Appellant Archives - Page 3 of 18

F-2018-1187

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 31, 2019
Post category:F

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).

F-2018-360

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 31, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-360, McNeary appealed his conviction for lewd acts with a child under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. No one dissented. Goldy Romeo McNeary was found guilty by a jury for two counts of committing lewd acts with a child under 16 years old. The jury sentenced him to ten years in prison for each count, and these sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. The court also decided that McNeary must serve 85% of his sentence before he could be considered for parole. McNeary appealed his conviction, arguing several points. First, he claimed that the trial court wrongfully allowed evidence of other bad acts, which he said made his trial unfair. Second, he said that this evidence was more harmful than helpful, violating his right to a fair trial. Third, he argued that the trial court did not give the jury proper instructions about how to use this evidence. Fourth, he felt that the trial court was wrong to not allow him to present evidence about Speck Homes, where the acts took place. Lastly, he believed that when considering all the errors together, they warranted a new trial. For the first two points, the court looked at whether the admission of the other crimes evidence was an obvious mistake and if it affected McNeary’s rights. They concluded that even if there was a mistake, it did not change the outcome since there was clear evidence of his guilt. Thus, the evidence did not rise to the level of a serious error. For the third point, the judge had promised to give instructions about the other crimes evidence but failed to do so at the right time. However, since the judge provided some instructions later, the court found no harm was done to McNeary from this. On the fourth point about Speck Homes, the court reasoned that the evidence was not allowed mainly because it was not relevant and also tried to avoid bad effects such as confusion. The trial judge made a choice based on their understanding of the law, and the appellate court did not find it to be a mistake. Lastly, the court examined McNeary's claim that all the errors combined were enough to grant him a new trial. They determined that no significant individual errors had occurred that would justify this request. In conclusion, the court upheld the judgment and sentencing, affirming McNeary’s conviction without any dissent from the other judges involved.

F-2018-302

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 24, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-302, Jorge R. Medina appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child Under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Medina's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. The case involved Medina being found guilty by a jury of a serious crime against a young child. The court imposed a severe sentence of forty years imprisonment. Medina raised several arguments in his appeal, claiming he did not receive a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct, issues with his confession, introduction of evidence regarding his past behavior, and ineffective assistance of his attorney. First, Medina argued that the prosecutor made incorrect statements during the trial and suggested that the jury should assume certain things rather than find them to be true based on evidence. However, the court reviewed the prosecutor's comments and determined they did not misstate the law or unfairly influence the jury. Next, Medina claimed he did not fully understand his rights when he confessed, which should have meant that his confession was not valid. But the court found that Medina had waived this right and that the confession was given voluntarily after he understood his rights. Medina also contested the admission of evidence about his past bad acts. The court found that the prosecution had properly notified Medina of this evidence beforehand, so it was admissible. Regarding hearsay statements made by the victim, which were brought up as evidence at the trial, Medina’s team did not object to this during the trial. The court observed that since the defense had been aware of the basis for these statements and did not raise any objections, it affected their ability to contest them later. Moreover, Medina argued his attorney did not provide effective legal help because they did not object to issues during the trial. The court concluded that the alleged deficiencies of the attorney did not impact the outcome of the case due to the strength of the evidence against Medina. Finally, Medina claimed that the accumulation of errors throughout his trial added up to a denial of his rights. However, the court found that the trial did not have enough significant errors to justify this claim. In conclusion, the court upheld Medina's conviction and sentence, emphasizing that the errors he pointed out did not meet the threshold to alter the jury's decision.

F-2018-563

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 17, 2019
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **OCT 17 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** --- **BOBBY DALE STOCKTON,** **Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-563** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant Bobby Dale Stockton appeals from the District Court of LeFlore County's order terminating him from Drug Court and sentencing him to seven years in prison, as per the Drug Court contract in Case No. CF-2016-380. On February 14, 2017, Appellant pled guilty to Count 1: Unlawful Possession of CDS - Methamphetamine after a former felony conviction, and Count 3: Resisting an Officer. He agreed to enter Drug Court with a conviction and sentencing of seven years on Count 1 and one year on Count 3, both running concurrently. Successful completion of Drug Court would lead to suspended sentences; failure would result in imprisonment. The State filed an application for termination on June 26, 2017, alleging Appellant's non-compliance—failing to report for intake, missing a urinalysis, and being absent without leave. During a hearing on September 26, 2017, evidence showed Appellant had not participated in the program. He explained his absence was due to caring for his ill mother. Although acknowledging he had not complied, he expressed a willingness to accept a strict ninety-day monitoring. However, Judge Fry found a violation of the Drug Court contract for non-appearance and initiated a no tolerance policy. Subsequently, on September 29, 2017, Appellant failed to attend Drug Court, resulting in an arrest warrant and bail revocation. The State filed a second termination application on April 30, 2018, citing similar violations. At the hearing on May 22, 2018, Appellant admitted to a third heart attack and acknowledged non-compliance without providing documentation on medical issues. Judge Fry noted past assurances of compliance had not been honored and ultimately terminated Appellant from the program, imposing the seven-year prison sentence. **PROPOSITION OF ERROR:** I. The trial court abused its discretion in terminating Mr. Stockton from Drug Court before he had the opportunity to work the program. **ANALYSIS:** Appellant contends hospitalization justified his failures to report. He further claims that, if drug issues were believed to have driven his failures, proper disciplinary measures should have been applied. The discretion to revoke or terminate participation in Drug Court rests with the trial court, and its decision will only be reversed upon a showing of abuse. Under Oklahoma law, judges may impose progressively increasing sanctions for relapses but can revoke participation if necessary. Appellant was given two opportunities to comply with the Program's requirements, both of which he failed. His second failure followed a promise to comply, and although medical conditions were noted, no evidence was presented to substantiate his claims. Therefore, termination was not an abuse of discretion. **DECISION:** The order of the District Court of LeFlore County, terminating Appellant from Drug Court and imposing a seven-year prison sentence, is AFFIRMED. **MANDATE:** Issued forthwith. --- **APPEARANCES:** **Matthew H. McBee** Counsel for Appellant P.O. Box 1303 Poteau, OK 74953 **Joe Watkins & Keeley L. Miller** Counsel for State Assistant District Attorney 100 S. Broadway St., Room 300 Poteau, OK 74953 Assistant Attorney General 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 **OPINION BY:** ROWLAND, J. LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur

F-2018-780

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 17, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-780, Rawson appealed his conviction for lewd or indecent acts to a child under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Rawson was found guilty by a jury for multiple counts of lewd acts against a child. The jury recommended life imprisonment for each count, and the trial court imposed the sentences to run one after the other. Rawson challenged his conviction, claiming that the jury was not adequately instructed on the specific acts he allegedly committed. He did not argue that the law was incorrectly stated, just that the instructions should have outlined the acts in more detail. The court explained that instructions for juries are meant to accurately convey applicable law, and in this case, they properly followed the Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions. The trial court had provided sufficient instructions, describing the necessary elements that the prosecution needed to prove for each count. Even though Rawson's defense wanted more specificity in the instructions, the court found that the jury was clearly informed about the nature of the charges against him. Since he did not dispute the proof of the allegations or claim that the law was wrongly applied, the court decided that there was no abuse of discretion and upheld the original decision. In conclusion, the court affirmed Rawson's conviction, and the case was officially closed with no errors found in the trial process.

RE-2018-604

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 10, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **LEROY ALEXANDER, JR.,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-604** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **OCT 10 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Leroy Alexander, Jr., was sentenced to a total of fifteen years for the crime of Rape in the Second Degree, with all but the first year suspended. This appeal arises from the revocation of the remainder of his suspended sentence by the Honorable George W. Butner, District Judge of Seminole County. **Facts:** On April 5, 2018, the State of Oklahoma filed a motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence, alleging violations related to failure to attend sex offender treatment and failure to submit to required polygraph examinations. An amended motion on June 1, 2018, added allegations of inappropriate employment at a children's carnival ride during a festival. During the revocation hearing, the State's probation officer testified that Appellant had initially attended treatment sessions but was terminated for non-attendance. Appellant claimed his violations stemmed from financial hardship and lack of transportation. The Court ultimately found that Appellant had not made genuine efforts to comply with the terms of his probation. **Points of Error:** 1. **Proposition I:** Appellant argues that the trial court lacked authority to revoke more than the actual suspended portion of his sentence. He claims the written order incorrectly states that all of the fifteen years was revoked. However, the oral pronouncement during the hearing indicated the revocation was for the remainder of the suspended sentence. The court later issued an amendment to clarify the written judgment, aligning it with the oral ruling. 2. **Proposition II:** Appellant contends the full revocation of his suspended sentence was excessive, arguing that his violations were a result of indigence and lack of resources. The court's discretion in revoking a suspended sentence is established unless there is an abuse of discretion. Judge Butner found the violations were due to Appellant's lack of effort rather than financial difficulties, which was supported by evidence in the record. **Decision:** The order of the District Court of Seminole County revoking the remainder of Appellant's fifteen-year suspended sentence is AFFIRMED. The Mandate is ordered issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **ATTORNEYS:** - **ZACHARY L. PYRON** - **CHAD JOHNSON** (Appellate Defense Counsel) - **CHRISTOPHER G. ANDERSON** - **MIKE HUNTER** - **THEODORE M. PEEPER** (Assistant District Attorney / Attorney General of Oklahoma) **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-2018-604_1734429602.pdf)

F-2018-690

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 10, 2019
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DANIEL ROSS DAGE,** **Appellant,** **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-690** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Daniel Ross Dage was convicted of Possession of Juvenile Pornography in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2, in the District Court of Comanche County, under the Honorable Gerald Neuwirth. He was sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment, with eight (8) years suspended, and a fine of $5,000.00. Additionally, he is subject to sex offender registration and two years of post-imprisonment supervision during his suspended sentence. Dage appeals his conviction and sentence, raising three propositions of error. I. The record does not sufficiently demonstrate that Appellant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. II. The State's evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Dage knowingly possessed videos of juvenile pornography. III. A sentence of 20 years is excessive under the circumstances, violating the United States and Oklahoma constitutions. After thorough review of the record, including transcripts and briefs, we find that the case must be reversed and remanded for a jury trial. Proposition I is granted. The State concedes this issue. While defendants can waive their constitutional right to a jury trial, such a waiver must be competent, knowing, intelligent, and on the record, as established in *Hinsley v. State*, 2012 OK CR 11; *Valega v. City of Oklahoma City*, 1988 OK CR 101. Record evidence must show that both the State and the court consented to the waiver. The requirements for a valid waiver include an advisement of rights and a court minute reflecting the waiver, with signatures from the defendant and counsel. The record does not provide evidence of a waiver or party consent; there are no advisements regarding jury trial rights, nor discussions recorded in the trial transcript concerning the waiver. Thus, we conclude that the record fails to show Appellant validly waived his right to a jury trial. Proposition II, concerning the sufficiency of evidence, is briefly addressed. The State needed to demonstrate Dage knowingly possessed child pornography according to 21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2. Although Dage argues against the sufficiency of evidence, we find that the evidence reasonably infers Dage was aware of the prohibited nature of the material, and no other individual had reasonable access to the USB drives. Therefore, this proposition is denied. Given our decision regarding Proposition I, Proposition III concerning sentencing is rendered moot. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Comanche County is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for a jury trial. 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 COMANCHE COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE GERALD NEUWIRTH, DISTRICT JUDGE** **ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL** LARRY CORRALES P.O. BOX 2095 LAWTON, OK 73502 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL** NANCY WALKER-JOHNSON P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** CHRISTINE GALBRAITH ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMANCHE CO. COURTHOUSE 315 SW 5TH ST., RM 502 LAWTON, OK 73501-4360 **MIKE HUNTER** ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA. DIANE L. SLAYTON ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 NE 21 ST STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-690_1735220870.pdf)

