Burden of Proof Archives - Page 2 of 5

F-2018-350

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

In OCCA case No. F-2018-350, Jonathan Brent Buccino appealed his conviction for three counts of embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Jonathan was found guilty in a trial where the judge decided the case without a jury. He was accused of taking money from an investment, which he was supposed to use for software development, but instead, he used the money for other purposes. The judge gave him five years in prison for each count, but these sentences were suspended, meaning he wouldn’t go to prison right away, if at all. During his appeal, Jonathan claimed that the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove he committed a crime. He argued that the only proof was what people said in their testimony, not any written documents. He believed that this meant the state did not meet its obligation to show he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court explained that when figuring out if there was enough evidence for a conviction, they look at it in a way that favors the state. This means they assume the evidence presented was correct and that the jury found the witnesses believable. Even if there were different opinions, the judge made the final call on what was credible. The court found that Jonathan was only allowed to use the invested money for software development, and the state showed he used it elsewhere, which was enough to prove he was guilty. In his second claim, Jonathan argued that the “Statute of Frauds” should have applied to his case. He thought that this statute meant any agreement needed to be in writing if it couldn’t be completed within a year, and since he didn’t have a written agreement, his case shouldn’t have been criminal. The court explained that embezzlement doesn’t need a contract, and whether or not there was a written agreement was not important. The crime was based on his actions, not on whether a written contract existed. The court also noted that the decision to bring a criminal case was the district attorney’s responsibility and that the evidence provided was enough to charge him with a crime, regardless of whether he might have been open to a civil case as well. In conclusion, the court affirmed Jonathan’s conviction, meaning they agreed with the original decision of the trial court.

RE-2018-630

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 20, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CHRISTOPHER CHARLES DOWNUM,** **Appellant,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-630** **FILED JUN 20 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** On July 14, 2017, Appellant Downum, represented by counsel, entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of Malicious Injury to Property in McIntosh County Case No. CM-2017-317. Downum was sentenced to one (1) year in the McIntosh County jail, all suspended, subject to terms and conditions of probation. On October 18, 2017, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Downum's suspended sentence alleging he committed the new offenses of Public Intoxication and Obstructing An Officer in McIntosh County Case No. CM-2017-457. The District Court of McIntosh County, presided over by the Honorable James D. Bland, held a combined revocation hearing and preliminary hearing on May 31, 2017, and revoked ten (10) days of Downum's suspended sentence in Case No. CM-2017-317. From this Judgment and Sentence, Downum appeals with the following propositions of error: 1. The trial court used the wrong legal standard in revoking Downum's suspended sentence. 2. The evidence was insufficient to show that Downum committed the acts of public intoxication and obstructing an officer. 3. The sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive. The revocation of Downum's suspended sentence is **AFFIRMED**. The scope of review in a revocation appeal is limited to the validity of the revocation order executing the previously imposed sentence. The Court examines the basis for the factual determination and considers whether the court abused its discretion. Downum agues in Proposition I that Judge Bland used the wrong standard in revoking his suspended sentence by confusing the burden of proof for revoking a suspended sentence with that required for a preliminary hearing. This concern relates to Proposition II, where Downum claims there was insufficient evidence even if the appropriate standard had been applied. However, alleged violations of conditions of a suspended sentence need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court finds no evidence in the appeal record supporting Downum's claim that Judge Bland did not apply the correct standard. The record shows competent evidence was presented at the revocation hearing, allowing the court to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Downum violated his probation terms. Consequently, Propositions I and II are denied. In Proposition III, Downum argues that the ten-day revocation is excessive, citing no supporting authority. The Court has established that violation of any condition of probation can justify revocation of a suspended sentence. No abuse of discretion is found in Judge Bland's decision to revoke ten days of Downum's suspended sentence. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of McIntosh County revoking ten (10) days of Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CM-2017-317 is **AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MCINTOSH COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE JAMES D. BLAND, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** WARREN GOTCHER GOTCHER & BEAVER 323 E. CARL ALBERT PKWY. P.O. BOX 160 MCALESTER, OK 74502 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** WARREN GOTCHER GOTCHER & BEAVER 323 E. CARL ALBERT PKWY. P.O. BOX 160 MCALESTER, OK 74502 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT GREGORY R. STIDHAM ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY MCINTOSH COUNTY 110 NORTH FIRST STREET EUFAULA, OK 74432 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE MIKE HUNTER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA THEODORE M. PEEPER ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21ST STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** **[END OF DOCUMENT]** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-630_1734428440.pdf)

