In OCCA case No. F-2016-937, Erik Sherney Williams appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the district court did not have jurisdiction to try Williams for murder because of the victim's status as an Indian and the location of the crime being on the Muscogee Creek Nation Reservation. The court vacated the judgment and sentence and instructed to dismiss the case. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. M-2019-664, the appellant appealed his conviction for illegal entry with unlawful intent, outraging public decency, and assault on a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for illegal entry but affirmed the convictions for outraging public decency and assault on a police officer. One judge dissented. James Brewer was accused of several misdemeanors after the police were called to his neighbor's house because he was trying to break in. The neighbor's children had reported the incident to their mother, who called the police. When officers arrived, they found Brewer in a neighboring home, naked on the floor, being restrained by his brother. He was not cooperative when the police tried to arrest him. During the trial, the court heard from police officers but did not hear directly from the neighbor or her children. The prosecution's case relied on the officers' testimonies about what they found and how they arrested Brewer. He represented himself during the trial with the help of standby counsel. Brewer raised several issues on appeal. First, he argued that he should have received credit for the time he spent in jail before the trial. The court explained that it is up to the trial judge to decide whether to give this credit and stated that there was insufficient information showing that he was unable to pay for a bond that would have let him out of jail before the trial. He also claimed the prosecutor made mistakes during the trial, like bringing up parts of his attitude that were not relevant and making comments during closing arguments. The court decided that the prosecutor's actions did not unfairly affect the trial. Brewer argued that there was not enough evidence for his conviction for illegal entry. The court agreed that the evidence was weak because the neighbor and her children did not testify and there was no direct proof linking him to tampering with the air conditioners. His other claims related to cross-examination and the wording of the charges against him were found to be insufficient to overturn the convictions for the other two charges. His conviction for the illegal entry was reversed, meaning the prosecution could not pursue it further, but the convictions for outraging public decency and assault on a police officer were upheld. One judge had a different opinion and dissented from the majority ruling.
In OCCA case No. F-2019-605, Jerome Matthew McConell appealed his conviction for Obtaining Merchandise by False Pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court, except for certain parts which were stricken. One member of the court dissented. McConell was found guilty after a bench trial in the District Court of McCurtain County. He was sentenced to thirty months in prison, but he argued that his trial was unfair for three main reasons. First, he claimed he was not allowed to confront some witnesses properly because hearsay evidence was permitted. Hearsay is when someone testifies about what another person said outside of court, which usually isn't allowed as direct evidence. However, the court found no real error in this situation because McConell's lawyer brought up the same issues during questioning. Therefore, the court did not see a violation of his rights. Second, McConell argued that evidence from another incident should not have been allowed by the court because the state did not give proper notice about it. However, the court decided that the evidence was relevant and no mistakes were made in permitting it. Lastly, McConell noted that the written sentence and conditions after his trial did not match what was discussed in court. The judge had ordered conditions that he should not enter a casino and also mentioned costs for prosecution that were not allowed under the law. The court agreed that these parts of the judgment were incorrect and decided to strike them from his sentence. In summary, the appeals court did affirm McConell's conviction, meaning they upheld the trial's decision, but they corrected some errors in how his sentence was recorded and ordered the lower court to make those changes.
In OCCA case No. RE-2019-19, Daniel Lee Hart appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that revoking his suspended sentence without him being present was a violation of his right to due process, and therefore, the revocation was reversed. One judge dissented. Daniel Lee Hart originally pleaded guilty in 2009 to trying to manufacture a controlled substance. He was given a 20-year sentence, with 12 years of that being suspended, meaning he didn't have to serve that part of the time as long as he followed certain rules. One of those rules was that he had to stay clean from drugs and check in regularly with his probation officer. In 2017, the state said that Hart had broken the rules. They said he had used drugs, didn’t show up for meetings with his probation officer in both Oklahoma and Kansas, didn’t register as a drug offender in Kansas, didn’t pay fees for his probation, and hadn’t completed his GED as he was supposed to. Hart later agreed to these claims but was able to be released for drug treatment for a few months before being sentenced. When the time came for his sentencing, Hart did not show up. Because he was absent, the court revoked the suspended part of his sentence completely. This meant he would have to serve the full 20 years instead of just the 8 years that he had left to serve. Hart appealed this decision, saying it was unfair for the court to make such a serious decision without him being there. The court looked at whether Hart's absence affected his right to defend himself. They said that everyone has the right to be present when decisions are made about their punishment. The court noted that Hart had not willingly chosen to skip the sentencing and that his absence could have greatly impacted the outcome. Because of these reasons, the court said Hart deserved a new hearing where he could be present to possibly explain why he wasn’t there and defend himself more fully. The final decision was to send the case back for another hearing. They wanted to make sure Hart had a fair chance to be present when the consequences of his actions were discussed again. In summary, because Hart was missing during a very important hearing, the court agreed that this was a mistake. They reversed the earlier decision and ordered a new hearing where he could be present.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-894, Olubanji Milton Macaulay appealed his conviction for possession of counterfeit driver licenses. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm some counts but reverse others. One judge dissented. Summary: Olubanji Milton Macaulay was found guilty by a jury of seven counts of possessing counterfeit driver licenses after a trial in Oklahoma. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison, with sentences running at the same time for each count. He argued that law enforcement illegally searched his rental car, that he faced double punishment for the same crime, and that the trial court wrongly refused to instruct the jury about missing video evidence. When he appealed, the court looked closely at each of his claims. About the first point, the court ruled that the police had the right to search the car because Macaulay had given up any claim of privacy when he said he walked to the bank and did not indicate he owned the vehicle. Thus, his evidence was allowed in court. Regarding the second point, Macaulay claimed he should only be charged with one count since he possessed all the fake IDs in one event. The court agreed that multiple counts for a single act were not allowed. They found he should only be guilty of two counts: one for fake ID he took into the bank and another for the ID found in his car. On the third point about the jury instruction regarding the missing bank video, the court said there was no proof that the police acted in bad faith. Therefore, the request for a jury instruction explaining this did not need to be granted. In summary, the court upheld some of his convictions while reversing others, leading the case forward to dismiss those extra counts.