F-2018-814

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 3, 2019
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. F-2018-814** **MELINDA GAYLE HENRY,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Appellant, Melinda Gayle Henry, was convicted by jury of Embezzlement, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 1451, in the District Court of Nowata County Case Number CF-2016-71. The jury recommended a punishment of five years imprisonment and a fine of $10,000.00, which the trial court imposed. Appellant now appeals this judgment and sentence. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Appellant contends trial counsel was ineffective for failing to secure necessary discovery. 2. **Failure to Request Continuance:** Appellant also asserts counsel was ineffective for not seeking a continuance for trial. 3. **Plain Error:** Lastly, Appellant claims the trial court committed plain error by proceeding to trial with unprepared counsel. **Analysis:** **Propositions One and Two (Ineffective Assistance of Counsel):** Under the Strickland v. Washington framework, Appellant must show (1) that counsel's performance was deficient and (2) that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. There is a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within a range of reasonable professional assistance. In Proposition One, Appellant argues that her counsel did not obtain critical records from the victim, The Woodshed convenience store, potentially impacting her defense. Counsel did request the records but believed they were destroyed. The trial court found that the State had offered access to the records, which the defense did not utilize. Appellant's assertion lacks evidence that obtaining these records would have changed the outcome of her trial; thus, this claim is speculative and fails to demonstrate prejudice. In Proposition Two, Appellant claims counsel was ineffective for not requesting a continuance due to the lack of records. However, the trial court's history with the case and previous findings suggested a request for a continuance would have been denied. Therefore, counsel would not be ineffective for abandoning a baseless motion. **Proposition Three (Plain Error):** Appellant's final claim of plain error regarding the trial being held without sufficient preparation fails under Rule 3.5(A)(5) of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which requires specific citations to the record. This assertion is superficial and unsubstantiated, leading to its waiver from appellate review. **Decision:** The judgment and sentence are **AFFIRMED**. **Mandate Ordered.** --- **APPEARANCES:** **AT TRIAL:** - **Mark Kane, Counsel for Appellant** - **Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma; Kevin Buchanan, Assistant District Attorney for the State** **ON APPEAL:** - **Kevin D. Adams, Counsel for Appellant** - **Katherine R. Morelli, Assistant Attorney General for the State** **OPINION BY:** **LUMPKIN, J.** **LEWIS, P.J., KUEHN, V.P.J., HUDSON, J., ROWLAND, J.:** Concur in Result [Download Full Opinion PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-814_1735213396.pdf)

F-2018-12

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 3, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-12, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree rape by instrumentation and misdemeanor assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the rape conviction. One judge dissented. The case involved Daniel Bryan Kelley, who was initially sentenced to twenty years for rape following a jury trial. He appealed that decision, and the Court agreed that there had been a mistake involving the use of a past out-of-state conviction for sentence enhancement. They sent the case back for a new sentencing trial. The second trial resulted in a life sentence. Kelley argued that he had ineffective assistance from his appellate lawyer because he was not informed about the risks of a longer sentence should he win the appeal. However, the court found no clear evidence that he would have chosen to do anything differently had he been fully informed beforehand. Kelley also wanted the court to limit his new sentence to twenty years, but the court explained that upon retrial or resentencing, the complete range of punishment is available. Therefore, they refused his request to cap the current sentence. Finally, Kelley claimed that the life sentence was excessive. The court considered the nature of his crime and his history, stating that the sentence was within the legal limit and justified based on the circumstances of the case. As a result, the court concluded that his life sentence did not shock the conscience and upheld the previous decisions regarding his case.

F-2018-542

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 26, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-542, Charles Henry Tarver, Jr. appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that relief was required, and the case was remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Charles Henry Tarver, Jr. was tried by a jury and convicted of having illegal drugs with the intent to sell them and for having drug paraphernalia. He was given a long prison sentence and a fine. Tarver appealed this decision because he believed that the evidence used against him was obtained illegally when a police officer stopped him for a minor traffic violation. The events leading to Tarver's arrest happened on May 23, 2016. A deputy police officer stopped Tarver because the light on his truck’s license plate wasn’t working. During this stop, the officer noticed that Tarver was very anxious and had trouble staying still. Instead of quickly giving him a ticket and letting him go, the officer waited for backup and a dog trained to detect drugs. While waiting, the officer searched Tarver's truck, finding illegal drugs. Tarver argued that this search was not allowed under the law because it happened without enough reason to keep him there longer than necessary for the traffic stop. Initially, the judge at Tarver’s trial ruled that the stop was legal, but he did not consider whether the stop went on too long without proper reasons. This was an important mistake because the law says that once the reason for a stop is handled, the police cannot keep someone for longer without having a good reason to think that person is doing something illegal. The appeals court reviewed the case and found that the trial judge had incorrectly placed the burden of proving that the police action was legal on Tarver instead of where it should have been on the state. The appeals court agreed that the stop was carried out longer than necessary, and the police officer did not have enough solid reasons to justify keeping Tarver there longer than the original traffic issue. The court decided to reverse Tarver's convictions and told the district court to dismiss the charges against him because the search that found the drugs was not properly justified. One judge disagreed with this outcome, arguing that the police acted reasonably based on their experiences and knowledge about Tarver. This dissenting opinion held that the evidence might still be good enough to uphold the conviction. In the end, the decision meant that Tarver would not have to serve time for these charges, as the evidence against him was deemed to have been collected improperly.

