Abuse of Discretion Archives - Page 5 of 14

RE-2018-208

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DESMOND ZHUMONSHA SMITH,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-208** **Summary Opinion** **FILED MAY 16, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Desmond Zhumonsha Smith appeals the revocation of his suspended sentence from the Garvin County District Court, Case No. CF-2015-498, presided over by the Honorable Leah Edwards. On February 26, 2016, Smith entered a plea of nolo contendere to charges of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Falsely Personate Another to Create Liability. He was subsequently sentenced to twenty years imprisonment for each count. In his first proposition of error, Smith contends that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that he violated the conditions of his probation by engaging in new criminal behavior, specifically Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and Placing Bodily Fluid on a Government Employee. Upon review, this assertion lacks merit. The standard applicable in revocation hearings is a preponderance of the evidence, which requires the State to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the violations occurred (Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10). Testimony from Officer Cooper and Sheriff Rhodes sufficiently established the necessary proof of Smith's involvement in the new crimes. In his second proposition, Smith argues that the revocation of ten years of his twenty-year suspended sentence is excessive and asserts that it should be modified. The law stipulates that proving just one violation of probation is adequate for revocation (Tilden, 2013 OK CR 10). In this case, the State demonstrated multiple violations, including new charges from two counties. Furthermore, Judge Edwards did not fully revoke Smith's remaining sentence, affirming that such decisions fall under the trial court's discretion, which will not be overturned unless an abuse of that discretion is clearly shown (Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20). **DECISION:** The revocation of Desmond Zhumonsha Smith’s suspended sentence in Garvin County District Court Case No. CF-2015-498 is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is ordered to be issued upon the filing of this decision, pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. **APPEARANCES:** **For Defendant:** Arlan Bullard 110 N. Willow St., Ste. B Pauls Valley, OK 73075 **For Appellant:** Kristi Christopher P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 **For State:** Laura A. McClain Asst. District Attorney 201 W. Grant St., Room 15 Pauls Valley, OK 73075 Mike Hunter Attorney General of Oklahoma Theodore M. Peeper Asst. Attorney General 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 **OPINION BY:** Kuehn, V.P.J. **CONCUR:** Lewis, P.J., Lumpkin, J., Hudson, J. **CONCUR IN RESULTS:** Rowland, J. [**Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-208_1734702735.pdf)

RE-2017-1128

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:RE

**OKLAHOMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **Case No. RE-2017-1128** **Elizabeth Kay Sears, Appellant,** **v.** **The State of Oklahoma, Appellee.** **FILED: MAY 16, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** **¶1** This matter is an appeal from the revocation of Appellant Elizabeth Kay Sears' suspended sentence in Logan County District Court Case No. CF-2013-295, presided over by the Honorable Louis A. Duel, Associate District Judge. **¶2** On January 14, 2014, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to two counts of Child Neglect (21 O.S.2011, § 843.5(C)) and one count of Harboring a Fugitive (21 O.S.2011, § 440). She was sentenced to eight years imprisonment for each count, with the first three years of each sentence to be served, while the remaining years were suspended. On October 3, 2014, the District Judge modified Appellant's sentence to five years imprisonment for each count, all suspended, to be served concurrently. **¶3** The State filed a 2nd Amended Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence on December 29, 2016, citing several probation violations, including new charges of Second Degree Burglary and Possession of Paraphernalia, arising from Logan County District Court Case No. CF-2016-404. **¶4** Appellant was arraigned on January 26, 2017, entered a plea of not guilty, and subsequently requested a continuance for her revocation hearing, which was ultimately heard on October 25, 2017. The court revoked Appellant's five-year suspended sentences in full after considering the evidence and arguments presented. **¶5** In her first proposition of error, Appellant contends that the revocation order should be reversed and dismissed. She argues that there was no valid waiver of the required twenty-day hearing period following her plea of not guilty, as stipulated in 22 O.S.Supp.2016, § 991b(A). She maintains that the record does not sufficiently show she was informed of this requirement; thus, the motion to revoke should be dismissed. **¶6** However, Appellant's request for a continuance of her revocation hearing undermines her argument. The legal precedent established in *Grimes v. State*, 2011 OK CR 16, clearly states that a defendant who acquiesces in or seeks a continuance cannot later claim entitlement to relief based on noncompliance with the twenty-day requirement. Moreover, Appellant does not claim ineffective assistance of counsel regarding this issue, and it is presumed that her attorney acted competently. **¶7** In her second proposition of error, Appellant seeks clarification of the trial court's revocation order, specifically, concerning the credit for time served. Although the State acknowledges a potential misstatement by the trial court about the duration of time credited, Appellant did not raise this issue for correction in the trial court before bringing it to this Court. Typically, we do not intervene without a preliminary determination by the District Court. **¶8** However, we will modify the procedural requirement that previously necessitated an appellant to file a separate motion to address this issue. In the absence of clear clerical error, we remand this matter back to the District Court of Logan County to allow Appellant to seek an order nunc pro tunc regarding the time served, as outlined in her second proposition of error. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Logan County District Court Case No. CF-2013-295 is AFFIRMED. This case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion. A mandate will be issued following the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** **Counsel for Defendant:** Lisbeth L. McCarty, Oklahoma City, OK **Counsel for Appellant:** Lane Fitz, Norman, OK **Counsel for State:** Emily Kirkpatrick, Asst. District Attorney, Guthrie, OK **Counsel for Appellee:** Mike Hunter, Oklahoma Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2017-1128_1734708375.pdf)

