Files - Page 12 of 66 - OCCA Opinions

F-2017-1127

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:F

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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence.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.

F-2017-1142

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:F

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.

F-2017-1149

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:F

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.

F-2017-1232

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:F

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.

F-2018-248

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:F

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.

F-2018-350

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:F

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.

F-2018-512

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:F

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.

RE-2018-674

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **LEON DESHAWN WRIGHT,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. RE-2018-674** **Filed July 18, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** This case involves an appeal by Appellant Leon Deshawn Wright from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2014-1676. **Background:** On April 30, 2015, Wright entered a guilty plea to Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property after a previous felony conviction, for which he was sentenced to five years of imprisonment, all suspended. The State filed an application to revoke this sentence on May 9, 2016, citing multiple violations, including failure to obtain a mental health assessment, failure to report to a drug rehabilitation program, failure to pay supervision fees, and possession of marijuana. A hearing was conducted on August 27, 2018, overseen by the Honorable Bill Graves, where the judge granted the State's application for revocation, leading to the current appeal. **Analysis:** At a revocation hearing, the court determines if the terms of the probation have been violated, which should be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Revocation should not be overturned unless there's an abuse of discretion by the trial court. 1. **Possession of Marijuana:** Appellant argues insufficient evidence for this charge. The court agrees but finds sufficient evidence for the remaining violations. 2. **Failure to Pay Fees:** Appellant contends his failure to pay fees was not willful. The court finds it was Appellant's responsibility to demonstrate he was not willful in this failure. As Appellant did not provide evidence regarding his employment status or good-faith efforts to pay, the burden was not met. 3. **Full Revocation Justification:** Appellant argues that the violations do not justify full revocation. However, the court finds the failure to report alone is an adequate basis for revoking the suspended sentence. **Decision:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirms the District Court's order revoking the suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2014-1676. **Judges’ Concurrence:** - **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concurred in part/dissented in part, stating that while he agreed some violations justified revocation, he dissented concerning the failure to pay fines, emphasizing that Appellant's evidence of homelessness and unemployment should have been considered. He finds the court should demonstrate more clarity on when failure to pay fines due to indigence suffices to avoid revocation. For further details and the full legal opinion, you can [download the PDF here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-674_1734423903.pdf).

RE-2018-769

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant, Robert Kenneth Kramer, appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2015-100. On September 9, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere to Financial Exploitation by a Caregiver (21 O.S.2011, § 843.1) After Former Conviction of a Felony (21 O.S.Supp.2011, § 51.1). He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for ten years, with the final six years suspended. On May 31, 2017, the trial court modified the suspended portion of the sentence from six to eight years. On March 28, 2018, the State filed an application to revoke the suspended sentence, alleging that Appellant had committed new crimes: possessing a cell phone while incarcerated and knowingly concealing stolen property. A hearing on the application was held on July 11, 2018, before the Honorable Lawrence W. Parish, District Judge. Judge Parish granted the State's application and revoked the eight-year suspended sentence in full. **ANALYSIS** The standard for revocation of a suspended sentence requires a determination of whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated, which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. A trial court's decision to revoke should not be reversed unless there is an abuse of discretion. 1. **Proposition I: Violation of the 20-day Rule** Appellant claims the district court violated the 20-day Rule as stated in 22 O.S.Supp.2012, § 991b(A). Since Appellant did not raise this objection at the hearing, the review is for plain error. Appellant failed to demonstrate that any deviation affected his substantial rights, and he had previously waived his right to a hearing within the statutory time-frame. Therefore, this proposition is denied. 2. **Proposition II: Sufficiency of Evidence** Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conclusion that he possessed a cell phone while in jail. Testimony from Appellant's ex-wife indicated that she received text messages from a phone she associated with him. Additionally, a jailer testified about witnessing inmates, including Appellant, trying to destroy a cell phone. This evidence satisfies the preponderance standard. **DECISION** The order revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2015-100 is AFFIRMED. **APPEARANCES:** - Counsel for Appellant: Curt Allen, Jeremy Stillwell, Indigent Defense System - Counsel for State: Emily Mueller, Assistant District Attorney; Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma; Theodore Peeper, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.:** LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur in Results HUDSON, J.: Concur **[End of Summary Opinion]** For further details, you may view the full court opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-769_1734420410.pdf).

