Amended Judgment

F-2021-636

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-636, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of explosives, possession of a stolen vehicle, using a security camera or system while committing a felony, and possession of a firearm after a former conviction of a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial on the charge of using a security camera while committing a felony. The court affirmed the judgment on all other counts. One judge dissented. Eric Casey Zeiset was found guilty after the jury trial in Grady County. He was sentenced to a total of 620 years in prison for multiple offenses, including possession of explosives and firearms. Zeiset challenged several aspects of the trial, specifically arguing there was not enough proof of his intent or possession of the explosives. He also claimed the trial court made mistakes in jury instructions and that his long sentence was excessive. The court examined the evidence presented during the trial. Four improvised explosive devices were found in Zeiset's home. Experts testified that the way the explosives were packaged suggested they were intended to be used harmfully. The court noted that Zeiset had a history of being armed and had surveillance cameras around his house, which supported the jury's decision on his intent to use the explosives for illegal purposes. The court addressed errors in jury instruction regarding one of the charges, ruling that the absence of required instructions on using a security camera was a significant mistake that needed to be corrected. However, the other convictions, including possession of explosives, were upheld based on the evidence provided. Overall, the court found that while there were significant points raised in the appeal, the conviction for possession of explosives was supported by enough evidence. The decision emphasized the importance of appropriate jury instructions for fair trials.

Continue ReadingF-2021-636

F-2018-1144

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the case of William G. Epperly v. The State of Oklahoma (Case No. F-2018-1144), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court of Oklahoma County. The court found that the evidence presented during Epperly's trial was admissible, and his claims of error, including issues related to hearsay, relevance, and jury instructions, did not warrant reversal of his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. ### Key Points from the Court's Decision: 1. **Admission of Excited Utterance Evidence**: The court found that statements made by Tiffany Epperly (Epperly's spouse) to two witnesses fell under the excited utterance exception to hearsay, as she was under emotional stress when she reported witnessing the alleged abuse. 2. **Text Messages and Witness Testimony**: The court ruled that reading text messages sent by Sutphen to Tiffany Epperly was not hearsay because they were used to challenge Tiffany's credibility rather than to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Additionally, the testimony about Tiffany's changing demeanor was deemed relevant to the case. 3. **Witness Reading from Police Report**: Former Officer Richardson's reading from his police report, which included Tiffany Epperly's statements, was allowed because it served to impeach her trial testimony, not as hearsay. 4. **Internet Search Evidence**: The court deemed the evidence concerning Epperly's internet search about Oklahoma sex laws to be relevant, as it could suggest a consciousness of guilt. 5. **Judgment and Sentence Corrections**: The court noted that the issues regarding credit for time served and the $100 fine were resolved with an amended judgment, making that claim moot. 6. **Jury Instruction on Sex Offender Registration**: The court did not find that the failure to instruct the jury about sex offender registration constituted an error warranting relief, consistent with prior rulings. 7. **Cumulative Error Doctrine**: The court concluded that no individual errors occurred that would justify reversal and therefore found no merit in the cumulative error claim. ### Conclusion: The court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court, concluding that all claims raised by Epperly were without merit. The decision illustrates the court's adherence to evidentiary rules and its support for the discretion exercised by the trial judge in admitting evidence. For more detailed information, the full opinion can be accessed [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1144_1734787047.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-1144

RE-2016-929

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2016-1019, the appellant appealed his conviction for home repair fraud and robbery by force of fear. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but required the district court to modify its orders to reflect that the sentences should run concurrently. One judge dissented. Jerry Lynn Clemons pleaded guilty to home repair fraud and robbery in Muskogee County. He was given suspended sentences, meaning he wouldn't go to jail if he followed certain rules, which included reporting to a probation officer and paying fines. However, the state said Clemons didn't follow these rules by not reporting and changing his address without telling his probation officer. This led to a revocation hearing where the judge decided to enforce his suspended sentences. Clemons argued that he wasn't properly informed about the reasons for revoking his sentence. He also raised concerns about not being given enough evidence of his alleged failures, and about a mistake in the length of his punishment for the misdemeanor charge. Ultimately, some of his arguments were accepted, especially regarding sentencing errors, but the court found enough evidence to support the revocation of his sentence based on his failure to report and violating other conditions. The court directed that the modified orders clarify that the sentences were to be served at the same time instead of one after the other. Clemons also claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly, which might have affected his defense. However, the court concluded that Clemons did not prove this claim sufficiently. In summary, while the court agreed to fix some mistakes in his sentencing, it still upheld the decision to revoke his suspended sentences due to the established violations.