F-2018-36

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 26, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-36, Robert Eugene Brewer appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child Under 12. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Brewer's conviction. One judge dissented. Brewer was tried in Tulsa County for sexually abusing a child under the age of 12. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to seven years in prison. He was also ordered to serve three years of supervision after his prison term. Brewer appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court made a mistake by allowing evidence related to other crimes that he believed had not been proven. The court reviewed the evidence and arguments presented. The main issue was whether the trial court had the right to let in evidence that showed Brewer had a pattern of behavior related to sexual abuse. This type of evidence is sometimes called propensity evidence. Brewer argued that the trial court should have held a special hearing before allowing this evidence and should have required witnesses to testify in person. However, the court found that the trial judge had done a thorough job. The judge had held multiple hearings and considered the evidence carefully. The judge did not make a mistake by allowing the evidence because they had enough information to decide it was relevant and necessary for the case. Even though Brewer did not object to the evidence when it was presented during the trial, the court considered whether there was a serious mistake that affected the fairness of the trial. After reviewing everything, the court concluded that the trial judge acted correctly. In summary, the court believed that the evidence presented was acceptable and did not harm Brewer's case. Therefore, Brewer’s conviction was upheld, but the court also instructed the district court to make some corrections to its legal documents regarding the correct law that applied to Brewer's actions at the time of the crime. The decision was to keep Brewer's sentence in place while correcting the legal documentation properly.

F-2018-867

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 19, 2019
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BILLIE WAYNE BYRD,** Appellant, vs. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. F-2018-867** **Not for Publication** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 19 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Billie Wayne Byrd was tried by jury and convicted of Child Sexual Abuse - Under 12 in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(F), in the District Court of Muskogee County, Case No. CF-2017-621. Following the jury's recommendation, the Honorable Norman D. Thygesen sentenced Appellant to twenty-five (25) years imprisonment, with a three-year term of post-imprisonment supervision. Appellant appeals this conviction and sentence. **Propositions of Error:** 1. Plain error occurred when the jury sought to see the judge but was directed to submit any question in writing. 2. Prosecutorial misconduct deprived Appellant of a fair trial. **Analysis:** After thorough consideration of the entire record, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits, and briefs, we find that the law and evidence do not require relief. **Proposition I: Jury Communication** We find that the trial court's failure to follow the mandatory procedure set forth in 22 O.S.2011, § 894 did not prejudice Appellant. He did not object to the use of written communication, so we review for plain error. Plain error must be an actual error that is evident and affects the defendant's substantial rights (Thompson v. State, 2018 OK CR 5). Jurors seeking information during deliberations must require the officer to conduct them into court, and answers must be given in the presence of, or after notice to, counsel and the defendant. The written response to a juror question is a plain violation of the statute (Nicholson v. State, 2018 OK CR 10). While we presume prejudice due to this error, it can be rebutted by demonstrating there was no actual prejudice. Here, the jury's questions were addressed accurately and appropriately. The judge's written response to the jurors' first inquiry did not prejudice Appellant. The second question resulted in a prompt indication for further written inquiries, which indicates communication continued rather than being foreclosed. Ultimately, no actual prejudice against the Appellant is evident on the face of the record. The minimum sentence imposed and lack of indications of serious jury concerns further support no shown prejudice. Thus, we find no error requiring reversal. **Proposition II: Prosecutorial Misconduct** The arguments presented in closing did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct. Attorneys have latitude in arguing evidence and its inferences unless such arguments negatively affect trial fairness (Barnes v. State, 2017 OK CR 26). Appellant did not object to the statements raised on appeal, so we review for plain error (Mathis v. State, 2012 OK CR 1). One contested statement asserted the victim's trustworthiness, which was in response to defense claims of inconsistency. While prosecutors should refrain from personal endorsements of credibility, the context mitigated the impact of this statement. In analyzing the comments regarding the victim's emotional struggles, the remarks were reasonable inferences drawn from evidence presented in trial. The overall context did not compromise the trial's fairness. **Decision:** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Muskogee County 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 NORMAN D. THYGESEN** --- **Attorneys on Appeal:** **Counsel for Defendant:** Dan Medlock **Counsel for Appellant:** Jeremy Stillwell **Counsel for the State:** Morgan Muzljakovich, Mike Hunter (Assistant District Attorney), Julie Pittman (Assistant Attorney General) --- **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **HUDSON, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR

F-2018-552

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 19, 2019
Post category:F

In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, Tommy Lynn Berry appealed the termination of his participation in Drug Court after admitting to violations. The court reviewed Berry's claims and ultimately affirmed the termination. 1. **Involuntary Stipulation**: Berry argued that his stipulation to the allegations was involuntary and that the trial court erred by accepting it without meeting the standard for a guilty plea. However, the court found that no legal precedent required the same standards for stipulations in Drug Court as for guilty pleas. The court established that Berry was aware of the consequences of his stipulation, which was made in exchange for the dismissal of additional charges. 2. **Abuse of Discretion in Termination**: Berry contended that the trial court should have imposed progressively increasing sanctions before terminating him. The court clarified that while graduated sanctions are generally preferred, the statute also allows for immediate termination if warranted. Since Berry had committed new offenses while participating in the program, the court found no abuse of discretion in his termination. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Berry claimed he did not receive effective representation. The appellate court utilized the Strickland standard to evaluate this claim, requiring proof of both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. The court noted that Berry's counsel had negotiated a favorable outcome—dismissing the new drug charges—thereby showing that the counsel's actions were reasonable and resulted in no detriment to Berry. Ultimately, the court concluded that Berry's termination from Drug Court was justified and affirmed the lower court's decision.