F-2018-391

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 20, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-391, Zachary Troy King appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Zachary Troy King was found guilty by a jury in a case where he was accused of injuring a child. The jury decided that he had caused harm to the child, and he was sentenced to twenty years in prison, with the first fifteen years needing to be served. King argued four main points in his appeal. First, King said that the evidence presented in his trial was not strong enough to prove he committed child abuse. He claimed that the injuries to the child were not clearly caused by him, and he thought the jury should not have convicted him. However, the court believed that there was enough evidence for any reasonable person to conclude that King did injure the child. Second, King claimed that the judge made a mistake by not allowing a mistrial after the prosecution introduced certain evidence. He argued that this evidence was not important or added to the case in a meaningful way. Yet, the court felt that the testimony included by the prosecution was relevant to proving injuries were intentionally inflicted rather than accidental. Third, King accused the prosecutor of acting unfairly during the trial, which made it hard for him to get a fair trial. The court reviewed the prosecutors' actions and felt there were no significant errors that would have impacted the trial's fairness. Lastly, King argued that the collection of mistakes in his trial added up to take away his right to a fair hearing. But, since the court did not find any errors that would require a reversal of the conviction, the claim was also denied. In conclusion, the court upheld the jury's decision and the trial judge's actions, stating that King received a fair trial and that there was enough evidence to support the conviction. The judgment from the trial court was confirmed, and King will continue to serve his sentence.

F-2017-949

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 13, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-949, Montoyia Corbitt appealed her conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree-Heat of Passion. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Montoyia Corbitt was tried for a crime that involved the death of another person. During her trial, she claimed she acted in self-defense. However, the jury found her guilty, and she was given a six-year prison sentence. The law said she had to serve at least 85% of her sentence before she could be considered for parole. Corbitt made three main arguments in her appeal. First, she believed the evidence was not enough to prove she did not act in self-defense. The court explained that self-defense is a reason someone can use force, but it has to be reasonable. They found there was enough evidence that showed Corbitt's fear was not reasonable and, therefore, not justified in using deadly force. Second, Corbitt argued that a police officer’s opinion in her trial influenced the jury and was not fair. The court reviewed this matter and decided that the officer's testimony was allowed because it was based on what he observed during the investigation. They concluded that his statements helped clarify what happened during the incident without directing the jury toward a specific conclusion. Third, Corbitt was concerned about a photograph that showed her face during a police interview. She thought it was not relevant and unfairly prejudiced her case. The court ruled the photo was relevant because it helped support her claim of self-defense. They believed the image added to the understanding of the situation rather than just being harmful to her. Ultimately, after looking at all the arguments and evidence, the court agreed with the jury’s decision and affirmed her conviction.

C-2018-685

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 6, 2019
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ORIE DANIEL HILL,** **Petitioner,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-685** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: **Background:** Orie Daniel Hill, Petitioner, entered a blind plea of nolo contendere to multiple charges including: first-degree rape (victim under age fourteen), rape by instrumentation, lewd or indecent acts to a child under sixteen, and child sexual abuse. The trial court sentenced him to thirty years imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently and mandated three years of post-imprisonment supervision. Hill later filed a motion to withdraw his plea, claiming it was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. **Issues Raised:** 1. The trial court abused its discretion in denying Hill's motion to withdraw his plea; 2. Hill was denied effective assistance of counsel. **Facts:** The case involved allegations against Hill related to inappropriate sexual behavior towards an 8-year-old girl, A.H. The investigation included statements from the victim and forensic evidence, including DNA linking Hill to the offenses. **Analysis:** The court's review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently, whether the sentence was excessive, and whether counsel was effective. The burden is on Hill to demonstrate that his counsel was ineffective or that he did not fully understand the plea agreement. 1. **Proposition One:** The court concluded that Hill knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his plea. He was informed of his rights and the potential consequences. Despite Hill's claim of feeling pressure and receiving poor legal advice, the court found no evidence supporting these assertions. 2. **Proposition Two:** Hill’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel did not meet the standard established in Strickland v. Washington, which requires showing both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. The court ruled that counsel’s advice was sound and appropriately reflected the realities of the situation, including the potential for harsher sentences if the case went to trial. **Conclusion:** The petition for a writ of certiorari is DENIED, and the judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. **MANDATE:** Ordered issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES:** - **For Appellant:** David R. Slane; Nicollette Brandt - **For the State:** Chris Anderson, Assistant District Attorney **OPINION BY:** Lewis, P.J. **Concur:** Kuehn, V.P.J.; Lumpkin, J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-685_1734175737.pdf)

