In OCCA case No. M-2017-137, Jerrad Sterling Nunamaker appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and speeding in excess of the lawful limit. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Nunamaker's fine for speeding to $20.00 and vacated the victim compensation assessment for that offense. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-758, Shawn Conrad Freeman appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including Kidnapping, Forcible Sodomy, Rape in the First Degree, and Robbery in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the District Court. The court did, however, instruct the District Court to correct a clerical error regarding the fine for one of the robbery counts. Freeman was tried by jury and was found guilty on multiple counts involving four separate women. The jury sentenced him to long prison terms and significant fines. The trial court followed the jury's recommendations for sentencing. Freeman raised several arguments on appeal. He argued that having multiple convictions for crimes like Kidnapping, Rape, and Forcible Sodomy at once was unfair and violated laws against double punishment. However, the court found that the crimes were separate and showed that each act occurred at different times, meaning he could be punished for all of them. He also claimed that trying all fourteen counts together was wrong because it might have led the jury to convict him based on the total evidence rather than on proof for each individual charge. The court determined that the offenses were connected enough to be tried together and that no error occurred. Another point of contention was that one of the victims couldn't testify in court, and the jury was allowed to hear her previously recorded testimony instead. The court upheld this decision, stating that Freeman had previously had the chance to question her during an earlier hearing. Freeman argued that the evidence was not enough to support his robbery conviction. The court disagreed, stating that the evidence clearly showed he unlawfully took property from a victim. He raised questions about misconduct by the prosecutor, ineffective assistance of counsel, and that his sentences were too harsh. The court found no evidence to support his claims of improper actions or ineffective counsel. It ruled that his sentences were not excessively severe given the nature of the crimes he was convicted for. Finally, Freeman claimed that the combined issues during the trial denied him a fair trial. However, the court noted that it found no individual errors that would warrant a new trial. In conclusion, the court affirmed Freeman's convictions and sentences but ordered a correction to a minor error in the judgment regarding the fine imposed for one count of robbery. There was a dissenting opinion from one of the judges.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-950, Terry Lyn Elkins appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine and Resisting an Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but remand for resentencing on the possession count. One judge dissented. Terry Lyn Elkins was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine and for resisting a police officer. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison for the drug charge and fined $500 for resisting the officer. The jury did not find him guilty of assaulting a police officer. Elkins argued that the trial was unfair because the jury saw evidence that was not relevant to his case, which might have affected their decision about his punishment. The evidence included a document from the Department of Corrections that had many details about Elkins’ past, including other crimes he committed many years ago. Some of this information was not needed for the current case and could have made the jury think more negatively about him. The judges decided that while the evidence showing Elkins’ past convictions was correctly used, parts of the additional information were not relevant and should not have been presented to the jury. They believed that this extra information could have influenced how the jury decided on the punishment. Therefore, they decided to keep the convictions as is, but send the case back to lower court for a new review of his punishment for the meth charge. In a separate opinion, a judge agreed with keeping the conviction but believed that sending the case back for resentencing was not necessary since Elkins did not receive the maximum punishment possible.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1053, Greenwood appealed her conviction for drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her termination from the Drug Court program but required the lower court to remove a $500 fine that had been improperly assessed. One judge dissented. The case began when Greenwood, on October 13, 2015, agreed to participate in the Drug Court program after pleading no contest to a charge of possessing methamphetamine and guilty to having drug paraphernalia. If she successfully completed the program, her sentence would be deferred, meaning she wouldn't have to serve time unless she failed to meet the program requirements. However, on August 31, 2017, the State asked to terminate Greenwood from the Drug Court program. The judge held a hearing where they discussed her progress. The judge decided to end her participation because Greenwood had not been following the rules of the program. As a result, she was sentenced according to her plea agreement, but the judge also added a $500 fine. Greenwood did not agree with this fine and argued that it was illegal because it wasn't part of her original plea deal. She also claimed it wasn't fair to terminate her from the program since she felt that the court hadn't tried hard enough to help her comply with the program's requirements through smaller penalties before jumping to termination. The court looked at her arguments. They found that the fine was indeed not allowed because of the rules surrounding Drug Courts, which require that once admitted, a judge can't change the conditions of someone's plea agreement. Since Greenwood's agreement stated she wouldn't have a fine, the court ordered the lower court to remove that $500 fine. As for her termination from the Drug Court, the judges looked at the evidence that showed she had repeatedly not followed the rules. There was testimony showing she missed meetings, didn’t show up for drug testing, and was not engaging with the services offered to her. The court found that while Greenwood believed she wasn't given enough help, it was ultimately her responsibility to follow the rules. In the end, the court decided to keep the termination of Greenwood from the Drug Court but mandated that the fine be taken away. The ruling confirmed that the Drug Court successfully supported the justice system while also highlighting the importance of personal responsibility in such programs.