F-2017-67

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 12, 2019
Post category:F

The document provided is an appellate court opinion regarding the case of Cedric Dwayne Poore, who was convicted in the District Court of Tulsa County for multiple counts of Murder in the First Degree and Robbery with a Firearm. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma ultimately affirmed the convictions and sentences. ### Key Points from the Opinion: 1. **Charges and Convictions**: - Cedric Dwayne Poore was convicted of four counts of Murder in the First Degree through felony murder and two counts of Robbery with a Firearm. - The underlying felony for the murder counts was robbery committed in the course of the murders of four victims. 2. **Evidence Against Appellant**: - Witnesses testified that Poore and his brother shot and killed four victims in a robbery at an apartment. - Testimony from Jamila Jones, who was in contact with both brothers before the murders, suggested that they were planning to rob the victims. - Forensic evidence included DNA found on a cigarette near the victims and .40 caliber shell casings linking both Poore and the weapon used in other crimes. 3. **Proposition of Errors Raised on Appeal**: - **Hearsay**: The trial court’s denial of an affidavit from a witness who invoked the Fifth Amendment was challenged, but the court found no plain error. - **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Poore challenged the sufficiency of evidence, claiming that he was not directly involved in the murders, but the court held that circumstantial evidence sufficiently supported the convictions. - **Other Crimes Evidence**: The admissibility of evidence from a separate robbery was upheld as relevant and probative to establish motive and identity. - **Identification Testimony**: The court found no error in the admission of identification testimony from witnesses. - **Accomplice Corroboration**: The testimony of accomplices was found to be sufficiently corroborated by other evidence. - **Cell Phone Records**: Although the use of cellphone records without a warrant raised Fourth Amendment concerns, the evidence was deemed admissible under the good faith exception. - **Search Warrant**: Poore's arguments regarding the invalidity of the search warrant and execution of the search were rejected by the court. - **Cumulative Error**: The cumulative effect of any errors did not warrant relief, as the court found no substantial errors during the trial. 4. **Final Ruling**: - The Court affirmed the District Court's judgments and sentences without finding any significant legal errors that would warrant reversal. ### Conclusion: The case demonstrates the complex interplay of various legal standards, evidentiary challenges, and the appeals process for criminal convictions. The appellate court's decision reflects a thorough examination of both the procedural and substantive issues raised by the appellant, ultimately leading to the affirmation of the convictions based on the evidence presented at trial.

F-2018-892

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 5, 2019
Post category:F

**Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma** **Case Summary:** **Case Name:** David Andrew Sanders, Appellant, v. The State of Oklahoma, Appellee **Case Number:** F-2018-892 **Date Filed:** September 5, 2019 --- **Background:** David Andrew Sanders appeals the acceleration of his deferred sentencing resulting from finding evidence that he committed new offenses while on probation. On April 29, 2016, in **Case No. CF-2012-2326**, Appellant entered no contest pleas to Burglary in the First Degree and Pointing a Firearm at Another. In **Case No. CF-2016-1178**, he entered a guilty plea for Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer. His sentencing was deferred for ten years (Burglary), five years (Firearm charge), and 30 days (Larceny). All sentences were to run concurrently. On November 28, 2017, the State filed an Application to Accelerate the Deferred Sentence, alleging new offenses. At a hearing on August 21, 2018, the court found sufficient evidence of new offenses: possession of a firearm while on probation, possession of a controlled dangerous substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. **Facts of the Case:** On May 6, 2017, police found Sanders unconscious in an idling car with a handgun in his lap. During the arrest, officers discovered a glass pipe and methamphetamine in the car's console. Sanders argued that this evidence was the product of an unlawful search. **Legal Findings:** The district court ruled that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the acceleration proceeding, which is not akin to a full trial. The court found no evidence of egregious police misconduct. According to Oklahoma law (Richardson v. State), exclusion of evidence is only warranted in revocation hearings where there has been egregious misconduct. **Conclusion:** The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The discovery of the firearm, glass pipe, and methamphetamine did not violate Sanders' rights given the context of the proceedings. **Decision:** The order of the district court accelerating Sanders’ deferred judgment and sentencing is AFFIRMED. --- **Counsel on Appeal:** - For Appellant: Micah Sielert and Andrea Digilo Miller - For Appellee: Tiffany Noble, Mike Hunter, Tessa L. Henry **Opinion by:** Presiding Judge Lewis **Concurrences:** Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn, Judge Lumpkin, Judge Hudson, Judge Rowland --- For more details, you may [download the full PDF here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-892_1735120506.pdf).