F-2018-167

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-167, Roland G. Torgerson, Jr. appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing. One member of the court dissented. The case began when Torgerson entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest) in 2015 for concealing stolen property. His sentencing was delayed for three years, during which time he was required to make payments for restitution and district attorney fees. However, he failed to make these payments, leading the State to request that his deferred judgment be accelerated. Torgerson admitted he had not made the payments and asked for more time to do so several times. His illness and difficulty finding work made it hard for him to pay. At the hearing, he stated that he was trying to get Social Security to help his financial situation. Despite his claims, the judge decided he had not done enough to show he was unable to make the payments, and therefore, he was sentenced to a five-year suspended sentence. Torgerson raised two main arguments in his appeal. First, he claimed the court was wrong to accelerate his sentence based on his failure to pay, stating that doing so violated his constitutional rights. Second, he argued that the five-year suspended sentence was too harsh. However, the court found that Torgerson had not proven he could not pay and ruled that the judge exercised proper discretion in his decision. Ultimately, the court affirmed the decision to accelerate Torgerson's sentencing, while one judge dissented and expressed concern that the failure to pay was more about his financial situation than a willful disregard of the court's orders.

F-2018-112

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-112, Christopher Lewis Whinery appealed his conviction for first-degree murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. No one dissented. Mr. Whinery was found guilty by a judge without a jury. The case took place in Creek County, where he was sentenced to life in prison and fined $500. His main argument was that the judge made a mistake by allowing his statements to the police to be used against him during the trial. He said that he was in custody and had not been told his rights, which needs to happen before police can question someone. However, the court looked at what happened and found that Mr. Whinery was not in custody when he spoke to the police. This means he wasn’t formally arrested, and his freedom wasn't limited like it would be if he were arrested. Because of this, the police did not need to read him his rights at that time. Since the court agreed that there was no error in allowing his statements, they decided to keep his conviction as is, meaning he will remain in prison for life.

F-2018-272

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-272, Lavonte Antonio Johnson appealed his conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of his deferred sentence to 27 years in prison. One judge dissented. Lavonte Johnson entered a guilty plea in 2014, which was followed by a five-year deferred sentence. However, in 2018, the state sought to accelerate this sentence, claiming Johnson had violated probation by possessing a firearm and committing bail jumping. During a traffic stop, police found Johnson could not provide a driver's license and that he had a gun with him. Johnson argued that the police had to give him a Miranda warning before asking about the gun, as he believed it was a custodial interrogation. The court found that because this was a routine traffic stop, the police were not required to issue a Miranda warning. Johnson's statements about the gun were deemed admissible. The court reviewed the decision to accelerate Johnson's sentence and found no abuse of discretion. Therefore, Johnson’s appeal was denied, and the original sentence was upheld.

