§ 30 Archives - OCCA Opinions

S-2022-41

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 15, 2022
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2022-41, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Joshua Kyle Rhynard for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, possession of a controlled dangerous substance (marijuana), and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the appeal was improperly brought and dismissed it. One judge dissented, arguing that the State made a sufficient case for review based on the importance of the evidence that had been suppressed. The dissenting opinion believed that the trial court made an error in suppressing the evidence found during a search because the officers executing the warrant used reasonable belief about the address they were searching.

F-2018-989

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 8, 2020
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ARNULFO CAMPOS GONZALES, Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-989** **File Date: January 2020** **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, JUDGE** Appellant Arnulfo Campos Gonzales appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Haskell County, Case No. CF-2017-197. He was convicted for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, Conspiracy to Traffic Methamphetamine, and Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine. His sentences included twenty-five years imprisonment for Count 1 and ten years each for Counts 2 and 3, ordered to be served consecutively. Gonzales raises several issues on appeal: 1. Denial of effective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest. 2. Double punishment for Counts 2 and 3. 3. Violation of the Fourth Amendment regarding the search of his car. 4. Deficient jury instructions on conspiracy. 5. Ineffective assistance of counsel due to failure to suppress and object to instructions. 6. Abuse of discretion in consecutive sentencing. **1. Conflict of Interest** Gonzales argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel due to defense counsel’s prior representation of a co-defendant, Samantha Johnson, who testified against him. The court examined whether an actual conflict arose during representation, determining that Gonzales failed to demonstrate that the former representation affected counsel's performance. The court found that Johnson’s testimony largely did not implicate Gonzales and that counsel's representation was sufficient. **2. Multiple Punishment** Gonzales contends that sentencing him for conspiracy to traffic and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine violates the prohibition against multiple punishments for the same act. The court found both counts stemmed from a single agreement concerning the same methamphetamine and that the convictions constituted a violation of Section 11. The court remanded the case for dismissal of Count 3. **3. Fourth Amendment** Gonzales did not properly contest the legality of the search of his car and thus the court reviewed this claim for plain error. The court concluded that Gonzales had not demonstrated that the timeline of events during the traffic stop violated his rights, as he consented to the search prior to its execution. **4. Jury Instructions** Gonzales argued that jury instructions were insufficient as they failed to name the conspirators. However, the court determined the instructions, when read as a whole, properly conveyed the necessary information. Gonzales did not establish any plain error regarding jury instructions. **5. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel** This claim was evaluated under the standard set by Strickland v. Washington. The court found no prejudice affecting the outcome as Gonzales could not demonstrate ineffective assistance. **6. Consecutive Sentences** Gonzales claims the district court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. The prosecutor’s remark about a presumed policy did not demonstrate that the district court failed to exercise discretion. The court affirmed its decision as the record supported the imposition of consecutive sentences. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED for Counts 1 and 2. Count 3 is DISMISSED. Gonzales’s Application for Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED. **APPEARANCES** *AT TRIAL* Roger Hilfiger, Counsel for Defendant *ON APPEAL* Ariel Parry, Appellate Counsel Christina Burns, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** **LEWIS, P.J., KUEHN, V.P.J., LUMPKIN, J., HUDSON, J.:** Concur. [PDF Download Link](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-989_1734871593.pdf)

F-2003-1241

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 23, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1241, Eddie Don Milligan appealed his conviction for Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Milligan's conviction. One judge dissented. Milligan was found guilty by a jury of growing marijuana on his property and was given a six-year prison sentence. He appealed the decision, stating that there were multiple mistakes in his trial, including the improper use of evidence obtained from a search of his property that he believed violated his rights to privacy. The case started when agents from the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics were flying in a helicopter looking for marijuana. Due to engine trouble, they flew over Milligan's property and thought they saw marijuana plants. They did not check for sure but recorded the spot and returned the next day, where they saw only corn. They then obtained a search warrant and found some marijuana leaves near a burn pile, but nothing else that indicated marijuana was being grown. Milligan argued that the helicopter flight over his property violated his right to privacy. The court agreed, saying he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his yard. The agents hadn't done enough to confirm they saw marijuana before getting the warrant. In the end, the court ruled that Miligan's rights were violated and reversed his conviction, sending the case back for further proceedings. The other arguments he made about his trial mistakes were not addressed since this decision resolved the main issue.

F 2001-1497

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 12, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-1497, Michael Keith Brock appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction for one count but affirmed the convictions for the other counts. One judge dissented. Michael Brock was found guilty after a jury trial on several counts including manufacturing methamphetamine and trafficking illegal drugs. The court sentenced him to a total of 40 years in prison and fines totaling $185,000. He appealed the decision, raising multiple issues regarding the legality of his search and seizure, his treatment in court, and the sufficiency of the evidence against him. The court reviewed several arguments from Brock. He claimed that the search was unreasonable and violated his rights, and he argued that he should not have been brought before the jury in jail clothes. He also contended that the affidavit for the search warrant did not give enough reason for the police to search him and that the search of a person not named in the warrant was illegal. The court found that Brock did not properly object to many of the issues he raised during the trial. It ruled that the search and seizure were valid and did not violate his rights. They determined that wearing jail clothing did not prejudice him during his trial. While the court agreed that one of the charges—possession of a precursor substance—was incorrectly charged and reversed that conviction, they upheld the remaining convictions. Ultimately, the decision led to the reversal of one count against Michael Brock while affirming the rest of his convictions.