In OCCA case No. JS 2018-0917, M. W. appealed his conviction for Rape, First Degree, and Sexual Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling that allowed him to be treated as a Juvenile instead of as an adult. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2017-567, the petitioner appealed her conviction for harboring a fugitive from justice. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant part of her request and said that she was wrongly denied her right to have a lawyer help her during important steps of her case. One judge disagreed with this decision. The case involves Teresa Lorena Altobella, who was charged with helping someone avoid the law. She pleaded guilty to the charge and was given a five-year prison sentence, which was suspended, meaning she wouldn’t go to jail if she followed certain rules, such as doing community service and completing a specific program. After her plea, she wanted to change her mind and asked the court to let her withdraw her guilty plea. The court had a hearing where Altobella tried to argue that she should be allowed to change her plea, but she did not have a lawyer to help her. She had trouble getting a lawyer before the hearing, and when she showed up without one, the judge did not allow her to have another lawyer during this important moment. Altobella argued that her guilty plea was not made correctly—she said she didn’t fully understand what she was doing when she pleaded guilty. The higher court looked at these points and agreed with Altobella when it came to the right to have a lawyer. The court said it is important for defendants to have legal help, especially during crucial parts of their cases like asking to withdraw a guilty plea. The court found that Altobella did not waive her right to a lawyer in a proper way, meaning that she should have been given a chance to have legal help. Because of this issue, the court decided to reverse the district court's decision that denied her request to withdraw her guilty plea. They sent the case back to the district court to make sure Altobella could have a lawyer help her figure out if she still wanted to withdraw her plea. The court's ruling on the pleas and other arguments was set aside because they believed it was essential to have proper legal representation in such cases. In summary, the court made it clear that every defendant has the right to legal assistance during important steps in their trial or when making significant legal decisions. This decision ensures that defendants have the support they need to navigate the legal system properly.
In OCCA case No. RE-2017-264, Damion Deshawn Polk appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse (Assault and Battery) After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the balance of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case started when Polk was given a ten-year sentence that was suspended, meaning he wouldn't have to go to prison right away. He had to follow certain rules, including paying fees, doing community service, and staying out of trouble. However, he did not follow these rules, and the State asked for his sentence to be revoked. At a hearing, Polk admitted to using drugs, which was one of the reasons his probation was being revoked. The judge gave him a punishment by sending him to jail for ninety days. After he served this time, he was supposed to report to a program but missed his next court date. Later, when the judge reviewed the case again, he revoked Polk's suspended sentence entirely. However, during the appeal, the court found that Polk had already been punished for his drug use and that the judge should not have fully revoked his sentence for that same violation. The appellate court decided that there should have been new violations presented for the full revocation. As a result, the court reversed the judge's decision to revoke Polk's suspended sentence completely. They noted that a suspended sentence can't be revoked for a reason that has already been punished. The appellate court ruled that since Polk had already faced penalties for his prior drug use, the judge should have considered that before taking away the rest of his suspended sentence.
In OCCA case No. C-2018-441, Clinton Lee Myers appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute near a school. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal. One judge dissented. Clinton Lee Myers entered a plea of guilty to two serious charges. He was sentenced to a long time in prison and had to pay a large fine. After he was sentenced, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, but the court said no after listening to evidence in a hearing. Myers complained that his punishment was too harsh and that the prosecutor shouldn't have talked about his past crimes during the sentencing. He felt this information was unfair and should not have been used against him. However, the court explained that this type of information can be considered at sentencing. They also decided that his sentence was within legal limits and did not shock their conscience, so they would not change it. Additionally, Myers believed that there was a mistake in the written records of his sentence regarding the amount of the fine. The court found that there was, in fact, a clerical error in the documents about the fine amount. They agreed that the error should be corrected to match what the judge said during the sentencing. In conclusion, the court denied Myers' request to change his sentence, but they agreed to correct the written record to reflect the right fine amount.