Abuse of Discretion

F-2015-886

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-886, Russell Carl McCrillis appealed his conviction for two counts of Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the case for the trial court to assess a specific term of years for post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. McCrillis was convicted in a jury trial and received a twenty-year prison sentence and a $20,000 fine for each count of lewd molestation. The sentences were ordered to be served at the same time. McCrillis raised several issues in his appeal. He claimed that his statement to the police should not have been allowed at trial because it was not made freely and voluntarily. He also argued that the jury should have been instructed about the voluntariness of his statement. Additionally, he pointed out that the trial court could not change his sentence to an indefinite probation after prison. Finally, he believed his sentences were too harsh. The court looked closely at whether McCrillis's statement to the police was voluntary and found that he had waived his rights properly and given his statement willingly. This meant the trial court did not make a mistake when it allowed the statement to be presented during the trial. The court did notice that while the judge should have instructed the jury on the voluntary nature of his confession, the lack of instruction didn’t really have an impact on the trial's outcome, as there was strong enough evidence against McCrillis. Regarding the trial court's authority to modify the sentence, the court agreed that it should have set a clear term for post-imprisonment supervision, which means after McCrillis serves his time, he should be supervised for a set number of years. The law says people convicted of certain crimes, like lewd molestation, must have a period of supervision after serving time, usually between nine months and a year. However, there is also a specific law stating that in cases of sexual offenses, supervision could be longer. The court noted that the trial judge didn’t give a fixed duration for supervision, which was a mistake. In the end, while the court agreed with McCrillis on the need for a specified period of supervision upon release, it found that his twenty-year sentence was not too severe based on the details of the crimes committed. Therefore, the court upheld the conviction but sent the case back to have the trial court determine the proper length of post-imprisonment supervision.

Continue ReadingF-2015-886

C-2016-38

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-38, Charlie Franklin Roberts appealed his conviction for violation of a protective order, kidnapping, and domestic assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition and remand for a new hearing on the motion to withdraw plea. One judge dissented. Roberts had entered a no contest plea to the charges and was sentenced to one year in county jail for the misdemeanor and thirty years for each felony, with the felony sentences running at the same time but after the jail sentence. He later wanted to withdraw his plea, claiming he did not have the right help from his attorney during this process. The court looked into his claims and found that Roberts had not been given fair legal help when trying to withdraw his plea. Specifically, his attorney had conflicts of interest that affected his ability to represent Roberts properly. Because of these issues, the court allowed Roberts to have a new and better attorney who could help him file the motion. The court also ordered a hearing to figure out what Roberts would like to do about his plea within specific timelines.

Continue ReadingC-2016-38

RE-2015-765

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-765, Jimmy Lee Fields appealed his conviction for sexually abusing a minor child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Fields' suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Fields, in 2000, pleaded guilty to sexually abusing a child. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, but all but five years were suspended. This meant he would not have to serve the full sentence if he followed the rules. In 2001, his sentence was modified to fourteen years and the execution of that sentence was also suspended with conditions he had to follow while on probation. In 2015, the state accused Fields of breaking the rules of his probation by committing more serious crimes, including child sexual abuse. After a hearing, the court revoked his suspended sentence completely, meaning he had to serve time in prison. Fields disagreed with this decision, claiming the court made errors. Fields presented two main arguments for his appeal. First, he argued that the court was wrong to impose post-imprisonment supervision at the time of revocation, which was not part of the original sentence. Second, he believed the court acted unfairly when it revoked his entire sentence because he had mitigating circumstances like health issues and past good behavior. The court reviewed his claims but found no errors in the decision to revoke the suspension. It highlighted that committing new crimes while on probation justified the revocation. Therefore, the court upheld the revocation but instructed to correct the official written order to remove the additional supervision requirement that was added later. Overall, the court affirmed the decision to revoke his probation with the clarification needed for the written records.