C-2018-927

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2019
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SAHIB QUIETMAN HENDERSON,** **Petitioner,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-927** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 30, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Sahib Quietman Henderson entered a blind plea of guilty to Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance within 2,000 feet of a School in the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CF-2016-393. The plea was accepted by the Honorable Ken J. Graham, District Judge, on April 30, 2018, with sentencing delayed until July 25, 2018. On that date, Petitioner was sentenced to thirty (30) years in prison, with the first fifteen (15) years to be served and the remaining fifteen (15) years suspended, alongside a fine of $2,500.00. On August 2, 2018, represented by counsel, Petitioner filed an Application to Withdraw Plea of Guilty. At hearings on August 20 and 22, 2018, Judge Graham denied the motion to withdraw. Petitioner appeals the denial and raises the following propositions of error: 1. Failure of the State and District Court to honor the promised consideration for Appellant's plea requires modification of his inflated sentence, or an opportunity to withdraw his plea. 2. The sentence is shockingly excessive given the circumstances of the case. 3. Ineffective assistance of counsel in identifying, presenting, and preserving issues for review. After thorough review of these propositions and the entirety of the record, including original record, transcripts, and briefs, we find that neither reversal nor modification is required. Our primary concern in evaluating the validity of a guilty plea is whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently. Petitioner carries the burden of proving his plea was entered unadvisedly, through influence, or without deliberation. Voluntariness is assessed through the entire record. In **Proposition I**, Petitioner claims that the plea lacked a knowing and voluntary nature due to non-fulfillment of a promise that he would be sentenced as a first-time offender and because of purported drug buys by his wife reducing his sentence. Contrary to this argument, the record shows Petitioner was treated as a first-time offender, with the court considering the mitigating factors at sentencing. His dissatisfaction with the resulting sentence does not provide grounds for withdrawal of the plea. In **Proposition II**, Petitioner contends the sentence is excessive. However, as he did not raise this claim in his Application to Withdraw Guilty Plea to the trial court, it is waived on appeal. In **Proposition III**, Petitioner argues ineffective assistance of counsel during both the plea and withdrawal hearings. A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is only established by showing that counsel's performance was deficient and that it resulted in prejudice to the defendant. The record does not support that withdrawal counsel's performance was deficient or that it affected the outcome—Petitioner maintained he did not wish to withdraw his plea but rather sought a sentence modification. **DECISION** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon this decision. --- **APPEARANCES IN DISTRICT COURT:** Grant D. Shepherd 601 S.W. C Ave., Ste. 201 Lawton, OK 73501 Counsel for the Defense **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** Kimberly D. Heinze P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 Counsel for Petitioner at the Plea Hearing Ronald L. Williams P.O. Box 2095 Lawton, OK 73502 Counsel for the Defense at the Withdrawal Hearing Jason M. Hicks District Attorney Cortnie Siess & Greg Steward Assistant District Attorneys Stephens Co. Courthouse 101 S. 11th St., Duncan, OK 73533 Counsel for the State **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur --- [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-927_1734182885.pdf)

C-2017-1036

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 23, 2019** **DANA MECHELE LANGLEY,** Petitioner, vs. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Respondent. **Case No. C-2017-1036** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Petitioner Dana Mechele Langley was charged in the Tulsa County District Court with multiple counts, including **Lewd Molestation**, **Enabling Child Sexual Abuse**, and **Child Sexual Abuse**. Langley entered a blind plea of guilty to these charges on June 19, 2017. Following a hearing, Judge Sharon K. Holmes sentenced her to significant prison terms. On September 6, 2017, Langley, through her counsel, filed an application to withdraw her guilty plea, which led to the appointment of conflict counsel. After a hearing, her request was denied. Langley then sought a writ of certiorari, raising three propositions of error: 1. The trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw her guilty plea was plain error and an abuse of discretion due to an inadequate factual basis. 2. Denial of effective assistance of counsel during both the plea hearing and the plea withdrawal hearing. 3. The sentences imposed were excessive given the circumstances. **DECISION:** After reviewing the complete record, including transcripts and exhibits, the Court found no grounds for relief. **Proposition I:** The claim regarding the factual basis for the lewd molestation counts was not raised at the withdrawal hearing; thus, it was procedurally defective and not properly before the Court. **Proposition II:** The ineffective assistance claim was similarly waived as it was not included in her motion to withdraw. Furthermore, the Court found sufficient evidence supporting the factual basis of her pleas, dismissing claims about the inadequacy of representation. **Proposition III:** The sentences were consistent with statutory ranges and did not shock the conscience of the Court. **CONCLUSION:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is **DENIED**, and the judgment and sentence from the district court are **AFFIRMED**. **Pursuant to Rule 3.15, RULES OF THE OKLAHOMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.** --- **Click Here To Download PDF** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2017-1036-1_1733900854.pdf)