In OCCA case No. C-2019-15, Nicholas Allan Daniel appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder (Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance) and Robbery with a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his request for a writ of certiorari, modifying his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder while reversing his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm. One judge dissented from this opinion. Nicholas Daniel faced serious charges after being accused of killing a man while trying to sell drugs and also robbing him. He pleaded guilty to these charges but later wanted to withdraw his plea. He felt that his lawyer did not help him enough during the process, and he raised several reasons for this claim. He argued that the lawyer had a conflict of interest, that he did not fully understand the consequences of his plea, that the plea lacked a good factual basis, and that he did not get effective help from his lawyer. The court carefully examined each of Daniel's arguments. In the first argument, the court found no real conflict of interest because Daniel’s dissatisfaction stemmed from the state’s evidence and the sentence, not from his lawyer's performance. In the second argument, it was decided that Daniel had entered the plea with a clear understanding that he would face sentencing and that it was done voluntarily. For the third argument, about the factual basis for his felony murder conviction, the court found that there were issues with how the charges were presented. It was determined that the way Daniel described the incident in his plea was inadequate to meet the legal requirements for felony murder because he was treated primarily as a buyer, not a seller of drugs. Thus, the combined crimes could not both stand. In terms of Daniel's claims against his lawyer's effectiveness, the court acknowledged that his lawyer could have done better. However, it ruled against some of Daniel's more serious arguments on the effectiveness of his lawyer, finding that he did not provide sufficient proof that his lawyer’s actions negatively affected his defense. In the final decision, the court adjusted Daniel's felony murder conviction based on the issues around how the charges were processed and reversed the robbery conviction, as it should not stand alongside the adjusted murder charge. Ultimately, the court confirmed Daniel's modified conviction for felony murder but sent the case back regarding the robbery count. One judge disagreed with parts of this conclusion, stating that the trial court had not made a mistake in the first place and therefore should not have granted the appeal. The judge argued that since Daniel's plea was expressed clearly and voluntarily, it should have been upheld without modification. The judge emphasized the importance of adhering to proper legal processes and rules when making such determinations. Thus, the outcome celebrated the importance of ensuring that legal principles and procedures are correctly applied, even as it affirmed Daniel’s conviction under modified circumstances.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-1263, Leatherwood appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree, Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Possession of a Firearm During Commission of a Felony, Maintaining a Place for Keeping/Selling Controlled Substances, and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. Travis Michael Leatherwood fatally shot Aaron Smith on Halloween night in 2017. They were once friends and worked together selling marijuana, but their friendship soured when Smith stole marijuana from Leatherwood. On the night of the shooting, Smith, upset by an exchange of insults with Leatherwood, went to confront him, unarmed. Leatherwood shot Smith with a rifle before he could say a word. Smith later died from the gunshot wound. After the shooting, police found a lot of evidence connecting Leatherwood to marijuana distribution at his home, including a rifle that he had used to shoot Smith and other drug-related items. Leatherwood argued in court that he acted in self-defense, but the jury did not agree. They concluded that he was the aggressor, especially since he called Smith a coward and provoked him. The jury found him guilty of first-degree murder, along with several drug-related charges. Leatherwood raised multiple issues on appeal, including claims that the state did not prove he acted outside of self-defense, that the court gave confusing jury instructions, allowed improper amendments to the charges, and that he had ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the court disagreed with all of his claims. In terms of self-defense, the court ruled that Leatherwood’s actions and words indicated he was not acting in self-defense but rather was the one who provoked the situation. He had armed himself before Smith arrived and shot him before any confrontation occurred. The court also discussed the jury instructions, concluding that the district court did not err by omitting instructions on a lesser charge of heat of passion manslaughter since there was no evidence to support that Smith's actions would provoke such a response from Leatherwood. As for the amendment of charges, the court determined that Leatherwood was sufficiently informed of the charges he faced and that he could defend against them adequately. The evidence showed that he had both the firearm and the controlled substances as part of his operations, fulfilling the requirements for his convictions. Leatherwood's claim that his lawyer was ineffective was also denied because the court found that the lawyer's strategies were reasonable given the overwhelming evidence against Leatherwood. The lawyer focused his arguments on the more serious murder charge rather than the drug offenses, which the jury could have easily decided against Leatherwood irrespective of those counts. Finally, the court ruled that Leatherwood's sentence was not excessive given the nature of the crime and his actions. The judge pointed out that the jury was aware of his age (20 at the time of the crime) and other circumstances, which did not make the sentence shockingly excessive. Ultimately, the court affirmed Leatherwood's convictions and ordered a separate hearing regarding the restitution amount, which needed to be calculated more accurately.
