Case Law

F-2018-790

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-790, the individual appealed his conviction for first-degree rape and kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the convictions and remand the case to dismiss it due to a jurisdictional issue. One judge dissented. The case began when the individual, Wadkins, was convicted of committing serious crimes in Oklahoma. He argued that he should not have been tried in Oklahoma courts because he is considered Indian, and the crimes happened in an area recognized as Indian Country. This argument was based on the Supreme Court's earlier decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which stated that certain areas, like those belonging to the Creek Nation, are still considered Indian Country under the law. The focus of the appeal was on whether Wadkins could prove he had Indian status at the time of the crimes. To determine this, the court needed to check two things: if Wadkins had Indian blood and if he was recognized as an Indian by a tribe or the federal government. The court found that he had some Indian blood but struggled with whether he was recognized as an Indian when the crimes took place. During a hearing, evidence was presented to show that Wadkins had some ties to the Choctaw Nation but was not an enrolled member at the time of the offenses. He had a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) and received health services reserved for Native Americans but was not yet a member of the tribe until after the crimes occurred. The court concluded that he did not meet the requirements to show he was recognized as Indian then and so ruled that Oklahoma had the right to prosecute him. However, upon appeal, the court found that the lower court made errors in its decisions regarding his recognition. They noted that even though Wadkins was not an official member at the time, he presented various forms of evidence, including his history of receiving medical care designed for Indians and family connections to the tribe, that showed he was, in fact, recognized as Indian. The final judgment stated that since Wadkins was recognized as Indian and the crimes occurred in Indian Country, Oklahoma courts did not have the authority to prosecute him. The decision concluded by saying that the charges against him were to be dismissed, meaning he would potentially face prosecution in a federal court instead. One judge expressed disagreement with this outcome, reflecting on the complex relationship of state and federal law regarding Indian issues.

Continue ReadingF-2018-790

F-2021-785

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-785, Kyle Robert Forsyth appealed his conviction for sexual battery and larceny of merchandise from a retailer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Forsyth's conviction but remanded the case for a hearing to determine whether he should receive credit for time served in jail. One justice dissented. Forsyth was tried without a jury and found guilty of sexual battery and larceny. The judge gave him a ten-year sentence for the sexual battery and thirty days in jail for the larceny, with the sentences to run one after the other. Forsyth argued that his rights were violated because the same judge presided over both the preliminary hearing and the trial, which he claimed broke the two-judge rule in legal procedures. However, the court found that the judge listed on the preliminary hearing was not the one who actually presided over it, so there was no error. Forsyth also argued that he should have received credit for the time he stayed in jail before sentencing. He was unable to pay bail and was in jail for nearly ten months. His lawyer pointed out that it is unfair to make someone serve a longer sentence just because they cannot afford to pay bail. The court agreed that this issue of credit for time served needed more examination. They sent the case back to see if there were other reasons that kept Forsyth in jail other than his inability to pay bail. Overall, the court upheld Forsyth’s convictions but wanted to further investigate whether he should get credit for the time he had already spent in jail.

Continue ReadingF-2021-785

F-2019-196

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-196, Dakota Shay Fox appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Fox, and therefore, the case was reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2019-196

F-2019-605

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-605, Jerome Matthew McConell appealed his conviction for Obtaining Merchandise by False Pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court, except for certain parts which were stricken. One member of the court dissented. McConell was found guilty after a bench trial in the District Court of McCurtain County. He was sentenced to thirty months in prison, but he argued that his trial was unfair for three main reasons. First, he claimed he was not allowed to confront some witnesses properly because hearsay evidence was permitted. Hearsay is when someone testifies about what another person said outside of court, which usually isn't allowed as direct evidence. However, the court found no real error in this situation because McConell's lawyer brought up the same issues during questioning. Therefore, the court did not see a violation of his rights. Second, McConell argued that evidence from another incident should not have been allowed by the court because the state did not give proper notice about it. However, the court decided that the evidence was relevant and no mistakes were made in permitting it. Lastly, McConell noted that the written sentence and conditions after his trial did not match what was discussed in court. The judge had ordered conditions that he should not enter a casino and also mentioned costs for prosecution that were not allowed under the law. The court agreed that these parts of the judgment were incorrect and decided to strike them from his sentence. In summary, the appeals court did affirm McConell's conviction, meaning they upheld the trial's decision, but they corrected some errors in how his sentence was recorded and ordered the lower court to make those changes.