S-2018-229

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:S

**Summary of Case: State of Oklahoma v. Brittney Jo Wallace, 2019 OK CR 10** **Court**: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma **Case No.**: S-2018-229 **Date Filed**: May 23, 2019 ### Background: Brittney Jo Wallace was charged in the District Court of Rogers County with two counts of Enabling Child Abuse and one count of Child Neglect. A pretrial hearing was held regarding her motion to suppress evidence obtained from her cell phone, which was granted by the trial court. ### Key Points: 1. **Appeal by State**: The State of Oklahoma appealed the trial court's decision to suppress evidence obtained from Wallace's cell phone, arguing that the seizure was supported by probable cause. 2. **Legal Standards**: - The appeal is evaluated under 22 O.S.2011, § 1053, which allows the State to appeal a pretrial order suppressing evidence in cases involving certain offenses. - The appellate court applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a motion to suppress. 3. **Probable Cause & Exigent Circumstances**: - The court recognized that warrantless searches are presumed unreasonable but can be justified under certain conditions, such as probable cause and exigent circumstances. - The detective believed that Wallace's phone contained evidence of child abuse and had sufficient reasons to act quickly to preserve that evidence. 4. **Actions Taken with the Phone**: - The detective accessed the phone with Wallace's assistance to forward calls and put the device in airplane mode, actions viewed as reasonable to prevent potential evidence loss. 5. **Trial Court's Findings**: - The trial court suppressed the evidence, stating the seizure and accessing of the phone were illegal. The appellate court found this decision to be an abuse of discretion, as the actions taken by law enforcement were justified. 6. **Search Warrant**: - The State also challenged the trial court's ruling regarding a subsequent search warrant for the cellphone, which the trial court deemed overly broad and not supported by probable cause. - The appellate court highlighted the need for the defendant to provide evidence showing the invalidity of the warrant and noted the lack of factual development in the record. ### Conclusion: The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision to suppress the evidence. It determined that the initial seizure and accessing of Wallace’s phone were reasonable and consistent with legal standards. The matter was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The decision was unanimously concurred by all judges. **Document Link**: [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2018-229_1734331323.pdf) --- This summary encapsulates the critical elements of the case, focusing on the legal principles involved and the court's reasoning without delving into detailed citations or procedural minutiae.

F-2018-56

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-56, Garry Wayne Wilson appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Possession of a Firearm While Under Supervision of the Department of Corrections. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. No one dissented. Garry Wayne Wilson was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County. He faced two charges: killing someone and having a gun when he wasn’t supposed to. The jury decided he should spend his life in prison for the murder and ten years for the gun charge, with both sentences running one after the other. Wilson raised several problems about his trial that he believed made it unfair. He thought the court made mistakes, such as changing the charges against him in a way that hurt his defense, not telling the jury the right instructions, allowing too many pictures of the victim that were too much to see, and that the prosecutor did things wrong during the trial. He also believed his lawyer didn’t help him enough. The court looked closely at Wilson’s complaints. First, they found that the change in the charges was allowed because it didn’t really change what he was being accused of. It was fair to change it based on the evidence that came out during the trial. Next, regarding jury instructions, the judges said they were given correctly. Even though Wilson claimed he should have received specific instructions about being angry, the judges said that because Wilson denied shooting the victim, he didn’t qualify for those instructions. Also, the jury did get to hear about similar lesser charges, which gave them options. About the photos shown in court, the judges found they were important for showing what happened to the victim. Even if there were many pictures, they all served a purpose and were not too repetitive. Regarding the claims of the prosecutor acting inappropriately, the court said that, despite Wilson's worries, the issues did not make the trial unfair. The judges assessed all the prosecutor's actions as a whole to decide if they were serious problems. They concluded that they were not. Wilson also said his lawyer didn’t do a good job. However, the judges commented that legal representatives have a wide range of actions they can take, and it’s not easy to prove they didn’t do their job well. They didn’t find any significant mistakes made by the lawyer that harmed Wilson’s case. Lastly, Wilson argued that all these issues combined made his trial unfair. The judges disagreed and said that since they found none of his claims were valid, there were no combined errors that would change the outcome either. In summary, the court affirmed Wilson's conviction and sentence. They found no significant errors that would merit a new trial or a change in his punishment. The case concluded with the jury's decision being upheld.