In OCCA case No. CF-2012-206, the appellant appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court affirmed the revocation of his suspended sentence. The appellant failed to pay restitution and supervision fees, and he was found guilty of a new crime, Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the sentence based on these violations. One judge dissented, arguing that the appellant’s failure to pay was not willful and should have been considered.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DUSTIN SCOTT PATTON,** Appellant, Case No. F-2018-957 **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Dustin Scott Patton was convicted in the District Court of Kay County, Case No. CF-2017-258, of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, violating 21 O.S.2011, § 652(C). A jury recommended a ten-year sentence, and Honorable David Bandy, District Judge, imposed the sentence as per the jury's verdict. Patton appeals with two propositions of error. 1. **The modified jury instruction improperly relieved the State of proving an essential element of the crime charged.** 2. **Appellant was deprived of a fair trial due to numerous pleas for sympathy for the victim during trial.** Upon thorough review of the record and arguments presented, we find no grounds for relief. Patton's judgment and sentence are **AFFIRMED**. **Proposition I:** Patton concedes he did not object to Instruction No. 24 at trial, necessitating plain error review. To establish plain error, Patton must show an actual error that is obvious and affects his substantial rights. Previous case law indicates that certain weapons, like knives, are per se deadly weapons. Instruction No. 24, which classified a knife as a deadly weapon, was not erroneous, and thus Proposition I is **denied**. **Proposition II:** For prosecutorial misconduct claims, relief is granted only if the misconduct renders the trial fundamentally unfair. Patton only objected to the display of the victim’s scars. The presentation of the victim’s injuries primarily served to illustrate the crime's severity and the use of force, which was pertinent to the charges against Patton. This evidence was not unduly prejudicial, and thus, Proposition II is also **denied**. **DECISION:** The District Court's Judgment and Sentence are **AFFIRMED**. *Issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.* **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J. --- For further details, you can download the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-957_1734873972.pdf).
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CAMERON LEE SCHEMMER,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2018-1023** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAN 23 2020** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Appellant, Cameron Lee Schemmer, was tried by the court and convicted of Count 1, Forcible Sodomy, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 888, and Counts 2-4, Lewd Molestation, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1123, in Kingfisher County District Court, Case No. CF-2017-96. The trial court sentenced Appellant to twenty years imprisonment with all but the last five years suspended for Count 1. For Counts 2-4, the court sentenced him to twenty-five years imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently to one another but consecutively to the sentence for Count 1. As a result, Appellant will be required to serve 85% of his sentences before becoming eligible for parole, as per 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1. From this judgment and sentence, Appellant appeals, raising the following propositions of error: **I.** The record in this case does not sufficiently demonstrate that Appellant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. **II.** Mr. Schemmer received an excessive sentence when the trial court followed the wrong sentencing statute. Upon thorough consideration of these propositions and the entire record, including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we find no relief is warranted under the law and evidence presented. **Proposition I:** Appellant argues that the record is insufficient to support a finding that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. Since he did not object before the non-jury trial, we review this claim for plain error, as established in *Simpson v. State*, 1994 OK CR 40, 876 P.2d 690. Plain error requires that Appellant demonstrate an actual error that is plain or obvious and affects substantial rights. A defendant may waive their right to a jury trial, but the waiver must be knowingly, competently, and intelligently made. The record shows that prior to trial, the court engaged in a colloquy with Appellant regarding his jury trial waiver. Appellant confirmed his satisfaction with his attorney and expressly indicated his desire to waive the jury trial right. This established a knowing and intelligent waiver by Appellant. Therefore, we deny this proposition as the trial court's assessment was in compliance with the law. **Proposition II:** Appellant contends his sentence is illegal because the Information alleged that R.N. was a child under sixteen, not under twelve. Thus, Appellant argues that the sentencing range should have been from one or three years to twenty years instead of a minimum of twenty-five years, as required when the child is under the age of twelve. Since Appellant failed to object at sentencing, we again look for plain error. The Information indicated that R.N. was under the age of sixteen at the time of the offenses, and the evidence revealed she was ten years old when the abuse began and eleven when it ceased. Appellant was charged under 21 O.S.2011, § 1123(A), which necessitates a minimum of twenty-five years imprisonment when the child is under twelve years of age. A court in a non-jury trial retains the presumption of knowing the law correctly. The facts show that R.N. was indeed under twelve when the offenses occurred, and the court found this circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the claim of an illegal sentence based on an erroneous application of the statute is without merit. **DECISION:** The **JUDGMENT and SENTENCE is AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the **MANDATE is ORDERED issued** upon this ruling. **APPEARANCES:** **Trial Counsel:** Blayne Allsup **Appellate Counsel for Appellant:** Cindy Brown Danner **Counsel for State:** John Salmon, Assistant District Attorney, and Theodore M. Peepers, Assistant Attorney General. **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE:** CONCURS **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur in Result **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J., CONCURRING IN RESULT:** While I concur with the outcomes reached, I note a discrepancy in the standard of review applied to Proposition I. The burden rests with the State to prove any constitutional error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as highlighted in *Chadwell v. State* and *Chapman v. California*. The majority's application of the plain error standard does not recognize this shifting burden adequately. **[Document ends here]**
In this case summary, Alfonzo Lamonse Vineyard was convicted of multiple charges in the District Court of Tulsa County, including Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, First Degree Burglary, Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony, and several counts of Obstructing an Officer, among others. The jury found Vineyard guilty on all counts except one (Assault and Battery), and the court subsequently sentenced him to life imprisonment on the more serious counts, with concurrent and consecutive terms for other counts. Vineyard's appeal raised five main issues: 1. **Waiver of Right to Counsel**: The court found that Vineyard’s waiver of his right to counsel was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. He was adequately informed of the risks associated with self-representation. 2. **Right to Confrontation**: Vineyard argued that his right to confront witnesses was violated when the court allowed the reading of the victim's preliminary hearing testimony, as she did not appear at trial. The court found that the state had made sufficient efforts to locate the victim and that her unavailability was justified, thus upholding the admission of her prior testimony. 3. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Vineyard contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. The court determined that the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 4. **Lesser Included Offense Instruction**: Vineyard argued that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of Pointing a Firearm. While the court acknowledged that the lack of instruction was error, it did not affect the trial's outcome, and therefore did not warrant reversal. 5. **Cumulative Error**: Lastly, Vineyard claimed that the cumulative effect of errors warranted a new trial. The court found no individual errors that affected the trial's fairness, thus rejecting this claim. Ultimately, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence, concluding that none of the raised issues warranted relief. The decision highlighted the adherence to established legal standards regarding self-representation, confrontation rights, evidentiary sufficiency, jury instructions, and cumulative error analysis. [Download the full opinion here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1188_1734784723.pdf).