C-2018-1024

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:C

It appears that you have provided a court document from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals relating to the case of Larado James Smith, who entered a guilty plea to multiple counts of rape and sodomy. The document outlines the background of the case, the procedural history, and the court's decision to deny Smith's petition for a writ of certiorari. To summarize the key points: 1. **Background of the Case**: Larado James Smith entered a negotiated guilty plea to six counts of Second Degree Rape and three counts of Forcible Sodomy, resulting in a 15-year prison sentence. 2. **Motion to Withdraw Plea**: Smith later filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he had valid reasons for doing so, including alleged pressure from his counsel and stress from his incarceration. 3. **Court's Findings**: The trial court conducted a hearing on this motion and ultimately denied it, finding that Smith had entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily. This decision was based on the court's assessment of the circumstances and Smith's understanding of the plea. 4. **Appeal**: Smith appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw the plea. The appellate court reviewed the record and determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. It was concluded that Smith’s plea was made voluntarily, after a thorough understanding of the implications. 5. **Final Decision**: The Court of Criminal Appeals denied Smith's petition for certiorari, affirming the lower court's judgment and sentence. If you have specific questions about the case or need information on a particular aspect of the document, please let me know!

C-2018-698

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:C

The text you provided is a legal summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, regarding the case of Joe Saucedo Guerrero. The opinion details the background of the case, the pleas entered by the petitioner, the subsequent motion to withdraw those pleas, and the court's final decision denying the petitioner's request for relief. Here is a breakdown of the main points: 1. **Case Background**: - Joe Saucedo Guerrero pled guilty to multiple charges including Lewd or Indecent Proposal to a Child, Soliciting a Minor for Indecent Exposure/Photos, and Possession of Child Pornography. - He was sentenced to a total of twenty years for the first seven counts and five years for the eighth count, with all sentences running consecutively. 2. **Motion to Withdraw Plea**: - Guerrero filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas shortly after sentencing, claiming his pleas were not entered knowingly and voluntarily, misunderstanding of the charges, ineffective assistance from his counsel, and that the sentences were excessive. - The judge denied this motion after a hearing where Guerrero was the only witness. 3. **Propositions of Error**: - The court examined Guerrero's arguments which included claims of inadequate factual basis for the pleas, ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the sentences were excessive. - The court found that Guerrero had waived some claims due to failure to raise them properly in his motion or during the hearing. 4. **Court's Findings**: - The court held that Guerrero's pleas were entered knowingly and voluntarily, especially since he had been informed of all charges and had signed a plea form acknowledging them. - The court found no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel that warranted the withdrawal of his plea. - The court concluded that the sentences imposed were within statutory limits and not excessive. 5. **Final Decision**: - The court denied Guerrero's petition for certiorari and affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence. This summary captures the critical elements of the judicial opinion and reflects the legal reasoning utilized by the court in reaching its conclusion.

RE 2018-0457

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 11, 2019
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-0457, Tommy Lee Tucker appealed his conviction for domestic assault and battery along with other charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings to fix some inconsistencies in the records. One judge dissented.

F-2018-284

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 11, 2019
Post category:F

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.

RE 2018-0457

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 11, 2019
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-0457, Tommy Lee Tucker appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery After Prior Conviction, Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation, and Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but remanded the case to the District Court to correct inconsistencies in the sentencing documents. One judge dissented.

F-2018-595

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 11, 2019
Post category:F

**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).

M-2018-335

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 11, 2019
Post category:M

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JULIUS LAMAR WRIGHT,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE 2018-0144** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JUL 11 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant Julius Lamar Wright entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2009-228, for Count 1 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute (Marijuana) and Count 2 - Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. On April 28, 2009, Appellant received a five-year deferred sentence on each count. On March 6, 2012, Appellant pled guilty to allegations in the application to accelerate his deferred sentences, resulting in a ten-year suspended sentence (first five years in custody) for Count 1, and one year in the Oklahoma County Jail for Count 2. These sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other and with CF-2011-1457. Appellant was charged with Domestic Abuse by Strangulation on December 9, 2015, in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2015-8860. He entered a no contest plea and was given a ten-year suspended sentence with probation conditions, which ran concurrently with the earlier cases and included credit for time served. The State's motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2009-228 due to the new charge and failure to pay restitution was dismissed on June 28, 2016, as part of the plea agreement in Case No. CF-2015-8860. On June 29, 2017, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in Cases CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860, alleging a new crime of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2017-2733. After a revocation hearing on January 31, 2018, Appellant's suspended sentences in both cases were revoked. Appellant appeals the revocation of his suspended sentences, raising two propositions of error: 1. The evidence presented during his revocation hearing should have been excluded as it was obtained through egregious police conduct violating his Fourth Amendment rights. 2. The trial court abused its discretion by revoking Appellant's sentences in full, constituting a violation of his due process rights and resulting in an excessive sentence. We affirm the District Court's decision to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in full. Appellant's first argument was not raised at the revocation hearing, leading us to review for plain error. To claim relief under the plain error doctrine, Appellant must prove: (1) an actual error occurred; (2) the error is clear and obvious; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights, impacting the outcome of the hearing. We find no plain error and conclude that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in finding Appellant violated the conditions of his suspended sentences. Regarding the second argument, the court has broad discretion in revoking suspended sentences, and this discretion will not be disturbed without showing an abuse thereof. Appellant has not demonstrated any such abuse. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860 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 filing of this decision. **REVOCATION APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS** **THOMAS HURLEY** **MARVA A. BANKS** Assistant Public Defender Oklahoma County Public Defender's Office 611 County Office Building 320 Robert S. Kerr Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for Defendant **KIRK MARTIN** Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma County 320 Robert S. Kerr Suite 505 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for the State **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur **[PDF VERSION AVAILABLE HERE](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/M-2018-335_1734421708.pdf)**

