Assistant District Attorney

C-2019-853

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2019-853, the petitioner appealed his conviction for first degree murder and larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case involved a woman who entered a guilty plea for two crimes: first degree murder and larceny of merchandise. She was sentenced to life in prison for the murder and thirty days for the larceny, with both sentences running at the same time. Later, she wanted to change her guilty plea and filed a motion to withdraw it. During the appeal, one major issue raised was whether the State of Oklahoma had the right to prosecute her. The woman argued that the state didn’t have jurisdiction because of her status as a member of a federally recognized tribe and the nature of the crime being committed within the reservation boundaries. The court looked at a recent Supreme Court decision, McGirt v. Oklahoma, where it was determined that certain lands in Oklahoma are still recognized as Native American reservations. The court agreed with the petitioner about the jurisdiction issue. Both the petitioner and the state agreed on certain facts regarding her tribal membership and the location of the crime. Since the court found that the state did not have the right to prosecute the petitioner, it decided to vacate the earlier judgment and sentence. The decision meant that the petitioner would not face charges in state court but rather would need to be prosecuted in federal court because of her tribal affiliation and the location of the crime committed. This ruling highlighted the importance of understanding jurisdiction, especially when it involves Native American rights and lands.

Continue ReadingC-2019-853

F-2019-149

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-149, Kimberli Sue Dunham appealed her conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to terminate her from Drug Court and impose her sentences. One judge dissented. Dunham had been placed in the Delaware County Drug Court program after pleading guilty to several drug-related charges. The program was intended to help her recover from substance abuse. According to her agreement, if she was successful in the program, the charges would be dismissed. However, if she failed, she would face prison time. During her time in Drug Court, Dunham had several violations, including testing positive for methamphetamine. After admitting to more violations, the State sought her removal from the program. In a hearing, evidence of Dunham’s past violations was presented. The judge decided to terminate her from the program, leading to her appeal. In her appeal, Dunham claimed the termination was improper because she was sanctioned for previous violations. She also argued that the court did not follow proper procedures as required by the Oklahoma Drug Court Act, which aims to support individuals in recovery. Dunham claimed that a relapse should not automatically lead to termination and that the court should have used progressively increasing sanctions instead. The court reviewed these claims and found that Dunham had indeed admitted to new violations that justified her termination. Her request to consider her actions as mere relapses was denied, as the judge believed more severe action was necessary to maintain the integrity of the Drug Court program. Lastly, Dunham argued that she was misinformed about her rights to withdraw her guilty pleas. The court agreed that she should have been informed of her rights but ruled that her termination and conviction would still stand. The court upheld the trial court's decision but noted that it should have properly advised Dunham regarding her rights, allowing her the option to appeal her plea. Thus, while her conviction was confirmed, the case was remanded to correct the error about her rights.

Continue ReadingF-2019-149

F-2018-1023

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**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]**

Continue ReadingF-2018-1023

F-2018-691

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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!

Continue ReadingF-2018-691

RE 2018-1288

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

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.

Continue ReadingRE 2018-1288

F-2018-780

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingF-2018-780

F-2018-923

  • Post author:
  • 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)

Continue ReadingF-2018-923

RE 2018-0118

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-0118, Samuel Keith Carolina appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Samuel Keith Carolina had originally been sentenced to twenty years for burglary, but the last ten years were suspended while he followed certain rules. However, in December 2017, the state accused him of committing several new crimes, including assault and battery with a deadly weapon and shooting with intent to kill. Some of these claims were removed before the revocation hearing. At the hearing held on January 30, 2018, the judge found enough evidence to support the state's claims, specifically the first allegation. Carolina argued that the evidence was not strong enough to prove he broke the terms of his sentence. The court explained that to revoke a suspended sentence, the evidence just needs to show that it's more likely true than not, meaning the evidence has to be convincing. Ultimately, because they found that there was enough evidence to support at least one of the violations, the court decided to uphold the revocation of Carolina's suspended sentence.

