adult following the state's appeal, while one judge thought this decision should be reconsidered, suggesting changes to juvenile sentencing laws to allow more flexibility for young offenders.

Continue ReadingJ 2019-0283

F-2018-892

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma** **Case Summary:** **Case Name:** David Andrew Sanders, Appellant, v. The State of Oklahoma, Appellee **Case Number:** F-2018-892 **Date Filed:** September 5, 2019 --- **Background:** David Andrew Sanders appeals the acceleration of his deferred sentencing resulting from finding evidence that he committed new offenses while on probation. On April 29, 2016, in **Case No. CF-2012-2326**, Appellant entered no contest pleas to Burglary in the First Degree and Pointing a Firearm at Another. In **Case No. CF-2016-1178**, he entered a guilty plea for Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer. His sentencing was deferred for ten years (Burglary), five years (Firearm charge), and 30 days (Larceny). All sentences were to run concurrently. On November 28, 2017, the State filed an Application to Accelerate the Deferred Sentence, alleging new offenses. At a hearing on August 21, 2018, the court found sufficient evidence of new offenses: possession of a firearm while on probation, possession of a controlled dangerous substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. **Facts of the Case:** On May 6, 2017, police found Sanders unconscious in an idling car with a handgun in his lap. During the arrest, officers discovered a glass pipe and methamphetamine in the car's console. Sanders argued that this evidence was the product of an unlawful search. **Legal Findings:** The district court ruled that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the acceleration proceeding, which is not akin to a full trial. The court found no evidence of egregious police misconduct. According to Oklahoma law (Richardson v. State), exclusion of evidence is only warranted in revocation hearings where there has been egregious misconduct. **Conclusion:** The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The discovery of the firearm, glass pipe, and methamphetamine did not violate Sanders' rights given the context of the proceedings. **Decision:** The order of the district court accelerating Sanders’ deferred judgment and sentencing is AFFIRMED. --- **Counsel on Appeal:** - For Appellant: Micah Sielert and Andrea Digilo Miller - For Appellee: Tiffany Noble, Mike Hunter, Tessa L. Henry **Opinion by:** Presiding Judge Lewis **Concurrences:** Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn, Judge Lumpkin, Judge Hudson, Judge Rowland --- For more details, you may [download the full PDF here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-892_1735120506.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-892

PC-2018-723

  • Post author:
  • Post category:PC

**Summary of Court Decision: Shawn A. Detwiler v. The State of Oklahoma** *Case Overview:* Shawn A. Detwiler sought post-conviction relief related to multiple convictions stemming from offenses committed as a juvenile, including armed robbery and shooting with intent to kill. After initially pleading guilty to several charges and receiving concurrent sentences, he argued that the combination of his consecutive sentences constituted a de facto life without parole sentence, violating his Eighth Amendment rights. *Key Points of Rulings:* 1. **Case Summation:** Detwiler was convicted on several counts involving crimes such as burglary, robbery, and assault. His sentences ranged from 5 years to life imprisonment, some being discharged over time. 2. **Legal Precedents Cited:** Detwiler's argument was heavily reliant on the legal interpretations established in *Graham v. Florida*, *Miller v. Alabama*, and *Montgomery v. Louisiana*, which emphasize that juvenile offenders should not be sentenced to life without parole for non-homicide crimes. 3. **District Court's Findings:** The District Court found that since Detwiler was not sentenced to life without parole or its functional equivalent, the Eighth Amendment protections cited in those cases did not apply. 4. **Aggregate Sentencing Argument:** Detwiler contended that his sentences, when viewed collectively, equated to a de facto life sentence. However, the court maintained that each sentence should be evaluated independently. 5. **Response to Tenth Circuit Precedent:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals referred to a prior ruling (Martinez v. State) which rejected the idea of viewing multiple sentences in aggregate for Eighth Amendment analysis. 6. **Conclusion by the Court:** Detwiler's post-conviction relief was ultimately denied. The court established that he has the potential for parole consideration and has not received sentences that deal with him as if he was sentenced to life without parole as per the noted precedents. *Dissenting Opinions:* 1. Judge Lewis dissented, arguing that consecutive sentences for multiple serious offenses committed as a juvenile effectively mean a lifetime sentence without a realistic chance for release, which may constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 2. The dissent emphasized that juveniles should be given a chance to demonstrate maturity and rehabilitation, which the current sentencing practices do not permit. 3. It was asserted that the framework of Graham should extend to prevent the imposition of excessively punitive aggregated sentences for juveniles, thereby relieving them of permanent confinement without the chance for parole. *Final Notes:* The court's ruling underscores ongoing debates about sentencing juveniles, the interpretation of constitutional protections, and the lengths of sentences impacting juvenile offenders. The dissent highlights the critical need for opportunities for rehabilitation and review in cases involving young individuals.