The document you provided outlines a legal case involving Jose Santiago Hernandez, who had his suspended sentences revoked due to alleged perjury. Here’s a summary of the key points: 1. **Background**: Hernandez entered a guilty plea to charges of robbery with a firearm and conspiracy in January 2017, resulting in a ten-year sentence with the last five years suspended. 2. **Revocation**: The State filed an application to revoke his suspended sentences on the grounds that he committed perjury by providing false statements regarding his co-defendant's involvement in the robbery during court proceedings. 3. **Hearing**: A revocation hearing took place on December 19, 2018, where the judge found that Hernandez did not provide truthful testimony. The judge ruled in favor of the State's application to revoke his suspended sentences. 4. **Appeal**: Hernandez appealed the revocation, arguing that the State did not present sufficient evidence of perjury, violating his due process rights. 5. **Court's Decision**: The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that violations of suspended sentences need only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation and found no abuse of discretion by the trial court. 6. **Conclusion**: The revocation of Hernandez's suspended sentences was upheld. For any further inquiries or specific details about the case, feel free to ask!
In OCCA case No. RE 2018-1288, Jose Santiago Hernandez appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and conspiracy to commit a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Hernandez had pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm and conspiracy in 2017, getting a ten-year sentence for each count, but only had to serve five years if he followed the rules set for his probation. The State accused him of perjury, claiming he lied during a court proceeding about his co-defendant's involvement in the crime. During a hearing in December 2018, the judge found enough evidence to revoke Hernandez’s suspended sentences because he did not truthfully testify. Hernandez argued that the State did not show he committed perjury, but the court explained that they only needed to prove the violation of his probation terms by presenting a greater weight of evidence. The court concluded that they had enough evidence to believe Hernandez had broken the rules. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision to revoke his suspended sentences, meaning he would have to serve the full ten years.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Filed December 12, 2019** **Conner E. Dover, Petitioner, Case No. C-2019-25** **v.** **The State of Oklahoma, Respondent.** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Conner E. Dover, Petitioner, pled guilty to Count 1, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, in violation of 47 O.S.2011, § 4-402; and Count 2, aggravated attempting to elude a police officer, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 540(A)(B), in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2018-610. The Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, accepted the plea and delayed sentencing pending Petitioner's completion of a Regimented Inmate Discipline program. Judge Elliott later sentenced Petitioner to five (5) years imprisonment for each count, to be served consecutively. Petitioner filed an application to withdraw the plea, which was denied. He now seeks a writ of certiorari, asserting the following proposition of error: The trial court abused its discretion by not allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea when the court did not intend to sentence him in accordance with the plea agreement. Certiorari review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently before a court of competent jurisdiction (Weeks v. State, 2015 OK CR 16, ¶ 11, 362 P.3d 650, 654); whether the sentence is excessive (Whitaker v. State, 2015 OK CR 1, ¶ 9, 341 P.3d 87, 90); whether counsel was constitutionally effective (Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, ¶ 27, 932 P.2d 22, 31); and whether the State has the authority to prosecute the defendant at all (Weeks, 2015 OK CR 16, ¶ 12, 362 P.3d at 654). A valid plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant (North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S. Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)). We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea for an abuse of discretion (Carpenter v. State, 1996 OK CR 56, ¶ 40, 929 P.2d 988, 998), unless it involves a question of statutory or constitutional interpretation, which we review de novo (Weeks, 2015 OK CR 16, ¶ 16, 362 P.3d at 654). We find that Petitioner's plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. Petitioner’s dissatisfaction with the sentences he received does not provide sufficient grounds for withdrawal of a plea (Lozoya, 1996 OK CR 55, ¶ 44, 932 P.2d at 34; Estell v. State, 1988 OK CR 287, ¶ 7, 766 P.2d 1380, 1383). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Petitioner's motion to withdraw the plea. No relief is warranted. **DECISION** The petition for the writ of certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence 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. **APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** ROBIN BRUNO ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER DANNY WHITE 320 ROBERT S. KERR # 611 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT (PLEA & SENTENCING) **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** THOMAS P. HURLEY 320 ROBERT S. KERR # 611 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 (WITHDRAWAL) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT DAN POND ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 320 ROBERT S. KERR # 505 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur in Results **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur For more details, [click here to download the PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2019-25_1733763771.pdf).
