In OCCA case No. F-2021-522, Trevor Leif Toppah appealed his conviction for Aggravated Assault and Battery, After Former Conviction of Three Felonies (Count 1), and Conspiracy to Commit Assault and Battery (Count 2). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court but modified the indigent defense fee. One judge dissented regarding the evidence for the conspiracy conviction.
In OCCA case No. F-2019-912, Charles Issac Jacobs appealed his conviction for Aggravated Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Jacobs was charged in McCurtain County after a jury found him guilty and sentenced him to two years in prison. During his appeal, he raised several points: 1. **Jurisdiction**: Jacobs argued that the State did not have authority to prosecute him because the victim was an Indian, and the crime happened in Indian Country. The trial court found that Jacobs was not an Indian according to legal standards, while the victim was. The court also determined that the crime took place within the boundaries of the Choctaw Reservation, meaning the State had the jurisdiction to proceed with the case. 2. **Self-Defense**: Jacobs claimed that he acted in self-defense when he assaulted the victim. The court noted that self-defense is a legal reason for actions that would typically be considered crimes. However, the court found there was enough evidence to show that Jacobs did not have a reasonable belief that he was in danger when he attacked the victim. 3. **Jury Instructions**: Jacobs requested that the jury be given a specific instruction about standing your ground during the trial. The court stated that whether to give specific jury instructions is up to the trial judge. They found that Jacobs did not meet the legal requirements for this instruction because there wasn’t enough evidence showing he was in a situation where he could lawfully defend himself. 4. **Monetary Fine**: At sentencing, the jury did not impose a fine, but the court record incorrectly showed a fine of $500 was imposed. The State and Jacobs both agreed that this was a mistake. The court instructed that this clerical error should be corrected. The main decision reached by the court was that Jacobs' conviction was upheld. They affirmed that the State had the right to prosecute him, and there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction. However, the court also ordered that the punishment record should be corrected to show that no fine was actually imposed.
In OCCA case No. F-2020-54, Floyd Joseph Ball, Jr. appealed his conviction for kidnapping, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, aggravated assault and battery, and disrupting an emergency telephone call. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand the case to the District Court of McClain County with instructions to dismiss the case. Ball's appeal raised several issues, particularly regarding the state's jurisdiction to prosecute him. He argued that he is an Indian under federal law and that the crimes occurred in Indian Country. The court recognized that these issues required more investigation. They sent the case back to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing to clarify whether Ball was indeed an Indian and whether the crimes took place in Indian Country. Both sides later agreed on a stipulation about the facts related to these questions. The District Court found that Ball had enough Indian blood and was recognized as an Indian by his tribe. It also determined that the crime happened on a reservation, meaning the State of Oklahoma had no jurisdiction to prosecute him for these crimes. The court ruled that Ball had proven his status and the location of the crimes, leading to the decision that the state could not prosecute him in this situation. The court decided that because of this finding, it did not need to address other claims raised by Ball and sent the case back to the lower court to dismiss it. Overall, the court recognized that Ball's rights under federal law regarding his Indian status and the location of the crime played a significant role in the outcome of the appeal.
In OCCA case No. F-2019-115, Beck appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including First Degree Burglary and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have the authority to prosecute him because he is recognized as an Indian and the crimes occurred in what is considered Indian Country. The result was that Beck's convictions were overturned, and the case was sent back with instructions to dismiss the charges. There was a dissenting opinion regarding the application of the law.
**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case Summary: Joshua Loyd Bullard v. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No.: F-2018-1061** **Date Filed:** January 30, 2020 --- **Overview:** Joshua Loyd Bullard was convicted in the District Court of Stephens County for several offenses, including Petit Larceny, Resisting a Peace Officer, and Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. The jury determined sentences for each count, ultimately resulting in consecutive sentences totaling eight years, along with fines. Bullard appealed on two grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. --- **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** - Claim: Bullard contended that his attorney failed to request a third competency evaluation. - Analysis: The court assessed this claim based on the two-pronged test from *Strickland v. Washington*. It determined that defense counsel did not provide deficient performance, noting that two prior evaluations had confirmed Bullard's competency. There was no evidence suggesting a change in Bullard's mental state warranting further evaluation. Thus, the court ruled that there was no ineffective assistance. 2. **Prosecutorial Misconduct:** - Claim: Bullard argued that improper comments by the prosecutor regarding his prior suspended sentence during closing arguments prejudiced his trial. - Analysis: The court found that without objection from Bullard's counsel, review was limited to plain error. The court determined that the prosecutor’s references were permissible as they pertained to relevant evidence of prior convictions. Furthermore, the outcome of the sentencing showed that the jury's verdict was reasonable and not influenced by any improper statements. --- **Decision:** The appeals court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court, finding no merit in either of Bullard's propositions for appeal. **Judgment: AFFIRMED.** --- **Note:** The decision referenced case law and standards concerning competency evaluations and prosecutorial conduct during trials, underscoring the adherence to procedural norms. **For the Full Text Access:** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1061_1734859049.pdf)
In OCCA case No. C 2019 329, Feeling appealed her conviction for Aggravated Assault and Battery and Assaulting a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to deny her appeal and affirm the lower court's decision. One judge dissented. [occa_caption]
