Aggravating Evidence

F-2018-1020

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document is an opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the case of Renese Bramlett, who was convicted of First Degree Murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The case summary includes the following key points: 1. **Background**: Bramlett's original conviction was affirmed, but his sentence was vacated, leading to a resentencing trial where the same life without parole sentence was imposed again. 2. **Appeal Issues**: Bramlett raised three main issues on appeal: - Alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. - Denial of due process due to the introduction of his prior felony convictions while being unable to present mitigating evidence. - A claim that the sentencing process should have been modified rather than remanded for resentencing. 3. **Court's Findings**: - **Prosecutorial Misconduct**: The Court found that the prosecutor's comments did not constitute inappropriate appeals to sympathy but were instead proper comments on the evidence. No relief was warranted. - **Due Process Concerns**: The Court upheld the procedure established by Oklahoma statute, which allows the State to introduce evidence of prior felony convictions without permitting the defendant to present mitigating evidence. The statutory framework was deemed to meet due process requirements. - **Remand vs. Modification**: The Court rejected Bramlett's argument that a modification of sentence was warranted. It ruled that the resentencing procedure did not disadvantage him, and there were no legal errors that warranted a modification of the sentence. 4. **Conclusion**: The Court affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court, confirming that the procedures followed during resentencing were consistent with due process and statutory law. The opinion also includes concurring opinions from Judges Lewis and Kuehn, who noted specific interpretations of the law regarding sentencing in noncapital cases. In summary, the Court's decision reinforces the legal standards governing the introduction of evidence during sentencing in noncapital murder cases and the limits on presenting mitigating evidence in light of prior felony convictions.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1020

J-2019-0092

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

**Summary of the Case: Jeremy Dwayne Lavorchek v. State of Oklahoma** **Court:** Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals **Case Number:** F-2018-263 **Decision Date:** June 13, 2019 **Overview:** Jeremy Dwayne Lavorchek was convicted by a jury in Garvin County for multiple crimes associated with an armed robbery at a pharmacy. The jury found him guilty on all counts, which included First Degree Robbery, Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony, Conspiracy to Commit a Felony, multiple counts of Kidnapping, and multiple counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. Following these convictions, the jury recommended life sentences on all counts. **Key Crimes Committed (Counts):** 1. First Degree Robbery 2. Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony 3. Conspiracy to Commit a Felony 4-6. Kidnapping (3 counts) 7-9. Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (3 counts) **Sentencing:** The trial court, upon sentencing, ordered the sentences for counts 2 through 9 to run concurrently but consecutively to Count 1, which meant that Lavorchek must serve 85% of the life sentence for the robbery before becoming eligible for parole. **Propositions of Error Raised on Appeal:** Lavorchek raised eight propositions, primarily focusing on claims of double punishment, denial of self-representation, ineffective assistance of counsel, errors in sentencing, and cumulative effect of errors. 1. **Double Punishment Allegations:** Lavorchek argued that his convictions for robbery and the various assaults and kidnappings constituted double punishment. The court rejected these claims, emphasizing that the crimes were distinct and occurred sequentially, and separate punishments were authorized. 2. **Self-Representation:** He contended he was denied the right to represent himself. However, the court upheld the trial judge's discretion, stating Lavorchek's request was made after the trial had already commenced, which could be seen as an abuse of the privilege. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Lavorchek claimed a continuance was wrongly denied, affecting his counsel's performance. The court found no constitutional deficiency as the counsel performed effectively under the circumstances. 4. **Fair Sentencing Hearing:** He alleged improper consideration of aggravating evidence at sentencing. The court found that the information presented was appropriate. 5. **Consecutive Sentencing:** Lavorchek argued the trial court abused its discretion by ordering consecutive sentences, but the court ruled this was within the judge's authority and not excessive. 6. **Cumulative Error:** The court ruled there was no error to accumulate since all propositions were denied. **Outcome:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment and sentence, indicating that Lavorchek received a fair trial and proper sentencing under the law. **Legal Principles Involved:** - Double jeopardy protections - Right to self-representation - Effective assistance of counsel - Sentencing discretion of trial courts - Cumulative error doctrine The case underscores the judicial principles guiding the implications of multiple charges arising from a single criminal event and the procedural safeguards in criminal trials. **Link:** For further reference, the full opinion can be found at [Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-0092_1734447399.pdf).