Continue ReadingPC-2018-723

F-2018-77

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-77, Jose M. Diaz appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Diaz's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Diaz was tried by a jury in Tulsa County. The jury found him guilty of the crime and recommended he spend thirty years in prison. The trial was overseen by a district judge, who followed the jury's recommendation for sentencing. Three main points were raised by Diaz in his appeal. First, he argued that the court made a mistake by allowing certain testimony from victims' family members, which he believed unfairly impacted the jury's feelings about the case. Second, he claimed that the prosecutors made improper statements during their closing arguments that harmed his right to a fair trial. Lastly, he argued that the issues combined created a situation where he could not receive a fair trial. The court looked carefully at all the evidence from the trial and the records of the case. For the first point about the victim's family's testimony, the court decided that it was relevant to the case. It helped the jury understand the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the victim, which connected to the nature of the crime. The court found no mistake in allowing that testimony. In the second point about the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments, Diaz did not object to some of the comments during the first closing statement, which limited his ability to challenge them later. The court noted that most of what the prosecutor said was based on evidence presented during the trial. Although one comment about the victim not being able to have children was deemed inappropriate, the overall context did not make the trial unfair. For the last point on cumulative error, the court stated that there were no significant mistakes to consider together that would change the outcome of the trial. Ultimately, the court decided that Diaz received a fair trial and did not find any major errors in the way the trial was conducted. As a result, they upheld the original judgment and sentence given to him.

Continue ReadingF-2018-77

F-2018-84

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-84, #1 appealed his conviction for #2 driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. In a (published) decision, the court decided #3 to affirm the trial court's order to terminate #1 from the Drug Court Program. #n issued a dissenting opinion. Summary: Carl David Wagnon was charged in 2015 with a serious crime for driving under the influence of alcohol after having previous felony convictions. He pleaded guilty and entered a Drug Court program, which was part of an agreement that allowed him to avoid a long prison sentence if he was successful. However, in 2017, he was accused of a new crime, which led to a hearing where the court decided to remove him from the Drug Court program. Wagnon argued that his removal was unfair for several reasons. He claimed that the court relied too much on secondhand information and did not give him a chance to challenge the evidence against him. He also said that his removal was based on a crime that was not formally charged and that he did not receive enough warnings or chances to correct his behavior before being expelled from the program. Lastly, he believed that the court did not clearly explain why he was being removed. The court looked at these arguments but found that Wagnon was treated fairly and that the decision to terminate him from the Drug Court program was appropriate. They stated that the judge had the right to make this decision and had done so correctly, so they upheld the lower court's ruling. The case was affirmed and Wagnon was sentenced to twenty years in prison.

Continue ReadingF-2018-84

F-2018-294

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-294, Alen Dean O'Bryant appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. One member dissented. Alen Dean O'Bryant was found guilty by a jury on multiple counts of sexually abusing a child. The jury decided to give him a life sentence for each count along with fines. The court confirmed these sentences would be served one after another and counted his time spent in jail. O'Bryant argued several points in his appeal. He said he did not get good help from his lawyer, which he believed hurt his case. He also felt that the court made mistakes by letting in certain evidence and testimonies, claiming some of it shouldn’t have been allowed. He said the prosecution was unfair and called him a liar during the trial. O'Bryant even argued that a law allowing children's hearsay statements in court was against the Constitution. When looking at his first point about his lawyer not being effective, the court checked to see if his lawyer had fallen short of what was required in professional conduct. The court found that the lawyer's actions were indeed within acceptable standards. No new hearing was needed on this point. For the second point, O'Bryant argued that the court wrongly allowed hearsay evidence. The court found that the trial judge had the right to admit this evidence and did not make a mistake in doing so. In his third point, he claimed that witness testimonies wrongly supported the victim's credibility. However, because he did not object at the time during the trial, the court reviewed merely for obvious mistakes and found no error. O'Bryant claimed next that the prosecutor had acted improperly by suggesting the victim was truthful while labeling him a liar. The court discovered that the prosecutor’s comments were reasonable and a response to the defense's arguments, ruling that there was no significant error. O'Bryant also argued that the law that allowed children's hearsay statements was unconstitutional. The court noted that it had already ruled this law was constitutional in earlier cases and saw no reason to look at it again. Finally, O'Bryant stated that all the mistakes taken together meant he did not get a fair trial and that he should be given a new trial. However, since the court found no individual errors that affected him significantly, they also ruled out the idea of cumulative errors. The court ultimately decided to uphold O'Bryant's conviction and denied his request for a hearing about his lawyer’s performance. The opinion was finalized, and the decision was ordered.