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-602, Kenneth Donald Knox appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Knox’s conviction and twenty-five-year prison sentence, but they modified the period of post-imprisonment supervision from three years to one year. One justice dissented. Knox was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for causing injuries to a four-month-old baby. The jury decided that he should spend twenty-five years in prison for this crime. Knox thought his lawyer didn’t help him properly, said there wasn’t enough proof for the conviction, and argued that the extra year of supervision after prison was not allowed by law. The court looked closely at all the facts and evidence in his case. They explained that to prove a lawyer didn’t do a good job, Knox had to show that it hurt his chances of winning the case. The court found that Knox didn’t provide enough proof to support his argument about his lawyer’s effectiveness. When it came to the conviction, the court reviewed whether there was enough evidence against Knox. They decided that there was enough proof to show that Knox harmed the baby. Lastly, about the extra supervision time after prison, they agreed that Knox should only have to do one year instead of three, as the law supports a shorter period in his case. In summary, Knox's conviction was upheld, he was given a long prison sentence, and the court changed the rules about his supervision time after he’s released.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-532, Shane Allen Vanderpool appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder, Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction, and Eluding a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when Vanderpool shot and killed Blaine Wells in an incident that was determined to be a case of mistaken identity following an encounter at an intersection in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Vanderpool did not know Wells, and the circumstances of the shooting involved a misunderstanding about the identities of the people involved. Vanderpool was later connected to the crime through evidence that included phone records and testimonies that linked him to the location of the shooting. Witnesses to the shooting were able to identify Vanderpool as the shooter, and forensic evidence further implicated him. Vanderpool was charged with First Degree Murder and other related offenses, ultimately leading to a conviction and a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder charge. During the appeal, Vanderpool raised several issues regarding the trial court's admission of evidence relating to his character and gang affiliations. He claimed that such evidence denied him a fair trial. However, the court found that the evidence was admissible as it was closely connected to the events of the shooting. Vanderpool also challenged certain photographic evidence presented at trial, arguing it was prejudicial and lacked relevance. The court, however, concluded that these photographs had significant probative value and did not substantially outweigh any potential prejudicial effect. Another argument Vanderpool made was about the unconstitutionality of a statute regarding the sentencing of noncapital murder defendants, which he felt limited his ability to present mitigating evidence during sentencing. The court held that the statute was constitutional and provided due process protections. Furthermore, Vanderpool contended that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to raise certain objections during trial. The court noted that his counsel's performance did not result in prejudice that would impact the trial's outcome; therefore, this claim was also denied. Finally, Vanderpool argued that the cumulative effect of errors during his trial denied him a fair trial. The court ruled that as they found no substantial errors, this claim also failed. In conclusion, the court affirmed Vanderpool's convictions and the sentences imposed by the trial court. The opinions aligned with the decisions made regarding the evidentiary rulings and the interpretation of the relevant statutes. One judge expressed a differing view but ultimately the majority ruled in favor of upholding the lower court's decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-762, Kendell Paul Sparrow appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree (Malice Aforethought). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court, sentencing him to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. One judge dissented. Sparrow was convicted of a serious crime, and his appeal included two main issues. First, he argued that the trial should not have included the preliminary hearing testimony of a witness because he believed it went against his right to confront witnesses. Second, he contended that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction for murder. During the trial, the court allowed a witness’s earlier testimony to be used because that witness was unavailable to testify in person. Sparrow challenged this, claiming it violated his constitutional rights. However, the court found no error because the State had made reasonable efforts to bring the witness to trial. The court also determined that Sparrow had a chance to question the witness during the preliminary hearing. Therefore, the admission of the testimony was upheld. As for the evidence presented against Sparrow, the court examined whether the State proved he was guilty of murder. The law requires that to convict someone of first-degree murder, it must be shown they unlawfully caused the death of another with intent or malice. The court looked at all the evidence in favor of the State and concluded that reasonable jurors could find Sparrow guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Ultimately, the court decided that Sparrow's appeal did not provide grounds for reversing his conviction. Therefore, the original sentence of life imprisonment was affirmed.