F-2017-1248

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1248, Aislyn Jonelle Miller appealed her conviction for five counts of Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Miller was found guilty by a jury of not taking care of her two young children, which included not providing them with enough food and not getting them the medical care they needed. The jury suggested that she be sentenced to thirty years in prison for four of the counts and ten years for one count, with the sentences to be served one after the other. Miller argued several points on appeal. First, she claimed that two of her convictions for neglecting one child should not count separately, as they were for the same offense – one for not feeding the child and the other for not getting medical care. She also made a similar claim regarding her neglect of her other child. However, the court found that failing to feed the children and failing to get medical care for them were different acts, so her separate convictions were valid. Miller’s next argument was that she did not have good legal representation during her trial. The court explained that to prove this, she needed to show that her lawyer made big mistakes and that these mistakes changed the outcome of her case. Since the court deemed her convictions valid, it concluded that any issues raised about her attorney’s performance would not matter since those objections would not have made a difference. Lastly, Miller claimed that the judge should have allowed her to serve her sentences at the same time instead of one after the other, which would have meant a shorter time in prison. The court pointed out that judges have the right to decide how to run sentences, and in this case, the judge acted reasonably and considered all the facts before deciding to run them consecutively. Overall, the court did not find any errors in the trial process that would have changed the outcome, and so they upheld the original sentence given to Miller.

RE-2018-644

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 25, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DUSTIN ARDELL CRUCE,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-644** **FILED APR 25 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** ROWLAND, JUDGE: This appeal arises from the revocation of Dustin Ardell Cruce’s suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2016-143, adjudicated by the Honorable Lawrence W. Parish. On February 22, 2017, Cruce entered a guilty plea to multiple charges, including Assault With a Dangerous Weapon and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, resulting in a total sentence of ten years for the most serious counts, suspended in part. On October 31, 2017, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence, citing Cruce's failure to pay ordered reimbursement fees and alleged new criminal activity. However, the State subsequently abandoned the new crime allegation as part of a plea agreement in a separate case, leaving only the failure to pay as the basis for revocation. At the revocation hearing on May 2, 2018, the trial court determined that Cruce had indeed violated his probation by failing to fulfill financial obligations. Despite Cruce's claims regarding his employment status and efforts to comply, he provided no evidence of bona fide attempts to make the required payments. The standard for revocation allows the State to meet its burden by a preponderance of the evidence, and one proven violation is sufficient to justify a full revocation of a suspended sentence. Judge Parish opted to revoke only half of Cruce's remaining suspended sentence, demonstrating leniency. Cruce’s appeal asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing revocation. However, as established in previous case law, including *Sparks v. State* and *Livingston v. State*, the court has broad discretion in these matters. The trial court was within its rights to revoke the suspension based on the stipulated violation of payment obligations. The decision of Judge Parish is affirmed, as Cruce has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2016-143 is AFFIRMED. **Legal Representation:** Counsel for Appellant: CURT ALLEN Counsel for Appellee: EMILY MUELLER, ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY **OPINION BY:** ROWLAND, J. **Concur:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J. (Concur in Results); LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.

RE-2017-113

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 25, 2019
Post category:RE

In the case of Ruben Geraldo Velasquez v. The State of Oklahoma, the appellant appealed the revocation of his suspended sentences across multiple cases in the Caddo County District Court. The appeals were addressed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The appellant had pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including possession of a firearm after conviction, driving under the influence, and domestic assault. His sentences were imposed with significant portions suspended, and he was placed on probation. However, the State filed a petition to revoke his suspended sentences citing several violations, including failure to pay fees, failure to report, changes in address, and new criminal offenses. The trial court revoked the appellant's suspended sentences in full after a hearing, and the appellant raised several propositions of error on appeal. The court determined that the first two propositions, which challenged the validity of the original sentences, were not properly resolved through this appeal and needed to follow certiorari procedures instead. The court found that the amendment to the revocation order, which removed post-imprisonment supervision, rendered one of the propositions moot. Regarding claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated any deficiency in counsel's performance nor shown any resulting prejudice. The appellant's argument that the trial court abused its discretion by denying credit for time served was found to have no supporting legal authority, as the court indicated that there is no statutory requirement for such credit to be granted. Lastly, the court rejected the appellant's assertion that the revocation was excessive. The evidence presented to the trial court satisfied the standard necessary to revoke the suspended sentences, affirming that the burden of proof for violations is preponderance of the evidence, and that the decision to revoke is within the discretionary power of the trial court. Ultimately, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to revoke the appellant's suspended sentences across all cited cases, concluding that there was no abuse of discretion in the revocation. The mandates for this decision were ordered to be issued following the filing of the opinion. The decision is summarized as follows: **The revocation of Ruben Geraldo Velasquez's suspended sentences is AFFIRMED.**