Continue ReadingRE-2015-765

S-2016-95

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-95, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction for acquiring proceeds from illegal drug activity. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling of the district court that granted a Motion to Suppress evidence. One judge dissented. The case began in Sequoyah County when the driver of a vehicle was stopped for speeding. During the traffic stop, the trooper checked the driver's license and vehicle documents, and after issuing a warning, asked if he could use a drug-sniffing dog on the vehicle. The driver said no and wanted to leave. Despite this, the trooper asked him to get back into the patrol car and moved ahead with deploying the dog. The drug dog found a large amount of cash hidden in the spare tire of the truck. The State appealed the decision saying that the trooper had enough reason to keep the driver there for the drug dog search. The trooper noted that the driver was very nervous, the truck was unusually clean with a strong air freshener scent, and the driver had two cell phones. When a police officer stops someone, they can only keep them there for as long as needed to handle the reason for the stop, which in this case was the speeding. The officer can extend the stop if they have reasonable suspicion that something illegal is happening, but they need solid reasons to do this. In reviewing the trooper's actions, the court looked at the overall situation, including the video from the stop, and decided that the trooper did not have enough reasonable suspicion to keep the driver longer. The factors the trooper mentioned did not add up to a valid reason for the ongoing detention. As a result, the court upheld the lower court's decision to suppress the evidence obtained from the drug dog search, meaning the cash found could not be used against the driver in court. The State’s appeal was denied.

Continue ReadingS-2016-95

C-2015-573

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-573, Jeremy Ross Wilson appealed his conviction for Escape from the Department of Corrections. In a published decision, the court decided to modify Wilson's sentence. One judge dissented. Jeremy Ross Wilson was an inmate who escaped from a work center. He was arrested later and faced charges for his escape. He pleaded guilty and was given a long sentence, but he later wanted to take back his guilty plea. His motion to do so was denied, and he appealed that decision. The case included a problem with how the state used Wilson's past felony convictions. The law says you cannot use the same prior convictions to charge someone with a crime and to make the punishment worse for that crime. The state did that with Wilson, using five of his past felonies to both charge him and to increase his punishment. Because of this, the court found that Wilson had been given a harsher sentence than what was allowed by law. The main question was whether Wilson had entered his guilty plea voluntarily and intelligently. It was found that he had. However, the court also decided that the sentence needed to be corrected. Wilson's lawyer did not challenge the state's use of the prior felonies, which was seen as ineffective help. As a result, the court modified Wilson's sentence to a shorter term of seven years instead of fifteen. Wilson would also have to be supervised for a year once released and pay fines. The court affirmed the decision to deny his request to withdraw his guilty plea but changed the length of his sentence.

Continue ReadingC-2015-573

F-2015-933

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-933, Thompson appealed his conviction for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment on Counts 1 and 2 but reversed the judgment on Count 3 with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Thompson was found guilty of three crimes related to stolen property after a jury trial. He was sentenced to six years in prison for unauthorized use of a vehicle and eight years for each count of concealing stolen property. The sentences were arranged so that the two eight-year sentences would run together, while the six-year sentence would be added afterward. He was also fined $100 for each offense. Thompson raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that he should not have been convicted twice for concealing stolen property. He believed that since he acted only once when hiding the stolen items, charging him with two counts was unfair. The court agreed with him on this point and found that it was a mistake to have separate charges for items taken from different people. Next, Thompson questioned whether there was enough proof to find him guilty of unauthorized vehicle use and concealing stolen property. The court looked at all the evidence and decided there was enough to support his guilty verdict for unauthorized use of a vehicle, so that part of his conviction was upheld. Thompson also claimed that the prosecution made mistakes during the trial that harmed his chance for a fair judgment. However, the court did not find these errors serious enough to change the outcome of the trial. On the fines imposed by the trial court, Thompson argued that judges can't add fines unless the jury decides to. The court determined that the fines were allowed since the law permitted judges to impose them, even if the jury did not. Thompson felt that the judge shouldn't have made him serve the sentences for Counts 2 and 3 back-to-back after the first sentence. However, the court found that the judge's decision was within his rights and not an abuse of discretion. Overall, the court decided that none of the claimed errors were significant enough to change Thompson’s convictions except for the second count of concealing stolen property, which was dismissed. They confirmed that the remaining counts were properly upheld, leading to affirmation of most of Thompson's convictions.