In OCCA case No. MA-2018-987, Cox appealed his conviction for a criminal case that led to an accelerated sentence. In a published decision, the court decided that the District Court must prepare the appeal record and transcripts at public expense. The court noted that Cox was deemed indigent for the purpose of having an attorney appointed, but the District Court initially ruled that he had enough assets to pay for his transcripts. This created a problem because it delayed his appeal process. The court ultimately granted Cox's request for a writ of mandamus, which allowed him to move forward with his appeal without having to pay upfront for the transcripts. The decision was not unanimous, with some judges disagreeing.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-902, Kaylin Mixon appealed his conviction for Second Degree Depraved Mind Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and uphold the sentence. One judge dissented. Kaylin Mixon was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to 30 years in prison, along with a $100 fine. Mixon argued that his trial was unfair for three reasons. First, he believed that the jury should have been individually asked about their verdict to ensure all members agreed. However, the court found that since no one complained during the trial, there was no clear error. They determined that the jury's agreement was evident enough without needing to poll each member individually. Second, Mixon contended that photos from the autopsy shown at trial were too upsetting and should not have been allowed as evidence, claiming they were not necessary since the cause of death was not disputed. The court ruled that the photos were relevant to the case and helped to explain the details of the crime, so the inclusion of the photos did not unfairly influence the jury. Lastly, Mixon challenged the $100 fine imposed by the judge, arguing that it wasn’t proper since the law didn’t specifically mention a fine for his type of conviction. However, the court referenced past rulings that allowed judges to impose fines in felony cases, concluding that the fine was valid. After reviewing these issues, the court found no substantial errors that would warrant a new trial or change in the sentence. Therefore, they affirmed the original decision and the appeal was denied.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1030, Polo Carrillo appealed his conviction for kidnapping, first-degree rape, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and domestic assault and battery in the presence of a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Polo Carrillo was found guilty on several serious charges and sentenced to life imprisonment on three charges, with an additional year on the domestic assault charge. He raised several arguments on appeal, including issues with the evidence presented during his trial and concerns about whether he received a fair trial. One point of contention was the trial court's decision to allow a nurse to read a report during the trial that included what the victim had stated about the incident. Carrillo argued that this was hearsay and unnecessary since there was other testimony about the same information. The court determined that the nurse's statements were allowed because they related to medical treatment, which is an exception to hearsay rules. Another argument Carrillo made was about the court's ruling regarding the disclosure of certain witnesses' information. The trial court had allowed the victim's address to be withheld for safety reasons. The court pointed out that Carrillo was able to communicate with the victim without knowing her home address. Thus, the court concluded that the ruling did not harm his defense. Carrillo also claimed that photographs shown to the jury were redundant and biased against him, but the court found that these images were important in showing the victim's injuries and supported the testimony, so they were allowed. Further, Carrillo argued that the jury was not given the correct instructions regarding post-imprisonment supervision. The court indicated that the instructions given were generally proper since the jury couldn't recommend a sentence lower than two years, ruling that errors were not affecting the trial's outcome. At sentencing, there was an error in how Carrillo's time served was recorded. However, this was later corrected by the District Attorney’s office, making this issue no longer relevant. Finally, Carrillo claimed that even if individual errors in the trial did not deserve a new trial, the cumulative effect of these errors should. The court disagreed, stating that since there were no errors that warranted reversal, the cumulative error claim also failed. In summary, the court affirmed Carrillo's convictions, indicating that he did not suffer an unfair trial despite the various arguments he raised on appeal. The decision was backed by careful consideration of the law and the facts presented during the trial.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** Court Case No: S-2018-51 and S-2018-6 **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellant, **V.** **SHELLEY MARIE BRADLEY,** Appellee. **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellant, **V.** **DYLAN THOMAS BRODIE,** Appellee. **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** 1. The State of Oklahoma, Appellant, appeals from an order affirming the ruling of the magistrate, sustaining the defendants' demurrers to evidence on Counts 1 and 2, and denying the State's request to amend the Informations, in Case Nos. CF-2017-445 and CF-2017-446 in the District Court of Wagoner County. **STATEMENT OF THE CASE** 2. Appellees, Shelley Marie Bradley and Dylan Thomas Brodie, were charged with intimidation of a witness and conspiracy to commit a felony. The magistrate sustained the demurrers to the evidence and denied amendments to include additional charges. 3. The matter was assigned to Judge Mark L. Dobbins as the reviewing judge, who affirmed the magistrate's ruling. 4. The State appealed; on August 9, 2018, this Court held oral arguments, after which the ruling was reversed. **SUMMARY OF FACTS** 5. The Appellees are related to Jacob Ode, charged with several offenses following a police pursuit. Hawkins, a relative of the Appellees, was a passenger and initially provided a statement implicating Ode. 6. Later, Hawkins was approached by the Appellees and persuaded to change her statement to indicate Ode was not the driver during the pursuit. 