Attorney General

RE-2021-1290

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2021-1290, Vernon Shawn Miller, Jr. appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking Miller's suspended sentences but vacated the part of the order that imposed post-imprisonment supervision. One member of the court dissented. Vernon Shawn Miller, Jr. had a serious legal history. He pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including kidnapping and domestic assault, and was given a sentence but had part of it suspended after he completed a special drug program. However, in August 2021, the State filed a motion to revoke his suspended sentence because he broke the rules of his probation, which included failing to complete a required assessment and getting arrested for a new crime. The trial court held a hearing and decided to revoke all of Miller's suspended sentence. Miller argued against this decision, claiming it violated the rules because he should not serve more time than the sentence he was given. The court explained during the hearing that it intended to revoke all of the suspended time left on his sentence. Miller raised several arguments during his appeal. He thought the sentence should not exceed what he had left to serve and believed that the facts used to revoke his sentence came from an earlier trial rather than the hearing itself. Miller also said he did not get good help from his lawyer during the process. The court reviewed Miller's arguments closely. It confirmed that the judge's decision to revoke the entire suspended sentence was valid and within their rights. They found no specific errors in what the trial court did, except for the imposition of post-imprisonment supervision, which should not have been added since it was not part of the original sentence. In the end, the court upheld the revocation of Miller's suspended sentence but removed the part about post-imprisonment supervision, meaning Miller had to serve the time his sentence required without additional conditions.

Continue ReadingRE-2021-1290

F-2018-1268

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-1268, Stewart Wayne Coffman appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented. Coffman was found guilty of First Degree Manslaughter, and the judge sentenced him to forty years in prison. He appealed his conviction, claiming that the court did not have the right to try him because the victim, Joe Battiest, Jr., was a member of the Choctaw Nation and the crime took place in Indian Country. The case was affected by a past ruling, McGirt v. Oklahoma, which stated that crimes on certain Native American lands fall under federal jurisdiction. The appellate court ordered a hearing to investigate Coffman's claims about the victim’s status and the crime's location. During this hearing, experts confirmed that Battiest had a majority of Indian blood and was recognized by the Choctaw Nation. The crime took place at a specific address that was within the historical boundaries of the Choctaw Nation. The district court found no evidence that Congress had ever removed those boundaries. After reviewing the evidence, the court decided that Coffman's case should be dismissed because Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him, in line with the earlier McGirt decision. Therefore, the court reversed the judgments and sentences of the lower court, ordering the case dismissed.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1268

F-2020-54

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2020-54, Floyd Joseph Ball, Jr. appealed his conviction for kidnapping, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, aggravated assault and battery, and disrupting an emergency telephone call. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand the case to the District Court of McClain County with instructions to dismiss the case. Ball's appeal raised several issues, particularly regarding the state's jurisdiction to prosecute him. He argued that he is an Indian under federal law and that the crimes occurred in Indian Country. The court recognized that these issues required more investigation. They sent the case back to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing to clarify whether Ball was indeed an Indian and whether the crimes took place in Indian Country. Both sides later agreed on a stipulation about the facts related to these questions. The District Court found that Ball had enough Indian blood and was recognized as an Indian by his tribe. It also determined that the crime happened on a reservation, meaning the State of Oklahoma had no jurisdiction to prosecute him for these crimes. The court ruled that Ball had proven his status and the location of the crimes, leading to the decision that the state could not prosecute him in this situation. The court decided that because of this finding, it did not need to address other claims raised by Ball and sent the case back to the lower court to dismiss it. Overall, the court recognized that Ball's rights under federal law regarding his Indian status and the location of the crime played a significant role in the outcome of the appeal.

Continue ReadingF-2020-54

F-2017-1294

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1294, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. The case involved Terrance Lucas Cottingham, who was found guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon after having been previously convicted of two or more felonies. The conviction took place in the District Court of Washington County, where he was sentenced to 25 years in prison. He would have to serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. Cottingham argued that the court did not have the right to prosecute him because of his status as a member of the Osage Nation and because the crime occurred in what he believed to be Indian Country, specifically the Cherokee Nation's boundaries. He cited a federal law and a Supreme Court decision, McGirt v. Oklahoma, to support his argument. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals decided to send Cottingham's case back to the lower court for a hearing to examine his Indian status and the location of the robbery. They said that Cottingham needed to show that he had Indian blood and was recognized as an Indian by the tribe or by the federal government. If he could prove this, then it would be up to the state to show that it had jurisdiction to prosecute him. During the hearing, Cottingham and the Cherokee Nation agreed on certain facts. They confirmed that he had a degree of Indian blood and was a member of the Osage Nation at the time of the robbery. They also agreed that the robbery happened within the geographic area defined by treaties establishing the Cherokee Nation. The court found that Cottingham was indeed a member of the Osage Nation and that the robbery occurred in Indian Country based on their analysis of the law and treaties. This evidence showed that the state of Oklahoma did not have the legal right to prosecute Cottingham for the crime. The appeals court ultimately agreed with the findings of the lower court and concluded that Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, they reversed Cottingham's conviction and instructed the District Court to dismiss the case. In summary, Cottingham's conviction was undone because it was determined that he was an Indian and that the crime took place in Indian Country. Consequently, the state court did not have the authority to prosecute him.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1294