Continue ReadingF-2019-605

S-2020-79

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2020-79, Stricker appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Desecration of a Human Corpse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling of the District Court that dismissed the alternative charge of First Degree Felony Murder during the commission of a kidnapping. None dissented. On April 17, 2019, Stricker was charged with serious crimes including First Degree Murder in Kingfisher County. Later, he faced an amended charge stating he could be guilty of First Degree Premediated Murder or First Degree Felony Murder related to kidnapping. During a hearing, the judge decided to dismiss the kidnapping charge based on insufficient evidence, which led the State to appeal the decision. The State argued that the judge’s decision was incorrect because they believed there was enough evidence to show that a crime occurred and that Stricker was involved. They said that at a preliminary hearing, it's essential to prove that probably a crime was committed and that the person involved might have done it. The judge ruled that although Stricker was in a position to manage his victim, there wasn't enough proof to suggest he intended to kidnap her. The second argument from the State was about the timing of Stricker's motion to quash the charges. They claimed the judge should not have considered this motion because it was filed after he pleaded not guilty. However, the court found that the judge did have the authority to hear the motion, even though the prosecution thought otherwise. Ultimately, the court found no error in the District Court's decision to dismiss the charge of First Degree Felony Murder related to kidnapping and decided to uphold that dismissal.

Continue ReadingS-2020-79

RE-2019-522

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-522, Leslie Ford appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentences in both cases but also instructed the lower court to correct a written order error regarding the duration of the revocation. One member of the court dissented. Leslie Ford had previously been sentenced in two cases for stalking, with each sentence being five years long but suspended, meaning he would not have to go to prison if he followed certain rules. However, he was accused of breaking these rules. The state said he didn’t pay the required fees, didn’t go to treatment for domestic abusers, drank alcohol, and even got in trouble for more offenses. At a hearing, the judge found that Leslie did indeed break the rules, leading to the full revocation of his sentences. Leslie then appealed the decision, bringing up several reasons why he thought the revocation was unfair. He argued about his mental fitness during the process and claimed there were time limit violations concerning the hearings. The court explained that they could only focus on whether the revocation was valid and that the evidence showed he broke the rules. They also found that a confusion on how long he was sentenced was a mistake, which they ordered to be fixed. Overall, Leslie did not manage to successfully argue for the reversal of his revocation, except for the correction regarding the error in the time of imprisonment mentioned in the written order.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-522

RE-2019-19

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-19, Daniel Lee Hart appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that revoking his suspended sentence without him being present was a violation of his right to due process, and therefore, the revocation was reversed. One judge dissented. Daniel Lee Hart originally pleaded guilty in 2009 to trying to manufacture a controlled substance. He was given a 20-year sentence, with 12 years of that being suspended, meaning he didn't have to serve that part of the time as long as he followed certain rules. One of those rules was that he had to stay clean from drugs and check in regularly with his probation officer. In 2017, the state said that Hart had broken the rules. They said he had used drugs, didn’t show up for meetings with his probation officer in both Oklahoma and Kansas, didn’t register as a drug offender in Kansas, didn’t pay fees for his probation, and hadn’t completed his GED as he was supposed to. Hart later agreed to these claims but was able to be released for drug treatment for a few months before being sentenced. When the time came for his sentencing, Hart did not show up. Because he was absent, the court revoked the suspended part of his sentence completely. This meant he would have to serve the full 20 years instead of just the 8 years that he had left to serve. Hart appealed this decision, saying it was unfair for the court to make such a serious decision without him being there. The court looked at whether Hart's absence affected his right to defend himself. They said that everyone has the right to be present when decisions are made about their punishment. The court noted that Hart had not willingly chosen to skip the sentencing and that his absence could have greatly impacted the outcome. Because of these reasons, the court said Hart deserved a new hearing where he could be present to possibly explain why he wasn’t there and defend himself more fully. The final decision was to send the case back for another hearing. They wanted to make sure Hart had a fair chance to be present when the consequences of his actions were discussed again. In summary, because Hart was missing during a very important hearing, the court agreed that this was a mistake. They reversed the earlier decision and ordered a new hearing where he could be present.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-19