7. The magistrate found no evidence demonstrating that Hawkins was threatened or coerced into altering her testimony. **ANALYSIS** ### I. Intimidation of Witness 8. The State argued sufficient evidence existed for the charge of witness intimidation. However, the records demonstrated no evidence of Hawkins being prevented from testifying or coerced through force or fear. 9. The judges did not err in finding there wasn’t enough evidence to support the claim of intimidation. ### II. Conspiracy to Commit Intimidation 10. The State similarly could not provide sufficient evidence to show any conspiracy between the Appellees to intimidate Hawkins, as no threats or coercion were substantiated. ### III. Conspiracy to Commit Perjury by Subornation 11. The State argued it presented sufficient evidence to show a conspiracy to commit perjury by subornation. The appellate judges found sufficient cause to remand for the trial on this charge. ### IV. False Preparation of Exhibits 12. The evidence presented indicated that Hawkins’ second statement was prepared under the Appellees' guidance with the intent to be submitted as evidence. 13. The failure to include this evidence as a charge of False Preparation of Exhibits was deemed an error by the appellate judges. **DECISION** 14. The order of the District Court sustaining the magistrate's decisions is REVERSED. The case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to proceed to trial for the charges of Conspiracy to Commit Perjury by Subornation and False Preparation of Exhibits. **APPEARANCES** - **For the State:** Douglas G. Dry, Assistant District Attorney - **For the Appellees:** Michon Hastings Hughes & Clinton C. Hastings, Attorneys at Law **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** - LUMPKIN, P.J., LEWIS, V.P.J., HUDSON, J., and KUEHN, J., concur. --- **[Download PDF of Full Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2018-6_1734333945.pdf)**
In OCCA case No. F-2017-851, Anthony Harold Warnick appealed his conviction for Possession of Child Pornography, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified the fee for his indigent defense. The dissenting opinion was not specified. Warnick was tried without a jury and found guilty, receiving a 35-year prison sentence. He argued several points in his appeal, claiming errors and issues with how his previous convictions were used to enhance his sentence. He stated that his earlier convictions should not have been considered because they were misdemeanors at the time of the offenses or were too old to count against him. The court reviewed specific claims regarding the earlier convictions and determined there were no plain errors in how they were assessed. They found that Warnick's previous convictions were appropriately used to enhance his sentence, as he did not successfully challenge their validity in previous appeals or post-conviction actions. One error was found concerning the fee for his defense representation, which was set too high at $500 instead of the legal limit of $250. The court corrected this fee to the legal amount and directed the trial court to make this change. Overall, the court concluded that no significant errors impacted Warnick's trial or his sentence, except for the mentioned fee correction. His appeal was mostly denied, reinforcing his conviction but providing a slight adjustment in the costs associated with his defense. The dissenting opinion on this case was not detailed in the decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-994, Holly Tegan Zuniga-Griffin appealed her conviction for Enabling Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction. One judge dissented. The case involved Holly Tegan Zuniga-Griffin, who was found guilty of enabling the abuse of her three-year-old son. The jury in Muskogee County decided she was guilty of this crime based on the evidence presented during the trial. She was sentenced to ten years in prison, following the jury's recommendation. Zuniga-Griffin raised several issues in her appeal. First, she argued that the law regarding child abuse was unclear and vague. However, the court found no reason to change its previous decisions on this issue and denied her claim. Next, she claimed there wasn't enough evidence to prove she understood her child was in danger when she left him with her 17-year-old boyfriend. The court disagreed, stating there was enough evidence to show she should have known her child was at risk. Zuniga-Griffin had made inconsistent statements about how her son got hurt, and medical evidence indicated he had been physically abused. She also said she was denied a fair trial because the judge didn't instruct the jury properly. The court acknowledged that some jury instructions could have been appropriate, but overall, they did not think this affected the trial's fairness. Another point she raised was about a nurse giving an opinion in court when she didn't have the right qualifications. The court found that the nurse did have enough training and experience to testify about the injuries on the child, so they disagreed with Zuniga-Griffin's claim. Zuniga-Griffin contended that the prosecution failed to provide important evidence that could have helped her case. However, the court concluded that she was aware of the photos in question during the trial and did not attempt to use them, dismissing her argument. She also claimed her lawyer did not do a good job representing her, which negatively impacted her trial. But the court found her lawyer's decisions were reasonable and did not affect the outcome. Zuniga-Griffin then argued that her ten-year sentence was excessively harsh. The court noted that her son had suffered serious injuries, and her sentence was within what the law allowed, so they did not find it shocking. Finally, she stated that all the errors combined during the trial made it unfair. The court determined that the errors she identified did not, either separately or together, undermine her right to a fair trial. In the end, the decision of the trial court was upheld, meaning Zuniga-Griffin would serve her sentence as originally decided.