F-2016-1030

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-1030, David Deval Martin appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for dismissal. No one dissented. David Deval Martin was found guilty of First Degree Murder after a jury trial in McIntosh County. The judge sentenced him to life in prison without the chance of parole. Martin argued that the court did not have the authority to try him because he is a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and the crime occurred on tribal land. The court looked at an important case called McGirt v. Oklahoma, which helped answer Martin’s questions about his status as an Indian and where the crime took place. They sent the case back to the local court for a closer look. There, it was determined through evidence that Martin is a member of the Creek Nation with some Indian blood, and the crime occurred within the Creek Nation’s territory. After the local court reviewed the evidence and found in favor of Martin, both sides agreed on important facts about his identity and where the crime occurred. Because of this, the higher court concluded that the state of Oklahoma did not have the right to prosecute Martin under these circumstances. As a result, they overturned the conviction and told the lower court to dismiss the charges against him.

Continue ReadingF-2016-1030

F-2017-1245

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1245, Jeffery Arch Jones appealed his conviction for five counts of Sexual Abuse-Child Under 12. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him because he is a member of the Cherokee Nation, and the crimes occurred within the boundaries of the Creek Reservation. The conviction and sentence were reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1245

F-2017-336

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-336, Bea Ann Epperson appealed her conviction for two counts of Embezzlement of Building Trust. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her convictions and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Bea Ann Epperson was found guilty in a trial without a jury for embezzling money related to a building trust. She was sentenced to five years in prison for each count, but her sentences were suspended, meaning she wouldn’t serve time unless she violated certain conditions. Epperson believed that the court did not have the right to try her case because she is a member of the Cherokee Nation, and the victims might be part of the Creek Nation, with the crimes happening on Creek Reservation land. This argument was connected to a U.S. Supreme Court decision called McGirt v. Oklahoma, which deals with whether certain areas are considered Indian Country. The questions involved were Epperson's Indian status, the status of the victims, and the location of the crimes. Because these questions needed more fact-finding, the case was sent back to the District Court. At a hearing to gather more details, it was determined that Epperson had some Indian blood (3/64th degree) and was recognized as a member of the Cherokee Nation. It was also confirmed that the crimes took place within the boundaries of the Creek Reservation. The court accepted these agreements made by both sides regarding what the evidence would show. In a later brief, the State supported the District Court’s findings, but wanted time to consider whether to file new charges against Epperson. After reviewing everything, the court agreed Epperson had shown she was an Indian and that the crimes happened in Indian Country, thus the State of Oklahoma did not have the right to try her. The court reversed the judgment of Epperson's convictions and sent the case back to be dismissed, meaning she wouldn't face charges for the embezzlement anymore.

Continue ReadingF-2017-336

F-2019-82

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-82, Spencer Thomas Cato appealed his conviction for various crimes including possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm after a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed and dismissed one count against Cato. A judge dissented regarding the dismissal of that count. Cato had been found guilty of several offenses, including having a controlled substance and firearms while being a convicted felon. During the trial, the jury sentenced him to a total of several years in prison along with fines. The judge decided some of these sentences would be served at the same time, while others would be served one after the other. Cato appealed, arguing that his rights were violated because he was punished twice for what he saw as the same action. Specifically, he felt the charges of possessing a firearm after a felony and possessing a firearm while committing a felony were not separate. Cato believed that the law should prevent him from being punished for both crimes since they stemmed from the same act of possessing the same gun with no significant break in time between the two actions. Upon reviewing the case, the court agreed with Cato’s argument. They found that there was no new evidence that suggested he had used the firearm for a different purpose at different times. The trial revealed that Cato had the gun and drugs at the same time which led to the conclusion that punishing him for both counts was not appropriate. The court decided to reverse the lesser charge and direct that it be dismissed. In summary, while some of Cato's convictions and their sentences were confirmed, the court found that he could not be punished for both possessing a firearm after a felony and possessing it while committing another felony under the circumstances of his case. Hence, they instructed the lower court to dismiss the one charge.

