Files - Page 14 of 66 - OCCA Opinions

RE 2018-0118

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2019
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-0118, Samuel Keith Carolina appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Samuel Keith Carolina had originally been sentenced to twenty years for burglary, but the last ten years were suspended while he followed certain rules. However, in December 2017, the state accused him of committing several new crimes, including assault and battery with a deadly weapon and shooting with intent to kill. Some of these claims were removed before the revocation hearing. At the hearing held on January 30, 2018, the judge found enough evidence to support the state's claims, specifically the first allegation. Carolina argued that the evidence was not strong enough to prove he broke the terms of his sentence. The court explained that to revoke a suspended sentence, the evidence just needs to show that it's more likely true than not, meaning the evidence has to be convincing. Ultimately, because they found that there was enough evidence to support at least one of the violations, the court decided to uphold the revocation of Carolina's suspended sentence.

F-2018-547

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2019
Post category:F

**Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Summary Opinion: Carlos Antonio King v. State of Oklahoma** **Case No.:** F-2018-547 **Filed:** May 30, 2019 **Judges:** LUMPKIN, P.J., LEWIS, P.J., KUEHN, V.P.J., HUDSON, J., ROWLAND, J. **Facts of the Case:** Carlos Antonio King was convicted by a jury for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute (Methamphetamine and Marijuana) and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm After a Prior Felony Conviction in the District Court of Choctaw County. The jury sentenced him to 20 years each for the drug counts (concurrent) and 1 year in jail for the firearm count (consecutive). **Propositions of Error:** 1. Admission of other crimes evidence violated King's right to a fair trial. 2. Admission of evidence related to an alleged December 2015 buy and an existing arrest warrant violated his fair trial rights. 3. Evidence from an April 15 vehicle search should have been suppressed due to a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. 4. Prosecutorial misconduct due to the premature publication of unadmitted photographs. 5. Cumulative errors denied him a fair trial. 6. Insufficient evidence to convict him for Possession with Intent to Distribute. **Court's Analysis and Decision:** 1. **Proposition One:** The court upheld the trial court’s decision to admit evidence of other crimes, determining it was relevant to prove knowledge and intent, affirming that it did not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect. 2. **Proposition Two:** King’s argument regarding the December 2015 buy and arrest warrant was found forfeited due to lack of supporting argument or authority, hence denied. 3. **Proposition Three:** The court found that the search warrant adequately described the areas to be searched. The vehicle, parked on the premises described in the warrant, did not require an additional search warrant. No plain error was identified. 4. **Proposition Four:** While it was noted that the prosecutor used photographs in opening statements that hadn’t yet been admitted into evidence, this was not found to affect King's substantial rights, especially since the photographs were ultimately admitted without objection. 5. **Proposition Five:** The court denied the cumulative error claim, stating that no errors were identified during the trial. 6. **Proposition Six:** The court used the Jackson v. Virginia standard for evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, affirming that sufficient evidence existed that could lead a rational jury to conclude King's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. **Conclusion:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence of the District Court, finding no reversible errors in the trial proceedings. **Opinion by:** LUMPKIN, P.J. **Concurred by:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-547_1735318084.pdf)

F-2018-596

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2019
Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals related to the case of Worth Lerance Martin. The appellant, Martin, was convicted of two offenses in the District Court of Stephens County: Feloniously Pointing a Firearm and Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony. Following a bench trial, he was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison and a $1,500 fine for each count, with sentences to run concurrently. In his appeal, Martin argued that the twenty-five-year sentences were shockingly excessive. However, the Court reviewed the circumstances of the case, including Martin's violent behavior of pointing a pistol at another individual and using threatening language, which occurred without provocation. The Court noted that Martin presented no counter-evidence to challenge the victim's testimony or the State's evidence and did not dispute his criminal history, which was a factor in determining his sentence. Ultimately, the Court found that the imposed sentences were not shocking to the conscience, especially when considering the nature of the offenses and the fact that they were less severe than what the prosecutor requested. Consequently, the Court affirmed the judgment and sentence from the lower court. The decision signifies the Court's discretion in sentencing and highlights the weight of prior criminal history and the nature of the crimes committed when determining appropriate punishment. In conclusion, the judgment and sentence of the District Court of Stephens County is affirmed, and the Court ordered that the mandate be issued upon filing this decision.