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **THOMAS LYNN SPANN,** Appellant, **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. No. RE-2017-706 **FILED ** IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOV 8 2018 JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** In the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CF-2012-436A, Appellant, while represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty to the offense of Cruelty to Animals. On October 10, 2013, in accordance with a plea agreement, the Honorable Joe H. Enos, District Judge, sentenced Appellant to a $1,000.00 fine and to five (5) years imprisonment, with all but the first one (1) year of that term conditionally suspended under written rules of probation. On October 20, 2016, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence. The Motion alleged Appellant had violated his probation by: 1. Failing to provide verification of employment; 2. Being in $920.00 in arrears on supervision fees due to the Department of Corrections; 3. Failing to pay restitution of $152.44; 4. Failing to pay $75.00 per month beginning October 2015 towards costs, fines, and fees, resulting in arrears of $675.00. On November 10, 2016, the parties appeared before the Honorable Ken Graham, District Judge, regarding the Motion to Revoke. While represented by counsel, Appellant stipulated to the probation violations contained in that Motion. Further revocation proceedings regarding punishment were postponed for two months, allowing Appellant time to comply with his probation requirements. This period was later expanded twice, eventually leading to a hearing on June 22, 2017. At this June 22nd hearing, Appellant again appeared with counsel. The probation officer provided a Supplemental Report indicating that Appellant remained significantly delinquent in fulfilling payment obligations, although he had paid off the restitution. Additionally, the report noted that Appellant had not verified employment nor demonstrated compliance with job search requirements. There were also reports of unsigned traffic citations and evidence of an altered appointment slip presented by Appellant. After considering testimonies and evidence regarding Appellant's compliance, Judge Graham revoked Appellant's suspended sentence in full. Appellant now appeals that final order of revocation, asserting that the court denied due process and abused its discretion by revoking the remaining suspended sentence based on extra-application allegations. After careful review, we find no error warranting reversal. Appellant had stipulated to the probation violations, providing the State with the necessary grounds to prove the allegations. Consequently, the trial court had the authority to revoke the suspended sentence. Appellant failed to demonstrate significant compliance with probation requirements over an extended period, despite having opportunities to rectify the situation. The revocation order is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2018), MANDATE IS ORDERED ISSUED on the filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** **R. L. WILLIAMS** P.O. BOX 2095 LAWTON, OKLAHOMA 73502 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT **GREG STEWARD** ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY STEPHENS COUNTY COURTHOUSE 101 SOUTH 11TH STREET DUNCAN, OKLAHOMA 73533 ATTORNEY FOR STATE OF OKLA. --- **OPINION BY: HUDSON, J.** **LUMPKIN, P.J.: CONCUR** **LEWIS, V.P.J.: CONCUR** **KUEHN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** --- **KUEHN, JUDGE, CONCURRING IN RESULT:** I concur in the result. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in full. Appellant stipulated to the Application to Revoke, making only the issue before the trial court whether to revoke the suspended sentence in part or in full. While Appellant used this opportunity to pay restitution, he failed to comply with the rest of the conditions. The trial court reasonably considered Appellant's interim behavior, given the evidence of continued violations, leading to the conclusion to revoke. The failure to make a determination regarding Appellant’s ability to pay was error, but not dispositive as Appellant had already stipulated to the original allegations. The trial court properly considered the evidence presented in mitigation when deciding the final revocation of the sentence.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DONTE LEMAR PAYTON,** Appellant, *Case No. F-2016-194* v. **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant, Donte Lemar Payton, was convicted in the Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2014-7586, of Manslaughter in the First Degree, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 711(3). The jury acquitted him of first-degree murder but found him guilty of the lesser-included offense. The Honorable Donald L. Deason sentenced him to life imprisonment, and Payton appeals, presenting six propositions of error: **I.** The trial court erred in failing to comply with statutory law regarding juror contact, violating Appellant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. **II.** The court's communication with the jury improperly suggested they could avoid their duty to assess punishment. **III.** Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel. **IV.** The life sentence imposed was excessive under the circumstances. **V.** The trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury on self-defense, violating Appellant's rights. **VI.** Cumulative errors deprived Appellant of due process. Upon thorough review, including the evidence and arguments presented, the Court finds no relief necessary. The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. ### Propositions I and II A presumption of prejudice arises from unauthorized judicial communications with a jury after they commence deliberations (Givens v. State, 1985 OK CR 104). In this case, the jury was informed by the bailiff about the trial court's potential to impose a sentence if they could not reach an agreement. This occurred after they had already found Appellant guilty. An evidentiary hearing confirmed that the communication, while improper, was addressed within the statutory framework (22 O.S.2011, § 927.1) regarding jury deadlock. The communication was limited and factual, and the jury was informed to continue deliberations, which ultimately established that they were deadlocked. Appellant failed to object to any of these proceedings or request an Allen charge, thus forfeiting those claims on appeal. The communication did not undermine the integrity of the proceedings, and therefore the presumption of prejudice was adequately overcome. Hence, we deny Propositions I and II. ### Proposition III To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant must show both deficient