F-2019-99

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **WILLIAM ALVIN WIMBLEY,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2019-99** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAN 30 2020** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** On April 30, 2018, Appellant entered pleas of guilty in McCurtain County District Court to the following charges: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Count 1, Case No. CF-2016-103) and multiple counts in Case No. CF-2017-147, including another charge of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Count 1), Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony (Count 2), and another Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Count 3). As part of a plea agreement, Appellant was admitted to the McCurtain County Drug Court Program, which stipulated that successful completion would lead to the dismissal of charges, while termination would result in a twenty-year imprisonment sentence for all four counts, served concurrently. Subsequently, on October 3, 2018, the State filed an Application to Revoke from Drug Court, citing numerous violations of the program's terms by Appellant despite receiving multiple graduated sanctions. A hearing was conducted, resulting in the Honorable Walter Hamilton, Special Judge, determining the defendant had indeed violated his performance contract, leading to his termination from the drug court program and imposition of the agreed twenty-year sentence. Appellant's sole proposition for appeal is grounded in an assertion of ineffective assistance of termination counsel, based on comments made by Judge Hamilton during the hearing regarding the sentencing implications of the termination and potential reversal by this Court. Under the legal framework established by *Strickland v. Washington*, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance, an appellant must demonstrate (1) deficient performance by counsel and (2) resulting prejudice. Appellant's claim does not find support in the record, as he fails to establish that his counsel's performance was deficient under *Strickland*'s rigorous standards. Termination of drug court participation, as outlined by Oklahoma law, requires a factual determination by the trial court regarding violations of the performance contract and the sufficiency of disciplinary sanctions. Judge Hamilton's determination hinged on whether any violations were proven by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than any alleged bias from his statements. Ultimately, Appellant has not demonstrated that Judge Hamilton abused his discretion in terminating his drug court participation. **DECISION** The termination of Appellant's participation in the McCurtain County District Court Drug Court in Case Nos. CF-2016-103 and CF-2017-147 is **AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2020), the **MANDATE** is ordered to be issued upon the filing of this decision. **TERM OF THE COURT:** **Affirmed.** **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur *Counsel in trial and on appeal: Hugh Hood (Appellant's Counsel), Mark Uptegrove, and others representing the State.*

Continue ReadingF-2019-99

RE-2019-57

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, Toni Lynn Cook appeals the revocation of her suspended sentence from the McIntosh County District Court. Cook had originally pled guilty to the charge of Obstructing an Officer. Following her guilty plea, the State filed a Motion to Revoke her suspended sentence, claiming she committed new crimes while on probation, which included multiple counts of Assault and Battery on a Police Officer and Indecent Exposure. The revocation hearing saw evidence presented, including testimonies from jailers detailing that Cook had exposed herself and physically resisted their attempts to move her to a solitary cell, leading to injuries to the officers involved. The trial court found that the State met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Cook had violated her probation. Cook raised several propositions on appeal: 1. **Insufficient Evidence**: Cook argued that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the alleged probation violations. However, the court found that the evidence sufficient and credible, affirming that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion. 2. **Waiver of Hearing Within Twenty Days**: Cook contended that her waiver of the right to a hearing within twenty days was not valid. The court ruled that Cook had waived this right knowingly, as she had not requested an early hearing and did not provide evidence that she was unaware of this right. 3. **Excessiveness of Revocation**: Cook argued the revocation was excessive. The court noted that revocation is a matter of grace, and since Cook committed multiple new offenses while on probation, the trial judge's decision to revoke her sentence in full was not an abuse of discretion. In conclusion, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to revoke Cook's suspended sentence, finding no merit in her claims. The mandate was ordered to be issued upon filing the decision.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-57

F-2018-341

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-341, Anthony Kejuan Day appealed his conviction for several charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence against him. One judge dissented. Mr. Day was convicted of assault and battery on a police officer, conspiracy to cause violence, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, obstructing an officer, and resisting an officer. The trial court sentenced him to a total of twenty-five years for the first charge, with additional long sentences for the others. Mr. Day argued that the trial court made several mistakes. He claimed that the prosecution unfairly excluded African-American jurors, that changes to the charges against him were wrong, that he was punished too harshly for similar actions, and that his sentences should not have run one after the other but rather together. The court examined each argument. For the claim about jurors, it decided that the trial court acted properly and that there was no discrimination. Regarding the changes to the charges, the court found no clear mistakes that would have harmed Mr. Day's case. The court also rejected his argument about facing double punishment for similar offenses. Finally, it determined that the trial court was correct in allowing the sentences to be served consecutively. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision of the trial court and affirmed Mr. Day's convictions and sentences.

