Caddo County

F-2018-1137

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the appeal of Parron Lavon Burrus. Burrus was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, after being found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Caddo County. The court sentenced him to 30 years in prison for the first count and 25 years for the second, running consecutively. In the appeal, Burrus contended that the sentences were excessive and should be modified. He argued that the offenses were interconnected and that the trial court exhibited prejudice against him during sentencing, referencing the requirement for his testimony to be under oath and the judge's prior role in prosecuting him. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment and sentence. The court noted that the sentences fell within the statutory range, that there is no constitutional right to concurrent sentences, and that Burrus did not demonstrate that the trial judge's actions or previous involvement in prior prosecutions caused an unfair sentencing outcome. The court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in sentencing, emphasizing the separate nature of the offenses committed by Burrus. In essence, the appeal was denied, and the court's decision was upheld, confirming the sentences imposed on Burrus.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1137

F-2018-194

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-194, the appellant appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child under twelve and child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. The appellant, William Harold Pittman, was convicted by a jury for serious crimes against children. The jury gave him a punishment of thirty years in prison for each crime, and both sentences were meant to be served one after the other. The judge who oversaw the trial also ordered the appellant to pay various costs and fees. Pittman appealed his conviction, claiming that the trial court made a mistake by allowing expert testimony about something called the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS). He argued that this evidence was not relevant and should not have been allowed, saying it was not proven to be reliable. The court explained that the decision to allow expert evidence is usually up to the trial judge. If a specific objection is made during the trial, then the appeal cannot rely on a different argument later. Pittman did not object during the trial to the CSAAS evidence based on its relevance or reliability, which made his chance for appeal more difficult. To win an appeal based on a plain error, the appellant needs to show three things: that there was a real error, that it was obvious, and that the error affected the case's outcome. The court found that Pittman could not prove any such errors in this case. The court stated that previously, CSAAS had been accepted as reliable evidence in prior cases. This evidence can help explain why some children might take a long time to talk about the abuse or might change their statements after initially making claims. In this case, the court confirmed that the CSAAS evidence was relevant to the victim's delay in talking about the abuse. Pittman also claimed that there wasn't enough data to prove CSAAS was reliable and asked the court to reconsider accepting it as reliable evidence. However, the court refused to change its stance, stating that it would not revisit this issue. Lastly, Pittman argued that the CSAAS testimony was too supportive of the victim's story and could not be considered harmless. The court pointed out that this evidence was permissible because it only served to support what the victim and other witnesses testified about. The court ultimately found no errors in the trial regarding the way CSAAS evidence was handled, and therefore affirmed the judgments and sentences against Pittman.

Continue ReadingF-2018-194

J-2019-2

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

This document is a summary of a court case from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals involving an appeal by B.J.H., a youthful offender, contesting an order that allowed the State of Oklahoma to sentence him as an adult. The case centered around multiple charges, including Assault With a Deadly Weapon, and the court's decision on whether the public would be adequately protected if the appellant were sentenced as a youthful offender. **Key Points:** 1. **Background**: B.J.H. was charged as a youthful offender at the age of 16 for multiple violent offenses. The State filed a motion to sentence him as an adult under Oklahoma law. 2. **Court Proceedings**: Hearings were held to review the motion, where evidence included testimonies and psychological evaluations. The presiding judge, David A. Stephens, granted the State's motion based on findings that the public would not be adequately protected if B.J.H. were sentenced as a youthful offender. 3. **Appellant's Claims**: B.J.H. appealed the decision on four grounds, including claims of abuse of discretion regarding public safety findings, denial of due process, procedural issues related to preliminary hearings, and lack of service notice to his guardians. 4. **Court's Ruling**: The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion or merit in B.J.H.'s claims. The ruling stated that the evidence supported the conclusion regarding public safety. 5. **Dissenting Opinion**: Presiding Judge Lewis dissented, arguing that the overwhelming evidence presented at the hearing indicated that the public would be adequately protected if B.J.H. were sentenced as a youthful offender. He highlighted that the majority’s ruling contradicted the facts presented during the hearings. Overall, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the decision to sentence B.J.H. as an adult despite disagreements on the interpretation of evidence and procedural fairness.

Continue ReadingJ-2019-2

F-2018-418

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-418, Ebrima Tamba appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Ebrima Tamba was sentenced to twenty years in prison for his involvement in trafficking illegal drugs, specifically marijuana. Tamba felt that this sentence was too harsh. He argued that it was unfair because it was longer than the minimum penalty for the crime and that he had less marijuana than what the law required for a more serious charge. He also mentioned that since his arrest, the laws in Oklahoma changed, allowing people with a medical marijuana license to use marijuana legally. However, the court explained that even if laws changed after Tamba's crime, the new laws did not apply to his case. They noted that he was given a sentence that followed the laws in place when he committed the crime, and his sentence was within the legal limits. Tamba also claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly during the trial. He believed his attorney should have challenged how police stopped him and questioned whether the evidence used against him was acceptable. However, the court found that Tamba did not prove that his lawyer's actions negatively affected the outcome of his trial. In conclusion, the court decided that Tamba's twenty-year sentence was appropriate and that his lawyer provided adequate help during his trial. Therefore, his appeal did not lead to any changes in his case.