Continue ReadingF-2019-82

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-2018-36

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingF-2018-36

F-2018-309

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-309, Adrian Escajeda appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Adrian Escajeda was found guilty of first-degree murder by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. He was also convicted earlier of two drug possession charges, but those were not part of his appeal. During his trial, Escajeda claimed there were several errors that negatively impacted his case. First, he argued that it was wrong to have both his murder case and a separate child neglect case tried together in front of the same jury. He believed this made it hard for the jury to be fair. However, the court found that he didn't show how this joined trial actually harmed him because the jury had acquitted him of the child neglect charge. Additionally, the evidence against him for murder was very strong and unrelated to the child neglect, making the combined trial harmless. Escajeda also said his lawyer did not do a good job by not objecting to the charges being joined for trial. However, the court decided that his lawyer's performance wasn’t ineffective because there wasn’t any real prejudice; the outcome was not affected. The next point Escajeda raised was about some statements made during the trial. He believed hearsay was wrongly admitted, which violated his right to confront witnesses. The court looked into this and concluded that the statements in question were not hearsay, as they were used to explain the detective's investigation and did not assert the truth of those statements. Finally, Escajeda claimed that the prosecutor made unfair comments during the trial that made it hard for the jury to be impartial. The court examined these comments and found they were reasonable and based on the evidence presented. Since the comments did not create an unfair trial, the court dismissed this argument as well. In conclusion, the court reviewed all of Escajeda’s claims and found none of them warranted a change to his conviction or sentence. As a result, his conviction for first-degree murder remained in place, and he will serve the majority of his sentence in prison.

Continue ReadingF-2018-309

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

F-2018-513

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-513, Bobby Lee Ruppel, Jr. appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and robbery with a weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Ruppel's conviction but vacated the restitution order, meaning a proper determination of the victim's economic loss must take place. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2018-513

F-2018-596

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals related to the case of Worth Lerance Martin. The appellant, Martin, was convicted of two offenses in the District Court of Stephens County: Feloniously Pointing a Firearm and Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony. Following a bench trial, he was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison and a $1,500 fine for each count, with sentences to run concurrently. In his appeal, Martin argued that the twenty-five-year sentences were shockingly excessive. However, the Court reviewed the circumstances of the case, including Martin's violent behavior of pointing a pistol at another individual and using threatening language, which occurred without provocation. The Court noted that Martin presented no counter-evidence to challenge the victim's testimony or the State's evidence and did not dispute his criminal history, which was a factor in determining his sentence. Ultimately, the Court found that the imposed sentences were not shocking to the conscience, especially when considering the nature of the offenses and the fact that they were less severe than what the prosecutor requested. Consequently, the Court affirmed the judgment and sentence from the lower court. The decision signifies the Court's discretion in sentencing and highlights the weight of prior criminal history and the nature of the crimes committed when determining appropriate punishment. In conclusion, the judgment and sentence of the District Court of Stephens County is affirmed, and the Court ordered that the mandate be issued upon filing this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2018-596

F-2017-825

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-825, Ryan Paul Farr appealed his conviction for burglary in the second degree and possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences. There was one dissenting opinion. The case began when Farr was found guilty by a jury in Carter County. He faced two counts: one for burglary after having previous convictions, and another for having a firearm despite also having previous convictions. The jury decided that he should serve 25 years for the burglary and 15 years for the firearm possession, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. Farr raised many complaints in his appeal, mentioning problems he believed occurred during the trial. He argued that the trial court made mistakes when it allowed the case to be reopened for more witness testimony and that he did not get a fair trial due to evidence of other crimes being presented. He also expressed concern about the prosecutor’s comments, which he thought made it seem like he was guilty before the jury could decide. The court looked closely at each of Farr's points. For the first complaint, the court said that letting the State present more witness testimony was a reasonable choice and didn’t hurt Farr's case. About the evidence of other crimes, the court noted that Farr didn’t object at the time these details were shared, which meant he couldn’t complain later. Farr also had issues with how his prior convictions were brought up during the trial, but the court found no major errors there either. When it came to the prosecutor’s behavior, the court decided that while the prosecutor made some points during arguments, they did not sway the trial's fairness. Farr's claims about not having enough evidence supporting his burglary and firearm possession were rejected since the court believed the evidence presented was sufficient to prove his guilt. Lastly, although Farr thought his sentences were too long, the court reminded him that sentences are usually left to the discretion of the judge unless they are extremely unfair, which in this case they weren’t. Because the court found no errors in the trial process, they confirmed the decision made in the lower court. In conclusion, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence against Farr, stating that all of his arguments were without merit.

Continue ReadingF-2017-825

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-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

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

RE-2016-401

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2016-401, a person appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and burglary in the second degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences. One member of the court dissented. The case began when the person entered a guilty plea on November 3, 2014, and was sentenced to eight years in prison, with three years to be served and the rest suspended. This means he would not have to serve the full eight years right away. However, problems arose when the State of Oklahoma wanted to revoke his suspended sentence on January 13, 2016. During the revocation hearing held on April 26, 2016, it was found that he had violated the terms of his suspended sentences. The important issue in the appeal was whether the court had the right to hold the hearing after a certain time. According to the law, a revocation hearing should happen within twenty days unless both sides agree to wait longer. In this case, the person pleaded not guilty on February 1, 2016. The hearing was originally set for February 29, 2016, which was already too late according to the rules. It was then moved to April 26, 2016, making it even later and not meeting the legal deadline. Because the court did not have the right to hold the hearing after so much time had passed, the higher court decided to reverse the earlier decision and send the case back for further action that follows the law.