performance and resulting prejudice (Strickland v. Washington, 1984). In this case, the existing record did not support claims of ineffective assistance. Furthermore, there is no clear and convincing evidence suggesting that counsel's failure to present character witness statements at sentencing prejudiced the outcome. Accordingly, Proposition III is denied. ### Proposition IV Considering the complete context, we agree that Appellant's life sentence is not so excessive as to shock the conscience (Duclos v. State, 2017 OK CR 8). The nature of the crime was severe, further justifying the sentence based on the facts presented. ### Proposition V The trial court's decision to deny a self-defense instruction was within its discretion. The standard for prima facie evidence was not met since Appellant's testimony did not suggest a reasonable belief in imminent danger, thus precluding such an instruction (Davis v. State, 2011). ### Proposition VI Allegations of cumulative error must be based on actual determinations of error, which were not established here (Neloms v. State, 2012). Therefore, we deny Proposition VI as well. ### DECISION The judgment and sentence of the District Court are AFFIRMED. Appellant's Application for an Evidentiary Hearing on Sixth Amendment Claims is DENIED. **APPEARANCES:** * For Appellant: Stacy Smith, Attorney at Law * For Appellee: Mike Hunter, Attorney General; John Salmon, Assistant District Attorney; Matthew D. Haire, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. *LUMPKIN, P.J.: CONCUR* *LEWIS, V.P.J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS* *KUEHN, J.: CONCUR* *ROWLAND, J.: RECUSE* **NOTE**: The presence of procedural errors warrants caution, but in this instance, they did not materially affect the outcome. Trial courts should maintain vigilance regarding communications with jurors to avoid future complications.
**Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma Summary Opinion** **David Neil Dunn v. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No. C-2017-1050** **Filed November 8, 2018** **Summary:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the case of David Neil Dunn, who sought to withdraw his no contest plea for various serious charges. Dunn appealed on the basis that he was denied his due process right to be present during the evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw the plea, and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. **Key Points:** 1. **Charges and Plea**: Dunn was charged with multiple felonies, including First Degree Robbery and Burglary. He entered a blind plea of no contest, which resulted in significant prison sentences. 2. **Motion to Withdraw Plea**: Dunn filed a motion to withdraw his plea shortly after sentencing, claiming various legal grounds, including concerns about the validity of his plea. An evidentiary hearing was held, but Dunn was not present as he had been transported to the Department of Corrections. 3. **Court's Ruling**: The Court found that Dunn had a due process right to be present during this critical stage of the proceedings. The absence of Dunn hindered a fair and just hearing, particularly concerning his claims about the voluntariness of his plea. 4. **Counsel’s Role**: The court clarified that defense counsel's belief that Dunn's presence was unnecessary does not equate to a valid waiver of his right to be present. The decision emphasized that Dunn's testimony was crucial for effectively contesting the plea's validity. 5. **Outcome**: The Court granted Dunn's petition for certiorari and remanded the case back to the District Court for a proper evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw the plea, ensuring he would be present. 6. **Dissenting Opinion**: One judge dissented, arguing that the absence of Dunn did not constitute a violation of his rights, noting that his counsel had effectively represented him at the hearing. It was contended that the procedural complexities of representation should not be interpreted as waivers of due process. **Conclusion**: The Court ruled in favor of Dunn, stressing the importance of a defendant's presence in legal proceedings, particularly when their rights and pleas are being challenged, which underscores the principles of fairness and due process within the judicial system. For a detailed reading, [click here to download the PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2017-1050_1733996496.pdf).
The document appears to be a legal summary from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of Auntra Lawan Edmonds. The case revolves around Edmonds' appeal after being convicted of two counts of First Degree Manslaughter. Here’s a concise overview of the case and the court's decision: 1. **Background**: Auntra Lawan Edmonds was charged with two counts of First Degree Manslaughter in Greer County District Court. After entering a no contest plea and being sentenced to life imprisonment for each count (to run concurrently), he later sought to withdraw his plea, which the court denied. 2. **Propositions of Error**: - **Proposition I**: Edmonds argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea, claiming it was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The court found that the record sufficiently demonstrated that Edmonds was aware of his rights and the nature of the charges, thus affirming that his plea was valid. - **Proposition II**: He claimed ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea withdrawal hearing. The court concluded that this claim lacked merit, noting that Edmonds did not provide substantial evidence to support the claim of ineffective assistance. - **Proposition III**: Edmonds argued that his life sentences were excessive. The court reasoned that the sentences were factually substantiated and justified given the severity of the incident, including the presence of alcohol and prior criminal behavior. 3. **Court Decision**: The court denied Edmonds' petition for a writ of certiorari, affirming the judgment and sentence of the District Court. It upheld that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea. 4. **Final Note**: The opinion emphasizes the importance of properly presenting claims during the trial and highlights that a defendant's dissatisfaction with a sentence does not invalidate a plea agreement. This case serves as a reference point for issues regarding plea withdrawals, effective legal counsel, and the proportionality of sentences in criminal proceedings.
