Closing Argument

F-2018-1072

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document is a summary opinion issued by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma in the case of D'Angelo Keiyawn Threatt. The appellant, Threatt, was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to eight years in prison. The opinion addresses three propositions of error raised by Threatt on appeal: 1. **Admission of Prior Felony Conviction**: Threatt contended that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to name his specific prior felony conviction (forcible oral sodomy) despite his offer to stipulate that he had a felony conviction. He cited the case Old Chief v. United States to support his argument. The Court ruled that Threatt did not preserve this issue adequately for appeal due to the timing and nature of his objections and ultimately found that there was no plain error affecting his substantial rights. 2. **Prosecutorial Misconduct**: Threatt claimed that the prosecutor's closing argument included highly prejudicial statements that unfairly influenced the jury. The Court examined the statements and determined they were reasonable comments based on the evidence presented at trial. Thus, they did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct that would warrant relief. 3. **Cumulative Effect of Errors**: Threatt argued that the combined effect of the alleged errors warranted a new trial. The Court disagreed, noting that the individual errors did not affect the overall outcome of the trial and therefore did not justify relief. In conclusion, the Court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court of Oklahoma County, finding no reversible error in the trial proceedings. The opinion underscores the importance of proper procedural objections and the evaluation of trial conduct in the context of the entire trial. For more detailed information, a PDF of the full opinion can be downloaded from the provided link.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1072

F-2018-1061

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case Summary: Joshua Loyd Bullard v. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No.: F-2018-1061** **Date Filed:** January 30, 2020 --- **Overview:** Joshua Loyd Bullard was convicted in the District Court of Stephens County for several offenses, including Petit Larceny, Resisting a Peace Officer, and Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. The jury determined sentences for each count, ultimately resulting in consecutive sentences totaling eight years, along with fines. Bullard appealed on two grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. --- **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** - Claim: Bullard contended that his attorney failed to request a third competency evaluation. - Analysis: The court assessed this claim based on the two-pronged test from *Strickland v. Washington*. It determined that defense counsel did not provide deficient performance, noting that two prior evaluations had confirmed Bullard's competency. There was no evidence suggesting a change in Bullard's mental state warranting further evaluation. Thus, the court ruled that there was no ineffective assistance. 2. **Prosecutorial Misconduct:** - Claim: Bullard argued that improper comments by the prosecutor regarding his prior suspended sentence during closing arguments prejudiced his trial. - Analysis: The court found that without objection from Bullard's counsel, review was limited to plain error. The court determined that the prosecutor’s references were permissible as they pertained to relevant evidence of prior convictions. Furthermore, the outcome of the sentencing showed that the jury's verdict was reasonable and not influenced by any improper statements. --- **Decision:** The appeals court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court, finding no merit in either of Bullard's propositions for appeal. **Judgment: AFFIRMED.** --- **Note:** The decision referenced case law and standards concerning competency evaluations and prosecutorial conduct during trials, underscoring the adherence to procedural norms. **For the Full Text Access:** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1061_1734859049.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-1061