Continue ReadingRE-2016-401

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

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 2013-0850

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0850, Chief Allen Weston appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Choking. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered the district court to modify the sentence to give Weston credit for the ninety days he had already served in jail during his probation period. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE 2013-0850

RE-2012-1043

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2012-1043, Phillip Wade Barton appealed his conviction for violating probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his ten-year suspended sentence. No one dissented. Phillip Wade Barton had originally pled guilty to trying to make a controlled substance and was given a ten-year suspended sentence in 2010. This meant he wouldn't go to prison, but he had to follow certain rules. In May 2011, he got in trouble again for trying to make a controlled substance, which led the state to ask for his probation to be revoked. In October 2012, a hearing took place to see if Barton really broke the rules of his probation. The state presented only one piece of evidence, which was a document showing that Barton had pleaded guilty to the new crime. However, this document did not prove that he violated his probation since the new crime's judgment was not final. The court stated that for the state to revoke a suspended sentence due to a new crime, they either need to show that the new crime's conviction is final or prove each part of the new crime. Since the state did not provide the necessary evidence, the court agreed with Barton and decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. They sent the case back to the lower court to make sure everything was handled correctly.

Continue ReadingRE-2012-1043

RE-2012-0835

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2012-835, Lon Adam Smith appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, domestic abuse, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the sentences and send them back to the district court for changes. One judge dissented. The case involved three separate convictions against Lon Adam Smith, who had initially entered pleas of no contest to the charges. His sentences were suspended as long as he successfully completed certain rehabilitation programs. However, after some time, the state claimed Smith had not followed through with these programs, which led to a hearing where Smith admitted to the violations. During the revocation hearing, the judge revoked Smith's suspended sentences and imposed longer terms of imprisonment, which raised concerns about whether these new sentences were valid given the original ones. The main issue was that the original sentences had been improperly processed. The judge had not followed the correct procedures for delaying the imposition of sentences as required by law. The court found that Smith's original sentences were improperly extended due to the judge's actions at the revocation hearing. It was determined that since Smith's initial sentences were set on a specific date, any new sentences imposed could not exceed the original terms. Therefore, the court ruled that the revocation sentences needed to start from the date of the original sentences. In the end, the court reversed the judge's decision, which meant that Smith's sentences had to be adjusted to reflect the proper starting dates and terms. The court ordered the district court to amend the sentences accordingly. This decision helps ensure fairness in the legal process and clarifies how long someone can be sentenced for violations of probation.

Continue ReadingRE-2012-0835

F-2012-732

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-732, Omar Sharrod Pollard appealed his conviction for Unlawful Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (crack cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Pollard's conviction but modified his sentence. One Justice dissented. Here’s a breakdown of what happened in this case: 1. **Background**: Pollard was tried by a jury and found guilty of selling crack cocaine. He had prior felony convictions, which were used to enhance his sentence. The jury decided on a punishment of forty years in prison. 2. **Issues on Appeal**: Pollard raised several points in his appeal: - He claimed that he did not receive a fair trial due to the admission of multiple felony convictions from the same event to enhance his sentence. - He alleged prosecutorial misconduct that he believed made his trial unfair. - He argued that he did not receive effective help from his lawyer during the sentencing phase. - He said that information about his previous suspended sentences should not have been shared with the jury during the trial. - He questioned whether there was enough evidence for his conviction. - He thought his sentence was too long. - He claimed the accumulation of errors in his trial prevented a fair process. 3. **Court's Findings**: The court reviewed Pollard's claims. They concluded that while he did not need to reverse the conviction, his sentence needed to be adjusted. The court acknowledged two specific errors concerning how the State presented Pollard's prior convictions and the details of his past sentences to the jury. 4. **Errors Identified**: - It was wrong for the jury to hear about Pollard’s multiple felony convictions from the same incident. The law states that for estimating punishment, the jury should only be aware of one conviction from a single event. - Additionally, disclosing that some of his previous sentences were suspended was inappropriate. This information could have biased the jury against him and influenced their decision on sentencing. 5. **Conclusion**: The court felt that these mistakes likely swayed the jury's decision on Pollard's punishment. Therefore, they decided to reduce Pollard's prison sentence from forty years to twenty-five years. The judgment of the district court was affirmed, but Pollard's sentence was modified to a lesser term of 25 years in prison.

Continue ReadingF-2012-732