RE-2018-232

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2019
Post category:RE

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case No. RE-2018-232** **Summary Opinion** **Appellant:** Courtney Quillen **Appellee:** The State of Oklahoma **Decided on:** May 30, 2019 **Judge:** Kuehn, Vice Presiding Judge **Background:** Courtney Quillen appealed the revocation of her concurrent seven-year suspended sentences issued by Judge Gregory D. Pollard. She had been convicted in two cases for several counts of Uttering a Forged Instrument. **Key Dates:** - **August 25, 2016:** Quillen entered nolo contendere pleas in two cases. - **March 3, 2017:** The State filed a motion to revoke her suspended sentences for failing to pay fees. - **February 26, 2018:** A revocation hearing was held, leading to the decision to revoke her sentences. **Charges and Allegations:** The State alleged that Quillen committed additional crimes (robbery and conspiracy) while on probation, which constituted violations of her probation terms. **Decision:** The court concluded that: - The alleged procedural errors regarding the twenty-day rule did not affect the court's ability to revoke the sentences from Case No. CF-2015-817 since it had jurisdiction over that case. - The evidence presented established that Quillen had participated in a robbery, thus justifying the revocation of her suspended sentences. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Jurisdiction challenge** - Denied; revocation in Case No. CF-2015-817 upheld. 2. **Validity of waiver regarding twenty-day rule** - Moot. 3. **Insufficient evidence for robbery** - Denied; evidence supported the involvement in robbery and conspiracy. 4. **Insufficient evidence for conspiracy** - Denied; Quillen was shown to have conspired with co-defendants. 5. **Ineffective assistance of counsel** - Moot due to affirming the revocation based on other factors. 6. **Abuse of discretion in revocation** - Denied; trial court acted within its discretion. **Final Order:** The Court affirmed the decision of the District Court of Pontotoc County to revoke Quillen’s concurrent suspended sentences. **Mandate Issued.** [Full opinion and details available here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-232_1734699237.pdf).

RE-2018-234

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JERRY WAYNE LANDS, NOT FOR PUBLICATION** **Appellant,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-234** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 30, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **KUEHN, VICE-PRESIDING JUDGE:** On March 7, 2008, Appellant Jerry Wayne Lands, represented by counsel, entered a negotiated plea of no contest to the charge of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) After Former Conviction of a Felony in Pittsburg County Case No. CF-2007-420. He was sentenced to ten (10) years, all suspended, subject to terms and conditions of probation. Between May 2008 and March 2009, at least five (5) applications to revoke his probation were filed. On December 5, 2008, Lands was charged with additional offenses and ultimately, on April 13, 2009, the district court revoked five years of his suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2007-420. Subsequent to Lands' guilty plea in Case No. CF-2008-526, where he received a ten-year sentence with five years suspended, the State filed multiple revocation applications in both cases. On October 26, 2017, the State filed another Application to Revoke Lands' suspended sentences, which culminated in a full revocation during a hearing held on July 11, 2017. **PROPOSITIONS OF ERROR:** 1. Lands contends that the trial judge abused his discretion by refusing to grant a continuance for him to hire counsel. 2. He argues there was no valid waiver of the twenty-day requirement, resulting in loss of jurisdiction to revoke his sentence. 3. He claims the evidence was insufficient to support the allegations in the revocation motions. 4. He asserts the revocation of his entire remaining sentences was excessive. **DECISION:** 1. **Continuance Denial:** The court found no abuse of discretion by Judge Hogan in denying the requested continuance, which was sought on the day of the hearing without prior notification of intent to hire private counsel. 2. **Waiver of the 20-Day Rule:** The waiver was valid despite Lands' claim that it was made without the representation of counsel, as the appellate record indicated he knowingly waived his right to a timely hearing. 3. **Sufficiency of Evidence:** The court ruled there was sufficient evidence to warrant revocation of Lands' suspended sentences. Violations of probation can be established by a preponderance of evidence, and the record supported the trial court's findings. 4. **Excessiveness of Revocation:** The court concluded that revocation of Lands' entire suspended sentences was not excessive, given his extensive history of probation violations. **RULING:** The order of the District Court of Pittsburg County revoking Appellant's suspended sentences is **AFFIRMED**. **COUNSEL:** *Appellant:* Wesley J. Cherry *Appellee:* Max E. Moss, Jr., Assistant District Attorney; Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. *LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR* *LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS* *HUDSON, J.: CONCUR* *ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR* **MANDATE ORDERED.** For a complete view and reference, [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-234_1734698244.pdf).

F-2017-68

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2019
Post category:F

This text appears to be a legal opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the case of Jonathan D. McKee, who was convicted of Child Abuse. The judgment affirms the conviction and address various propositions raised by the appellant concerning the conviction and the trial process. The summary of the opinion includes analysis of the following propositions: 1. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a rational juror to convict McKee of child abuse based on medical expert testimony. 2. **Evidentiary Rulings**: The court reviewed multiple evidentiary rulings that McKee argued were erroneous. They concluded that while McKee's refusal to speak with authorities could raise Fifth Amendment concerns, it did not constitute plain error affecting the trial’s outcome. Additionally, evidence concerning drug paraphernalia was found relevant to the case. 3. **Judicial Bias**: Appellant’s claim of judicial bias was rejected as the court found no evidence of actual bias or any violations affecting due process. 4. **Cumulative Error**: The court stated that because none of the individual propositions were sustained, the cumulative error argument had no merit. The opinion also includes concurring opinions from Judges Kuehn and Rowland. Judge Kuehn expressed some reservations about the relevance of mentions of a request for legal counsel, while Judge Rowland emphasized that McKee's conduct and refusal to speak were relevant in assessing guilty knowledge, even though they did not implicate any constitutional violations. The final decision affirmed the judgment and sentence, with the court ordering the mandate issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. For further details, one may refer to the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2017-68_1734271673.pdf).