Continue ReadingRE-2016-929

M-2016-596

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2016-596, Lyndol Keith Nunley appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. The case began with a non-jury trial in which Nunley was found guilty of committing domestic abuse against someone he knew. The judge sentenced Nunley to pay a fine and to spend time in county jail. Initially, he was required to serve his jail time day for day, meaning he would serve the full year without any reductions. However, this requirement was later changed. Nunley appealed for three main reasons. First, he claimed his lawyer did not do a good job because there was no record of what happened during the trial, which made it hard for him to appeal. The court explained that to prove a lawyer was ineffective, a person must show how this caused them harm. Since Nunley did not give enough proof or show that any errors happened during the trial, his claim was not accepted. Second, Nunley argued that his sentence was too harsh. He believed the day for day term made his punishment excessive. However, since that requirement was removed after he filed his appeal, this argument was no longer valid. Lastly, Nunley pointed out that he received the maximum penalty allowed by law. The court noted that while it did impose the maximum jail time, his fine was much lower than what he could have received. The judges decided that Nunley did not show that his sentence was shocking or unfair, so they rejected his request to change it. In the end, the judges upheld the decision made in the lower court, meaning Nunley had to serve his sentence as it was decided.

Continue ReadingM-2016-596

RE-2013-1027

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-1027, Justin Michael Jay appealed his conviction for Forgery in the Second Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for corrections. One judge dissented. Justin Michael Jay was in trouble with the law and had a suspended sentence, which means he wouldn’t have to serve time in jail if he followed the rules. He had pleaded guilty to forgery and was given a suspended sentence of five years, but he had to spend the first 30 days in jail. However, things changed when he was accused of breaking the rules of his probation. The State, which is the side that brings charges, said that Jay did not pay the money he owed for supervision, restitution (the money owed to victims), and court costs. They also noted that Jay was charged with more crimes: Domestic Abuse and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Because of these new charges and failures to pay, the State asked the court to revoke Jay's suspended sentence. The court held a hearing to discuss Jay's situation. After listening to the evidence and arguments, the judge decided to revoke the rest of Jay's suspended sentence. This meant that Jay would have to serve the time he had left, which was almost five years. Later, the court filed a document that said Jay was revoked for 4 years and 335 days, and that he would have to be supervised after getting out of jail. Jay appealed this decision, arguing two main points. First, he claimed that the amount of time the judge revoked was wrong because he should have received credit for more days served when he was part of a special program for youthful offenders. Both Jay and the State agreed on this point, saying he should have been credited for 183 days instead of just 30. Therefore, they asked to change the revocation time to 4 years and 182 days. The second point Jay argued was that the court did not have the authority to order him to be under supervision after finishing his time in jail because the law about that only applies to those who were sentenced after November 1, 2012. Since Jay's original guilty plea and sentencing were before that date, the judge should not have included that supervision requirement. In the end, the court agreed with Jay on both points. They reversed the judgment that included the incorrect time and the unnecessary supervision requirement. They ordered the lower court to make the corrections and update the documents accordingly.

Continue ReadingRE-2013-1027

F-2008-127

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-127, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple offenses including False Declaration of Ownership in Pawn, Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, and various Computer Crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of the appellant from the Drug Court program but vacated one conviction for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer since the charges had been dismissed before the time of termination. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2008-127

F-2007-346

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-346, Shawn Dion Reid appealed his conviction for various drug-related offenses including possession of methamphetamine and marijuana with intent to distribute. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of Reid from the Drug Court Program; however, it vacated the judgments and sentences imposed on certain counts that had been dismissed prior to his guilty pleas. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2007-346

F 2003-1078

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-1078, Joseph Lee Rick Knight appealed his conviction for endeavoring to manufacture a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. However, it ordered a remand to the District Court of Creek County to vacate certain costs associated with the charges for which Knight was acquitted or not prosecuted. One judge dissented. Joseph Knight was found guilty after a bench trial, which means there was no jury, and the judge made the decision. The trial took place over several days, and Knight was sentenced to twenty years in prison, with nine years to be served and the rest suspended. Knight argued four main points in his appeal. First, he said that his arrest and the search of his home were not done lawfully. The court disagreed, stating that the search was allowed because Knight's wife gave permission, meaning the police did not need a warrant. Secondly, Knight claimed that he did not truly understand what it meant to give up his right to a jury trial. The court found that he had given up this right knowingly, so this point was also denied. The third point Knight made was that he could not cross-examine his co-defendant, whose statements were used against him. The court decided this was not a problem because the judge said those statements would only be considered for the co-defendant. Lastly, Knight believed that his sentence was too harsh. The court said the sentence was appropriate based on the laws and did not seem unfair. In summary, the court upheld Knight's conviction and kept his sentence the same but ordered some of the costs to be canceled because he was not convicted on all charges.

Continue ReadingF 2003-1078

F-2002-492

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-492, Scott Lee Fox appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill and Injury to a Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions and sentences, but reversed and dismissed the conviction for Injury to a Minor Child. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2002-492

RE 2001-0351

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0351, the appellant appealed his conviction for violating probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided in favor of the appellant, agreeing that the trial court made a mistake in ordering sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE 2001-0351