M-2018-212

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:M

**COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Rodney Eugene Smith, Appellant,** **v.** **The State of Oklahoma, Appellee.** **Case No. M-2018-212** **Filed May 9, 2019** **Summary Opinion** **Presiding Judge: Lewis** **Judgment and Sentence Affirmed** **Facts:** Rodney Eugene Smith appeals his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery, a misdemeanor. The incident occurred on May 29, 2017, when Alexis Perkins alleged that Smith struck her. Witness Bridgett Downum testified to witnessing Smith slap Perkins during a heated argument at Downum's residence. The jury convicted Smith, resulting in a one-year county jail sentence and a $5,000.00 fine. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Insufficient Evidence of Dating Relationship:** Smith argues that the State failed to prove he was in a dating relationship with Perkins. The court found Perkins' testimony about their living and sexual relationship sufficient for a jury to reasonably conclude a dating relationship existed. 2. **Intent to Injury:** Smith contends the State did not prove he acted with intent to injure. The court found that his actions during the confrontation demonstrated sufficient intent to do harm, as viewed in light most favorable to the State. 3. **Failure to Instruct on Lesser Included Offense:** The court found no error in failing to instruct on simple assault and battery because the evidence supported the charge of domestic assault and battery. Smith's claims about the dating relationship were rejected. 4. **Self-Defense Instruction Denied:** The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Smith's self-defense instructions, as the evidence did not support his claim of self-defense. 5. **Jury Instructions on Specific Crime:** Smith's claim that the jury instructions were improper was denied as he did not object at trial, and the instructions sufficiently defined the offense. 6. **Insufficient Information:** The court ruled the Information provided adequate notice to Smith regarding the charges against him, as it included essential details about the crime. 7. **Cumulative Prosecutorial Misconduct:** Smith's claims of prosecutorial misconduct were rejected as the comments did not fundamentally undermine his trial's fairness. 8. **Improper Lay Opinion Testimony:** Downum's opinion testimony was not objected to at trial and, assuming it was improper, did not constitute plain error. 9. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Smith's trial counsel's performance did not result in prejudice, and he failed to show how the outcome would have differed had the objections been raised. 10. **Cumulative Errors:** The cumulative nature of alleged errors did not affect the trial outcome, and therefore, no relief is warranted. **Conclusion:** The court affirmed the judgment and sentence, concluding that Smith received a fair trial despite the raised propositions. **Opinion by: Lewis, P.J.** **Concurrences:** Kuehn, V.P.J.; Lumpkin, J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J.

RE-2018-342

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOSHUA ERIC ARMSTRONG,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. No. RE-2018-342 **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY - 9 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant Joshua Eric Armstrong appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence from the Woodward County District Court Case No. CF-2017-5, overseen by the Honorable David A. Work, Associate District Judge. ### Background On March 31, 2017, Appellant pled no contest to the charge of Possession/Concealing Stolen Property, leading to a five-year sentence, with all but the first two months suspended. On March 8, 2018, the State sought to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence on various grounds: failure to report, providing a false address, testing positive for methamphetamine, failing to pay court costs, prosecution reimbursement fees, restitution, and committing Grand Larceny (Case No. CF-2018-11). At the March 27, 2018, hearing, Judge Work revoked four years of Armstrong's suspended sentence. ### Appellant's Claims 1. **Proposition I**: Judge Work’s pronouncements were insufficient regarding the alleged probation violations. - **Finding**: No statutory requirement exists for detailed findings at revocation. The petition sufficiently informed Appellant of the grounds. 2. **Propositions II, III, and V**: The State did not prove certain alleged violations. - **Finding**: The State proved other violations; only one is necessary for revocation. 3. **Proposition IV**: Insufficient evidence to prove a false address. - **Finding**: Evidence indicated Appellant likely provided a false address. 4. **Proposition VI**: Improper revocation for unemployment not alleged in the petition. - **Finding**: Appellant failed to object during the hearing, waiving the issue for all but plain error review, which he did not establish. 5. **Proposition VII**: The trial court abused discretion in revoking part of the suspended sentence instead of requiring treatment. - **Finding**: Evidence supported the violations alleged in the petition, and there was no abuse of discretion. ### Decision The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Woodward County District Court Case No. CF-2017-5 is **AFFIRMED**. Mandate to be issued upon filing of this decision. **Appearances**: **Counsel for Defendant**: Ryan D. Recker **Counsel for Appellant**: Sarah MacNiven **Counsel for the State**: Kate Loughlin, Mike Hunter, Keeley L. Miller **OPINION BY**: HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.**: CONCUR **KUEHN, V.P.J.**: CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.**: CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.**: CONCUR [Download PDF of Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-342_1734697264.pdf)

F-2017-825

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
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.