Continue ReadingF-2015-933

F-2014-1078

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-1078, Robert Bradley Champlain appealed his conviction for three counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his judgment and sentence but vacated the imposition of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. The case involved allegations against Champlain for inappropriate conduct with a minor, and a jury found him guilty. Each count resulted in a recommendation for life imprisonment, to be served consecutively. Champlain raised several arguments on appeal, claiming errors in the trial process, including the imposition of consecutive sentences as a punishment for opting for a jury trial and issues regarding evidence of his past convictions. The court did not find merit in these claims. It clarified that the determination of consecutive versus concurrent sentences is within the trial court's discretion. The court also concluded that prior felony convictions had been proven properly, with no significant errors affecting Champlain's rights during the trial. They explained that the State's evidence was sufficient for the jury to uphold the conviction. Champlain also argued that the conduct of the prosecution and the trial court's instructions were unfair. However, the court stated that the issues raised did not prove any misconduct that made the trial fundamentally unfair. His claims regarding ineffective assistance from his counsel were also dismissed, as the court did not see a failure that affected the outcome of the trial. While Champlain did receive life sentences, the court vacated the post-imprisonment supervision, stating it was not applicable in cases of life sentences. In conclusion, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence while correcting certain references related to the timing of the offenses.

Continue ReadingF-2014-1078

F-2015-194

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-194, Jarrod Demar Mansker appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery, Second Offense, after two or more felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Mansker's conviction but remand the case for resentencing to consider his request for credit for time served. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2015-194

S-2015-972

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-972, Marco Callejas appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm after juvenile adjudication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to grant Callejas' motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges. One judge dissented. Marco Callejas was charged with two crimes in Tulsa County. The charges included unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and having a firearm after being a juvenile delinquent. During his preliminary hearing, the official decided that the stop made by the officer was valid but dismissed one of the charges while moving forward with the other. Before the actual trial began, Callejas argued that there wasn't enough evidence against him and that the evidence collected during the stop should not be used. The judge agreed and dismissed both charges, so the State decided to appeal the judge's decision. The State argued that the judge made errors during the hearing, especially in determining that there wasn't a valid reason for the traffic stop. They explained that the officer interpreted a local traffic law to mean that drivers must hesitate before changing lanes. However, the judge decided that this interpretation of the law was incorrect and that Callejas did not break any laws because he signaled before changing lanes safely. The appeals court looked closely at the traffic law in question and agreed with the judge that the law did not say drivers had to pause before changing lanes. The court pointed out that the officer could see Callejas signaled before making the lane change and that no other traffic was affected by his action. Therefore, there was no valid reason for the officer to stop Callejas. The State also tried to argue that a past decision, involving another case, should apply here, but the court concluded that the current law was clear and did not have the same ambiguities as the previous case. Ultimately, the appeals court confirmed that the traffic stop was based on a misunderstanding of the law. The court affirmed the original decision to suppress the evidence gathered from the stop and to dismiss all charges against Callejas. This means that Callejas did not face criminal charges due to the invalidity of the stop. In summary, the court found that the trial judge made the right call in dismissing the case because the police officer did not have a good reason to stop Callejas.

Continue ReadingS-2015-972

F-2015-187

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-187, Steven R. Jennings appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation and Domestic Assault and Battery Resulting in Great Bodily Injury. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Jennings’ conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery Resulting in Great Bodily Injury, while affirming the other conviction. One judge dissented. Jennings was found guilty by a jury for two serious crimes against a person in a domestic situation. The jury recommended a punishment of 25 years in prison for each crime, making a total of 50 years. Jennings thought this was unfair and argued several reasons that should change his situation. First, Jennings said both convictions were for one single action, meaning he shouldn't be punished twice for the same act. The court looked closely at whether the injuries were caused by separate actions or not. They decided that Jennings’ actions were connected and not separate incidents. Because of this, the court agreed with Jennings that he should not have been sentenced for both. Next, Jennings argued that the way the trial was conducted was not fair. He wanted the trial to be held in one stage, which would have simplified things. However, the court believed it was appropriate to have two stages so that the jury wouldn’t be overly influenced by his past convictions when deciding if he was guilty of the new charges. Therefore, they didn’t agree with his claim about this issue. Thirdly, Jennings felt that his lawyer did not help him enough, which meant he did not get a fair trial. The court looked at this claim and decided that Jennings did not show how having a different lawyer would have changed the outcome of his case. They found no clear mistakes made by his attorney that harmed his defense. Finally, Jennings felt that a 50-year sentence was too long. Since the court reversed one of his convictions, this concern became less relevant because his total sentence was reduced. In conclusion, the court affirmed one of Jennings’ convictions, it reversed the other, and decided that he should get a new sentence based on the remaining conviction. One judge disagreed and believed there should be a different outcome.