Continue ReadingF-2018-418

RE-2017-113

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In the case of Ruben Geraldo Velasquez v. The State of Oklahoma, the appellant appealed the revocation of his suspended sentences across multiple cases in the Caddo County District Court. The appeals were addressed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The appellant had pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including possession of a firearm after conviction, driving under the influence, and domestic assault. His sentences were imposed with significant portions suspended, and he was placed on probation. However, the State filed a petition to revoke his suspended sentences citing several violations, including failure to pay fees, failure to report, changes in address, and new criminal offenses. The trial court revoked the appellant's suspended sentences in full after a hearing, and the appellant raised several propositions of error on appeal. The court determined that the first two propositions, which challenged the validity of the original sentences, were not properly resolved through this appeal and needed to follow certiorari procedures instead. The court found that the amendment to the revocation order, which removed post-imprisonment supervision, rendered one of the propositions moot. Regarding claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated any deficiency in counsel's performance nor shown any resulting prejudice. The appellant's argument that the trial court abused its discretion by denying credit for time served was found to have no supporting legal authority, as the court indicated that there is no statutory requirement for such credit to be granted. Lastly, the court rejected the appellant's assertion that the revocation was excessive. The evidence presented to the trial court satisfied the standard necessary to revoke the suspended sentences, affirming that the burden of proof for violations is preponderance of the evidence, and that the decision to revoke is within the discretionary power of the trial court. Ultimately, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to revoke the appellant's suspended sentences across all cited cases, concluding that there was no abuse of discretion in the revocation. The mandates for this decision were ordered to be issued following the filing of the opinion. The decision is summarized as follows: **The revocation of Ruben Geraldo Velasquez's suspended sentences is AFFIRMED.**

Continue ReadingRE-2017-113

F-2011-1019

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-1019, Timmy Howard Dickey appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his conviction to Incest instead. Two judges dissented. Timmy Howard Dickey was tried by a jury and found guilty of Child Sexual Abuse. The trial occurred in the District Court of Caddo County, and the judge sentenced him to 5 years in prison. Dickey was charged with having sex with his 17-year-old niece, B.D. The charges came to light when B.D. reported to the police that Dickey had raped her. Dickey's main argument on appeal was about the definition of a person responsible for the health, safety, or welfare of a child. He claimed that the court didn't have enough evidence to show that he was in a position of responsibility for B.D. at the time of the incident, which was necessary for a conviction of Child Sexual Abuse according to the law. The court agreed with Dickey’s argument, stating that there wasn't enough proof that he was a custodian as defined by the law. The law categorized those responsible for a child’s welfare, and the court found that Dickey did not fit into these categories like parents or legal guardians do. Since the legal definition of custodian requires formal authority granted by a court, and Dickey did not have such authority, the court found his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse could not stand. Even though they found insufficient evidence for that specific charge, the court acknowledged that Dickey did commit a serious crime against B.D. They indicated that it would be more fitting to change his conviction to Incest, recognizing that Dickey admitted to having consensual sex with B.D. during an interview after the incident. Ultimately, the court decided to change Dickey's conviction from Child Sexual Abuse to Incest but kept the sentence at 5 years of imprisonment. The decision was made to send a strong message about the seriousness of the crime. In conclusion, Dickey's charge was modified to recognize the seriousness of his actions, but technically, he was incorrectly charged at first. The judges had different opinions on the case, with two of them disagreeing with the court's decision to alter the conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2011-1019

C-2009-69

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-69, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, Resisting an Officer, and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the appeal and remand the case for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2009-69

F-2005-1031

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1031, Edgar Allen Moore appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Concealing Stolen Property and affirmed the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, but ordered a remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Moore was found guilty by a jury of two charges. The first was that he shot someone, and the second was for hiding a stolen gun. The jury said Moore should spend fifty years in prison for the shooting and five years for concealing the gun. Moore believed he shouldn’t be punished for Concealing Stolen Property because the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he knew the gun was stolen. When the police arrived, Moore acted nervous. He removed the ammunition from the gun and claimed he did it, but he didn’t say anything to show he knew the gun was stolen. The prosecution had to show that he knew the gun was stolen for him to be guilty of concealing it, but the court found that they didn’t have enough proof. Another issue was that the prosecutor talked about Moore’s right to stay silent in front of the jury. The comments made by the prosecutor were not allowed. The court decided that the prosecutor made a mistake by suggesting that Moore was acting suspiciously because he didn’t say anything about the gun being stolen. This made it hard for the jury to decide fairly. For the Shooting with Intent to Kill charge, there was enough evidence presented, as many people saw Moore shoot the gun at the victim. The jury deliberated and sent a note asking questions about the potential length of the sentence and whether Moore could get parole. Moore’s attorney asked the court to tell the jury about the law that states he must serve 85% of his sentence for this type of crime, but the court refused to provide this information. Ultimately, the court decided that Moore's first conviction was valid, but he deserved a new sentencing hearing so he could have proper instructions given to the jury regarding his sentence. The bad ruling about the Concealing Stolen Property charge meant that this conviction was completely reversed. The court confirmed that the results were correct but expressed that reminders about procedures regarding juries should have been followed properly. The final ruling led to Moore's sentence for the serious crime being upheld, but he will have another chance with a new hearing about how much time he must actually serve.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1031

F-2000-1531

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1531, Thomas Paul Richardson appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but modified the sentence for the drug possession charge to ten years. One judge dissented. Richardson was tried by a jury, found guilty of both crimes, and received a life sentence for manslaughter, twenty years for drug possession, and a ten-day jail term for speeding. The sentences were to be served one after the other. He raised several arguments about his trial and sentencing, including claims that his rights were violated and that he was given an unfair sentence. The court reviewed his claims and agreed that he was incorrectly sentenced for the drug possession charge, as the maximum penalty should have been ten years, not twenty. However, the court found no significant problems with other aspects of the trial, including the admission of certain testimonies and the conduct of the prosecutor. They believed the errors did not change the outcome or harm Richardson's chances for a fair trial. Overall, the court decided to lessen Richardson’s drug sentence while keeping the other convictions intact.

Continue ReadingF-2000-1531