Continue ReadingRE 2018-0118

F 2018-0398

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **STEVE GRAYSON FALEN, Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **No. F 2018-0398** **May 23, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Steele Grayson Falen, was charged on March 14, 2013, in Beckham County District Court Case No. CF-2013-106 with various offenses including Count 1 - Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute (felony), Count 2 - Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (misdemeanor), and Count 3 - Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (misdemeanor). Following a guilty plea on January 23, 2014, he received a ten-year deferred sentence for Count 1 and one year for Counts 2 and 3, all to run concurrently, with credit for six months served in treatment. Later, on November 12, 2014, Appellant faced additional charges in Case No. CF-2014-446 involving burglary-related offenses. Consequently, the State sought to accelerate his deferred sentences linked to the new charges. Under a plea agreement, Appellant joined the Beckham County Drug Court Program on June 23, 2015, where he would face a significant sentence if he failed to complete the program successfully. The State filed to terminate Appellant from the Drug Court on February 21, 2018, citing early exit from treatment and subsequent arrest. After a revocation hearing on April 6, 2018, he was sentenced to 20 years for Count 1 and associated consequences for Counts 2 and 3 from both cases with sentences ordered to run concurrently. Appellant now appeals the termination from Drug Court, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion. However, findings indicate no abuse of discretion occurred as the Drug Court Act emphasizes the judge’s authority to revoke participation when conduct warrants termination. **DECISION** The termination of Appellant from the Beckham County Drug Court Program in both Case Nos. CF-2013-106 and CF-2014-446 is **AFFIRMED**. **APPEARANCES** *Counsel for Defendant:* J. Cade Harris, Appellate Defense Counsel Nicollette Brandt, Counsel *Counsel for the State:* Gina R. Webb, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Attorney General Theodore M. Peeper, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. *KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur in Results* *LUMPKIN, J.: Concur* *HUDSON, J.: Concur* *ROWLAND, J.: Concur*

Continue ReadingF 2018-0398

C-2018-943

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. M 2018-0277, the appellant appealed his conviction for speeding (21-25 mph over the limit). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence from the District Court. One judge dissented. The appellant was found guilty after a non-jury trial in Texas County. He was fined $10.00 for speeding. During the appeal, the appellant claimed that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was indeed speeding. He argued that there was no rule in Oklahoma law that allowed a speeding conviction based solely on visual estimation. The State countered this claim by saying that Oklahoma law does not require a radar gun to show that someone was speeding. A trained Oklahoma State Trooper testified that he could visually estimate a vehicle's speed within 5 miles per hour of its real speed. He specifically said that he saw the appellant's vehicle speeding. The court reviewed the evidence to see if a reasonable person could find that the essential parts of the speeding crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court concluded that any logical juror could decide that there was enough proof of the speeding violation. In conclusion, the court upheld the appellant's conviction for speeding, stating that the evidence presented was sufficient.

Continue ReadingC-2018-943

F-2017-356

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-356, Elizabeth A. Jennings appealed her conviction for Permitting Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed her conviction. One judge dissented. The case took place in Tulsa County, where Jennings was found guilty of allowing child sexual abuse to happen, which is against the law. The jury decided she should go to prison for 14 years. She was very unhappy about this and wanted to challenge the ruling. Jennings raised three big points in her appeal: 1. She said the prosecutor made a wrong hypothetical question during jury selection, which is called voir dire, and that this violated her rights. 2. She also argued that a lot of evidence was shown about her co-defendant's sexual misconduct, which she thought made it hard for her to get a fair sentence. 3. Lastly, she complained that the judge didn't tell the jury that she would have to register as a sex offender after her conviction, which she thought was an important piece of information. The court looked at everything carefully, including the evidence, the transcripts, and the arguments from both sides. It decided that Jennings did not deserve any relief from her conviction based on her arguments. For the first point, the court said that the prosecutor's question was okay. It was meant to see if jurors could be fair and follow the law without making decisions before hearing all the evidence. In the second point, the court agreed that the evidence about the co-defendant was relevant and helped to show Jennings' knowledge of the situation. The court found that this evidence was not unfairly hurtful to her case. On the third point, the court decided that it was not wrong for the judge to skip giving out the information about sex offender registration because it wasn't necessary for the case. In the end, the court upheld Jennings' sentence of 14 years in prison. The judges considered all the arguments but concluded that everything was handled correctly during the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2017-356