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MARTIN OCHOA MEDINA,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2018-793** **FILED AUG 29 2019** JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant Martin Ochoa Medina appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Beckham County, Case No. CF-2017-275, for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, After Former Conviction of a Felony in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 652. The Honorable Doug Haught, District Judge, presided over Medina's jury trial and sentenced him, in accordance with the jury's verdict, to life imprisonment. Medina raises a single issue on appeal: whether he was denied a fair sentencing proceeding because of prosecutorial misconduct throughout the second stage of his bifurcated trial. **1. Prosecutorial Misconduct Claim** Medina contends he was denied a fair sentencing proceeding due to prosecutorial misconduct during the second stage of his trial. He specifically argues that the prosecutor improperly introduced details of his prior conviction, appealed to sympathy for the victim, and wrongly commented on the potential for him to commit future crimes. However, Medina failed to object to these comments during the trial, waiving review of this claim for all but plain error. **Reviewing for plain error**, the Court finds that Medina has not shown that any alleged prosecutorial misconduct affected the outcome of the trial. Arguments made during closing are considered within the context of the entire trial. While the prosecutor did make improper comments regarding future crimes, reviewing the totality of the circumstances, such comments did not significantly impact the fairness of the sentencing proceeding. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is **AFFIRMED**. --- **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** **CONCURRING IN PART/DISSENTING IN PART:** **HUDSON, J.:** I write separately to dissent regarding the finding of plain error related to the prosecutor's comments about the potential for future offenses. The majority's reference to prior case law does not fully support their conclusion, as the prosecutor's comments were grounded in the evidence presented during trial and were relevant to the discussion of Medina's history and behavior. The prosecutor's arguments were appropriate and based on the evidence regarding Medina's prior violent acts, which warranted discussion in the context of sentencing. There was no misuse of the argument to stir societal alarm but rather a legitimate consideration of the defendant's recidivism. Recidivism has always been a recognized basis for enhanced sentencing, and the defendant's past conviction of a violent crime aligns with the evidence presented during this trial. Therefore, I believe the prosecutor's comments were within the permissible bounds and the majority has incorrectly labeled this as error. I concur with the denial of relief for the remaining arguments but dissent regarding the assessment of error concerning the comments about future conduct. --- For further details, you can [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-793_1735216324.pdf).
In OCCA case No. RE 2018-0457, Tommy Lee Tucker appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery After Prior Conviction, Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation, and Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but remanded the case to the District Court to correct inconsistencies in the sentencing documents. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE 2018-0457, Tommy Lee Tucker appealed his conviction for domestic assault and battery along with other charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings to fix some inconsistencies in the records. One judge dissented.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAREN GLENN SELLERS,** **Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. RE-2018-925** **Filed May 23, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Jaren Glenn Sellers appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Pontotoc County District Court Case No. CF-2012-390. On September 13, 2013, Appellant entered negotiated Alford pleas to First Degree Rape (21 O.S.2011, § 1114) (Count 1) and Forcible Sodomy (21 O.S.2011, § 888) (Count 2). He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for ten years on each count, all suspended, to be served concurrently. On January 16, 2018, the State filed an amended application to revoke the suspended sentences alleging that Appellant committed the new crime of Aggravated Assault and Battery. A revocation hearing was held on August 27, 2018, before the Honorable Gregory Pollard, Special Judge. Judge Pollard granted the State's application and revoked seven years of Appellant's ten-year suspended sentences. On appeal, Appellant asserts the revocation was excessive. **ANALYSIS** At a hearing where the State seeks revocation of a suspended sentence, the question is whether the suspended portion of the sentence should be executed. The court makes a factual determination as to whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated. The violation need be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. A trial court's decision to revoke a suspended sentence should not be overturned absent a finding of an abuse of discretion. We do not find the decision to revoke seven years of Appellant's suspended sentences to be an abuse of discretion. The credibility of witnesses and the weight given their testimony are within the exclusive province of the trier of fact, who may believe or disbelieve the witnesses as it desires. The decision of the trial court to revoke a suspended sentence, in whole or in part, is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof. Judge Pollard considered all evidence presented during the revocation hearing. His decision to partially revoke Appellant's suspended sentence cannot be considered an abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The order of the district court of Pontotoc County revoking a portion of Appellant's suspended judgments and sentences in Case No. CF-2012-390 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. --- **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF PONTOTOC COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE GREGORY POLLARD, SPECIAL JUDGE** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:** LLOYD B. PALMER 1609 ARLINGTON ADA, OK 74820 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:** MARK P. HOOVER INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE:** TARA M. PORTILLO ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY P.O. BOX 146 ADA, OK 74821 **ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL:** MIKE HUNTER JENNIFER B. MILLER COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE 313 N.E. 21st STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **HUDSON, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-925_1734359840.pdf)