F-2017-1140

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 25, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1140, Michael Harold Denham appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Michael Harold Denham was found guilty of a crime related to domestic abuse. The jury, which is a group of people that decides if someone is guilty or not, recommended that he be sentenced to three years in prison. The judge who oversaw the trial followed this recommendation and also ordered that Denham pay some fees and receive credit for the time he had already spent in jail before the trial. Denham's appeal claimed that several mistakes had occurred during his trial. He listed five main points where he believed the trial had not been fair: 1. The trial court allowed the state to have an expert witness testify about domestic abuse. Denham argued that this was a mistake. 2. He said that one of the witnesses who testified about domestic violence was not properly qualified to do so. 3. Denham claimed that some evidence was admitted that should not have been according to the rules of evidence. 4. He argued that the court did not let his defense team ask questions about one juror, which meant they could not see if the juror was biased. 5. Finally, he said that all these mistakes happened together and made the whole trial unfair. The court looked closely at Denham's claims and the evidence from the trial. They decided that the court did not make errors that were significant enough to change the outcome of the trial. For the first point about the expert witness, the court ruled that Denham did not show why his defense would have benefited from having his own expert witness. His claim of needing a continuance (more time) to prepare for the trial was not justified because he could not show how it would have helped his case. For the second point, the court decided that the qualifications of the expert witness were acceptable. The judge found that the officer had enough training and experience in domestic violence matters to testify. Regarding the third point, Denham did not follow the right procedure to complain about the late disclosure of the expert witness. As a result, the court found no major violations that would affect the trial's fairness. For the fourth point, the court reviewed how the trial judge handled questions for the jurors. They found that the process was fair because the juror had given no indication beforehand that she would be biased. Lastly, for the fifth point about the overall fairness of the trial, the court did not agree that the combined claims could show any level of unfairness. They found no cumulative error that would merit a different outcome. In conclusion, the court upheld Denham's conviction, deciding that he received a fair trial and that the claims of error did not have enough merit to change the verdict. The appeal was denied, and the conviction was confirmed, meaning Denham would serve his sentence as decided by the jury.

F-2017-639

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 25, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-639, Christopher Lantz Wildman appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided that his conviction would be upheld. One judge dissented. Christopher Wildman was found guilty by a jury of killing someone and was sentenced to 12 years in prison. He was awarded credit for the time he served before the trial. Wildman argued several points in his appeal, claiming that his rights were violated during the trial. First, he said the evidence didn’t prove he wasn’t acting in self-defense, which is an important legal argument in these cases. He believed that if the evidence did not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with wrongful intent, he should not have been convicted. However, the court found that there was enough evidence suggesting he did not act in self-defense. Wildman also claimed that his trial was unfair because some evidence showed bad character, and that the trial court did not properly instruct the jury on how to consider that evidence. The court reviewed this point and decided that the evidence presented was not overly prejudicial, so it allowed the trial to continue without a limiting instruction. He argued prosecutorial misconduct, which means he felt the prosecutor acted inappropriately during the trial. Wildman argued that remarks made by the prosecutor affected his right to a fair trial. The court noted that comments made by the prosecutor were not serious enough to change the outcome of the trial and were in response to claims made by Wildman. Wildman believed that his attorney did not perform well and that he should have had a better defense. The court examined this claim closely. It stated that for someone to prove their lawyer was ineffective, they need to show that their lawyer's performance was very poor and that it influenced the trial's outcome. The court found that Wildman's lawyer did not make serious mistakes. Additionally, he felt that some evidence about the victim’s habits was improperly allowed into the trial. However, since he did not object to this evidence during the trial, it made it harder for him to appeal this point later. Finally, Wildman argued that all these errors combined led to an unfair trial. The court did not find any significant errors, so they upheld the conviction. In conclusion, the court affirmed Wildman's conviction and sentence, stating that the original trial was fair and proper according to the evidence and legal standards.

RE-2018-128

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

In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, Milton Roger Hornsby appealed the revocation of his suspended sentence from the McIntosh County District Court, overseen by Judge James D. Bland. This appeal arose from convictions in two cases, CF-2012-45 and CF-2012-60, covering multiple charges including possession of a firearm after conviction and assault with a dangerous weapon. Hornsby initially received a twenty-year suspended sentence for one charge and six-month suspended sentences for others, all to be served concurrently. The State's motion to revoke the suspended sentences, filed on September 19, 2016, was due to an alleged new crime involving assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Following a hearing on December 29, 2016, Judge Bland revoked ten years of Hornsby's suspended sentences. Hornsby raised several legal arguments on appeal: 1. **Burden of Proof**: He argued that Judge Bland imposed a lower burden of proof than required. However, the court affirmed that Judge Bland properly articulated the standard during the hearing, which was that the State needed to show it was more likely than not that Hornsby violated his probation. 2. **Suppressed Evidence**: Hornsby contended that evidence pertaining to the use of a knife, previously suppressed in a related case, was improperly considered at the revocation hearing. The court noted that Hornsby did not object during the hearing and thus waived his right to raise this issue on appeal apart from claiming plain error, which he failed to establish. 3. **Intent to Harm**: Hornsby claimed there was insufficient evidence to prove he intended to inflict bodily harm. The court stated that the evidence presented was sufficient to suggest that it was more likely than not that Hornsby had such intent. 4. **Cumulative Errors**: Lastly, Hornsby argued that the accumulation of errors deprived him of a fair hearing. The court found no merit in this argument, as each proposition raised was without merit. The Court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in Judge Bland's decision to revoke the suspended sentence, affirming the revocation. The mandate was ordered to issue following the filing of the decision.

