Charge Archives - OCCA Opinions

S-2018-6

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 15, 2018
Post category:S

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** Court Case No: S-2018-51 and S-2018-6 **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellant, **V.** **SHELLEY MARIE BRADLEY,** Appellee. **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellant, **V.** **DYLAN THOMAS BRODIE,** Appellee. **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** 1. The State of Oklahoma, Appellant, appeals from an order affirming the ruling of the magistrate, sustaining the defendants' demurrers to evidence on Counts 1 and 2, and denying the State's request to amend the Informations, in Case Nos. CF-2017-445 and CF-2017-446 in the District Court of Wagoner County. **STATEMENT OF THE CASE** 2. Appellees, Shelley Marie Bradley and Dylan Thomas Brodie, were charged with intimidation of a witness and conspiracy to commit a felony. The magistrate sustained the demurrers to the evidence and denied amendments to include additional charges. 3. The matter was assigned to Judge Mark L. Dobbins as the reviewing judge, who affirmed the magistrate's ruling. 4. The State appealed; on August 9, 2018, this Court held oral arguments, after which the ruling was reversed. **SUMMARY OF FACTS** 5. The Appellees are related to Jacob Ode, charged with several offenses following a police pursuit. Hawkins, a relative of the Appellees, was a passenger and initially provided a statement implicating Ode. 6. Later, Hawkins was approached by the Appellees and persuaded to change her statement to indicate Ode was not the driver during the pursuit. 7. The magistrate found no evidence demonstrating that Hawkins was threatened or coerced into altering her testimony. **ANALYSIS** ### I. Intimidation of Witness 8. The State argued sufficient evidence existed for the charge of witness intimidation. However, the records demonstrated no evidence of Hawkins being prevented from testifying or coerced through force or fear. 9. The judges did not err in finding there wasn’t enough evidence to support the claim of intimidation. ### II. Conspiracy to Commit Intimidation 10. The State similarly could not provide sufficient evidence to show any conspiracy between the Appellees to intimidate Hawkins, as no threats or coercion were substantiated. ### III. Conspiracy to Commit Perjury by Subornation 11. The State argued it presented sufficient evidence to show a conspiracy to commit perjury by subornation. The appellate judges found sufficient cause to remand for the trial on this charge. ### IV. False Preparation of Exhibits 12. The evidence presented indicated that Hawkins’ second statement was prepared under the Appellees' guidance with the intent to be submitted as evidence. 13. The failure to include this evidence as a charge of False Preparation of Exhibits was deemed an error by the appellate judges. **DECISION** 14. The order of the District Court sustaining the magistrate's decisions is REVERSED. The case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to proceed to trial for the charges of Conspiracy to Commit Perjury by Subornation and False Preparation of Exhibits. **APPEARANCES** - **For the State:** Douglas G. Dry, Assistant District Attorney - **For the Appellees:** Michon Hastings Hughes & Clinton C. Hastings, Attorneys at Law **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** - LUMPKIN, P.J., LEWIS, V.P.J., HUDSON, J., and KUEHN, J., concur. --- **[Download PDF of Full Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2018-6_1734333945.pdf)**

S-2015-771

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 8, 2018
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-771, the defendant appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower courts' rulings. One judge dissented. Carl Edward Prince, also known as Carl Edward Harper, was arrested for having marijuana and other related charges. He was charged with three main offenses regarding drug possession and use of a police radio. During the early stages of the trial, a magistrate judge decided there wasn't enough evidence for one of the charges, which was about maintaining a place used for selling drugs. The prosecution believed that this decision was wrong and appealed it. The appeal against the magistrate's decision went to another judge who agreed with the first judge, stating that the evidence given by the prosecution was not strong enough to prove that Prince had maintained a location where marijuana was kept with the intent to distribute it. Because of this, they could not prove that there was a pattern or habit of drug use or sales at the location. The case was taken to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The main issues raised by the prosecution were about whether the requirement for a pattern of activity (habitualness) should be considered a fact that needed to be proven and whether there was enough evidence to bring the case to a jury. The Appeals Court decided that the past decisions regarding drug cases required proof of more than just a single event of drug possession. They reasoned that a location must show a pattern of illegal drug activity or use before a person can be convicted under this law. The court looked carefully at what evidence was presented while considering the arguments from both sides. They concluded that there were no clear mistakes made by the lower courts. The evidence didn’t meet the standard needed to prove that Prince’s home was used primarily for drug activity. They upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which means that Prince was not found guilty of that charge. One judge disagreed with this final decision, feeling that the lower courts made a mistake in throwing out the charge about maintaining a place for drugs. This dissenting opinion argued that the law should allow for flexibility and not just rely on showing repeated actions or habits to prove the case. The dissenting judge expressed that the current interpretation of the law was too strict and made it difficult to prosecute based on the evidence presented. In summary, the Appeal Court confirmed that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge Prince with maintaining a place for drug distribution, leading to the upholding of his preliminary ruling.