Continue ReadingF-2018-341

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

F-2018-350

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingF-2018-350

F-2018-15

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-15, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of drugs causing great bodily injury, felony eluding, running a roadblock, and assault with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. The case involved Marcus Ray Smith, who was found guilty in a non-jury trial of several serious offenses related to a high-speed police chase. The judge sentenced Smith to ten years for some crimes and thirty years for others, but with some time suspended, allowing for parole. Smith appealed for multiple reasons. He argued that he was being punished too harshly for actions that were part of one event. According to the law, people usually can't be punished multiple times for the same act. However, the court found that the crimes he committed were separate incidents. For example, running a roadblock is recognized as a distinct crime, and his actions while fleeing from the police qualified as two separate acts that endangered others. Smith also claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he had intended to cause harm with his vehicle when he drove recklessly towards others. The court disagreed and stated that the way he drove clearly showed that he intended to hurt someone. Lastly, Smith said his lawyer didn't do a good job by not arguing about the double punishment issue during the trial. However, the court found that since his double punishment claim was not valid, there was no failure on his lawyer's part. In conclusion, the court upheld Smith's convictions, deciding he had received a fair trial and that his legal arguments were not strong enough to change the outcome.

Continue ReadingF-2018-15

F-2018-83

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-83, the appellant appealed his conviction for terminating his participation in a drug court program. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of the appellant's participation in the Kay County Drug Court Program. One judge dissented. The case began with the appellant being charged with domestic abuse, followed by several other charges which led to his participation in the drug court program. He had previous sentences but entered a plea agreement that allowed him to avoid immediate incarceration if he completed the program successfully. However, after multiple instances of non-compliance, the state requested to terminate him from the program. During a hearing, the judge evaluated whether the appellant had violated the terms of his performance contract in the drug court. The judge determined that he had. The appellant argued that the judge should have given him more chances to comply with the rules of the program, but the judge concluded that the appellant's actions warranted termination. The court ultimately agreed with the judge's decision, stating that he had not abused his discretion in terminating the appellant’s participation in the drug court program. The termination was deemed appropriate given the appellant's repeated violations.

Continue ReadingF-2018-83

F-2016-562

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-562, Kadrian Daniels appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court, except that the fine imposed on the Possession count was vacated. One judge dissented. Daniels was found guilty by a jury and received a thirty-year sentence for the robbery and an additional eight years and a $10,000 fine for the illegal firearm possession. Daniels raised several concerns on appeal. He argued that the trial court made mistakes that affected his right to a fair trial. First, Daniels objected to a question asked by the prosecutor to a detective about the number of robberies that happened in Tulsa during the past year. He felt that this question could alarm the jury. However, the court decided that the question was allowed because it was relevant to the case and didn’t unfairly sway the jury. Next, Daniels claimed that the prosecutor behaved improperly during the closing arguments, which made his trial unfair. Some of the comments made by the prosecutor were challenged, but the court ruled that those comments were acceptable and did not harm the fairness of the trial. Additionally, Daniels complained about the jury being instructed that a $10,000 fine was mandatory if they convicted him of the firearm charge. Since Daniels’ lawyer did not object to this instruction during the trial, the court reviewed this issue only for plain error. The court found that the instruction was incorrect because the law does not require such a fine. This error was significant enough that the court decided to remove the fine. Moreover, Daniels argued that his attorney did not provide effective help during the trial, especially for not calling out the errors made by the prosecution or the judge. The court considered this but concluded that the issues raised by Daniels were not serious enough to have changed the outcome of the trial. The final decision affirmed the conviction but removed the unnecessary fine, ensuring that the legal process remained fair despite the mistakes noted during the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2016-562

S-2016-163

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-163, Stites appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse and Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which had dismissed one count of Child Sexual Abuse and amended another to Lewd Molestation. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2016-163

RE-2016-135

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2016-135, Michael Brian Harrington appealed his conviction for violating probation. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the State's motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. The State had argued that Harrington's new ten-year sentence for a different crime made his revocation appeal unnecessary. However, the court found that his prior sentences could still affect how long he remains in prison, so the appeal matters.