F-2018-1186

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DOMINICK JAVON SMITH, Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-1186** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA JAN 30 2020** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Appellant, Dominick Javon Smith, was tried by jury and convicted of Child Neglect, After Former Conviction of a Felony, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(C), in the District Court of Tulsa County Case Number CF-2017-1887. The jury recommended punishment of forty years imprisonment and payment of a $5,000.00 fine. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly; she will serve 85% of her sentence before becoming eligible for parole consideration. From this judgment and sentence, Appellant appeals, raising three propositions of error: **I.** The trial court erred in permitting the State to cross-examine Dominick Smith in the punishment stage on matters not relevant to her alleged prior felony conviction. **II.** Prosecutorial misconduct deprived Appellant of a fair trial. **III.** Appellant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. After thorough consideration of the record, including the original documents and briefs, we find that under the law and evidence, Appellant is not entitled to relief. In her first proposition, Appellant claims that the trial court improperly allowed the prosecutor to question her about matters irrelevant to her prior felony conviction. While defense counsel objected multiple times, only two objections referenced relevance. Therefore, the remainder is assessed under plain error review. Under the Simpson test, we assess actual error that is plain or obvious and that affects substantial rights. The trial court's limitations on cross-examination are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. During the punishment phase, Appellant testified on direct that she had a prior felony conviction for child abuse. On cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned Appellant about conflicting statements made to police, thereby attempting to impeach her credibility. Given that Appellant opened the door to her prior conviction and explanation, there was no error in allowing such cross-examination. Proposition I is denied. In Proposition II, Appellant contends prosecutorial misconduct occurred during closing arguments when the prosecutor suggested that Santa Claus may have caused the victim's injuries and discussed how Appellant's actions deprived K.O. of life experiences. As Appellant failed to object, we review these claims for plain error. The prosecutor's remarks were within acceptable boundaries as they focused on the evidence and reasonable inferences. Appellant's claim that the argument improperly sought sympathy for K.O. does not render it improper. The remarks about the consequences of Appellant's actions are relevant and permissible. Thus, Proposition II is denied. Lastly, in Proposition III, Appellant claims ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the prosecutor's cross-examination and closing argument. Under the Strickland test, the claims of ineffectiveness can be dismissed due to lack of demonstrated error in the prosecutor’s conduct. Since neither allegation resulted in plain error, the claim of ineffective assistance fails. Thus, Proposition III is denied. **DECISION** The JUDGMENT and SENTENCE is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- *Counsel for Appellant: Richard Koller, Richard Couch, Rebecca Newman* *Counsel for the State: Mike Hunter, Andrea Brown, Keeley L. Miller* **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur [Download Opinion PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1186_1734785732.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-1186

F-2018-1046

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**Summary of the Case:** In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, Adam Russell Hemphill, Sr. was convicted by a jury of Child Neglect. He was sentenced to twenty-five years' imprisonment. Hemphill raised two issues on appeal: (1) allegations of prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments and (2) the trial court's admission of evidence regarding his prior drug use. **Issues Presented:** 1. **Prosecutorial Misconduct:** - Hemphill argued that prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument prejudiced his right to a fair trial, primarily due to the prosecutor's references to his past marijuana use and comments regarding uncharged crimes. - The Court found that although some remarks made by the prosecutor were questionable, they did not rise to the level of affecting Hemphill's substantial rights or rendering the trial fundamentally unfair. The absence of objection to most comments and the strength of the evidence against Hemphill contributed to this conclusion. 2. **Admission of Evidence:** - Hemphill contested the introduction of evidence regarding his past marijuana use, asserting it was irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence of bad acts. - Although the Court agreed that the evidence was not relevant to the case and constituted an error in its admission, it ultimately concluded that the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of Hemphill's guilt. **Decision:** The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence, determining that Hemphill was not entitled to relief on either of his claims. **Concurrences:** Judge Hudson concurred in the results but disagreed with the majority regarding the prosecutor's cross-examination about marijuana use. He believed the admission of this testimony did not constitute an abuse of discretion and was relevant to Hemphill's claims about his financial situation. --- For full details and legal citations, refer to the complete decision linked above.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1046

F-2017-1215

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1215, Ganey Marques Fairley appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury and Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Fairley’s convictions but remanded the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Fairley was found guilty of abusing a child and neglecting them. The trial took place in Tulsa County, where the jury gave Fairley a long sentence. Fairley's appeal brought up several concerns about how the trial was conducted, particularly pointing out that the prosecutor acted inappropriately. The first issue was about the prosecutor’s behavior during the trial, which Fairley claimed made it impossible for him to have a fair trial. He believed the prosecutor mentioned past abuse claims related to him when questioning an expert witness and kept bringing it up during her closing statements. Fairley argued that this made the jury think he was guilty of past actions instead of focusing on the current case. The court found that the way the prosecutor questioned the expert did indeed go too far and included too much information that shouldn’t have been brought to the jury's attention. They agreed that this could have influenced the jury's decision and may have negatively affected the fairness of the trial. While the court believed that the evidence against Fairley was strong enough to still call him guilty, they recognized that the prosecutor's actions had created an unfair situation, especially during the part where the jury decided on the punishment. In conclusion, the court decided they would keep Fairley’s guilty verdict but would send the case back to be resentenced, as they felt the previous sentencing might have been tainted by the improper actions of the prosecutor. The dissenting judge thought that if the prosecutor's behavior was indeed so wrong, it should affect the conviction itself, not just the sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1215