M-2010-341

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 15, 2011
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2010-341, Katherine Denise Burns appealed her conviction for Harassment by Use of an Electronic Device. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and instructed to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. Burns was found guilty in a trial in the District Court of Seminole County, where she was accused of sending harassing text messages to Jennifer Johnson. The court sentenced her to six months in jail, but the sentence was suspended. Burns argued that the way the charges were written (the Information) was not clear enough and that the evidence against her was not strong enough to convict her. During the trial, the State presented evidence that Burns sent three text messages to Johnson. The first message included Johnson's social security number, the second suggested Burns knew personal information about Johnson, and the third revealed Johnson's home address. The State claimed that Burns violated a law that prohibits making electronic communications without disclosing one’s identity in a way that annoys, abuses, threatens, or harasses another person. However, the court found that the messages did not meet the legal requirement because Burns’s cell phone number was visible to Johnson. The court concluded that since Burns's identity was clear, she could not be convicted under the law cited by the State. Ultimately, the court decided that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that Burns committed the specific crime she was charged with, leading them to reverse her conviction and dismiss the case.

J-2010-839

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 25, 2011
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2010-839, M.D.M. appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's denial of M.D.M.'s request for juvenile certification, but reversed the order allowing the State to sentence him as an adult. M.D.M. dissented. M.D.M. was charged as a Youthful Offender and requested to be treated as a juvenile instead. The trial court denied his motion, stating that he could be rehabilitated and that the public would be safe if he was treated as a Youthful Offender. The court's decision was based on facts and evidence presented during the hearing. On appeal, M.D.M. argued that the trial court made several mistakes in denying his request. He believed the written order did not match what was discussed in court and that he was not given a fair chance for rehabilitation while being treated as a Youthful Offender. The court ruled that the trial court's initial decision was reasonable and did not abuse its discretion in treating M.D.M. as a Youthful Offender. However, the court also found that the written order mistakenly stated that M.D.M. should be sentenced as an adult. The court clarified that M.D.M. should be treated as a Youthful Offender if convicted. The decision included guidance for the trial court to ensure that M.D.M.'s case is handled appropriately moving forward.

C-2003-403

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 9, 2004
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-403, David Lee Maywald appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Registered Sex Offender Working with or Providing Services to Children. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the sentence in Count II to a fine only, while affirming the denial of the motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. David Lee Maywald, also known as David Lee Graham, was charged with two crimes related to being a registered sex offender. He entered a guilty plea to both charges and was sentenced to prison time and fines. After he changed his mind, he asked to withdraw his guilty plea, feeling he was misinformed about the potential sentences he might face. The court looked closely at Maywald's reasons for wanting to change his plea. First, he argued that he misunderstood the sentencing range for Count II, believing he faced more than just a fine. The court agreed that he shouldn't have received jail time for that count, as the law only allowed for a fine. So, they decided to change his sentence for Count II to just the fine amount. In his second argument, he felt he was misinformed about the maximum fine for Count I. However, the court found that the fine he received was less than what could have been, and since it matched what was agreed upon in the plea deal, it wasn’t a reason to withdraw his plea. For his third point, Maywald argued that he didn’t fully understand the implications of his guilty plea. The court said he didn’t provide enough evidence to show that he entered the plea without understanding its consequences. The court noted that he had been clearly informed multiple times about how he wouldn’t get credit for time served leading up to his sentencing. Overall, while Maywald's request to withdraw his plea was denied, the court acknowledged the error regarding the jail sentence for Count II and modified that sentence to comply with the law. The rest of the decisions from the lower court were kept the same. The judges agreed on most points, but one had a differing opinion on the case.