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Richard James Nunes, Appellant,** **-VS-** **The State of Oklahoma, Appellee.** **Case No. RE-2018-1236** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant, Richard James Nunes, appeals from the revocation of his eight-year suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2014-450 by the Honorable George Butner, District Judge, in the District Court of Seminole County. **Background:** On March 12, 2015, Nunes entered a guilty plea to Possession of a Stolen Vehicle (felony) and Altering License Plate/Decal (misdemeanor). He was sentenced to ten years on the felony, with the first two years to be served and the remainder suspended, and one year on the misdemeanor to be served concurrently. On December 27, 2017, the State filed a motion to revoke Nunes' suspended sentence, alleging probation violations. An initial appearance occurred on January 23, 2018, followed by the appointment of counsel on February 2, 2018. Nunes was released on bond on February 8, 2018 but failed to appear for a scheduled hearing on February 15, 2018. A hearing was ultimately held on November 26, 2018, where the probation officer testified that Nunes never reported after his release and was considered an absconder. Despite Nunes' testimony providing varying explanations for his actions, Judge Butner concluded that he violated probation and revoked the suspended sentence in full. **Proposition of Error:** Nunes asserts the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his suspended sentence because the revocation hearing was not timely. **Analysis:** According to 22 O.S.Supp.2016, § 991b(A), a revocation hearing must be held within twenty days following a plea of not guilty to the motion to revoke, unless waived. Nunes contends he never entered a plea and thus the hearing was untimely. However, as acknowledged by the State and Nunes himself, he never formally entered a plea of not guilty, meaning the twenty-day timeframe was never initiated. Moreover, the delay in the revocation hearing was primarily due to Nunes absconding and not fulfilling his responsibilities, further complicating the matter. **Decision:** The order of the District Court of Seminole County revoking Nunes' eight-year suspended sentence is therefore AFFIRMED. **OPINION BY: HUDSON, J.** **CONCUR: LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J. (CONCUR IN RESULTS); LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J.** --- For the full decision document, please visit the following link: [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-1236_1734353731.pdf)
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOHNNY W. WARD,** Appellant, v. **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2019-16** **FILED DEC 12 2019** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Appellant Johnny W. Ward was tried by jury and found guilty of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon (Count I) (21 O.S.2011, § 652) and Possession of a Firearm (Count II) (21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 1283), both counts After Former Conviction of A Felony, in the District Court of Muskogee County, Case No. CF-2017-1155. The jury recommended as punishment imprisonment for thirty (30) years in Count I and ten (10) years in Count II. The trial court sentenced accordingly, ordering the sentences to be served concurrently. It is from this judgment and sentence that Appellant appeals. Appellant must serve 85% of his sentence in Count I before becoming eligible for consideration for parole. 21 O.S.2011, § 13.1. **Appellant raises the following propositions of error in support of his appeal:** 1. The eyewitness identification of Appellant was based upon an overly suggestive, one-man show-up that violated Appellant's rights to due process and a fair trial. 2. The State's evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed the crimes of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony Conviction and his convictions must therefore be reversed with instructions to dismiss. 3. Appellant's sentence is excessive and should be modified. After thorough consideration of these propositions and the entire record, we have determined that under the law and the evidence no relief is warranted. **Proposition I:** Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress the in-court identification made by Ms. Davidson after an on-the-scene one person show-up. Appellant argues the pre-trial identification was unnecessarily suggestive and tainted the subsequent identification of Appellant at trial. A one man show-up is not necessarily unduly suggestive or improper. Young v. State, 2000 OK CR 17, ¶ 30, 12 P.3d 20, 34. Absent special elements of unfairness, prompt on-the-scene confrontations [between a victim and a suspect] do not entail due process violations.... Harrolle v. State, 1988 OK CR 223, ¶ 7, 763 P.2d 126, 128, quoting Russell v. United States, 408 F.2d 1280, 1284 (D.C.Cir.1969). The one person show-up in this case was not unduly suggestive or so improper as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress the identification. However, even if the show-up was unduly suggestive, the same would not automatically invalidate the subsequent in-court identification if that identification can be established as independently reliable under the totality of the circumstances. Young, 2000 OK CR 17, ¶ 31, 12 P.3d at 34. Under the circumstances of this case, we find the in-court identification reliable. As the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing into evidence the in-court identification of Appellant, this proposition of error is denied. **Proposition II:** Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. He argues the State failed to show he had anything to do with the alleged crimes. Appellant asserts that the State's evidence showed only that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, evidence showed that Appellant shot his victim in the knee and buttock as the victim begged for his life. Appellant then ran away from the scene, discarding the gun he used and a hoodie he was wearing. Reviewing Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Mitchell v. State, 2018 OK CR 24, ¶ 11, 424 P.3d 677, 682. Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is denied. **Proposition III:** Appellant argues that his sentence is excessive and should be modified. He asserts that while his sentence is technically within the range provided by law, it does not bear a direct relationship to the nature and circumstances of the offenses. However, Appellant's sentences were within the applicable statutory range (21 O.S.2011, §§ 652(A), 1284 and 51.1(C)). This Court will not modify a sentence within the statutory range unless, considering all the facts and circumstances, it shocks the conscience. Pullen v. State, 2016 OK CR 18, ¶ 16, 387 P.3d 922, 928. The evidence showed that despite having a prior robbery conviction, Appellant was in possession of a gun, which he used to shoot the victim multiple times as the victim begged for his life. Under these circumstances, the 30 year and 10 year sentences are not excessive. Therefore, modification of the sentences is not warranted and this proposition is denied. Accordingly, this appeal is denied. **DECISION** The JUDGMENT and SENTENCE 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 the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MUSKOGEE COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE THOMAS H. ALFORD, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** BRIAN WATTS 222 N. 4TH ST. MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** NICOLLETTE BRANDT OKLA. INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **ORVIL LOGE** DISTRICT ATTORNEY TIM KING ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY MUSKOGEE CO. COURTHOUSE MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **MIKE HUNTER** ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA CAROLINE E.J. HUNT ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21ST ST. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur --- [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2019-16_1734781599.pdf)