Continue ReadingF-2018-294

F-2018-322

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-322, Juan Carlos Renovato-Juaregui appealed his conviction for assault and battery with intent to kill and domestic assault and battery resulting in great bodily harm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. Judge Drummond merged the two counts into one, sentencing him to fifteen years in prison with credit for time served. The court found that the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct did not require reversal of the conviction. No judges dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2018-322

F-2018-502

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-502, Randall Patrick Molloy appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Molloy's conviction. One justice dissented. Molloy was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for hurting a child, which is a serious crime. The jury decided he should go to prison for sixteen years and pay a fine of $5,000. However, the judge agreed to lessen his sentence by taking away three years, meaning he would only have to serve thirteen years in prison. Molloy raised two main problems with his trial. First, he argued that he didn't get a fair trial because the state didn't share an agreement with a co-defendant that might have helped his case. Second, he felt that instructions given to the jury were confusing and didn't help them understand the facts related to the co-defendant's earlier statements. The court reviewed all the evidence and listened to the arguments from both sides. They pointed out that for Molloy to get a new trial based on not receiving a fair trial, he had to show that there was a clear mistake that changed how the trial turned out. Ultimately, they found that there were no clear mistakes or errors in the trial. The court noted that the information about the co-defendant was known to Molloy's lawyer during the trial, and therefore, it did not affect the outcome negatively. Regarding the jury instructions, the court also concluded that those instructions did not clearly cause any problems that could change the trial's result. The jury had enough information to make a fair decision about Molloy's guilt based on the evidence presented. In summary, because the court found that there were no serious mistakes during the trial, they decided to uphold the original decision made against Molloy.

Continue ReadingF-2018-502

F-2018-793

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MARTIN OCHOA MEDINA,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2018-793** **FILED AUG 29 2019** JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK --- **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: whether he was denied a fair sentencing proceeding because of prosecutorial misconduct throughout the second stage of his bifurcated trial. **1. Prosecutorial Misconduct Claim** Medina contends he was denied a fair sentencing proceeding due to prosecutorial misconduct during the second stage of his trial. He specifically argues that the prosecutor improperly introduced details of his prior conviction, appealed to sympathy for the victim, and wrongly commented on the potential for him to commit future crimes. However, Medina failed to object to these comments during the trial, waiving review of this claim for all but plain error. **Reviewing for plain error**, the Court finds that Medina has not shown that any alleged prosecutorial misconduct affected the outcome of the trial. Arguments made during closing are considered within the context of the entire trial. While the prosecutor did make improper comments regarding future crimes, reviewing the totality of the circumstances, such comments did not significantly impact the fairness of the sentencing proceeding. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is **AFFIRMED**. --- **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** **CONCURRING IN PART/DISSENTING IN PART:** **HUDSON, J.:** I write separately to dissent regarding the finding of plain error related to the prosecutor's comments about the potential for future offenses. The majority's reference to prior case law does not fully support their conclusion, as the prosecutor's comments were grounded in the evidence presented during trial and were relevant to the discussion of Medina's history and behavior. The prosecutor's arguments were appropriate and based on the evidence regarding Medina's prior violent acts, which warranted discussion in the context of sentencing. There was no misuse of the argument to stir societal alarm but rather a legitimate consideration of the defendant's recidivism. Recidivism has always been a recognized basis for enhanced sentencing, and the defendant's past conviction of a violent crime aligns with the evidence presented during this trial. Therefore, I believe the prosecutor's comments were within the permissible bounds and the majority has incorrectly labeled this as error. I concur with the denial of relief for the remaining arguments but dissent regarding the assessment of error concerning the comments about future conduct. --- For further details, you can [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-793_1735216324.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-793