C-2018-927

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2019
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SAHIB QUIETMAN HENDERSON,** **Petitioner,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-927** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 30, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Sahib Quietman Henderson entered a blind plea of guilty to Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance within 2,000 feet of a School in the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CF-2016-393. The plea was accepted by the Honorable Ken J. Graham, District Judge, on April 30, 2018, with sentencing delayed until July 25, 2018. On that date, Petitioner was sentenced to thirty (30) years in prison, with the first fifteen (15) years to be served and the remaining fifteen (15) years suspended, alongside a fine of $2,500.00. On August 2, 2018, represented by counsel, Petitioner filed an Application to Withdraw Plea of Guilty. At hearings on August 20 and 22, 2018, Judge Graham denied the motion to withdraw. Petitioner appeals the denial and raises the following propositions of error: 1. Failure of the State and District Court to honor the promised consideration for Appellant's plea requires modification of his inflated sentence, or an opportunity to withdraw his plea. 2. The sentence is shockingly excessive given the circumstances of the case. 3. Ineffective assistance of counsel in identifying, presenting, and preserving issues for review. After thorough review of these propositions and the entirety of the record, including original record, transcripts, and briefs, we find that neither reversal nor modification is required. Our primary concern in evaluating the validity of a guilty plea is whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently. Petitioner carries the burden of proving his plea was entered unadvisedly, through influence, or without deliberation. Voluntariness is assessed through the entire record. In **Proposition I**, Petitioner claims that the plea lacked a knowing and voluntary nature due to non-fulfillment of a promise that he would be sentenced as a first-time offender and because of purported drug buys by his wife reducing his sentence. Contrary to this argument, the record shows Petitioner was treated as a first-time offender, with the court considering the mitigating factors at sentencing. His dissatisfaction with the resulting sentence does not provide grounds for withdrawal of the plea. In **Proposition II**, Petitioner contends the sentence is excessive. However, as he did not raise this claim in his Application to Withdraw Guilty Plea to the trial court, it is waived on appeal. In **Proposition III**, Petitioner argues ineffective assistance of counsel during both the plea and withdrawal hearings. A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is only established by showing that counsel's performance was deficient and that it resulted in prejudice to the defendant. The record does not support that withdrawal counsel's performance was deficient or that it affected the outcome—Petitioner maintained he did not wish to withdraw his plea but rather sought a sentence modification. **DECISION** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon this decision. --- **APPEARANCES IN DISTRICT COURT:** Grant D. Shepherd 601 S.W. C Ave., Ste. 201 Lawton, OK 73501 Counsel for the Defense **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** Kimberly D. Heinze P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 Counsel for Petitioner at the Plea Hearing Ronald L. Williams P.O. Box 2095 Lawton, OK 73502 Counsel for the Defense at the Withdrawal Hearing Jason M. Hicks District Attorney Cortnie Siess & Greg Steward Assistant District Attorneys Stephens Co. Courthouse 101 S. 11th St., Duncan, OK 73533 Counsel for the State **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur --- [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-927_1734182885.pdf)

C-2018-372

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 29, 2019
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **LAVONTE ANTONIO JOHNSON,** **Petitioner,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-372** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI** **Filed May 39, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Lavonte Antonio Johnson, Petitioner, pled guilty to using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a firearm, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 652(B), in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2014-2033. The Honorable Susan K. Johnson, Special Judge, accepted the plea and deferred judgment for five (5) years, subject to rules and conditions of probation. The State later moved to accelerate the judgment, alleging that Petitioner violated the rules and conditions of probation by possessing a firearm and jumping bail. The Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, accelerated judgment and sentenced Petitioner to twenty-seven (27) years imprisonment. Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied. Petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari based on the following propositions of error: 1. Petitioner did not knowingly and voluntarily enter his plea of guilty, and the district court erred when it denied his application to withdraw the plea. 2. Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article II, §§ 7 and 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution. 3. Petitioner’s 27-year sentence is excessive under the Eighth Amendment and shocks the conscience. Certiorari review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently before a court of competent jurisdiction, whether the sentence is excessive, whether counsel was effective at either the plea hearing or the withdrawal hearing, and whether the State has the power to prosecute the defendant. ### Proposition One In this proposition, Petitioner claims that the record shows he did not voluntarily enter his plea, due to a notational error by his counsel regarding the 85% rule applicable to his sentence. The court points out that a valid plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among alternatives. The ruling on a motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The trial court concluded that despite the error, Petitioner was properly informed about the 85% crime classification, denying this proposition. ### Proposition Two Petitioner argues that his counsel failed to adequately advise him regarding the ramifications of the 85% rule, thus rendering his plea involuntary. The court reviews this claim under the two-pronged Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that Petitioner did not show that counsel's performance was deficient or that it prejudiced him, denying this proposition. ### Proposition Three Petitioner argues that his sentence is excessive. The court notes that a sentence within the statutory range will not be modified unless it shocks the court's conscience. Given that Petitioner violated probation for a violent felony by possessing a firearm and jumping bail, the court finds that the sentence does not shock the conscience, thus denying this proposition. ### Decision The petition for the writ of certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. **APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** ### APPEARANCES AT TRIAL **TONY COLEMAN** **ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER** ### APPEARANCES ON APPEAL **ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER** **ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER** **LORENZO BANKS** **THOMAS HURLEY** **ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT** **DANIEL POND** **ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE** **OPINION BY: LEWIS, P.J.** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **LUMPKIN, J.: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** **ROWLAND, J.: Concur** [**Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-372_1734105356.pdf)