F-2018-145

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-145, Davis appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his termination from the Drug Court program. One judge dissented. On June 23, 2015, Davis pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine. He was given a chance to avoid prison by being put on probation for five years. However, in December 2016, the state said Davis was not following the rules of his probation, leading to his case being taken to Drug Court in March 2017. Drug Court was meant to help him, but it also had strict rules he had to follow. If he completed the program successfully, he could avoid serious penalties. In January 2018, the state said Davis had broken the rules of the Drug Court and asked to have him removed from the program. After a hearing, the judge agreed, and Davis was taken out of Drug Court. Davis appealed this decision, saying the state did not prove he should be terminated and that his mental health issues were not considered. However, the court found no evidence that further sanctions would have helped him follow the rules. Throughout his time in Drug Court, he repeatedly missed appointments and failed to participate, which meant he was not eligible for further leniency. On the issue of his mental health, Davis did not present any evidence in court to explain how his mental health affected his ability to comply with the Drug Court program. Therefore, the court did not find this argument convincing. Ultimately, the court decided that the judge did not make a mistake in removing Davis from Drug Court, and his appeal was denied.

Continue ReadingF-2018-145

F-2017-1053

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1053, Greenwood appealed her conviction for drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her termination from the Drug Court program but required the lower court to remove a $500 fine that had been improperly assessed. One judge dissented. The case began when Greenwood, on October 13, 2015, agreed to participate in the Drug Court program after pleading no contest to a charge of possessing methamphetamine and guilty to having drug paraphernalia. If she successfully completed the program, her sentence would be deferred, meaning she wouldn't have to serve time unless she failed to meet the program requirements. However, on August 31, 2017, the State asked to terminate Greenwood from the Drug Court program. The judge held a hearing where they discussed her progress. The judge decided to end her participation because Greenwood had not been following the rules of the program. As a result, she was sentenced according to her plea agreement, but the judge also added a $500 fine. Greenwood did not agree with this fine and argued that it was illegal because it wasn't part of her original plea deal. She also claimed it wasn't fair to terminate her from the program since she felt that the court hadn't tried hard enough to help her comply with the program's requirements through smaller penalties before jumping to termination. The court looked at her arguments. They found that the fine was indeed not allowed because of the rules surrounding Drug Courts, which require that once admitted, a judge can't change the conditions of someone's plea agreement. Since Greenwood's agreement stated she wouldn't have a fine, the court ordered the lower court to remove that $500 fine. As for her termination from the Drug Court, the judges looked at the evidence that showed she had repeatedly not followed the rules. There was testimony showing she missed meetings, didn’t show up for drug testing, and was not engaging with the services offered to her. The court found that while Greenwood believed she wasn't given enough help, it was ultimately her responsibility to follow the rules. In the end, the court decided to keep the termination of Greenwood from the Drug Court but mandated that the fine be taken away. The ruling confirmed that the Drug Court successfully supported the justice system while also highlighting the importance of personal responsibility in such programs.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1053

J-2018-402

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2018-402, M. T. G. appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that sentenced him as an adult and remanded the case back to the District Court. One judge dissented. M. T. G. was charged as a juvenile for Trafficking illegal drugs when he was 17 years and 9 months old. The State, however, filed a motion to treat him as an adult. The court found that M. T. G. should have been charged as a youthful offender instead of a juvenile, which was the basis for the reversal.

Continue ReadingJ-2018-402

RE 2016-1019

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2016-1019, Jerry Lynn Clemons appealed his conviction for Home Repair Fraud and other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but directed the District Court to modify the orders so that the sentences would run concurrently. The dissenting opinion was not specified. Here's a simplified summary of what happened: Jerry Clemons was found guilty in two cases. He pleaded guilty to Home Repair Fraud in one case and robbery and property damage in another. He was given suspended sentences, meaning he would not go to prison if he followed rules and conditions of probation, like reporting to a probation officer and not changing his address without informing them. However, he did not follow these rules, which led the State to ask to revoke his suspended sentences. During a hearing, the judge decided to revoke Clemons' suspended sentences because he had failed to report as required and changed his address without telling his probation officer. Clemons argued that the State didn’t properly inform him about the reasons for the revocation and that they didn’t provide enough evidence to support their claims. He also said that the judge should not have revoked his sentence because the punishment was longer than what the law allowed for one of his charges. The court agreed with some of Clemons' points but stated that there was enough evidence to support the decision to revoke his suspended sentences. They found that he didn’t show how the judge made a wrong choice. However, they also recognized a mistake in how the sentences should be served. They ordered that all his sentences should run concurrently, meaning they would be served at the same time, rather than one after the other. In conclusion, Clemons' appeal was mostly not successful, but the court made important changes to ensure he would serve his time in a fair way according to the law.