J 2019-0283

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 5, 2019
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2019-0283, D. J., III appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the order granting the imposition of an adult sentence. One judge dissented. D. J., III, who was born on November 1, 2000, faced serious charges after taking part in a hazing incident at school. The state wanted to try him as an adult, which is a significant step for a young person. This happened after a court decided that D. J. could not be helped enough through the juvenile system and that the public needed more protection. The court had a hearing on April 5, 2019, where the judge reviewed evidence and decided that D. J. should face adult charges. The main arguments in the case included whether the earlier ruling was correct and if it used the right laws to make its decision. D. J. argued that the state did not show strong enough evidence to justify moving him to adult court. When D. J. appealed, he claimed two main problems with how the trial was handled. First, he believed the state did not provide clear evidence for why he should be seen as an adult rather than a juvenile. Next, he said that the judge applied the wrong law when making the decision. However, the court found that the judge's decision was reasonable and based on the facts presented during the hearing. The court stated that judges have the right to decide which witnesses to believe and how to weigh their testimonies. The judges on the court agreed that even though there was a mistake in mentioning the wrong law, this did not harm D. J.'s case because both laws were similar. The important aspects of the case were clear, and ultimately, D. J. was seen as not being able to complete rehabilitation in the juvenile system. In the dissenting opinion, the judge expressed concern that the law limits how long juveniles can be kept under the juvenile system, and this may not allow for fair treatment when they are close to being adults. The dissenting judge felt that D. J. still had the potential for rehabilitation and disagreed with moving him to adult court. In summary, the court decided to uphold the decision to treat D. J. as an adult following the state's appeal, while one judge thought this decision should be reconsidered, suggesting changes to juvenile sentencing laws to allow more flexibility for young offenders.

RE-2018-484

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 29, 2019
Post category:RE

**In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case No. RE-2018-484** **Summary Opinion** **Appellant:** Orville Tabe Keith, Jr. **Appellee:** The State of Oklahoma **Judge Hudson:** Orville Tabe Keith, Jr. appeals the revocation of his concurrent twelve-year suspended sentences following a revocation hearing where the State alleged that he violated probation by committing Manslaughter in the First Degree. **Background:** On March 5, 2009, Appellant pled guilty to two counts of Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon. He was sentenced to twelve years on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently and suspended under specific probation conditions. The State filed a Motion to Revoke on March 23, 2017, based on allegations that Appellant committed Manslaughter in connection with the death of Brandon Martinez during an altercation on June 27, 2015. Evidence presented included DNA matching Appellant to items found at the crime scene and testimony from a neighbor, Donna Underwood, who claimed Appellant admitted to killing Martinez. **Revocation Hearing:** The revocation hearing took place on May 1, 2018. The court reviewed evidence including: - DNA analysis linking Appellant to the crime scene. - Testimony from Underwood about Appellant’s self-incriminating statements. Judge Fry found that Appellant violated his probation conditions, leading to a full revocation of his suspended sentences. **Appellant's Argument:** Keith appeals on the grounds that the evidence presented was insufficient to justify the revocation of his suspended sentences. He challenges the credibility of Underwood's testimony and suggests that another individual, Paul Anderson, may have committed the homicide. **Analysis:** Oklahoma law requires that alleged violations of probation conditions be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The appeals court found that Underwood's testimony and the DNA evidence were adequate for a rational trier of fact to conclude that Appellant had violated the terms of his probation. **Decision:** The court affirmed the trial court's decision to revoke Appellant's concurrent twelve-year suspended sentences, concluding there was no abuse of discretion in Judge Fry's ruling. **Order:** The order of the District Court of LeFlore County is **AFFIRMED**. **Opinion by**: HUDSON, J. **Concurrences by**: LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J. --- For further details, you can [**download the PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-484_1734542820.pdf).

F-2018-84

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 29, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-84, #1 appealed his conviction for #2 driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. In a (published) decision, the court decided #3 to affirm the trial court's order to terminate #1 from the Drug Court Program. #n issued a dissenting opinion. Summary: Carl David Wagnon was charged in 2015 with a serious crime for driving under the influence of alcohol after having previous felony convictions. He pleaded guilty and entered a Drug Court program, which was part of an agreement that allowed him to avoid a long prison sentence if he was successful. However, in 2017, he was accused of a new crime, which led to a hearing where the court decided to remove him from the Drug Court program. Wagnon argued that his removal was unfair for several reasons. He claimed that the court relied too much on secondhand information and did not give him a chance to challenge the evidence against him. He also said that his removal was based on a crime that was not formally charged and that he did not receive enough warnings or chances to correct his behavior before being expelled from the program. Lastly, he believed that the court did not clearly explain why he was being removed. The court looked at these arguments but found that Wagnon was treated fairly and that the decision to terminate him from the Drug Court program was appropriate. They stated that the judge had the right to make this decision and had done so correctly, so they upheld the lower court's ruling. The case was affirmed and Wagnon was sentenced to twenty years in prison.

F 2018-0851

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 15, 2019
Post category:F

It seems you have provided a court document regarding a correction order related to a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma. The document includes information about the case and its parties, as well as directions for accessing a PDF version of the opinion. If you have any specific questions or need assistance regarding this court document or related matters, feel free to ask!