F-2017-1140

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 25, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1140, Michael Harold Denham appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Michael Harold Denham was found guilty of a crime related to domestic abuse. The jury, which is a group of people that decides if someone is guilty or not, recommended that he be sentenced to three years in prison. The judge who oversaw the trial followed this recommendation and also ordered that Denham pay some fees and receive credit for the time he had already spent in jail before the trial. Denham's appeal claimed that several mistakes had occurred during his trial. He listed five main points where he believed the trial had not been fair: 1. The trial court allowed the state to have an expert witness testify about domestic abuse. Denham argued that this was a mistake. 2. He said that one of the witnesses who testified about domestic violence was not properly qualified to do so. 3. Denham claimed that some evidence was admitted that should not have been according to the rules of evidence. 4. He argued that the court did not let his defense team ask questions about one juror, which meant they could not see if the juror was biased. 5. Finally, he said that all these mistakes happened together and made the whole trial unfair. The court looked closely at Denham's claims and the evidence from the trial. They decided that the court did not make errors that were significant enough to change the outcome of the trial. For the first point about the expert witness, the court ruled that Denham did not show why his defense would have benefited from having his own expert witness. His claim of needing a continuance (more time) to prepare for the trial was not justified because he could not show how it would have helped his case. For the second point, the court decided that the qualifications of the expert witness were acceptable. The judge found that the officer had enough training and experience in domestic violence matters to testify. Regarding the third point, Denham did not follow the right procedure to complain about the late disclosure of the expert witness. As a result, the court found no major violations that would affect the trial's fairness. For the fourth point, the court reviewed how the trial judge handled questions for the jurors. They found that the process was fair because the juror had given no indication beforehand that she would be biased. Lastly, for the fifth point about the overall fairness of the trial, the court did not agree that the combined claims could show any level of unfairness. They found no cumulative error that would merit a different outcome. In conclusion, the court upheld Denham's conviction, deciding that he received a fair trial and that the claims of error did not have enough merit to change the verdict. The appeal was denied, and the conviction was confirmed, meaning Denham would serve his sentence as decided by the jury.

C-2018-410

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

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEAN ALAN REYNOLDS,** Petitioner, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Respondent. **Case No. C-2018-410** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **APR 18 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- ### SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Petitioner Sean Alan Reynolds entered a negotiated plea of guilty in the District Court of LeFlore County, Case No. CF-2016-1365, to Soliciting Sexual Conduct or Communication with a Minor by Use of Technology (Count 1), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1040.13a, and Possession of Juvenile Pornography (Count 3), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2. On March 7, 2018, the Honorable Marion D. Fry, Associate District Judge, accepted Reynolds' guilty plea and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment on Count 1. On Count 3, Reynolds was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment with all but the first ten years suspended. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. Reynolds filed a timely motion to withdraw his plea, which was denied after a hearing. He now appeals the denial of that motion and raises the following issues: 1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying his plea withdrawal on the grounds that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered; 2. Whether the district court erred by failing to conduct the requested competency hearing; 3. Whether the special condition of probation restricting his internet use is overly broad and infringes upon his rights; 4. Whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel. **1. Denial of Motion to Withdraw Plea** Reynolds argues that his plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily, claiming the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw. The standard of review for such cases is whether there was an abuse of discretion. The district court's decision, based on testimony, demeanor, and the plea form, supports that Reynolds' plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plea withdrawal. **2. Competency Hearing** Reynolds contends that the trial court erred in not ordering a mental health evaluation before ruling on the plea withdrawal motion. However, the record reflects that the district court established Reynolds' competency when accepting his plea. There was no indication during the plea hearing of any mental incapacity, and therefore, the court acted within its discretion by not ordering further evaluation. **3. Condition of Probation** Reynolds challenges a condition of probation prohibiting internet usage for five years, arguing it's overly broad. However, this issue was not raised in his motion to withdraw the plea, leading to a waiver of appellate review on this matter. **4. Effective Assistance of Counsel** Finally, Reynolds argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. To succeed, he must demonstrate both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. He claims his counsel did not address his alleged mental health issues, but there was no evidence presented at the plea hearing to suggest incapacity. Additionally, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to cite non-binding cases. Therefore, Reynolds has failed to show he was denied effective assistance of counsel. ### DECISION The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is **DENIED**. The district court's denial of Petitioner's motion to withdraw plea is **AFFIRMED**. The MANDATE is ordered issued. --- **APPEARANCES IN THE DISTRICT COURT** **CYNTHIA VIOL** ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER **KIMBERLY D. HEINZE** PLEA COUNSEL **MATTHEW R. PRICE** MOTION TO WITHDRAW COUNSEL **MIKE HUNTER** ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA --- **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur in Results **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-410_1734106115.pdf)