F-2017-1104

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 11, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1104, Joseph Johnson appealed his conviction for first degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Joseph Johnson was found guilty of killing Quavis Trae Cato during an argument over a car. The jury sentenced Johnson to life in prison without parole. The incident happened on October 10, 2016, when Johnson shot Cato 14 times, after a dispute over a stolen car. Witnesses testified that Johnson was armed with two guns and returned to the argument after briefly leaving the scene. During the trial, Johnson's defense argued for instructions on lesser charges of manslaughter, claiming he acted in the heat of passion or self-defense. However, the court found no evidence that Cato provoked Johnson sufficiently to warrant such instructions. The judges decided that Johnson escalated the situation by bringing guns into the argument and that simply being angry or upset does not justify the use of deadly force. Johnson also claimed that the prosecutor's closing arguments contained misconduct, asserting that they misled the jury about the facts and the law of self-defense, but the court found no errors that affected the fairness of the trial. Finally, Johnson’s defense argued that his lawyer didn't perform adequately by not presenting expert testimony about psychological conditions that might have affected his perception of the situation. However, the court concluded that even if the lawyer's performance was deficient, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the trial because Johnson had initiated the conflict while armed. In summary, the court upheld the conviction for murder, concluding that Johnson acted with intent and malice when he killed Cato. The judges agreed that there was no basis for a lesser charge or for claims of ineffective counsel. Overall, the ruling was in favor of maintaining the original sentence.

F-2018-145

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2019
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.

F-2017-559

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-559, Jonas Jorge Conroy-Perez appealed his conviction for Harboring a Fugitive From Justice. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing. One judge dissented. The case started when Conroy-Perez entered a guilty plea in 2015, which allowed him to avoid immediate penalties but required him to follow certain rules for two years. One of these rules involved paying fees. Later, the state claimed he violated these rules by not only missing payments but also due to new felony charges. In 2017, after a hearing, the judge decided that Conroy-Perez had violated his probation and increased his sentence to a 10-year term, with time suspended except for the first 90 days in jail. Conroy-Perez argued that he couldn’t pay the fees because he was unable to work after a vehicle accident and was receiving worker's compensation. The court looked into his arguments. On one hand, the court agreed that while the state proved he owed money, they should also have checked whether he was willfully not paying. The state did not show he could afford to pay the fees, thus the court ruled it was not right to increase his sentence based solely on that. Therefore, they sent the case back for further examination. On other points of appeal, the court found that there was no evidence his legal representation was inadequate and did not rule on the length of the new sentence since they had already reversed it. The dissenting judge noted concern about the implications of the ruling, emphasizing the importance of understanding a person’s ability to pay before increasing sentences for not paying fees.

RE-2017-706

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 8, 2018
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **THOMAS LYNN SPANN,** Appellant, **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. No. RE-2017-706 **FILED ** IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOV 8 2018 JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** In the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CF-2012-436A, Appellant, while represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty to the offense of Cruelty to Animals. On October 10, 2013, in accordance with a plea agreement, the Honorable Joe H. Enos, District Judge, sentenced Appellant to a $1,000.00 fine and to five (5) years imprisonment, with all but the first one (1) year of that term conditionally suspended under written rules of probation. On October 20, 2016, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence. The Motion alleged Appellant had violated his probation by: 1. Failing to provide verification of employment; 2. Being in $920.00 in arrears on supervision fees due to the Department of Corrections; 3. Failing to pay restitution of $152.44; 4. Failing to pay $75.00 per month beginning October 2015 towards costs, fines, and fees, resulting in arrears of $675.00. On November 10, 2016, the parties appeared before the Honorable Ken Graham, District Judge, regarding the Motion to Revoke. While represented by counsel, Appellant stipulated to the probation violations contained in that Motion. Further revocation proceedings regarding punishment were postponed for two months, allowing Appellant time to comply with his probation requirements. This period was later expanded twice, eventually leading to a hearing on June 22, 2017. At this June 22nd hearing, Appellant again appeared with counsel. The probation officer provided a Supplemental Report indicating that Appellant remained significantly delinquent in fulfilling payment obligations, although he had paid off the restitution. Additionally, the report noted that Appellant had not verified employment nor demonstrated compliance with job search requirements. There were also reports of unsigned traffic citations and evidence of an altered appointment slip presented by Appellant. After considering testimonies and evidence regarding Appellant's compliance, Judge Graham revoked Appellant's suspended sentence in full. Appellant now appeals that final order of revocation, asserting that the court denied due process and abused its discretion by revoking the remaining suspended sentence based on extra-application allegations. After careful review, we find no error warranting reversal. Appellant had stipulated to the probation violations, providing the State with the necessary grounds to prove the allegations. Consequently, the trial court had the authority to revoke the suspended sentence. Appellant failed to demonstrate significant compliance with probation requirements over an extended period, despite having opportunities to rectify the situation. The revocation order is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2018), MANDATE IS ORDERED ISSUED on the filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** **R. L. WILLIAMS** P.O. BOX 2095 LAWTON, OKLAHOMA 73502 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT **GREG STEWARD** ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY STEPHENS COUNTY COURTHOUSE 101 SOUTH 11TH STREET DUNCAN, OKLAHOMA 73533 ATTORNEY FOR STATE OF OKLA. --- **OPINION BY: HUDSON, J.** **LUMPKIN, P.J.: CONCUR** **LEWIS, V.P.J.: CONCUR** **KUEHN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** --- **KUEHN, JUDGE, CONCURRING IN RESULT:** I concur in the result. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in full. Appellant stipulated to the Application to Revoke, making only the issue before the trial court whether to revoke the suspended sentence in part or in full. While Appellant used this opportunity to pay restitution, he failed to comply with the rest of the conditions. The trial court reasonably considered Appellant's interim behavior, given the evidence of continued violations, leading to the conclusion to revoke. The failure to make a determination regarding Appellant’s ability to pay was error, but not dispositive as Appellant had already stipulated to the original allegations. The trial court properly considered the evidence presented in mitigation when deciding the final revocation of the sentence.