F-2018-867

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BILLIE WAYNE BYRD,** Appellant, vs. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. F-2018-867** **Not for Publication** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 19 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Billie Wayne Byrd was tried by jury and convicted of Child Sexual Abuse - Under 12 in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(F), in the District Court of Muskogee County, Case No. CF-2017-621. Following the jury's recommendation, the Honorable Norman D. Thygesen sentenced Appellant to twenty-five (25) years imprisonment, with a three-year term of post-imprisonment supervision. Appellant appeals this conviction and sentence. **Propositions of Error:** 1. Plain error occurred when the jury sought to see the judge but was directed to submit any question in writing. 2. Prosecutorial misconduct deprived Appellant of a fair trial. **Analysis:** After thorough consideration of the entire record, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits, and briefs, we find that the law and evidence do not require relief. **Proposition I: Jury Communication** We find that the trial court's failure to follow the mandatory procedure set forth in 22 O.S.2011, § 894 did not prejudice Appellant. He did not object to the use of written communication, so we review for plain error. Plain error must be an actual error that is evident and affects the defendant's substantial rights (Thompson v. State, 2018 OK CR 5). Jurors seeking information during deliberations must require the officer to conduct them into court, and answers must be given in the presence of, or after notice to, counsel and the defendant. The written response to a juror question is a plain violation of the statute (Nicholson v. State, 2018 OK CR 10). While we presume prejudice due to this error, it can be rebutted by demonstrating there was no actual prejudice. Here, the jury's questions were addressed accurately and appropriately. The judge's written response to the jurors' first inquiry did not prejudice Appellant. The second question resulted in a prompt indication for further written inquiries, which indicates communication continued rather than being foreclosed. Ultimately, no actual prejudice against the Appellant is evident on the face of the record. The minimum sentence imposed and lack of indications of serious jury concerns further support no shown prejudice. Thus, we find no error requiring reversal. **Proposition II: Prosecutorial Misconduct** The arguments presented in closing did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct. Attorneys have latitude in arguing evidence and its inferences unless such arguments negatively affect trial fairness (Barnes v. State, 2017 OK CR 26). Appellant did not object to the statements raised on appeal, so we review for plain error (Mathis v. State, 2012 OK CR 1). One contested statement asserted the victim's trustworthiness, which was in response to defense claims of inconsistency. While prosecutors should refrain from personal endorsements of credibility, the context mitigated the impact of this statement. In analyzing the comments regarding the victim's emotional struggles, the remarks were reasonable inferences drawn from evidence presented in trial. The overall context did not compromise the trial's fairness. **Decision:** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Muskogee County is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ordered issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MUSKOGEE COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE NORMAN D. THYGESEN** --- **Attorneys on Appeal:** **Counsel for Defendant:** Dan Medlock **Counsel for Appellant:** Jeremy Stillwell **Counsel for the State:** Morgan Muzljakovich, Mike Hunter (Assistant District Attorney), Julie Pittman (Assistant Attorney General) --- **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **HUDSON, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR

Continue ReadingF-2018-867

F-2018-309

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2018-309

F-2018-793

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MARTIN OCHOA MEDINA,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2018-793** **FILED AUG 29 2019** JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant Martin Ochoa Medina appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Beckham County, Case No. CF-2017-275, for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, After Former Conviction of a Felony in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 652. The Honorable Doug Haught, District Judge, presided over Medina's jury trial and sentenced him, in accordance with the jury's verdict, to life imprisonment. Medina raises a single issue on appeal: whether he was denied a fair sentencing proceeding because of prosecutorial misconduct throughout the second stage of his bifurcated trial. **1. Prosecutorial Misconduct Claim** Medina contends he was denied a fair sentencing proceeding due to prosecutorial misconduct during the second stage of his trial. He specifically argues that the prosecutor improperly introduced details of his prior conviction, appealed to sympathy for the victim, and wrongly commented on the potential for him to commit future crimes. However, Medina failed to object to these comments during the trial, waiving review of this claim for all but plain error. **Reviewing for plain error**, the Court finds that Medina has not shown that any alleged prosecutorial misconduct affected the outcome of the trial. Arguments made during closing are considered within the context of the entire trial. While the prosecutor did make improper comments regarding future crimes, reviewing the totality of the circumstances, such comments did not significantly impact the fairness of the sentencing proceeding. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is **AFFIRMED**. --- **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** **CONCURRING IN PART/DISSENTING IN PART:** **HUDSON, J.:** I write separately to dissent regarding the finding of plain error related to the prosecutor's comments about the potential for future offenses. The majority's reference to prior case law does not fully support their conclusion, as the prosecutor's comments were grounded in the evidence presented during trial and were relevant to the discussion of Medina's history and behavior. The prosecutor's arguments were appropriate and based on the evidence regarding Medina's prior violent acts, which warranted discussion in the context of sentencing. There was no misuse of the argument to stir societal alarm but rather a legitimate consideration of the defendant's recidivism. Recidivism has always been a recognized basis for enhanced sentencing, and the defendant's past conviction of a violent crime aligns with the evidence presented during this trial. Therefore, I believe the prosecutor's comments were within the permissible bounds and the majority has incorrectly labeled this as error. I concur with the denial of relief for the remaining arguments but dissent regarding the assessment of error concerning the comments about future conduct. --- For further details, you can [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-793_1735216324.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-793

F-2018-77

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-77, Jose M. Diaz appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Diaz's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Diaz was tried by a jury in Tulsa County. The jury found him guilty of the crime and recommended he spend thirty years in prison. The trial was overseen by a district judge, who followed the jury's recommendation for sentencing. Three main points were raised by Diaz in his appeal. First, he argued that the court made a mistake by allowing certain testimony from victims' family members, which he believed unfairly impacted the jury's feelings about the case. Second, he claimed that the prosecutors made improper statements during their closing arguments that harmed his right to a fair trial. Lastly, he argued that the issues combined created a situation where he could not receive a fair trial. The court looked carefully at all the evidence from the trial and the records of the case. For the first point about the victim's family's testimony, the court decided that it was relevant to the case. It helped the jury understand the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the victim, which connected to the nature of the crime. The court found no mistake in allowing that testimony. In the second point about the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments, Diaz did not object to some of the comments during the first closing statement, which limited his ability to challenge them later. The court noted that most of what the prosecutor said was based on evidence presented during the trial. Although one comment about the victim not being able to have children was deemed inappropriate, the overall context did not make the trial unfair. For the last point on cumulative error, the court stated that there were no significant mistakes to consider together that would change the outcome of the trial. Ultimately, the court decided that Diaz received a fair trial and did not find any major errors in the way the trial was conducted. As a result, they upheld the original judgment and sentence given to him.