In OCCA case No. F-2012-212, Bryce Andrew Davis appealed his conviction for Aggravated Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the District Court abused its discretion in ordering restitution, and they remanded the case for modification of the restitution order. One member of the court dissented. The case began when Bryce Andrew Davis entered a plea to the crime of Aggravated Assault and Battery against a minor at a Walmart store. The minor suffered serious injuries, including a crushed cheekbone and an orbital wall fracture, needing significant medical treatment. After Davis completed a rehabilitation program, a hearing was held to determine the amount of restitution he would have to pay to cover the victim's expenses. The court ordered Davis to pay a total of $30,528.43 in restitution, which was meant to cover the victim's medical expenses, lost wages of his parents due to caring for him, travel costs for doctor visits, and fees for copying records. However, Davis argued that the restitution amount was too high and that the court had exceeded its authority by not limiting the amount to the actual economic loss suffered by the victim. The law states that restitution is only supposed to cover actual financial detriment suffered by the victim, meaning help for their real costs like medical bills that have to be paid out of pocket. Davis pointed out that the amount awarded to the victim included expenses that were not certain, such as lost wages for the victim's father and future medical costs. After reviewing the evidence and the court's decisions, the appellate court found that the trial court did not calculate the restitution correctly. They realized that the court had used the total medical bills before insurance adjustments, which was not allowed. Instead, they should have calculated the actual amount paid by the family, which was much lower. The court modified the restitution order to reflect three times the actual economic damage for medical costs, reducing that portion of the restitution significantly. They also struck down the father's lost wages because there was not enough proof to support the amount claimed. The future medical costs award was also removed because they were too uncertain and speculative. The decision outlined the need for a clear basis for any loss that a victim claims, stating that the evidence must be strong enough to establish real losses. The court upheld other parts of the restitution order, which were justified. In summary, the court found that while the victim suffered injuries and needed help, the original calculations for restitution went beyond what was allowed by law, leading to significant modifications in the amount that Davis would have to pay. They ordered adjustments to ensure that restitution reflected actual, proven losses.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-403, Eddie Ray Casey, Jr. appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property and Larceny of an Automobile. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Casey's suspended sentence but instructed the District Court to correct the record to reflect that nine total years were revoked. No one dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2009-89, the appellant appealed his conviction for burglary in the first degree and aggravated assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Murray a hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. One member dissented. William Jackson Murray pled nolo contendere to two serious crimes: burglary in the first degree and aggravated assault and battery. After pleading, he was sentenced to a total of thirty-five years in prison. Murray wanted to take back his pleas, so he filed a request to withdraw them. However, the judge denied his request without holding a hearing first. Murray argued that the trial court made a mistake by not giving him a hearing on his motion. He was right. The court looked at the case and saw that there should have been a hearing to discuss his request. Even though a date for a hearing was set, the judge made a decision before they could actually have the hearing. The court noted that it is important for a person to have a chance to speak about their request to withdraw a plea because it is a significant part of the trial process. Since he did not get this chance, the court decided that Murray deserved a hearing about his motion before any further decisions were made. The decision of the court was to allow Murray to have a hearing on his motion to withdraw his pleas. They sent the case back to the lower court so that the hearing could take place.
In OCCA case No. RE-2005-1032, Natalie Blades appealed her conviction for revocation of her suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentences but remanded the case to ensure that the sentences would run concurrently instead of consecutively. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE 2002-1124, Earnest Williams appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences in three cases but vacated the revocation of one case because it was found that the court did not have the authority to revoke that particular sentence. One judge dissented on part of the decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-558, Medlin appealed her conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree by Heat of Passion. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her judgment and dismiss the case. One judge dissented. The case began when a jury found Medlin guilty of Manslaughter for the shooting death of her husband, Jay Medlin. The jury sentenced her to four years in prison. Medlin argued that the trial court made a mistake by allowing instructions on a lesser charge of Manslaughter since she believed her actions were in self-defense due to previous abuse from her husband. Throughout their marriage, Medlin testified about the many times she and her children had been harmed by Jay. On the night of the shooting, after Jay verbally threatened the family and struck Medlin, she took a gun and shot him multiple times while he was asleep, believing she was defending herself and her children from further harm. At the appeal, the court determined that the evidence did not support a jury instruction on Manslaughter because Medlin had intended to kill her husband. The trial court's instructions to the jury were incorrect because they could only find that she had meant to cause death. Since the evidence only pointed to a conviction for murder, the court concluded that the previous conviction must be dismissed under the law. Thus, the court reversed the conviction and ordered the lower court to dismiss the case entirely, which also meant Medlin could not be tried for First Degree Murder again after the jury had found her not guilty of that charge. The dissenting opinion argued that the judge gave the jury a fair chance to decide based on the evidence presented and that the jury's actions were reasonable based on what they had seen and heard during the trial. In conclusion, the court's ruling in this case emphasized that if there is no substantial evidence showing that a lesser charge could apply, then that instruction should not be presented to the jury.