In OCCA case No. C-2018-687, the petitioner appealed his conviction for concealing stolen property and drug-related crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the petition but remanded for further proceedings. One judge dissented. In OCCA case No. C-2018-688, the petitioner also raised issues about his sentences and fines. He argued that the fines were too high, and he expressed concerns about the costs of his incarceration. The court found some merit in his claims, particularly regarding the fines exceeding legal limits and the lack of consideration for his mental health concerning incarceration costs. However, the court did not find that the total sentences were excessively long. The petitioner had previously pleaded guilty to charges and was placed in a program for young adults but later faced new misdemeanor charges, leading to the state seeking to accelerate his sentencing. Ultimately, while the court upheld the denial of his request to withdraw his pleas, it recognized problems regarding the assessment of fines and costs, which warranted a remand for further investigation. Thus, the case will go back to the lower court for resolution of these issues.
In OCCA case No. C-2018-688, the petitioner appealed his conviction for concealing stolen property, endeavoring to distribute marijuana, and possession of a sawed-off shotgun. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the petition for certiorari but remanded for further proceedings. One judge dissented. On January 6, 2015, the petitioner entered guilty pleas for the above crimes and was put in a program meant to help young adults. After showing good behavior, the court decided in August 2015 to delay his sentencing for ten years, allowing him to be on probation with some financial responsibilities. However, in March 2018, the state said the petitioner had broken his probation by committing new crimes, so they asked to speed up the sentencing. In May 2018, the court accepted the petitioner's guilty pleas for the new crimes, which included possession of a controlled substance and public intoxication, and imposed additional sentences. Altogether, he was sentenced to twelve years in prison. The petitioner then tried to take back his guilty pleas, but the court denied this request. He appealed this decision, bringing up several arguments. He felt the financial penalties were unfair and too high, that he did not receive good legal help, and that the total twelve-year sentence was excessive given his previous achievements in the diversion program. The court looked at these claims carefully but decided that while some of the fines were too high, particularly calling for a correction of the $1,000 fee in his case involving concealing stolen property, they would not change the length of the total prison time. They said the sentences were within the law and not shockingly excessive, affirming the lower court's decisions in many respects. The court concluded that they would not change the ruling on the guilty pleas but would send the case back for hearings on the issues related to the fines and costs.
In OCCA case No. C-2017-1311, Heath Justin Wright appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including Second Degree Burglary, Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant relief to Wright, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial. One judge dissented. Wright entered a negotiated plea without legal counsel and was accepted into the Pontotoc County Drug Court program. His plea agreement stated that if he successfully completed the program, his charges would be dismissed. However, if he failed, he would receive a lengthy prison sentence for each charge. After the State sought to terminate him from the drug court program, Wright tried to withdraw his plea. The court denied his request and sentenced him to the agreed-upon prison terms. Wright claimed his attorney did not assist him properly. He argued that he was not warned about the risks of representing himself in court. The court found that this lack of advice affected his decision to plead guilty. Since it was clear that Wright’s attorney did not address this issue, the court decided he should be allowed to withdraw his plea and face trial for the charges. The ruling concluded that because the initial plea was handled improperly, Wright should get another chance to defend himself in court.
In OCCA case No. RE-2017-149, the appellant appealed his conviction for Escape from Arrest, Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, and Domestic Assault and Battery Against a Pregnant Woman. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking the appellant's suspended sentences but required the lower court to remove the post-imprisonment supervision from its orders. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, after entering guilty pleas to several charges, was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment, which was suspended under certain conditions including probation. However, he failed to follow the rules of his probation, leading to a motion by the State to revoke his suspended sentences. The hearing revealed that the appellant initially reported to his probation officer but stopped when he learned about potential violation reports. At the hearing, the appellant indicated he wanted help for his struggles with drugs and alcohol and had a job and place to live, which he thought should allow him another chance at probation. However, the judge found that the appellant had a history of not following rules in the past and thus decided to revoke his suspension entirely. The court determined that the judge had a valid reason based on the evidence to revoke the probation. However, the judge made an error by adding a provision for post-imprisonment supervision that was not part of the original sentence. The court ordered that this part be removed from the revocation orders but kept the decision to revoke the suspended sentences.