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AARON THOMAS BROCK,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2018-562** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Aaron Thomas Brock was convicted by jury of robbery with a dangerous weapon and conspiracy to commit a felony in Oklahoma County District Court, receiving a total sentence of thirty-five years imprisonment. He appeals with two propositions of error. **Proposition One: IAD Violation** Brock argues his rights under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) were violated when the State did not bring him to trial within the mandated 180 days. The trial court ruled that no proper detainer was lodged against him as required by Article III of the IAD. Brock contends that a documentation was sent to the appropriate authorities, triggering the IAD timeline. The trial court determined that there was no evidence of a proper detainer because the Oklahoma County District Attorney's office and the Court Clerk's office had no record of receiving documentation from Brock. Notably, the trial court found a facsimile from the Sheriff's office did not constitute a proper detainer as defined by case law (Fex v. Michigan). The Court agreed with the trial court's findings, ruling that Brock failed to provide sufficient documentation and credible evidence to support his claims. **Proposition Two: Insufficient Evidence** In his second proposition, Brock asserts that the evidence was insufficient to uphold the conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. The standard for reviewing evidence requires this Court to determine if, viewing the evidence favorably to the prosecution, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The facts presented included testimony that a knife was brandished toward a victim and that money was taken by a co-defendant and given to Brock. The Court found that this evidence met the elements for robbery with a dangerous weapon, reinforcing that the presence of fear in the victim suffices for conviction. **Decision** Both propositions of error raised by Brock are denied. The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. A mandate will issue upon filing this decision. **Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County** The Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge **Attorneys for Appellant**: Nick Southerland, Andrea Digilio Miller, Micah Sielert **Attorneys for Appellee**: Kelly Collins, Mike Hunter, Lori McConnell, Jennifer B. Miller **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **CONCURRING:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. [**Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-562_1735316443.pdf)
In OCCA case No. F-2018-481, Derrick Lamont Garrett appealed his conviction for kidnapping and burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Garrett's conviction. One judge dissented. Garrett was tried and found guilty by a jury for kidnapping and burglary. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, with the sentences running one after the other. Garrett's appeal raised several points of error regarding his trial, such as claims that there wasn't enough evidence to support his convictions, that some evidence was wrongly excluded, and concerns about the jury selection process. The court looked carefully at the arguments and decided that the trial was fair, and the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdicts. They noted that Garrett had requested specific jury instructions that he later challenged, which the court found was not a valid complaint. They also stated that the eyewitness testimony was handled correctly and that the exclusion of some evidence didn’t violate Garrett's rights. Regarding the jury selection, the court stated that Garrett did not prove any discrimination occurred in the way jurors were chosen. Since they found no significant errors in the trial, they affirmed the conviction, meaning Garrett must continue to serve his sentences.
In OCCA case No. N 2019-125, Blessing appealed his conviction for child abuse. In a published decision, the court upheld the denial of his motion to withdraw his no contest plea, stating the plea was entered properly and there was no ineffective assistance of counsel. One judge dissented. [occa_caption]
The document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma regarding the case of Bryan Lee Guy, who was appealing his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. Below is a concise breakdown of the case and its outcome: ### Case Overview: - **Appellant**: Bryan Lee Guy - **Appellee**: The State of Oklahoma - **Court**: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma - **Original Jurisdiction**: District Court of Tulsa County - **Case Number**: F-2018-1083 - **Trial Judge**: Honorable Dawn Moody - **Sentence**: Thirty-seven years imprisonment (with a requirement to serve 85% before parole eligibility) ### Issues on Appeal: 1. **Instruction on Inconsistent Statements**: Guy argued that the jury was not properly instructed regarding the use of a victim's prior inconsistent statements. The court concluded this omission was not plain error and did not affect the trial's outcome. 2. **Conflicting Instructions**: Guy contended that jury instructions about the return of the verdict and lesser offenses were conflicting. The court found no plain error in these instructions, stating they did not misdirect the jury. 3. **Post-Imprisonment Supervision Instruction**: Guy challenged the inclusion of an instruction on mandatory post-imprisonment supervision, which the court acknowledged was given in error but did not constitute plain error affecting his rights. 4. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Guy claimed his attorney was ineffective on several grounds, including not reasserting a pretrial motion to dismiss and failing to take judicial notice of prior convictions. The court found no merit in these claims, concluding Guy could not show that these alleged deficiencies affected the trial outcome. ### Court's Decision: - The court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court. - Guy's request for an evidentiary hearing to further support his claim of ineffective assistance was denied. ### Conclusion: The appeal did not result in a reversal of the conviction or sentence, as the court found that the issues raised were either without merit or did not rise to the level of plain error that would impact the fairness of the trial.