S-2018-164

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 11, 2019
Post category:S

This document is an opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in a criminal case involving Don Arneilus Ingram. The opinion details the legal proceedings stemming from Ingram’s arrest and the subsequent suppression of evidence obtained during that arrest. **Key Points of the Case:** 1. **Charges Against Ingram**: Don Arneilus Ingram faced multiple felony charges including trafficking in illegal drugs, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of proceeds from illegal drug activity, with the state alleging that these crimes were committed after previous felony convictions. 2. **Initial Detention and Arrest**: The arresting officer, Sergeant Greg Bell, initially noticed Ingram driving a vehicle with a temporary tag in a high-crime area. After observing suspicious behavior, including Ingram’s inability to identify a friend he claimed to be visiting, Sgt. Bell approached Ingram to ask questions. This led to Sgt. Bell detaining Ingram for driving without a license. 3. **Search Incident to Arrest**: Following the arrest, Sgt. Bell conducted a search of Ingram, which yielded a large amount of cash and identification. After noticing Ingram acting nervously and attempting to direct his female companion to leave, officers subsequently searched the vehicle Ingram had been driving, finding significant quantities of illegal drugs and a firearm. 4. **Motion to Suppress Evidence**: Ingram filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him and that the search was therefore unlawful. 5. **District Court’s Ruling**: The district court granted Ingram's motion to suppress, determining that the initial contact was not lawful and that the subsequent search of the vehicle was unreasonable. 6. **Court of Criminal Appeals Decision**: The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the district court's order. The court found that Sgt. Bell's initial interaction with Ingram was a consensual encounter and that sufficient probable cause existed for both the arrest and the search of the vehicle. **Conclusion**: The appellate court concluded that the evidence should not have been suppressed, underscoring the importance of analyzing the totality of circumstances leading to an officer’s determination of probable cause. The decision emphasizes that even behavior that seems innocent in isolation can, when viewed in context, lead to reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The court remanded the case for further proceedings. For a complete review of this case and its legal implications, interested parties can download a PDF of the full opinion.

S-2018-438

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 11, 2019
Post category:S

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellant,** **v.** **LESLYE SOTO,** **Appellee.** **Case No. S-2018-438** **Filed July 11, 2019** **Opinion by: Lewis, Presiding Judge** --- **OPINION** Leslye Soto was charged with aggravated trafficking in illegal drugs, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2014, § 2-415, in Oklahoma County district court case number CF-2015-5312. The district court, presided over by the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, granted a motion to suppress evidence obtained by law enforcement prior to the trial. The State appeals this decision. ### FACTS On the night of the incident, Leslye Soto was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her husband, Jorge Soto. The vehicle was stopped by Sergeant Keegan Burris from the Oklahoma City Police Department K-9 unit for making an improper lane change. Following the stop and a brief investigation, Burris observed signs that led him to suspect drug trafficking. These included: - The appearance of the vehicle which suggested a lived-in look. - The nervous demeanor of both the driver and passenger. - A disassembled phone in the vehicle. - Misaligned statements regarding the purpose of their travel. - Clothing that did not appear suitable for a wedding. After issuing a warning citation and asking for additional questions, Jorge Soto initially declined to consent to a vehicle search. Burris then extended the detention based on the signs of possible illegal activity, deploying a K-9 to sniff the vehicle. The K-9 alerted, leading to the discovery of contraband. The trial court concluded that Burris lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the stop, determining the presented factors were insufficient for such suspicion. The State appeals this ruling. ### ANALYSIS The standard for evaluating the trial court's decision on a motion to suppress is an abuse of discretion. Under established jurisprudence, an extended police stop must either be based on reasonable suspicion or valid consent. In this case, Sergeant Burris provided specific articulable facts informing his suspicion of drug trafficking, relying on his training and expertise. The totality of circumstances, rather than isolated factors, should guide the determination of reasonable suspicion. The trial court's comparison of the Sotos' behavior to its own travel habits was misplaced and underappreciated the officer's expertise. Understanding that reasonable suspicion is a lesser standard than probable cause, the court finds Burris legitimately extended the stop for further investigation. Given the K-9's alert after this reasonable extension, the officer developed probable cause to conduct a search of the vehicle. ### DECISION The trial court's ruling suppressing the evidence is reversed. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. **Attorneys on Appeal:** - For the State: Kyle Peppler, Clayton Niemeyer - For Defendant/Appellee: Richard W. Anderson, David Autry **Concurrences:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. --- **Click Here To Download PDF** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2018-438_1734280785.pdf)