Continue ReadingF-2015-187

S-2015-568

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-568, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Christopher Daniel Welch for possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's decision to dismiss the case, stating that the evidence did not support the charge. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2015-568

RE-2014-1030

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-1030, Ronnie Eugene Woods appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Drug with Intent to Distribute, Falsely Personate Another to Create Liability, and Driving with License Cancelled, Suspended, or Revoked. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the order of the District Court regarding Woods' sentences, ensuring that they would be served concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented from this decision.

Continue ReadingRE-2014-1030

F-2014-1100

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-1100, Kenshari Andre Graham appealed his conviction for Second Degree Felony Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but remanded the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Graham was found guilty of murdering Alec McGlory while trying to rob him at gunpoint for illegal drugs. The jury recommended that he serve life in prison, and the trial court agreed with this sentence. During the appeal, Graham argued that the trial court made a mistake by allowing the State to introduce evidence of another crime he committed—a burglary that took place two days after the murder. He believed this should not have been allowed because it did not relate to the murder case. The court reviewed the evidence admitted during the trial to determine if it was appropriate. Normally, evidence of other crimes is not allowed to prove that someone is guilty of the crime they are charged with. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. One exception is if the other crime is closely connected to the crime being charged, which can help to explain it better. In this case, the burglary and the murder were separate events that happened in different places and times. The burglary did not relate to the drug robbery that led to McGlory's murder. The trial court had allowed the burglary evidence in part to show a possible consciousness of guilt, or that Graham was trying to escape the legal consequences of his actions. The court explained that evidence of fleeing can sometimes be used to support the idea that someone is guilty, but they needed to be careful about how it is used. Despite admitting that the trial court made a mistake by allowing the burglary evidence, the court did not believe that this mistake had a significant impact on the jury's decision to convict Graham. The jury also heard strong evidence from two witnesses who testified that Graham confessed to the murder, along with other evidence connecting him to the crime. The judges concluded that the jury likely made their decision based on this solid evidence, and not just the burglary evidence. However, when it came to sentencing, the judges had doubts about whether the court would have given Graham the maximum sentence of life in prison if they hadn’t considered the burglary. Because of this, the court decided to send the case back to the District Court to determine a proper sentence without considering the improperly admitted evidence. Overall, while Graham's conviction remained in place, the judges recognized the need to reevaluate his sentence without the influence of the wrongful entry of evidence from the burglary case.

Continue ReadingF-2014-1100

RE-2014-371

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-371, Holland appealed his conviction for Rape in the Second Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation order regarding his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Holland pleaded guilty to a crime and received a sentence that included five years of imprisonment, but with some of that time suspended as long as he followed rules set by the court. However, he did not follow these rules, such as reporting to his probation officer and attending required treatment. Because of this, the court revoked his suspended sentence and ordered him to serve the full five years. Holland felt the punishment was too harsh and claimed he had tried to follow the rules. He argued that he should not have to serve the full five years because only a part of that sentence was supposed to be enforced. The court looked carefully at his claims. They found that Holland had not fully complied with the rules he agreed to follow, and therefore, they believed the judge was correct in deciding to revoke his suspension. However, they agreed that the judge had made an error when stating he had to serve five years in prison since he had already served part of that time. Ultimately, the court decided to change the revocation order so that Holland would only need to serve four years and eleven months, which is the remaining part of his original sentence. The court confirmed their decision and instructed the District Court to make the necessary changes.

Continue ReadingRE-2014-371

F-2014-870

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-870, Ricco Dante Walters appealed his conviction for possession of a sawed-off shotgun, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for possession of a sawed-off shotgun and possession of drug paraphernalia but reversed the conviction for possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2014-870

PC-2015-6

  • Post author:
  • Post category:PC

In OCCA case No. PC-2015-6, Kendall Wayne Edwards appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that granted post-conviction relief, vacating Edwards's murder conviction and ordering a new trial based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence. One judge dissented. The case stemmed from an incident on March 9, 2001, where Edwards was accused of shooting Gerald Lamont Ford during a fight outside a convenience store. Edwards was convicted at trial and sentenced to life imprisonment, but he sought post-conviction relief in 2012, claiming several errors occurred during his trial, including improper admission of evidence and ineffective legal representation. The court's analysis focused primarily on the newly discovered evidence claim, which was that another witness, Larika A. Alexander, could potentially exonerate him by stating she saw him being beaten and heard the gunshot without witnessing him fire the weapon. The lower court agreed that this evidence was significant enough to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial and held that Edwards deserved a new trial. While the majority opinion supported this conclusion, a dissenting judge argued that the new evidence did not sufficiently meet the standard required to warrant a new trial since it was cumulative and lacked materiality. The dissent emphasized that the jury had already evaluated the credibility of the witnesses during the original trial. Ultimately, the court's decision to uphold the lower court's granting of a new trial was based on the notion that justice required the possibility of a different outcome with this new testimony. Thus, Edwards was granted the opportunity for a re-examination of the case.