F-2018-923

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 15, 2019
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **PHILIP JAN CANNON,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2018-923** **FILED** **AUG 15 2019** **Clerk** **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant Philip Jan Cannon was tried by a jury in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Case No. CF-2016-541, for Possession of Child Pornography, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2. The jury found Cannon guilty and assessed punishment at twenty years imprisonment and a $25,000.00 fine. The Honorable John Canavan, District Judge, who presided over Cannon's trial, sentenced him according to the jury's verdict. Cannon appeals, raising the issue of whether improper closing remarks by the prosecutor deprived him of a fair trial. Under 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1, Cannon must serve 85% of his sentence before he is eligible for parole consideration. We find relief is not required and affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. 1. Cannon complains of prosecutorial misconduct, arguing it deprived him of his right to a fair trial. Because the comments at issue were not objected to at trial, our review is for plain error only. *Harney v. State*, 2011 OK CR 10, ¶ 23, 256 P.3d 1002, 1007. To qualify for relief based on plain error, Cannon must demonstrate: (1) the existence of an actual error (a deviation from a legal rule); (2) that the error is plain or obvious; and (3) that the error affected his substantial rights, meaning it impacted the trial's outcome. *Hogan v. State*, 2006 OK CR 19, ¶ 38, 139 P.3d 907, 923. This Court only corrects plain error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings or represents a miscarriage of justice. *Stewart v. State*, 2016 OK CR 9, ¶ 25, 372 P.3d 508, 514. We evaluate alleged misconduct in the context of the entire trial, considering not only the propriety of the prosecutor's actions but also the strength of the evidence against Cannon and the arguments of defense counsel. Both parties have broad latitude to discuss the evidence and make reasonable inferences. Relief is granted only where the prosecutor's flagrant misconduct has so tainted the trial that it is rendered fundamentally unfair. *Jones v. State*, 2011 OK CR 13, ¶ 3, 253 P.3d 997, 998. It is rare that prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument necessitates reversal. *Pryor v. State*, 2011 OK CR 18, ¶ 4, 254 P.3d 721, 722. Cannon alleges the prosecutor argued facts not in evidence and appealed to the jury's sympathy for the victims. However, we find there was no plain error in these remarks. Therefore, this claim is denied. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the district court 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 POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE JOHN CANAVAN, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** **ADAM BANNER** **DUSTIN PHILLIPS** **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** 1900 N.W. Expressway, P.O. Box 926 Suite 601 Norman, OK 73070 **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** **ROBERT W. JACKSON** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** Oklahoma City, OK 73118 **ADAM PANTER** **COUNSEL FOR STATE** **MIKE HUNTER** Pottawatomie County Attorney General of Oklahoma 331 N. Broadway Shawnee, OK 74801 **DIANE L. SLAYTON** Assistant Attorney General 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 **OPINION BY:** ROWLAND, J. **LUMPKIN, P.J.:** Concur **LEWIS, V.P.J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **KUEHN, J.:** Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-923_1734954802.pdf)

M-2018-267

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 8, 2019
Post category:M

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ROBERT AARON RODGERS,** **Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Summary Opinion** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** On January 17, 2017, Appellant was charged in Grady County District Court with Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(C) in Case No. CM-2017-36. Appellant was found guilty following a jury trial and the Honorable Timothy A. Brauer, Special Judge, sentenced him according to the jury's recommendation to a $1,000 fine. Appellant appeals. Appellant raises three propositions of error in support of his appeal: **I.** Mr. Rodgers was denied a fair trial because the trial court refused to instruct on his theories of defense. **II.** The admission of irrelevant and prejudicial expert testimony on domestic abuse was plain error entitling Mr. Rodgers to a new trial. **III.** The audio tape sponsored by Cindy Trapp failed to meet the requisites for admissibility. Admission of this evidence denied Mr. Rodgers a fair trial. After thorough consideration of the entire record before us, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits, and briefs, we find that the law and evidence do not require relief. **Proposition I**: Appellant argues he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court denied his request for jury instructions on defense of another and defense of property. Decisions denying requested jury instructions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Appellant fails to establish that any unlawful interference with his property occurred or was imminent. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying these instructions. **Proposition II**: Appellant contends that the testimony of Amanda Grayson, an expert on domestic violence, was irrelevant and prejudicial. Appellant did not object to the testimony at trial, waiving appellate review except for plain error. The expert testimony was relevant and provided insight into the victim's behavior and Appellant's intent. Thus, Proposition II is without merit. **Proposition III**: Appellant challenges the admission of a duplicate recording of a conversation based on the best evidence rule. Appellant objected on the basis of relevance rather than the best evidence rule, and thus has waived that issue. No genuine question regarding the authenticity of the duplicate was established, and the trial court took steps to ensure the jury was not misled by the recording. Therefore, Proposition III is denied. **Decision**: The Judgment and Sentence of the trial court is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** ED GEARY **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** DAVID AUTRY **COUNSEL FOR STATE** NATALIA LEVCHENKO MIKE HUNTER KATHERINE MORELLI **OPINION BY**: KUEHN, V.P.J. **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** **RA/F** --- This summary captures the key elements of the case involving Appellant Robert Aaron Rodgers, the propositions of error raised, and the court's analysis and decisions, providing a streamlined understanding of the court's ruling.

RE-2018-769

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant, Robert Kenneth Kramer, appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2015-100. On September 9, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere to Financial Exploitation by a Caregiver (21 O.S.2011, § 843.1) After Former Conviction of a Felony (21 O.S.Supp.2011, § 51.1). He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for ten years, with the final six years suspended. On May 31, 2017, the trial court modified the suspended portion of the sentence from six to eight years. On March 28, 2018, the State filed an application to revoke the suspended sentence, alleging that Appellant had committed new crimes: possessing a cell phone while incarcerated and knowingly concealing stolen property. A hearing on the application was held on July 11, 2018, before the Honorable Lawrence W. Parish, District Judge. Judge Parish granted the State's application and revoked the eight-year suspended sentence in full. **ANALYSIS** The standard for revocation of a suspended sentence requires a determination of whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated, which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. A trial court's decision to revoke should not be reversed unless there is an abuse of discretion. 1. **Proposition I: Violation of the 20-day Rule** Appellant claims the district court violated the 20-day Rule as stated in 22 O.S.Supp.2012, § 991b(A). Since Appellant did not raise this objection at the hearing, the review is for plain error. Appellant failed to demonstrate that any deviation affected his substantial rights, and he had previously waived his right to a hearing within the statutory time-frame. Therefore, this proposition is denied. 2. **Proposition II: Sufficiency of Evidence** Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conclusion that he possessed a cell phone while in jail. Testimony from Appellant's ex-wife indicated that she received text messages from a phone she associated with him. Additionally, a jailer testified about witnessing inmates, including Appellant, trying to destroy a cell phone. This evidence satisfies the preponderance standard. **DECISION** The order revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2015-100 is AFFIRMED. **APPEARANCES:** - Counsel for Appellant: Curt Allen, Jeremy Stillwell, Indigent Defense System - Counsel for State: Emily Mueller, Assistant District Attorney; Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma; Theodore Peeper, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.:** LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur in Results HUDSON, J.: Concur **[End of Summary Opinion]** For further details, you may view the full court opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-769_1734420410.pdf).