F-2017-153

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 30, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-153, Crawley appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, Felony Eluding, Second Degree Burglary, and Possession of Burglary Tools. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the exclusion of key evidence violated Crawley's right to a fair trial, leading to the reversal of his convictions for Counts 1 and 2. A judge dissented.

F-2017-724

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 26, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-724, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, burglary, domestic abuse, and violation of a protective order. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for most counts but dismissed one count due to double punishment concerns. One judge dissented.

C-2017-33

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 24, 2018
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-33, a person appealed his conviction for manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to run concurrently with another sentence. One judge dissented. In this case, the person, who we'll refer to as the appellant, had entered a guilty plea to first degree manslaughter. He ended up being sentenced to twenty-three years in prison. After some time, the appellant decided he wanted to take back his guilty plea. He claimed he didn't fully understand the consequences of his plea when he entered it, and he felt he was pressured into making that choice. The court held three hearings to talk about the appellant’s request to withdraw his guilty plea. Ultimately, the judge denied his request, finding that his plea was made voluntarily and knowingly. The appellant raised two main arguments in his appeal. First, he argued that his plea was not given voluntarily or knowingly. Second, he said he did not get proper legal help from his attorney, which affected his case. The court looked closely at the entire record, including the hearings and the agreements made during the plea process. They found that even though the appellant felt he was pressured, he actually understood what he was doing when he entered his plea. They decided that the plea was valid and should not be withdrawn. However, the court also recognized that the state did not follow the agreement regarding a related case. The state had promised not to seek a revocation of the appellant's other suspended sentence, but after the appellant filed to withdraw his plea, the state moved to revoke that sentence anyway. The court determined that this was a significant breach of the plea agreement, which affected the fairness of the situation. Since the appellant was also facing the loss of additional years in prison because of the state's actions, the court decided to modify his sentence. Instead of having the two sentences run one after the other, the court ordered them to run at the same time. This way, the appellant would not be unfairly punished because of the state’s breach of their agreement. In conclusion, the court agreed the appellant’s plea was valid and was made knowingly and voluntarily. However, to correct the mistake made by the state regarding the plea agreement, they modified his sentence to ensure fairness. One judge disagreed with some parts of the decision.

MA 2018-0296

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 5, 2018
Post category:MA

In OCCA case No. MA 2018-0296, J.M.F. appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts with a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his application for a writ of mandamus and remand the matter to the District Court. The court found that J.M.F. was personally indigent and entitled to receive transcripts at public expense for his appeal, despite the trial court's earlier ruling about his parents' ability to pay. One judge dissented.

RE-2016-929

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 23, 2018
Post category:RE

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

S-2016-1142

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 14, 2017
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-1142, Cody Ray Lord appealed his conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to suppress the blood test results. The trial court found that Lord was not capable of giving consent due to the effects of morphine he had received, which hindered his ability to make a decision regarding the blood test. The State had claimed there was no proof that Lord was unconscious and argued that the burden of proof should be on Lord, but the court found that sufficient evidence supported the trial court's conclusions. One judge dissented.