Continue ReadingPC-2015-6

RE-2014-743

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-743, the appellant appealed his conviction for attempted manufacturing of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine), first-degree arson, and child endangerment. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences for some charges but vacate the revocation for one charge due to a prior dismissal. The case began when the appellant, on November 3, 2010, pleaded guilty to several charges, including attempting to manufacture methamphetamine. He was sentenced to serve time but was given a chance to have his sentences suspended if he followed probation rules. However, in August 2012, the state claimed the appellant violated these rules by not living in a sober facility and testing positive for drugs. The appellant admitted to these violations but was given another chance to comply with the probation terms. Later, the state filed another application to revoke his suspended sentences, alleging he committed new crimes, including kidnapping. A revocation hearing was postponed multiple times, eventually taking place in 2014. The court decided to revoke all of his suspended sentences except for one, which had been dismissed earlier. The appellant raised several arguments in his appeal. He claimed that the court did not have the right to revoke his sentences since the revocation hearing was delayed beyond the allowable time. He also argued that the court should not have revoked his sentence related to the dismissed charge and said he didn’t receive proper help from his attorney. The court found that while the appellant was correct about the dismissal of one charge, the other violations justified the revocation of his sentences. The court determined that the initial confession of violations was enough for the revocation and that the appellant had not shown neglect of care by his attorney on the other claims. As a result, the court affirmed the decision to revoke the sentences for the charges that were still valid but agreed to cancel the revocation related to the dismissed count. The case was sent back to the lower court to correct the record about the dismissed charge. Overall, the court's findings led to a mixed outcome for the appellant, maintaining some penalties while recognizing the error regarding the dismissed charge.

Continue ReadingRE-2014-743

F-2014-452

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-452, Roderick Leandrew Jackson appealed his conviction for various crimes, including knowingly concealing stolen property and drug-related offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the termination of his participation in the Drug Court program. The state also agreed that the termination was a mistake. Jackson had previously been sanctioned for his violations, and since there was no new evidence of violations presented at the hearing, he was reinstated in the Drug Court program. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2014-452

RE-2014-810

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-810, Simpson appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Simpson's suspended sentence but vacated the imposition of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. Simpson had entered a guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance in 2013 and was given a ten-year suspended sentence. His sentence was suspended as long as he followed the rules of probation. However, in 2014, the State accused him of violating these rules by committing a new offense of possession of a controlled substance. After a hearing, the judge decided to revoke Simpson’s suspended sentence and send him to jail for ten years. Simpson raised three main issues in his appeal. First, he argued that the judge's decision to revoke the whole sentence was too harsh given his situation. He was struggling with drug addiction and believed that this should be taken into account. However, since he had previously had several felony convictions and had violated the terms of his probation, the court did not find this argument convincing. Second, Simpson claimed that the judge should not have added post-imprisonment supervision to his sentence after revoking it. The law states that this supervision is required only for those who are in prison after being sentenced, which was not the case for Simpson at the time of his original sentencing. Therefore, the court agreed with Simpson and removed the requirement for post-imprisonment supervision. Lastly, Simpson noted that he had already served ten days of his sentence before it was revoked and argued that the judge should not have ordered him to serve a full ten years in prison. The court acknowledged that the judge had indeed made an error by ordering a full ten years instead of the correct amount of nine years and 355 days, taking into account the time already served. In summary, the court upheld the revocation of Simpson’s suspended sentence, meaning he would go to prison. However, they corrected the total time he needed to serve to reflect the time he had already completed, and they took away the added supervision requirement after his prison term.

Continue ReadingRE-2014-810

J-2015-353

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2015-353, E.A.F. appealed his conviction for robbery and attempted robbery. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order to sentence E.A.F. as an adult and instructed for a new hearing to be held before a different judge, only after a psychological evaluation was completed. Two judges dissented.