Continue ReadingF-2018-77

F-2018-248

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-248, Mosi Abasi Dennis appealed his conviction for first degree murder and conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the verdict. One member dissented. Mosi Abasi Dennis was found guilty by a jury of first degree murder and conspiracy related to a robbery. The jury sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murder and ten years for conspiracy, with both sentences to be served one after the other. Dennis was involved in a plan to rob Antonio Walker. He and others went to Walker's house under the false pretense of purchasing drugs. When they arrived, Dennis refused to abandon the plan, even when it became clear that others were present in the house. Things escalated, and during the robbery attempt, Dennis shot Walker's father, Kenneth, who had entered the room to see what was happening. On appeal, Dennis raised several arguments. First, he claimed that there was unfair treatment in jury selection because a minority juror was removed while a white juror, who had similar issues, was allowed to stay. The court found no evidence of racial bias and held that the reasons given for removing the juror were fair. Second, Dennis argued that the prosecution made unfair comments during closing arguments, asking jurors to sympathize with a co-conspirator. The court ruled that this did not unfairly influence the jury as the statements were part of explaining the witness's behavior. Third, he contested the admission of graphic photographs of the victim, believing they were too prejudicial. The court decided that the images were relevant to the case and helped explain the events that unfolded during the crime. Dennis also claimed that the evidence presented was not enough to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the court disagreed, stating that the evidence adequately demonstrated that Dennis shot the victim during the robbery. Furthermore, Dennis believed he should have been given instructions for a lesser offense of second-degree murder, but the court found that there was no solid evidence supporting such a charge. Finally, Dennis argued that the combination of errors during the trial warranted a reversal of the conviction. The court concluded there were no significant errors that would have affected the trial's outcome. The court ultimately upheld the conviction and sentencing, stating that there were no legal errors that warranted overturning the jury’s decision.

Continue ReadingF-2018-248

F-2017-1127

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1127, Jones appealed his conviction for robbery, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm after a previous felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Jones was found guilty of robbing someone with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, and having a gun after a felony conviction. He was sentenced to serve many years in prison for these crimes. Jones argued several points in his appeal. He believed it was wrong for him to stand trial for the gun possession charge when the earlier ruling had dismissed that part of his case. The court found that the process used to bring that charge back was okay. Jones also thought that statements he made after being arrested should not have been allowed in trial because he was scared and did not have a lawyer present. However, since he did not say this during the trial, the court looked at it carefully but decided it did not affect the trial in a serious way. Jones requested a special instruction for the jury about flight, meaning that if someone runs away from a situation, it might mean they are guilty. The court denied this request because Jones denied being at the crime scene, so the flight instruction was not needed. Finally, Jones claimed that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the closing arguments. The court concluded that while some comments might not have been ideal, they did not make the trial unfair. All in all, Jones's appeal did not lead to a change in his conviction or sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1127

F-2017-802

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-802, Jestin Tafolla appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and Carrying a Weapon Unlawfully. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Tafolla was sentenced to life imprisonment for the assault and thirty days in jail for the misdemeanor charge, with the sentences served at the same time. His appeal raised several issues, mainly about whether his trial was fair. He claimed that evidence of his gang affiliation unfairly influenced the jury, that introducing certain statements violated his rights, and that errors occurred during the trial process. The court discussed the details of the case where Tafolla assaulted a man following a traffic dispute. Detectives witnessed Tafolla hitting the victim and confiscated brass knuckles he discarded. Witness statements indicated that racial slurs were part of the altercation. The court found that the evidence of Tafolla's gang membership was relevant to understand the incident and the motivations behind it. It ruled that the testimony related to his affiliation did not violate his rights and was permissible to show motive and intent. They also addressed Tafolla's complaints about the admission of the victim's statements, concluding that these did not prevent a fair trial. The admission of prior convictions for cross-examination purposes was also deemed appropriate as it was relevant to the prosecution's case. In issues raised about the prosecutor's conduct and jury instructions, the court determined that no significant errors impacted the trial. The arguments made by the prosecution were within the acceptable realm of discussing the evidence. Overall, the court found no individual errors that would require a new trial and concluded that the accumulation of complaints did not undermine the fairness of the proceedings. Thus, the original judgment was upheld, and Tafolla’s appeal was denied.