S-2018-1026

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 11, 2019
Post category:S

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellant,** **V.** **NICHOLAS LOWELL TURNER,** **Appellee.** **Case No. S-2018-1026** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JUL 11 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** On April 4, 2018, Nicholas Lowell Turner was charged in Tulsa County with multiple drug offenses and related charges. After a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search warrant, the lower court initially denied the motion based on a good faith exception, but later reversed that decision, leading the State to appeal. The key issues before the Court were whether the trial court abused its discretion by ruling that the search warrant lacked probable cause and, if so, whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. **Background:** The case arose from evidence gained during the execution of a search warrant on Turner's residence, which led to the seizure of illegal drugs, firearms, and cash. The warrant was issued based on statements from an informant who had been arrested in possession of illegal drugs and had identified Turner as his supplier. Despite the affidavit's deficiencies in detailing direct observations of illegal activity at Turner's residence, the appellate court found there was a sufficient connection established between the residence and Turner's alleged criminal activity. Importantly, the court noted that the officers acted reasonably based on the magistrate's determination of probable cause, allowing for the good faith exception to apply. **Decision:** The Court found that the trial court had erred in not applying the good faith exception properly, stating that a properly issued search warrant, despite some lack of detail in the affidavit, should not have resulted in suppressed evidence. The appellate court ruled to reverse the trial court's decision and remand the case for further proceedings. **Concurring Opinion:** LEWIS, P.J., specially concurs, acknowledging the weaknesses in the affidavit but ultimately agreeing with the application of the good faith exception as the officers acted reasonably in executing the search warrant. --- For full details refer to the decision [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2018-1026_1734276181.pdf).

F-2017-1099

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 27, 2019
Post category:F

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.

M-2018-259

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 27, 2019
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2018-259, Apollo Gabriel Gonzalez appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. On July 12, 2016, Gonzalez was charged with domestic abuse in two separate cases that were later combined for a jury trial. The jury found him guilty of both charges, and the judge sentenced him to pay fines. Gonzalez argued that he did not get a fair trial. He said his lawyer did not use important evidence that could have helped him. He claimed this evidence would show that the person he was accused of hurting was actually the aggressor and that he acted in self-defense. However, the court noted that Gonzalez did not provide actual evidence to support his claims about his lawyer's performance. The court explained that to win an appeal on these grounds, Gonzalez needed to show that his lawyer made serious mistakes and that those mistakes affected the outcome of his trial. The judges ruled that even if his lawyer had made mistakes, Gonzalez could not show that the result of the trial would have been different. In his second argument, Gonzalez claimed that having both of his cases tried together was unfair. He referenced a previous decision where combining cases had led to issues. However, the court pointed out that in his case, the jury could decide each case separately, unlike the situation in the previous decision he cited. In the end, the court found no errors that would require reversing the conviction or changing the result. The judges upheld the earlier decisions, and Gonzalez's appeal was denied.

F-2018-411

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 27, 2019
Post category:F

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.

F-2018-513

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 27, 2019
Post category:F

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.

F-2018-646

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 27, 2019
Post category:F

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.

RE-2018-89

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 27, 2019
Post category:RE

In the case of Brandon Christopher Looney v. The State of Oklahoma, the Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the trial court's decision to revoke Looney's twenty-year suspended sentence based on multiple violations of probation. Looney had pled nolo contendere to assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, leading to a suspended sentence on the condition he comply with certain probation rules. The court reviewed allegations against Looney, including failing to report to his probation officer, changing his residence without notification, associating with convicted felons, failing a drug test, possessing weapons, and being charged with multiple offenses related to drug and firearm possession. At the revocation hearing, evidence was presented detailing these violations, including a deputy witnessing drug use and discovering firearms and drugs in the residence where Looney was staying. Looney argued that the judge erred in denying his demurrer regarding weapon-related allegations since the firearms were not found in his specific bedroom and there was no evidence he was aware of their presence. However, the court explained that as a convicted felon on probation, his residency rules prohibited him from firearms, regardless of awareness. The burden of proof for probation violations is a preponderance of evidence, and the trial judge's discretion to revoke the sentence was upheld. Looney also claimed that the judge did not consider lesser sentencing options and that the revocation was excessive. The court found no evidence that the judge neglected to consider alternatives and noted that Looney had repeatedly ignored probation requirements immediately after being placed on probation. Ultimately, the court denied all of Looney's propositions of error, concluding there were no abuses of discretion or violations of due process. Therefore, the order to revoke his suspended sentence was affirmed.