PC 2017-755

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 24, 2019
Post category:PC

In OCCA case No. PC 2017-755, the petitioner appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the previous sentence and allow for resentencing with a jury. The dissenting opinions argued against the majority decision, indicating that the judge had the discretion to deny jury resentencing based on prior waivers. The case started when the petitioner was just seventeen years old and pleaded guilty to First Degree Murder in 2006. Originally, he was sentenced to life in prison without the chance for parole. After some time, he claimed that this sentence was unfair because he was a minor when he was sentenced. The court agreed and decided to let him be resentenced but had to deal with the issue of whether his resentencing should involve a jury. The petitioner argued that since he was seeking resentencing, he should be allowed a jury trial. However, the state disagreed, pointing out that he had waived his right to a jury trial when he originally pleaded guilty. The judge decided that because of this waiver, he didn’t have to give the petitioner a jury for resentencing. In this case, the court looked at previous decisions that said when a juvenile is sentenced to life without parole, they should have a jury trial unless they give up that right. The majority of the court found that the petitioner did not truly waive his right to a jury for the resentencing, as he was relying on new rules from recent important cases. Ultimately, the court decided that it was wrong for the judge to deny the jury resentencing. They chose to vacate that decision and said the case should go back to the lower court to figure out the right way to do the resentencing, with the ability to include a jury if the petitioner asked. The dissenting opinions argued that the judge had actually acted correctly by denying the request for a jury because the petitioner had already waived that right back when he pleaded guilty. They believed that the rules shouldn’t allow a person to change their mind long after the original decision. The court ordered that the petitioner’s guilty plea and conviction were still valid, but they needed to follow the correct process under the law for the new sentencing.

PR 2018-1203

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 24, 2019
Post category:PR

OPINION ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF AND REMANDING MATTER TO DISTRICT COURT On November 29, 2018, Petitioner, by and through counsel Melissa A. French, filed an application for an…

F-2017-863

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-863, Joe Zacharias Harp appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Harp was found guilty of Child Sexual Abuse in a trial that did not involve a jury. The judge sentenced him to thirty years in prison and three years of post-imprisonment supervision. He raised five main points in his appeal. First, he argued that he should not have been tried after entering a no contest plea because jeopardy should have attached at that moment. However, the court found that he did not show that an error occurred in this area. Since he went ahead with the trial without raising the issue, the court ruled he had waived this point. Second, Harp claimed that the court wrongly allowed certain statements made by the victim to be used as evidence without first holding a reliability hearing. The court acknowledged that he had not disagreed with this at trial but concluded that the statements were reliable enough and that the error did not affect Harp's rights in any significant way. For the third point, Harp said that the victim's testimony was too vague and unbelievable and that it needed support from other evidence to count as valid. The court disagreed, stating that the victim's testimony was consistent and made sense, thus supporting a conviction without needing corroboration. The fourth point was about his lawyer not properly supporting his plea and rights during the trial. The court stated Harp did not meet the requirements to prove that his lawyer had failed in their duty. Lastly, Harp mentioned that the errors in his trial added up to unfair treatment, but the court ruled against this claim as well, finding no significant cumulative error. In conclusion, the court affirmed the original judgment and Harp's sentence.

F-2017-892

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-892, David Lee Seely appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. David Seely was found guilty of murdering Jackie Tyler Wesnidge during a fight that escalated in a car. Seely and Misty Dawn Benefield had left the house they were staying in after an argument between Wesnidge and Benefield. Seely, who had previously expressed strong feelings for Benefield, ended up stabbing Wesnidge seventeen times after a confrontation in the car. After the murder, Seely and Benefield crashed the car and tried to escape on foot. They were eventually found by the police. Seely claimed several errors during his trial, including the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on certain defenses, the exclusion of evidence he wanted to present, the admission of graphic photographs, and issues of prosecutorial misconduct. He also argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reviewed Seely's arguments and found that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on defenses like defense of another or voluntary intoxication, as there was no sufficient evidence to support those claims. It also determined that the evidence excluded by the court was not necessary for understanding the case, and that the photographs admitted were relevant to the crime. Prosecutorial misconduct claims were examined, yet the court concluded these did not significantly harm Seely's right to a fair trial. Finally, it ruled that his counsel performed adequately, and there were no grounds for claiming he received ineffective representation. The court affirmed Seely's conviction, finding all claims of error were without merit.