RE-2018-128

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

In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, Milton Roger Hornsby appealed the revocation of his suspended sentence from the McIntosh County District Court, overseen by Judge James D. Bland. This appeal arose from convictions in two cases, CF-2012-45 and CF-2012-60, covering multiple charges including possession of a firearm after conviction and assault with a dangerous weapon. Hornsby initially received a twenty-year suspended sentence for one charge and six-month suspended sentences for others, all to be served concurrently. The State's motion to revoke the suspended sentences, filed on September 19, 2016, was due to an alleged new crime involving assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Following a hearing on December 29, 2016, Judge Bland revoked ten years of Hornsby's suspended sentences. Hornsby raised several legal arguments on appeal: 1. **Burden of Proof**: He argued that Judge Bland imposed a lower burden of proof than required. However, the court affirmed that Judge Bland properly articulated the standard during the hearing, which was that the State needed to show it was more likely than not that Hornsby violated his probation. 2. **Suppressed Evidence**: Hornsby contended that evidence pertaining to the use of a knife, previously suppressed in a related case, was improperly considered at the revocation hearing. The court noted that Hornsby did not object during the hearing and thus waived his right to raise this issue on appeal apart from claiming plain error, which he failed to establish. 3. **Intent to Harm**: Hornsby claimed there was insufficient evidence to prove he intended to inflict bodily harm. The court stated that the evidence presented was sufficient to suggest that it was more likely than not that Hornsby had such intent. 4. **Cumulative Errors**: Lastly, Hornsby argued that the accumulation of errors deprived him of a fair hearing. The court found no merit in this argument, as each proposition raised was without merit. The Court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in Judge Bland's decision to revoke the suspended sentence, affirming the revocation. The mandate was ordered to issue following the filing of the decision.

RE-2017-801

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

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case Summary** **Appellant:** Donald Antwan Mayberry **Appellee:** State of Oklahoma **Case No:** RE-2017-801 **Judges:** John D. Hudson (Chief Judge), Lewis, Kuehn (Vice Chief Judge), Lumpkin, Rowland (Judges) **Date Filed:** April 18, 2019 **Overview:** Donald Antwan Mayberry appealed the full revocation of his ten-year suspended sentences imposed by the District Court of Oklahoma County, presided over by Judge Timothy R. Henderson. Mayberry had previously pleaded guilty to two counts of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, which resulted in concurrent ten-year suspended sentences under probation. **Revocation Proceedings:** The State filed an application to revoke Mayberry's suspended sentences, alleging several violations, including: 1. Committing new crimes (including Manufacturing or Possessing an Explosive Device). 2. Using methamphetamine while on probation. 3. Failing to pay probation fees. 4. Driving while his license was suspended. At the revocation hearing, the State presented evidence from law enforcement officers and Mayberry’s probation officer. Notable testimony included: - Sergeant Anthony Lee described a traffic stop of Mayberry's vehicle, where he discovered drugs and an ammo box containing bomb components. - Scott Dawson, a bomb technician, testified about the nature of the device found, indicating it could function as an improvised explosive device (IED). - Probation officer Brooke LeFlore reported Mayberry’s positive drug test for methamphetamine. Mayberry did not present any evidence in his defense. Judge Henderson concluded that Mayberry violated probation terms by committing the new crimes and using drugs, leading to the full revocation of his suspended sentences. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Insufficient Evidence for Manufacturing an Explosive Device:** - Mayberry argued that the State failed to establish his intent to use the bomb or to send it to another person, as required by statute. - The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to infer intent to intimidate or unlawfully damage property, and that one proven violation of probation was enough to justify revocation. 2. **Abuse of Discretion in Revocation Decision:** - Mayberry contended that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his sentence in full, arguing that the punishment was excessive. - The court maintained that the presence of bomb-making materials and other violations substantiated the revocation decision. **Conclusion:** The Court affirmed the trial court's decision to revoke Mayberry's ten-year concurrent suspended sentences in full, finding that the evidence was adequate to support the conclusions of the trial judge. **Final Order:** Appellant's revocation of suspended sentences is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is ordered to be issued. **Counsel for Appellant:** Pierce Winters, Marva A. Banks (Oklahoma County Public Defender’s Office) **Counsel for Appellee:** Kelly Collins, Mike Hunter (assistant district attorneys); Theodore M. Peeper (assistant attorney general) **Opinion Issued By:** Judge Hudson **Concurrences:** Judges Lewis, Kuehn, Lumpkin, and Rowland each concurred with the decision. [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2017-801_1734709994.pdf)