RE-2018-674

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **LEON DESHAWN WRIGHT,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. RE-2018-674** **Filed July 18, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** This case involves an appeal by Appellant Leon Deshawn Wright from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2014-1676. **Background:** On April 30, 2015, Wright entered a guilty plea to Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property after a previous felony conviction, for which he was sentenced to five years of imprisonment, all suspended. The State filed an application to revoke this sentence on May 9, 2016, citing multiple violations, including failure to obtain a mental health assessment, failure to report to a drug rehabilitation program, failure to pay supervision fees, and possession of marijuana. A hearing was conducted on August 27, 2018, overseen by the Honorable Bill Graves, where the judge granted the State's application for revocation, leading to the current appeal. **Analysis:** At a revocation hearing, the court determines if the terms of the probation have been violated, which should be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Revocation should not be overturned unless there's an abuse of discretion by the trial court. 1. **Possession of Marijuana:** Appellant argues insufficient evidence for this charge. The court agrees but finds sufficient evidence for the remaining violations. 2. **Failure to Pay Fees:** Appellant contends his failure to pay fees was not willful. The court finds it was Appellant's responsibility to demonstrate he was not willful in this failure. As Appellant did not provide evidence regarding his employment status or good-faith efforts to pay, the burden was not met. 3. **Full Revocation Justification:** Appellant argues that the violations do not justify full revocation. However, the court finds the failure to report alone is an adequate basis for revoking the suspended sentence. **Decision:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirms the District Court's order revoking the suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2014-1676. **Judges’ Concurrence:** - **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concurred in part/dissented in part, stating that while he agreed some violations justified revocation, he dissented concerning the failure to pay fines, emphasizing that Appellant's evidence of homelessness and unemployment should have been considered. He finds the court should demonstrate more clarity on when failure to pay fines due to indigence suffices to avoid revocation. For further details and the full legal opinion, you can [download the PDF here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-674_1734423903.pdf).

F-2017-1149

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1149, Moore appealed his conviction for Permitting Invitees Under 21 to Possess or Consume Alcohol, Child Neglect, and Transporting a Loaded Firearm in a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court. One judge dissented. Moore was convicted for crimes related to a party where a fifteen-year-old boy named N.F. drank too much alcohol and died from alcohol poisoning. The party took place at the home of a sixteen-year-old friend, and although Moore was not there, the court had to decide if he was responsible for what happened because he was in a relationship with the boy's mother, who lived at that house. The first major point in the case was whether there was enough evidence to support Moore’s convictions. The court found that there was, especially because Moore admitted he lived with the mother and his driver's license listed that address. This was important as the law stated that he could be held responsible for underage drinking and neglect if he was living there. Moore also argued that he didn’t get a fair trial because his lawyer did not do a good job. He mentioned that his lawyer failed to object to certain testimonies from a worker in child protective services. The court looked into this claim but concluded that it didn’t affect the fairness of the trial enough to change the outcome. They thought that defense counsel did present evidence to support Moore's case, showing he may not have lived at the home when N.F. died. Another issue was about evidence presented during the trial. Moore’s lawyer did not object to the testimony from the child protective services worker, which led to the question of whether this testimony hurt his case. The court found that while this testimony might have been improper, it did not significantly affect the trial's result since the jury could have made their decision based on other evidence presented. Moore also claimed he should get credit for the time spent in jail before his sentencing. However, the court said it was up to the judge to decide about giving credit for time served, not mandatory. They believed the judge made the right choice and affirmed the decision. In conclusion, the court upheld Moore's convictions and sentences, affirming that there was enough evidence against him and that his rights to a fair trial were not violated. Moore was denied the motion to have a hearing about his lawyer's effectiveness in defending him.

F-2017-802

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-802, Jestin Tafolla appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and Carrying a Weapon Unlawfully. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Tafolla was sentenced to life imprisonment for the assault and thirty days in jail for the misdemeanor charge, with the sentences served at the same time. His appeal raised several issues, mainly about whether his trial was fair. He claimed that evidence of his gang affiliation unfairly influenced the jury, that introducing certain statements violated his rights, and that errors occurred during the trial process. The court discussed the details of the case where Tafolla assaulted a man following a traffic dispute. Detectives witnessed Tafolla hitting the victim and confiscated brass knuckles he discarded. Witness statements indicated that racial slurs were part of the altercation. The court found that the evidence of Tafolla's gang membership was relevant to understand the incident and the motivations behind it. It ruled that the testimony related to his affiliation did not violate his rights and was permissible to show motive and intent. They also addressed Tafolla's complaints about the admission of the victim's statements, concluding that these did not prevent a fair trial. The admission of prior convictions for cross-examination purposes was also deemed appropriate as it was relevant to the prosecution's case. In issues raised about the prosecutor's conduct and jury instructions, the court determined that no significant errors impacted the trial. The arguments made by the prosecution were within the acceptable realm of discussing the evidence. Overall, the court found no individual errors that would require a new trial and concluded that the accumulation of complaints did not undermine the fairness of the proceedings. Thus, the original judgment was upheld, and Tafolla’s appeal was denied.