Continue ReadingJ-2015-353

C 2014-920

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2014-920, John Edward Oxford appealed his conviction for several serious crimes including robbery, burglary, and conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but also ordered a hearing to review the amount of restitution he was ordered to pay. Oxford was charged with multiple counts and, on July 10, 2014, he entered a blind plea, which means he pleaded guilty without negotiating a deal, to all the charges. The court sentenced him to a total of over 70 years in prison and ordered him to pay about $67,539 in restitution to the victims. After his sentencing, Oxford tried to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he did not understand the charges and was not fully informed about his rights. The trial court held a hearing on this and ultimately denied his request. Oxford then appealed this decision, arguing several points. First, he believed he should not have been sentenced for certain counts because it violated laws against double punishment. However, the court noted that his arguments about double jeopardy were not raised in the earlier stages and thus were not considered. Second, he argued there wasn't enough evidence to support the restitution amount, but again the court found this issue had not been raised before and rejected it. Oxford also claimed he did not receive effective legal help during his plea and the hearing to withdraw it. The court agreed that there were problems with how his attorney handled the restitution order, focusing mainly on the lack of detailed documentation justifying the restitution amount. This lack of evidence meant the restitution order was not valid. While the court found that Oxford's guilty plea was made voluntarily, it did acknowledge inadequate support for the restitution order. Therefore, it denied his appeal regarding the guilty plea but vacated the restitution order, sending the case back to the lower court for a proper review of how much compensation was truly owed to the victims. One judge dissented, noting that the case should have been looked at more closely regarding the earlier claims. So, in summary, the appeal was mainly denied except for the part about restitution, which was sent back to the lower court for further review.

Continue ReadingC 2014-920

RE 2014-0777

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2014-0777, Rogelio Solis, Jr. appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking his suspended sentence but found merit in his argument regarding post-imprisonment supervision and remanded the case to modify that part. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE 2014-0777

S-2014-812

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2014-812, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Adam Clayton Zilm for Sexual Abuse of a Minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling of the District Court that suppressed certain child hearsay statements. One judge dissented. The case started when Adam Clayton Zilm was charged with sexually abusing a minor in Tulsa County. Before the trial began, there was a hearing to determine if the statements made by the child victim, K.A., could be used as evidence in the trial. During this Reliability Hearing, the child made statements to a forensic interviewer and a neighbor about the alleged abuse. However, K.A. later testified that she had not been abused and said she had been influenced to make claims about the abuse. The State argued that the trial court was wrong to suppress the child’s statements because they believed the statements should have been allowed to support the case against Zilm. The court had to decide if these hearsay statements were trustworthy to be presented at trial. According to Oklahoma law, a child’s hearsay statements can be used if the court finds them to be reliable based on several factors. The trial court decided that K.A.'s statements to the forensic interviewer and neighbor were not reliable enough. They allowed K.A. to give her testimony because it was necessary to determine if her earlier statements could be trusted. The court found inconsistencies in her testimony compared to her earlier claims, which made the hearsay statements questionable. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that they did not abuse their discretion by suppressing the hearsay statements from the child victim. They believed the trial court made the right choice by considering the total context around the statements. Meanwhile, one judge disagreed. This judge felt that the earlier statements made by K.A. should still be considered admissible. They argued that the trial court focused too much on K.A.'s later testimony, which could have been influenced and not truly reflected what had happened earlier. Overall, the court decided that the suppression of the hearsay evidence was appropriate, allowing the earlier ruling to stand and ensuring that K.A.'s inconsistent statements were not used in the trial against Adam Clayton Zilm.

Continue ReadingS-2014-812

RE 2014-0536

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2014-0536, Matthew Carl Eddings appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Substance and Driving Under the Influence of Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Eddings' suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Eddings was originally given a deferred sentence with rules for probation and fines for his crimes. However, over the years, he struggled to meet the conditions of his probation, which included paying fines and child support. The state moved to revoke his sentence because of these issues. When the court reviewed Eddings' case, they found enough evidence to support the revocation. Eddings had not made required payments for over a year and had not shown a good faith effort to comply with the rules. The court also noted that since there were new facts presented during the latest revocation hearing, the principle of res judicata, which prevents re-judging the same issue, did not apply. However, there was an issue identified with an added requirement for supervision after imprisonment. The court agreed that the requirement for one year of supervision after his sentence was not appropriate, as new laws did not apply to his case. In conclusion, while Eddings’ suspended sentence was revoked, the court ordered that the requirement for post-imprisonment supervision be removed.

Continue ReadingRE 2014-0536