F-2017-1011

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1011, Johnny Ray Hopes appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute and two counts of Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. Johnny Ray Hopes was found guilty by a jury for having illegal drugs and for attacking police officers. The jury decided he should go to prison for four years for the drug crime and for thirteen months in jail with a $500 fine for each of the two assaults. The judge ordered that all of these punishments would happen one after the other, not at the same time. Hopes had a few reasons for his appeal. First, he said that the trial court did not properly explain what it meant to represent himself in court. He believed that because he was not fully informed, his choice to represent himself was not made knowingly or voluntarily. The court looked at the facts and found that Hopes was well informed about what it meant to represent himself. They agreed that he made a clear decision and understood the risks involved in not having a lawyer. Therefore, the court decided that he had made a valid choice to represent himself. Second, Hopes claimed that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing the jury to hear about a lesser crime called Resisting Arrest. The court explained that for a jury to receive instructions about a lesser crime, there must be enough evidence for a reasonable jury to be able to find the person guilty of that lesser crime instead of the more serious crime they were charged with. The court found that there wasn’t enough evidence to support a charge of Resisting Arrest because Hopes had attacked the officers rather than just resisting their attempts to arrest him. So, they decided the trial court did not make a mistake by not including that lesser charge. Lastly, Hopes argued that the trial court shouldn’t have made his punishments run consecutively. The court explained that there is no rule saying he must receive concurrent sentences, meaning they cannot run at the same time. They confirmed that the judge had the right to decide that Hopes should serve his time one after the other. The court found that there was no evidence showing that the judge didn't consider all the facts when making that decision. In conclusion, the court upheld Hopes’ convictions and punishments. The appeal did not change the earlier decision. One judge disagreed, believing there were reasons to reconsider the case.

F-2017-1029

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1029, Timothy Brian Bussell appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree - Victim Unconscious. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence against him. One judge dissented. Bussell was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, even though the jury recommended life without parole. The case involved Bussell and a co-defendant, who filmed another co-defendant having sex with an unconscious victim. The jury believed there was enough evidence to show Bussell helped and encouraged the assault. Bussell raised ten arguments in his appeal, claiming errors during his trial. He argued that he did not get proper notice of the charges against him, that there was not enough evidence to convict him, and that the trial should have separated him from his co-defendant. He also claimed the victim's testimony was not credible, the prosecution made unfair statements, and that his lawyer did not do a good job. The court reviewed the evidence and found it sufficient for a conviction. They determined there were no significant errors that would affect his rights. The court emphasized that someone's testimony alone could support a conviction, especially if it was backed by video evidence. They concluded that Bussell knew the accusations he was facing and did not show that he was prejudiced by any mistakes made during the trial. Ultimately, the court decided that Bussell's claims did not show any grounds for reversing his conviction. His serious involvement in the crime was evident. The sentence was upheld as appropriate based on the crime he committed, emphasizing the importance of the victim's mistreatment.

F-2017-1031

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1031, a person appealed his conviction for first-degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One member of the court dissented. Dakota Joe Spainhower was found guilty of first-degree murder for killing his friend, who was a juvenile. The incident occurred after their shift at a local restaurant in July 2016. After receiving a ride home from the victim, Spainhower's mother noticed something strange outside and found a body next to a car, which belonged to the victim. Initially, Spainhower told his mother that the victim had tried to rob him and stabbed him first, prompting him to fight back and stab the victim multiple times. Evidence showed that Spainhower had blood on him and took the victim's keys after the incident. Spainhower's confession to the police was a crucial part of the trial. The court had to determine if this confession was made voluntarily and if he understood his rights when he waived them. There were questions regarding his mental health, education level, and the long duration of his questioning by police, all of which were argued to undermine the validity of his confession. However, the court found sufficient evidence that his confession was voluntary. The court also evaluated whether the evidence presented during the trial was enough to support the murder conviction. They determined that the evidence, including the victim's numerous injuries, was compelling enough for a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Spainhower was guilty of intent to kill. Spainhower raised concerns about prosecutorial misconduct, claiming that the prosecutor made improper statements during closing arguments. The court assessed these claims and found that any mistakes did not significantly affect the outcome of the trial. Additionally, Spainhower argued that he received ineffective assistance from his counsel. However, the court determined that his counsel acted adequately throughout the trial. Finally, Spainhower claimed that the combination of all the errors he identified deprived him of a fair trial. The court concluded that since no individual errors were found that warranted relief, the cumulative effect of claims also did not provide grounds for a new trial. Thus, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence against Spainhower, maintaining his conviction for first-degree murder with no opportunity for parole.