Continue ReadingRE-2016-135

S-2015-723

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-723, Alexander appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (marijuana), unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and public intoxication. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order that sustained Alexander's motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges against him. One judge dissented. The case started when a highway patrol officer saw two vehicles on the side of the road, one of which looked disabled. Instead of checking on the disabled vehicle, the officer decided to pull over a maroon car that was leaving the scene because it had a cracked windshield. Alexander was in the front passenger seat of the maroon car. When the officer asked for identification, Alexander admitted he did not have any. The officer said he would check Alexander's information in his cruiser for safety reasons. While talking to Alexander in the cruiser, the officer noticed he smelled alcohol on him and saw signs of slurred speech and slow movements. The officer found out that Alexander had an outstanding warrant and arrested him. Initially, there were inconsistencies in the officer's story about what happened during the stop. He claimed the smell of alcohol was evident when Alexander exited the car, but later changed his answers under questioning. During the hearing about Alexander's motion to suppress the evidence, the officer's actions came under scrutiny. The state argued that the stop was justified, and that finding the warrant should allow the evidence collected to be used. However, the district court felt the officer's actions were not good faith mistakes but rather improper. The officer had handcuffed Alexander and questioned him without informing him of his rights, which the court deemed as a significant violation of Alexander's rights. The higher court found the district court had properly assessed the facts and ruled in favor of Alexander. They determined that the illegal stop and the officer's methods were serious enough to dismiss the evidence gathered after the stop. Thus, the verdict of the trial court to suppress evidence and dismiss the case was upheld.

Continue ReadingS-2015-723

C-2013-1046

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2013-1046, Ronald Franz appealed his conviction for Accessory After the Fact to Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for writ of certiorari and remanded the case to the district court for a proper hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2013-1046

S-2013-718

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-718, Tutson and Heartfield appealed their conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana) With the Intent to Distribute and other related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling to suppress evidence, which means they agreed that the evidence should not be used against Tutson and Heartfield because the consent to search was not clearly given. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2013-718

C-2011-469

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2011-469, Beauchamp appealed his conviction for Feloniously Pointing a Weapon and Felon in Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Beauchamp the ability to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial. One member dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2011-469

C-2010-1139

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-1139, a petitioner appealed his conviction for False Personation of Another to Create Liability. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the appeal. The court concluded that the trial court made a mistake by not holding a hearing on the petitioner's request to withdraw her no-contest plea. The decision requires the case to go back to the lower court for this necessary hearing. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2010-1139

F-2010-466

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-466, William Michael DeMoss appealed his conviction for three Counts of Shooting with Intent to Kill and one Count of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but vacated the fines associated with each count. One judge dissented. William Michael DeMoss was found guilty of serious crimes, including trying to kill people and attacking someone with a weapon. The jury decided he should go to prison for a long time and also pay money as fines. DeMoss didn’t think the trial was fair and said there were many mistakes made. He argued that there wasn't enough proof to find him guilty, that he couldn’t hear well during the trial, and that he should have had help from experts to prove he had problems. The court looked closely at what DeMoss said and also reviewed all the evidence. They decided that there was enough proof to show that DeMoss did commit the crimes. The court didn’t think his defense attorney did anything wrong to hurt DeMoss's case and that the decisions made during the trial were fair. They also found out that even though there were some mistakes, such as telling the jury they had to give fines when they really didn’t have to, it didn’t change the outcome of the trial. In the end, they agreed with the jury’s decision but took away the fines because it wasn’t right for the jury to have to give them. This means he still has to serve a long prison sentence, but he won't have to pay those extra fines. The court decided that everything else about the trial was okay, and DeMoss's appeal was mostly denied.

Continue ReadingF-2010-466

RE-2010-403

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-403, Eddie Ray Casey, Jr. appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property and Larceny of an Automobile. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Casey's suspended sentence but instructed the District Court to correct the record to reflect that nine total years were revoked. No one dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2010-403

C-2010-322

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-322, Silvon Dane Kinter appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Kinter's request to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his conviction. One judge dissented. Kinter was charged in 2009 and could not afford his attorney, who then moved to withdraw. Kinter wanted to switch to a public defender but was denied. He eventually pleaded guilty to the charges after being pressured by the court, not fully understanding his situation. The court later recognized that he was indigent but did so after Kinter had already entered his guilty plea. The appeals court found that Kinter’s rights were violated when he wasn't properly provided with conflict-free counsel or a chance to adequately present his case, leading to an involuntary plea. Thus, they instructed for further proceedings based on their opinion.

Continue ReadingC-2010-322