F-2018-184

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

In OCCA case No. F-2018-184, Juanita Martinez Gomez appealed her conviction for First Degree Malice Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction. One judge dissented. Juanita, a 49-year-old woman, was found guilty of killing her daughter, Geneva Gomez, who was 33 years old, in Oklahoma City. The events took place in August 2016 after a violent encounter at Juanita's home. Geneva had previously lived with her boyfriend but went to collect her belongings with her mother. The boyfriend later became worried when he could not communicate with Geneva. The trial revealed that when the boyfriend visited Juanita's home, he found Geneva's body. She had severe injuries on her head and signs that she had been beaten. Instead of asking for help, Juanita showed strange behavior, claiming that Geneva was possessed. Evidence showed that Juanita attempted to clean up the crime scene and tried to prevent her boyfriend from leaving. At trial, Juanita did not testify, and her lawyers claimed that her odd behavior and statements meant she did not kill her daughter with intent. The jury, however, found that the evidence showed a clear intention to kill, considering the violent nature of the attack and Juanita's actions afterward. Juanita raised multiple claims of error in her appeal, but the court found that she had not been denied a fair trial. Her statements to the police about her motive for killing Geneva were not allowed in court because they were considered hearsay. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that it was sufficient to support the conviction for malice murder, rejecting Juanita's claims for lesser charges or defenses. The court ultimately affirmed the judgment of the District Court.

F-2017-1270

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

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1270, Bryan James Abner appealed his conviction for several offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the decision to terminate him from drug court and sentence him according to the plea agreement. One judge dissented. Bryan James Abner was involved in multiple criminal cases related to theft, guns, drugs, and burglary. He was given the chance to join a Drug Court program to help him with his drug addiction instead of going straight to prison. However, if he did not follow the rules of the program, he would be sentenced for his crimes. Abner did well in the Drug Court for the first six months, but then he started to have problems. He tested positive for methamphetamine several times, had legal troubles, and missed appointments. The State's attorney asked to terminate him from the Drug Court because of these issues. During the hearing, witnesses testified about Abner's behavior. One officer found drugs on him, and a supervisor explained that Abner had many chances to improve but did not make enough progress. Abner's counselor testified that he had learned from some difficult experiences, including the death of his son, and asked for another chance in the program. The judge decided against Abner, saying that despite what the counselor said, Abner's problems continued. She noted that he had broken the rules of the Drug Court many times and had not responded to the chances he had been given. In summary, the court ruled that Abner needed to be removed from the Drug Court program for not following the rules, and he was sentenced based on his plea agreement. The court found that the evidence supported this decision, and there was no abuse of discretion by the judge.

C-2018-489

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2019
Post category:C

**SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Mario Donsheau Cherry entered blind pleas of guilty to multiple charges including First Degree Manslaughter, Causing an Accident Resulting in Great Bodily Injury, and Leaving the Scene of an Accident, among others, in the District Court of Oklahoma County. His pleas were accepted by the Honorable Bill Graves on February 23, 2018. After a sentencing hearing on April 5, 2018, Cherry was sentenced to life in prison on some counts, with additional sentences for other counts that ran concurrently. On April 12, 2018, he filed an application to withdraw his plea, which was denied on May 4, 2018. Cherry appeals this denial, raising the following issues: 1. **Denial of Withdrawal of Plea:** Cherry argues he should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming it was not entered knowingly and voluntarily partly because he was not adequately informed about waiving his right to appeal. 2. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** He claims his counsel did not sufficiently inform him about the consequences of waiving his appeal rights through his plea. 3. **Excessive Sentence:** Cherry contends that the imposed sentences are excessive and shock the conscience. After reviewing the case, including the original record and briefs, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cherry's motion to withdraw his plea. The court cited that the plea was determined to be knowing and voluntary as Cherry acknowledged understanding of the consequences including the nature and severity of the charges and the rights he was waiving. Regarding ineffective assistance, the court noted that this claim was not raised in the initial application to withdraw the plea or in the petition for certiorari, resulting in a waiver for appellate review. On the issue of sentencing, the court confirmed that the sentences were within statutory guidelines and that running some counts consecutively was within the trial court’s discretion. The court found no excessive or shocking elements in the imposed sentence in light of Cherry's guilty admissions and prior felony history. **DECISION** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