**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma Summary Opinion** **Appellant:** David Martinez **Appellee:** The State of Oklahoma **Case No.:** F-2018-647 **Filed:** December 5, 2019 **Presiding Judge:** Lewis **Summary:** David Martinez was convicted in a bench trial of lewd or indecent acts to a child under 16, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2015 § 1123(A)(2). The trial was held in the District Court of Beckham County under Judge Doug Haught, who sentenced Martinez to ten years in prison, with the majority of the sentence suspended after serving six years. Martinez raised several propositions of error in his appeal: 1. **Allegation of Lewd Molestation without Corroboration:** - Martinez claimed his due process rights were violated because M.C.'s testimony was unbelievable and lacked corroboration. The court upheld that the general rule allows conviction based on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix if it is clear and unambiguous. The court found M.C.'s testimony sufficient and denied this proposition. 2. **Right to a Certified Interpreter:** - Martinez, who does not speak English, argued he was denied a certified interpreter. The court noted that the presumption of regularity in legal proceedings applies, and without evidence that interpretation was inaccurate or that it affected the trial’s outcome, this claim was denied. 3. **Hearsay Evidence:** - The court reviewed evidence of text messages sent by the victim to her mother as hearsay. Since the trial was a bench trial, the court presumed only competent evidence was considered, and any objection raised post-trial was not preserved for appeal. This proposition was denied. 4. **Preliminary Hearing Evidence:** - Martinez contended that the prosecution failed to show all elements of the crime during the preliminary hearing. The court pointed out that the age element was established during trial and noted the waiver of any preliminary hearing errors not related to jurisdiction. This proposition was denied. **Decision:** The judgment and sentence were affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma. **Opinion by:** Lewis, P.J. **Concurrences by:** Kuehn, V.P.J.; Lumpkin, J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. *For the complete opinion, you can download the PDF [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-647_1735224408.pdf).*
**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case: William Robert Burk vs. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No: M-2017-511** #### OPINION BY: Kuehn, VPJ **Background:** William Robert Burk was convicted of Obstruction of Public Officer in the District Court of Payne County, sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined $500. The case arose from an incident on December 13, 2015, where Burk was stopped for driving with an improper license tag. He refused to provide a driver's license, proof of insurance, or identify himself. Police officers were forced to break into his vehicle after he locked himself inside, leading to his arrest. **Proposition I: Self-Representation** Burk contends the trial court erred by allowing him to represent himself without ensuring he made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. The court finds that Burk effectively waived his right to counsel through his actions over time, including repeatedly refusing to secure legal representation. The court cites multiple precedents establishing that a defendant may waive the right to counsel by conduct, and emphasizes the need for a clear understanding of the risks involved in self-representation. While acknowledging Burk's claims of financial capacity to hire an attorney, he nevertheless insisted he would not apply for court-appointed counsel. The court concludes Burk’s behavior—self-characterization of being forced to represent himself and refusal to accept assistance—constituted an implied waiver of his right to counsel, allowing the trial to proceed without an attorney. **Proposition II: Sufficiency of Evidence** In his second claim, Burk argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. However, the court finds that Burk's refusal to provide identification and engage with police clearly obstructed their duties. Citing relevant statutes and case law, the court asserts that any rational jury could find him guilty of obstructing a public officer based on his actions during the encounter. **Conclusion:** The court affirms the judgment and sentence from the District Court of Payne County, asserting that Burk had sufficient warnings about self-representation risks and willingly chose to proceed without counsel. ### Dissenting Opinion - Judge Lumpkin Judge Lumpkin argues against affirming the conviction, citing concerns about Burk's mental state and the trial court's failure to ensure he was adequately informed of the consequences of self-representation. He emphasizes that Burk was not given proper Fairtta warnings about the implications of his decision and suggests that mental health issues should have prompted the court to reevaluate Burk's right to counsel. ### Concurring Opinion - Judge Hudson Judge Hudson agrees with the outcome but asserts that the basis for the decision hinges not on waiver by conduct but rather on forfeiture of counsel due to Burk's dilatory misconduct. He highlights the necessity for courts to maintain order and efficiently administer justice, especially when faced with obstructionist behavior from defendants. **Decision: The Judgment is AFFIRMED.** For further details and full opinions, you may refer to [this PDF link](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/M-2017-511_1734779027.pdf).
### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA **Case No. C-2018-1174** **OCT 31, 2019** **STEVEN JOSEPH BEATY, Petitioner, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent.** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Steven Joseph Beaty entered guilty pleas to the following charges in the District Court of Grady County, Case No. CF-2018-115: **Count I** - Felony Domestic Assault and Battery, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies (21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644 (C)); **Count II** - Misdemeanor Violation of Protective Order (22 O.S.Supp.2012, § 60.6); **Count III** - Obstructing An Officer (21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 540). The Honorable Kory Kirkland accepted the pleas on October 16, 2018. The sentences imposed included the following: **Count I** - ten (10) years imprisonment with the last seven (7) years suspended and a $500.00 fine; **Count II** - one year imprisonment and a $200.00 fine; **Count III** - one year imprisonment and a $100.00 fine, with all sentences served concurrently and additional requirements such as costs, victim compensation assessments, and referral to the Batterer's Intervention Program. On October 25, 2018, Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. After a hearing on November 13, 2018, Judge Kirkland denied the motion. Petitioner now appeals this denial and raises the following propositions of error: 1. The lack of a factual basis for the plea renders it involuntary due to not being served with the Protective Order. 2. The trial judge failed to consider Petitioner’s ability to pay the victim compensation fee. 3. Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel during both the plea hearing and at the plea withdrawal hearing. **Analysis:** After thorough review of the petitions, records, and transcripts, the court finds no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. A plea is evaluated based on whether it was voluntary and intelligent, requiring the Petitioner to show it was entered inadvertently or without consideration. In his first two propositions, Petitioner alleges he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea due to inadequate factual basis and failure to inquire about ability to pay the compensation fee. However, these claims were not raised in the motion to withdraw nor in the certiorari petition, waiving their consideration on appeal. In Proposition III, relating to ineffective assistance of counsel at the withdrawal hearing, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable probability that such deficiencies would have altered the outcome. The court affirms that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and not coerced. The claim about the court’s failure to record considerations for the victim compensation assessment is acknowledged; thus, that part of the assessment is vacated, and the case is remanded for a hearing to address this requirement properly. **Conclusion:** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is **DENIED**. The Judgment of the District Court is **AFFIRMED**. The current victim compensation assessments are **VACATED**, and the case is **REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT** to consider all necessary factors for assessment under 22 O.S.2011, § 142.18(A). **OPINION BY**: LUMPKIN, J. **CONCUR**: LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. **COUNSEL FOR DEFENSE AT THE PLEA HEARING**: Bill Smith, P.O. Box 926, Norman, OK 73070 **COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER ON APPEAL**: Danny Joseph, Oklahoma City, OK **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE**: Jason M. Hicks, District Attorney, Kara Bacon, Assistant District Attorney, Chickasha, OK. [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-1174_1734227971.pdf)
In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, the case reviewed is that of Pearlena Hall, who appealed the decision of the district court following her termination from the mental-health court program. On May 4, 2017, Hall entered guilty pleas in two cases related to larceny, obstructing an officer, and possession of drug paraphernalia. After entering the mental-health court program, she faced a motion to terminate her participation due to allegations of committing a new crime and various rule violations. The court reviewed the appeal for any abuse of discretion regarding the termination. The decision to terminate a defendant from a mental-health court must uphold minimum due process standards, which includes proper notice of violations, an opportunity to be heard, and the ability to confront witnesses. Hall argued that her due process rights were violated because the State did not file a new application for removal and thus did not provide adequate notice about the allegations against her. However, the court found that Hall was aware of the allegations, which she confessed to during the proceedings. The judge provided opportunities for her to comply with program requirements, and a delay in sentencing that favored Hall did not equate to a due process violation. The court highlighted that she could not complain about delays she acquiesced to during the processes. Ultimately, the court affirmed Hall's termination from the mental-health court, ruling that her procedural rights had been sufficiently met. Thus, her appeal was denied, and the termination order was upheld. The court's opinion was delivered by Judge Rowland, with Judges Lewis, Kuehn, Lumpkin, and Hudson concurring with the decision. The mandate was ordered as per Oklahoma Court rules, and the relevant parties were identified for representation. For further reference, you can view the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1187_1734785215.pdf).
**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case Summary: Trever Wayne Ford v. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No:** F-2018-915 **Filed:** October 13, 2019 **Summary:** Trever Wayne Ford was convicted of Assault and Battery by Means and Force Likely to Produce Death under 21 O.S.2011, § 652(C) in the District Court of Pontotoc County, Case No. CF-2017-20. Judge C. Steven Kessinger sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison. Ford appealed, arguing that his sentence was excessive. **Key Points:** 1. **Appellant's Argument**: Ford contends that his sentence is too harsh given the conflicting evidence about the incident, his injuries (possibly a concussion), lack of prior convictions, employment status, family responsibilities, and character in relation to this crime. 2. **Court’s Response**: The court reviewed the case and noted that the trial court had considered all the relevant information when imposing the sentence. The evidence indicated that Ford engaged in violent actions that caused severe injury to the victim. 3. **Conclusion**: The appellate court found that Ford's twenty-five-year sentence was within the statutory range and not excessive given the circumstances described. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence. **Decision**: The judgment and sentence from the District Court of Pontotoc County are upheld. **Counsel Information**: - **For Appellant**: Shelley Levisay, Ricki J. Walterscheid, Carlos Henry. - **For Appellee**: Mike Hunter (Attorney General), Keeley L. Miller (Assistant Attorney General), Tara Portillo (Assistant District Attorney). **Judges**: Opinion delivered by Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn; Judges Lewis, Lumpkin, Hudson, and Rowland concurred. For the full decision, please refer to the provided [PDF link](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-915_1735118232.pdf).