F-2017-1301

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1301, William Curtis Box appealed his conviction for Aggravated Domestic Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of his deferred judgment, which meant that his earlier decision to defer judgment was changed to a conviction. One judge dissented. The case started when Box was found guilty of a crime related to domestic violence and was given a deferred judgment, meaning he wouldn’t have a criminal record if he followed certain conditions for ten years. However, he did not follow those conditions and committed another crime called Obstructing an Officer. When the State of Oklahoma found out, they asked the court to change his deferred judgment to a conviction. Box argued that his probation should not be accelerated because the court did not have a written list of rules for his probation. He referred to previous cases from 1969 and 1970 which ruled in favor of defendants when there were no signed probation rules. However, the court explained that in later cases, they decided that a person on probation should understand they cannot commit any further crimes, even without a written agreement. Box also asked to withdraw his agreement to the State's application to change his probation status but could not find any laws that allowed him to do so. The court noted that a stipulation, or agreement, to accelerate a deferred judgment is different from things like guilty pleas, and there is no established way to take back such an agreement. Moreover, Box claimed that his sentence was too harsh. However, the court stated that during an acceleration appeal, they can only examine whether the acceleration was lawful, not whether the sentence was too long. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision to accelerate Box's judgment to a conviction based on his probation violation. They found no evidence of an abuse of discretion by the lower court in making this decision.

F-2018-56

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-56, Garry Wayne Wilson appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Possession of a Firearm While Under Supervision of the Department of Corrections. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. No one dissented. Garry Wayne Wilson was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County. He faced two charges: killing someone and having a gun when he wasn’t supposed to. The jury decided he should spend his life in prison for the murder and ten years for the gun charge, with both sentences running one after the other. Wilson raised several problems about his trial that he believed made it unfair. He thought the court made mistakes, such as changing the charges against him in a way that hurt his defense, not telling the jury the right instructions, allowing too many pictures of the victim that were too much to see, and that the prosecutor did things wrong during the trial. He also believed his lawyer didn’t help him enough. The court looked closely at Wilson’s complaints. First, they found that the change in the charges was allowed because it didn’t really change what he was being accused of. It was fair to change it based on the evidence that came out during the trial. Next, regarding jury instructions, the judges said they were given correctly. Even though Wilson claimed he should have received specific instructions about being angry, the judges said that because Wilson denied shooting the victim, he didn’t qualify for those instructions. Also, the jury did get to hear about similar lesser charges, which gave them options. About the photos shown in court, the judges found they were important for showing what happened to the victim. Even if there were many pictures, they all served a purpose and were not too repetitive. Regarding the claims of the prosecutor acting inappropriately, the court said that, despite Wilson's worries, the issues did not make the trial unfair. The judges assessed all the prosecutor's actions as a whole to decide if they were serious problems. They concluded that they were not. Wilson also said his lawyer didn’t do a good job. However, the judges commented that legal representatives have a wide range of actions they can take, and it’s not easy to prove they didn’t do their job well. They didn’t find any significant mistakes made by the lawyer that harmed Wilson’s case. Lastly, Wilson argued that all these issues combined made his trial unfair. The judges disagreed and said that since they found none of his claims were valid, there were no combined errors that would change the outcome either. In summary, the court affirmed Wilson's conviction and sentence. They found no significant errors that would merit a new trial or a change in his punishment. The case concluded with the jury's decision being upheld.

F-2018-119

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-119, Arthur Tequon Hill, Jr. appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm, Kidnapping, and Gang Association. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. No one dissented. Arthur Tequon Hill, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for several serious crimes. The jury decided he should go to prison for 25 years for robbery, 20 years for kidnapping, and 5 years for gang association. The court said he must serve these sentences one after the other. Hill made several arguments in his appeal. First, he suggested that there wasn’t enough evidence to support his conviction and that the case should be dismissed. However, the court found that there was enough evidence for a reasonable person to believe he was guilty, so this argument was rejected. Second, Hill argued that the court should not have allowed the jury to hear about other robberies he was involved in just days before this crime. The court ruled that this evidence was permissible because it showed similarities between the robberies and helped prove his identity in this case. Third, he claimed the court made a mistake by letting the jury separate after they finished hearing the case, which he said could lead to unfair influence. The State agreed this was an error but said it wasn't harmful. The court concluded the jurors followed instructions not to talk about the case while they were apart, so this did not harm Hill’s case. Lastly, Hill argued that evidence about his gang membership was presented in a way that was too unfair and made his trial less fair. The court disagreed and stated that the evidence was important to the case. They believed it helped confirm his involvement in the robbery. In the end, the court found no reasons to change Hill's conviction or punishment. The decision to affirm his sentencing was based on thorough review of all the points made in his appeal and the evidence presented during the trial.

F-2018-120

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-120, Shelton appealed his conviction for Human Trafficking for Commercial Sex. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. No one dissented. Shelton was found guilty of coercing a young woman to engage in prostitution. The jury sentenced him to thirty years in prison, which he must serve at least 85% of before he can be considered for parole. Shelton raised issues claiming that the trial court made several errors that affected his right to a fair trial. First, he argued that the court should have given a different definition for human trafficking. However, since he did not ask for a specific instruction during the trial, the court looked for any major mistakes. They decided that the instruction provided was accurate and that giving a different definition would have confused the jury more than it helped. Second, Shelton argued that there was not enough evidence against him to support the conviction. The victim testified that she was recruited by him, provided with clothing and drugs, and he took away the money she earned. The court found that the evidence clearly supported the jury's determination that Shelton coerced her, even though she was not physically forced to work. Third, a concern was raised about an instruction given by the trial court that explained consent was not a defense in this case. The court ruled that this instruction was correct and did not unfairly shift the burden of proof to Shelton. Finally, Shelton claimed he was unable to present a full defense because the trial court did not let him ask if the victim had engaged in prostitution before meeting him. The court decided that this question was not relevant, as the victim had already shared enough information about her background and that it did not show any reason for her to lie about Shelton. In conclusion, the court firmly upheld the conviction, showing that the trial was fair and that evidence supported the jury’s decision.