Continue ReadingRE 2016-1019

M-2016-108

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2016-108, Marty Spence Duncan appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery and Assault. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Duncan's judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial because the record did not show that he had waived his right to a jury trial. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingM-2016-108

M-2016-268

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2016-268, the appellant appealed his conviction for threatening to perform an act of violence and resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court made an error by not properly informing the appellant about the risks of representing himself without a lawyer. The court found that there was not enough evidence to show that the appellant understood what he was doing when he waived his right to a lawyer. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and ordered a new trial. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingM-2016-268

F-2015-212

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-212, Robert Leroy Gore appealed his conviction for Larceny of an Automobile and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. The court found that there was not enough evidence to show that Gore had properly given up his right to a jury trial. Therefore, the previous trial was not valid, and he will have another chance to present his case. No one dissented in this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2015-212

RE-2015-206

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-206, Akers appealed his conviction for Burglary in the Second Degree, Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, Conspiracy to Commit Burglary II, and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation order against him. One judge dissented. In this case, Akers had entered pleas of no contest to several charges after a plea agreement. He was sentenced to serve time in prison, but part of his sentence was suspended, meaning he wouldn’t have to serve it right away if he followed certain rules. However, a few months later, a judge revoked part of his suspended sentence because of a violation. Akers argued that the court did not follow the rules properly during the revocation process. Specifically, he claimed that the court didn’t hold a required hearing within 20 days after he entered a plea of not guilty to the motion for revocation. According to the law, if this time frame is not followed, the court loses the authority to revoke the suspended sentence. The record showed that the state filed a motion to revoke Akers' suspended sentence, and although he entered a plea of not guilty, he did not receive a hearing within the 20-day period. Akers' lawyer pointed out this issue during the hearing, claiming the court should not have moved forward with the revocation as it did not meet the required timeframe. The dissenting judge had a different opinion, but the majority agreed that Akers was right. Because the required hearing was not held on time, they decided to reverse the revocation order and told the lower court to dismiss the state’s motion, meaning Akers’ rights were upheld, and he would not face the consequences of the revocation. Thus, the decision was made to give Akers another chance by reversing the revocation.

Continue ReadingRE-2015-206

F-2014-524

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-524, Robert Dewayne Cox appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, and public intoxication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Cox's conviction for misdemeanor possession of marijuana should be reversed, but the other convictions were affirmed. One judge dissented. Cox was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Bryan County. The jury recommended a ten-year prison sentence for the methamphetamine charge, one day in jail for marijuana possession, and five days for public intoxication. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Cox raised several claims in his appeal. He argued that having two convictions for different drug possessions from the same incident was unfair and violated his protections against double punishment. The court found this claim valid and indicated it was a plain error, meaning it was obvious even though it was not raised during the trial. Next, Cox argued the law enforcement did not properly prove that the drugs taken from him were the same ones tested by the crime lab. The court found that he did not show this as an error as there was enough evidence to link the substances to the case. Cox also stated that the jury was influenced by evidence of other bad acts that should not have been admitted. However, the court decided that this evidence was relevant to the case and did not count as an error. Cox claimed that his attorney did not do a good job of defending him, especially regarding the issues he raised in his appeal. The court concluded that since they found a plain error regarding the possession charge, the claim about ineffective assistance was not necessary to address. Finally, Cox argued that the mistakes in the trial added up to deny him a fair trial. The court determined that while there was a mistake in charging him for both drug possessions, it was an isolated incident and did not create a pattern of errors that would warrant a new trial. In summary, the court upheld Cox's convictions for possession of methamphetamine and public intoxication but reversed the conviction for possession of marijuana because he should not have been punished twice for the same action. The case was sent back to the lower court for necessary actions related to this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2014-524