Continue ReadingJ-2019-0092

F-2017-1098

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1098, Rodger Dale Stevens appealed his conviction for performing a lewd act in the presence of a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Stevens' conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Stevens was found guilty of a serious crime because he masturbated in front of a seven-year-old boy. The court looked closely at the evidence to see if it proved Stevens was doing this for sexual gratification. The victim testified and provided strong evidence that Stevens derived satisfaction from what he did. Even though Stevens argued that he was just trying to help the boy feel comfortable with his body, the jury did not believe him. Stevens also argued that his punishment was too harsh. Since he had previous felony convictions, his sentence was enhanced under a specific law that allows for harsher penalties for repeat offenders. Stevens said the law was applied wrongly and that he should have received a lighter sentence, but the court found that the jury was correctly instructed on the range of punishment. He raised several other issues, including claims that irrelevant and prejudicial evidence was admitted, and that his lawyer did not defend him properly. However, the court upheld that the lawyer's actions did not negatively impact the trial's outcome. Stevens argued that the life sentence he received was excessive, even claiming the situation was not severe enough for such a strong punishment. The court disagreed, noting the nature and seriousness of the crime and confirming that the sentence was within legal limits and did not shock the conscience. In summary, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence, ruling that the evidence supported the jury's decision and that the legal procedures followed were appropriate.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1098

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

C-2005-120

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-120, Charles Hackney McBride appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Unlawful Possession of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to grant McBride's request and remand the case for a hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. McBride had entered a guilty plea to the charges in January 2004 and was placed in a rehabilitation program. After completing the program, he was sentenced in January 2005 to life imprisonment for manufacturing the controlled substance and one year in the county jail for marijuana possession. Eight days after his sentencing, McBride sought to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming his sentence was too harsh and he had not waived his right to a hearing. However, the district court denied his motion without holding a hearing, which was mandatory according to court rules. The appeals court acknowledged that McBride was entitled to this hearing to ensure proper procedures were followed. Therefore, the court decided to require the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on McBride's application to withdraw his plea, allowing him another chance to defend his claims.

Continue ReadingC-2005-120

F-1999-1652

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-99-1652, Mickey Lee Cosar appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute and Unlawful Possession of Paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided that his termination from the Drug Court program was not handled correctly and mandated a new termination hearing with proper notice. One judge dissented. The case began when Cosar entered a blind plea to the drug charges in September 1998 as part of a condition to join the Drug Court program, which allows individuals to receive treatment instead of immediate punishment. However, during the process, certain legal requirements were not met. A hearing in April 1999 determined that Cosar should be removed from the Drug Court program, which led to a sentencing hearing in May 1999 where he was sentenced to life in prison despite not having any prior serious convictions. On appeal, Cosar argued that he was denied due process because he was improperly arrested, was not given proper notice of the charges against him, and was not presented a fair hearing before a judge. He contended that his sentence was too harsh given his background and that it was improperly based on unproven allegations. The court found merit in Cosar’s claims. It noted that he did not receive written notice of the termination hearing, which is necessary, and that his due process rights were violated. The court emphasized that to follow proper legal procedures, a new hearing must be held where Cosar would receive notice of the reasons for his termination from the Drug Court. This notice must be clear enough for him to prepare a defense. Moreover, the court stated that the sentencing hearing was flawed because the judge considered improper evidence and unsworn testimony. The judge based the harsh life sentence on matters unrelated to the charges for which Cosar was convicted, including knowledge of allegations of a rape and murder that were not properly vetted in court. The decision noted that a judge should only consider evidence presented during the formal hearing process, which did not happen here. The court’s ruling ordered a new termination and, if necessary, a new sentencing hearing to be conducted by a different judge who would base the decision solely on the evidence presented appropriately. The conclusion stressed the importance of following the law to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, particularly within programs aimed at rehabilitating offenders. In summary, Cosar’s appeal highlighted the need for proper legal procedures in termination and sentencing hearings, emphasizing the rights of defendants to fair treatment under the law.

Continue ReadingF-1999-1652