F-2018-243

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-243, Ivan Luna-Gonzales appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. The case involved a serious incident where Luna-Gonzales attacked the mother of his child with a two-by-four, causing her significant injuries that required medical treatment. After the attack, he attempted to escape but was later found by the police. At the trial, Luna-Gonzales denied the assault and tried to claim that the victim had hurt herself. However, the evidence presented showed otherwise. A central issue in the appeal was whether Luna-Gonzales should receive credit for the time he spent in jail while awaiting his trial. He argued that the trial court made a mistake by not giving him this credit. The relevant law states that certain credits for time served apply but focus on time after sentencing—not while someone is waiting for their trial. The court explained that the statute referenced by Luna-Gonzales did not apply to the time he spent in jail before his judgment and sentence. Instead, it was meant to address the time inmates spend in jail after sentencing. The court emphasized that the trial judge has the discretion to decide on jail credit, which is not automatically given. In Luna-Gonzales’s case, the court found no fault with the trial court's decision. His longer time in jail was largely due to an immigration hold, which prevented his release. The court also noted that he did not cooperate with a required investigation before sentencing. Therefore, the court concluded that the trial court acted within its rights, and the appeal was denied. Ultimately, the judgment from the Payne County District Court was upheld, meaning Luna-Gonzales would serve his sentence without the additional jail credits he sought.

F-2018-321

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-321, Wayne William White appealed his conviction for Stalking. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Wayne William White was found guilty by a jury for stalking his ex-girlfriend after he repeatedly bothered her over several months, which included breaking a protective order meant to keep him away from her. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison. White argued two main points in his appeal. First, he claimed that the trial court made a mistake by not requiring the prosecution to choose specific actions that proved he stalked the victim. He believed this could confuse jurors, making it impossible for them to reach a unanimous agreement on what actions he took. The court explained that for a conviction of stalking, the law only needed to show that White repeatedly followed or harassed the victim, which means doing things that would cause someone to feel scared or upset. The State provided proof that he made multiple phone calls, left threatening messages, and damaged her property. The court looked into his argument and found no error. They stated that the process of how they reached their decision didn’t have to have them agree on every small action, but rather just that he was guilty of stalking overall. For White's second argument, he suggested that his lawyer did not do a good job by not asking the State to pick specific actions to focus on. The court said that since the State wasn’t required to choose specific actions anyway, his lawyer's actions did not hurt his case. Because of this, the court also denied this argument. In conclusion, the court affirmed Wayne William White's conviction, meaning his appeal was unsuccessful, and he would continue to serve his sentence. One judge had a different opinion but the majority agreed with the decision.

F-2018-326

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-326, #1 appealed his conviction for #stalking. In a (published) decision, the court decided #the State proved that the protective order was valid during the time of the incidents. #2 dissented.

F-2018-384

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-384, Jimmy Dean Coke, Jr. appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property and Obstructing an Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Jimmy Dean Coke, Jr. was convicted of two crimes. The first was knowing concealment of stolen property, and the second was obstructing an officer. The court sentenced him to twenty-five years for the first charge and one year for the second, and he also had to pay fines. Coke argued that the proof against him was not strong enough. He believed there was not enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt for either charge. However, the court reviewed the evidence in a way that favored the state. This meant they looked for any reasonable way a jury could have found him guilty. They decided there was enough evidence to support both convictions. Coke also claimed the trial court didn’t tell the jury about the value of the stolen property, which he thought was a mistake. For a charge of concealing stolen property to be a felony, the property must be worth $1,000 or more. Although the judge did not instruct the jury about this value, they still found that the property was worth $1,500 based on testimony, so the court determined that the omission was harmless. Coke left the courthouse during the jury's deliberation. The jury reached a verdict, and he was not there. Coke argued that he had the right to be present during this critical time. The court decided that because Coke chose to leave, he waived his right to be there, and the judge acted correctly by continuing without him. Coke believed that the prosecutor’s arguments were unfair and made it hard for him to have a fair trial. They reviewed the claims of misconduct and found that some were not objected to during the trial; therefore, they could only check for obvious errors. The court found minimal misconduct and did not feel it affected his trial's fairness. He also felt that he was not treated fairly by the judge. However, the court believed the evidence did not show that the judge was biased against him. The decisions made during the trial were consistent with legal practices. Coke said the judge gave him fines even though the jury did not decide on fines. The court agreed that the judge could impose fines even if the jury did not because the law allows it. Coke claimed that his lawyer did not do a good job and that this hurt his chance for a fair trial. The court found that since there were no significant mistakes made, the claims for ineffective counsel did not hold. Coke lastly argued that even if no single mistake was significant enough to reverse the decision, the total of all mistakes could warrant a new trial. The court decided that since they did not find any errors, this claim was also denied. In conclusion, the court affirmed the original decision, meaning Coke would remain convicted and serve his sentences as decided by the original trial.