C 2014-693

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2014-693, a person appealed his conviction for child neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to allow him to withdraw his no contest plea due to receiving bad advice from his attorney, which made his plea not knowing and voluntary. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC 2014-693

F-2013-732

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-732, Bryan Thomas Delaney appealed his conviction for Escape from a Penal Institution and Resisting Arrest. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence for post-imprisonment supervision but upheld the rest of his conviction. One member of the court dissented. Delaney was found guilty by a jury after a trial where he faced charges for escaping a jail and resisting the police. As a result of these charges, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for the escape and 1 year in the county jail for the resisting arrest. The judge also ordered him to have 2 years of supervision after his prison time. Delaney argued that he was treated unfairly during the sentencing. He felt that the jury was wrongly told that his previous felony convictions could lead to a harsher sentence. However, he did not raise this issue during the trial, which made it harder for him to win the appeal. The court found that his past crimes were separate incidents and did not fall under the rules for counting prior offenses. Delaney also claimed that his lawyer did not do a good job because they did not challenge the jury instruction about the prior convictions. For his appeal to be successful on this point, he needed to show that his lawyer's mistakes really changed the outcome of his trial. The court decided that, since the jury's instruction was appropriate, his lawyer's actions did not affect his case. Finally, the court noted that while neither side pointed it out, Delaney was sentenced to longer supervision than what the law allows. They corrected this by reducing the supervision time to just 1 year. In summary, the court made some changes to Delaney's post-prison supervision but agreed with the rest of his sentencing and conviction. The decision was mostly upheld, and only one part was changed to be in line with the law.

Continue ReadingF-2013-732

F-2013-974

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-974, Karena L. Gilbreath-Hancock appealed her conviction for Actual Physical Control of a Motor Vehicle under the Influence of Alcohol. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for resentencing but affirmed her original conviction. One judge dissented. Gilbreath-Hancock was found guilty after a jury trial and was sentenced to two and a half years in prison along with a fine. She appealed for two main reasons. First, she claimed that her lawyer had a conflict of interest. However, the court found there was no actual conflict because Gilbreath-Hancock did not object to her lawyer's representation during the trial. The court stated that just because she disagreed with her lawyer's strategy, it did not mean there was a conflict of interest. Second, Gilbreath-Hancock argued that her rights were violated as the trial court failed to give the jury all the possible sentencing options available. The court agreed that the trial court made a mistake and needed to correct it. Because of this, they ordered the case to be sent back for resentencing, making sure that the jury would know all their options. In summary, while the court upheld the conviction of Gilbreath-Hancock, they recognized a mistake in the sentencing process and ordered that it be fixed.

Continue ReadingF-2013-974

RE-2013-848

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-848, a person appealed his conviction for attempting to make methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court did not have the authority to revoke the person's suspended sentence because the hearing on the revocation was not held within the required twenty days. The court reversed the revocation and sent the case back for further actions. One judge dissented from this opinion.

Continue ReadingRE-2013-848

RE-2013-939

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-939, Quinton Blake Richardson appealed his conviction for larceny of merchandise from a retailer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that revoked a part of his suspended sentence based on a conflict of interest involving his attorney. One judge dissented. Mr. Richardson had originally entered a guilty plea to stealing items worth over $500 from a Wal-Mart and was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment, which was suspended under probation. However, he later faced a motion to revoke his suspended sentence. This motion claimed he violated his probation with new charges in Kansas for threatening and hitting a person, as well as failing drug tests. During the revocation hearing, Mr. Richardson's attorney had previously represented the victim in his case, which created a conflict of interest. The victim testified against Mr. Richardson, and the court judged that this situation affected how well Mr. Richardson was defended. The court emphasized that if a lawyer has a conflict of interest that harms their representation, the defendant may have their case overturned. Therefore, since the court believed Mr. Richardson did not get the fair help he needed because of the attorney's former relationship with the victim, they decided to reverse the revocation of his sentence and sent the case back for further proceedings. Additionally, the court found that other issues raised by Mr. Richardson about paperwork errors were not necessary to address further because of the main reversal decision. Overall, this case highlighted the importance of fair legal representation and how conflicts of interest can lead to wrong decisions in court.

Continue ReadingRE-2013-939