F-2018-145

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-145, Davis appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his termination from the Drug Court program. One judge dissented. On June 23, 2015, Davis pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine. He was given a chance to avoid prison by being put on probation for five years. However, in December 2016, the state said Davis was not following the rules of his probation, leading to his case being taken to Drug Court in March 2017. Drug Court was meant to help him, but it also had strict rules he had to follow. If he completed the program successfully, he could avoid serious penalties. In January 2018, the state said Davis had broken the rules of the Drug Court and asked to have him removed from the program. After a hearing, the judge agreed, and Davis was taken out of Drug Court. Davis appealed this decision, saying the state did not prove he should be terminated and that his mental health issues were not considered. However, the court found no evidence that further sanctions would have helped him follow the rules. Throughout his time in Drug Court, he repeatedly missed appointments and failed to participate, which meant he was not eligible for further leniency. On the issue of his mental health, Davis did not present any evidence in court to explain how his mental health affected his ability to comply with the Drug Court program. Therefore, the court did not find this argument convincing. Ultimately, the court decided that the judge did not make a mistake in removing Davis from Drug Court, and his appeal was denied.

F-2017-911

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-911, the appellant appealed his conviction for various offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of the appellant from the Drug Court program. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, previously convicted of two counts of Second Degree Burglary, was sentenced to twenty-one years for each count but with most of that time suspended. While under supervision, the appellant was accused of violating the terms of his release due to new criminal charges. He later pleaded guilty to those new charges as well. To avoid serving the full sentences, the appellant entered a Drug Court program aimed at helping him overcome substance abuse issues. However, after several years in the program, he faced multiple sanctions for drug use and missed compliance with program rules. Eventually, the state moved to terminate him from Drug Court, asserting he had violated several agreements tied to his participation. During the hearing to decide whether he should be removed from the program, the trial judge ultimately decided that the appellant had not adequately followed the rules and terminated his participation. The appellant then argued that the judge should have considered giving him additional chances rather than terminating him outright. The court checked to see if the trial judge had abused his discretion, meaning if the judge made a choice that was unreasonable or did not follow the law. The records showed the appellant had been sanctioned several times over his three years in the program, but he continued to struggle with drug use. The court found no evidence that the judge had failed to weigh all the necessary factors before deciding to end the appellant's time in Drug Court. In the end, the court affirmed the decision to terminate the appellant from the Drug Court program, stating that the earlier judgments regarding his sentence also needed no changes since the mistakes made in paperwork were corrected. Therefore, the appeal was largely dismissed as moot.

F-2017-1166

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 14, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1166, the appellant appealed his conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of the appellant's deferred sentence. One judge dissented. The appellant, Kenneth Allen Day, was charged with two crimes: unauthorized use of a vehicle and concealing stolen property. He pleaded guilty to the first charge, and the second was dismissed. His sentence was postponed until 2021, with conditions he needed to follow during probation. However, the State later claimed he had not followed these conditions, including not reporting as he was supposed to and being involved in new criminal activity. During a hearing, it was found that he had indeed violated his probation rules. As a result, the court decided to move up the date for his sentencing, leading to a five-year prison term and a fine. The appellant argued that the court had made a mistake in this decision. However, the court found that the trial court acted within its rights and did not abuse its discretion. Thus, they confirmed the earlier decision about the appellant's sentence.

F-2017-1053

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 31, 2019
Post category:F

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.

JS 2018-0917

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 3, 2019
Post category:JS

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.

C-2017-567

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 27, 2018
Post category:C

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.

C-2018-441

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 20, 2018
Post category:C

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.

F-2017-1030

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 15, 2018
Post category:F

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.

C-2017-1044

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 8, 2018
Post category:C

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.

C-2018-688

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 7, 2018
Post category:C

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.