RE-2018-155

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **VESTER VON DOWNUM,** **Appellant,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-155** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 23, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** On June 15, 2015, Appellant Vester Von Downum, represented by counsel, was convicted of Planning/Conspiring/Endeavoring to Perform an Act of Violence in Muskogee County, Case No. CF-2014-656. He was sentenced to ten (10) years, with all but the first two (2) years suspended, subject to rules and conditions of probation. On December 6, 2017, the State filed an Application to Revoke Downum's suspended sentence, alleging he violated the terms of probation by violating a protective order issued in PO-2014-218. At the hearing on February 7, 2018, the District Court of Muskogee County, presided by the Honorable Norman D. Thygesen, revoked the remainder of Downum's suspended sentence. Downum now appeals, presenting the following propositions of error: 1. The State failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Downum violated the terms of his probation by committing the new crime of violating a protective order; 2. The order of revocation is excessive based on the circumstances; 3. There exists a clerical error in the order revoking the suspended sentence that should be corrected by an order nunc pro tunc. **DECISION:** The revocation of Downum's suspended sentence is AFFIRMED. The scope of review in revocation appeals is limited to the validity of the revocation order. We examine the factual determination and consider whether the court abused its discretion. The trial court's findings will not be disturbed on appeal if there is evidence reasonably supporting them. Downum alleges the State did not prove he violated the protective order. In probation revocations, the State must prove violations by a preponderance of the evidence, and conflicting testimony was presented at the revocation hearing. The victim, T.H., claimed Downum contacted her on Facebook shortly after his release, which she found threatening due to their history. Downum testified the contact was accidental. Given the conflicting evidence, the court found sufficient grounds to support the violation, and we find no abuse of discretion in the decision to revoke Downum's sentence. As to Downum's claim of excessive punishment, we note that violation of even one condition of probation justifies full revocation, especially in this case where the violation occurred less than two weeks after his release. Regarding the clerical error in the Judgment filed February 9, 2018, it correctly reflects the need for a nunc pro tunc order to clarify that Downum was found guilty after a jury trial and not via a guilty plea. **CONCLUSION:** The order of the District Court of Muskogee County revoking Downum's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2014-656 is AFFIRMED. The matter is REMANDED for entry of an order nunc pro tunc to correct the clerical error. **OPINION BY: LEWIS, P.J.:** **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur **[Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-155_1734703626.pdf)**

J-2019-65

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:J

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **G.E.J., Appellant, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **No. J-2019-65** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA MAY 23, 2019 JOHN D. HADDEN ROWLAND, JUDGE** **SUMMARY OPINION** On August 27, 2018, G.E.J. was charged as a juvenile with (1) Soliciting for First Degree Murder and (2) Reckless Conduct with a Firearm in Rogers County District Court. A show cause hearing was held, resulting in probable cause for continued juvenile detention. G.E.J. eventually entered a no contest stipulation leading to adjudication as a delinquent on October 30, 2018. Following a hearing on January 17, 2019, the trial court denied his motion to withdraw the stipulation. G.E.J. raised several issues on appeal regarding the denial of due process, the voluntariness of his plea, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and the sufficiency of proceedings leading to his stipulation. The Court reviewed the claims in light of the record and hearings. The Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, emphasizing: 1. **Detention Period**: G.E.J. argued that he was detained for 24 days before charges were filed, which he claimed constituted a denial of due process. The Court found that he was represented by counsel during this period and had a bond set, distinguishing his case from precedent cases involving more severe delays without legal representation or bonding. 2. **Voluntariness of Plea**: G.E.J. contended that his plea was not knowing and voluntary, citing that he believed he would be released upon entering the stipulation. However, testimonial evidence indicated that his attorney’s statements were not misleading and that G.E.J. was adequately informed of the charges and the evidence against him. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Claims of ineffective assistance were examined under the Strickland standard, requiring a showing of deficient performance and resulting prejudice. The Court found no shown deficiency by his attorneys and ruled that even if there were lapses, they did not prejudice the outcome. 4. **Factual Basis for Stipulation**: The absence of a lengthy factual basis during the stipulation hearing did not undermine the sufficiency of the process; the Court noted adequate evidence existed to support the stipulation through prior hearings. The appeal was evaluated under the standards for an abuse of discretion, and the findings of the trial judge who observed G.E.J. throughout the proceedings were upheld. **DECISION**: The Court affirmed the decision of the Rogers County District Court, upholding the denial of G.E.J.’s motion to withdraw his stipulation. **Counsel for Juvenile**: Jeffrey Price **Counsel for Appellant**: Sarah MacNiven **Counsel for State**: Edith Singer **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** **LEWIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **LUMPKIN, J.: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-65_1734448303.pdf)