Continue ReadingF-2017-802

F-2017-1099

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1099, Willie Donnell Jackson appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree-Victim Unconscious. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Jackson's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Willie Donnell Jackson was found guilty by a jury for a serious crime involving a victim who was unconscious. The jury suggested that he spend life in prison without the chance to get out, but the trial judge decided to give him a chance for parole after a long time instead. Jackson didn't agree with this decision and said there were errors made during the trial that affected his rights. Jackson raised five main arguments on appeal. First, he said that the prosecutor acted improperly during the trial, which made it unfair. He claimed this had a cumulative effect and harmed his chance for a fair trial. Second, he thought the judge didn't give the jury the right instructions, which was another error. The third point was about his lawyers not helping him enough, meaning that he didn't get the proper support he needed during the trial. Fourth, Jackson believed that the prosecutor's actions led to a sentence that was too harsh compared to what happened. Finally, his last argument was that all the mistakes added up to deny him a fair trial and the legal protections he should have received. After looking at everything presented during the appeal, the judges decided there were no significant errors that would change the outcome of the trial. They did not agree with Jackson's claims, concluding that his trial was fair. As a result, they upheld the original decision and affirmed his sentence, meaning Jackson must serve a long time in prison. The judges, in concise language, rejected all of Jackson's claims, confirming that he did not prove that any errors affected the fairness of his trial or the severity of his sentence, leading to the final ruling.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1099

F-2018-411

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-411, Joey Elijo Adames appealed his conviction for Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold his convictions and the order revoking his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when Adames was charged with several serious offenses. After a trial, a jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to a total of 45 years in prison. This included 35 years for the conspiracy charge and 10 years for the gun possession charge, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. Adames had previous felony convictions, which affected his sentences. Furthermore, Adames had prior suspended sentences due to earlier charges, including Domestic Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. The state decided to revoke those suspended sentences after Adames committed the new crimes. During the trial, Adames argued that the prosecutor acted unfairly by making comments that hinted he should have testified, which he did not. He believed this made it hard for him to get a fair trial. However, the court examined Adames' claims. They found that the prosecutor’s comments did not directly force attention to the fact he did not testify and were within the acceptable limits of court arguments. The judges believed the jury was properly instructed to not hold his silence against him, and thus they did not see an error in the trial process. Adames also complained about the sentencing part of the trial, saying the prosecutor made remarks that were inappropriate and could have influenced the jury to give him a harsher sentence. Again, the court found that the comments focused more on his past behavior and did not unfairly sway the jury’s decision. Lastly, about the revocation of Adames' previous suspended sentences, he argued that he should have had a hearing within 20 days after pleading not guilty to the revocation. The court reviewed the record and concluded that Adames had waived his right to that fast hearing when he entered his plea of not guilty. Therefore, the court ruled that since no rule was broken, the revocation of his suspended sentence was valid. In summary, the court found no significant errors in Adames' trial or the revocation order. As a result, his convictions and the revocation of his suspended sentences were upheld, affirming the decisions made by the lower court.

Continue ReadingF-2018-411

F-2016-994

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-994, the appellant, Phillip Eric Winbush III, appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Winbush's conviction, but modified the indigent defense fee to $1,000. No one dissented. Winbush had been convicted by a jury and was sentenced to eight years in prison due to his prior felony convictions. He raised several claims in his appeal. He first argued that there was prosecutorial misconduct during the trial, which he believed deprived him of a fair trial. However, the court found that while the prosecutor made comments during closing arguments that Winbush claimed were improper, they did not have enough impact to make the trial unfair. The prosecution's comments were taken in context, and the jury had strong evidence before it regarding Winbush's knowing possession of methamphetamine. Winbush also raised an issue about the indigent defense fee being too high. The law stated that the maximum fee should be $1,000, but the court had mistakenly assessed a $1,250 fee. The state acknowledged this error, and the court agreed to modify the fee to the correct amount. Lastly, Winbush claimed he did not receive effective assistance of counsel, but since the court already granted relief regarding the indigent defense fee, this argument was considered moot. In summary, the court upheld Winbush's conviction while correcting the fee he was charged for his defense, ensuring the amount was in line with the law.

Continue ReadingF-2016-994

F-2016-229

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-229, Marcus Stephon Miller appealed his conviction for murder and possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for possession of a firearm but vacated and remanded his convictions for second-degree murder for resentencing. One judge dissented from the decision to remand for resentencing. Miller was charged with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of possession of a firearm while under supervision. A jury convicted him of lesser charges of second-degree murder for the first two counts and of possession of a firearm for the third count. Miller received sentences of 25 years for each murder count and 5 years for the firearm count, with the sentences scheduled to run one after the other. Miller argued that errors were made during his trial. He claimed that the trial court did not follow the right procedures for splitting his trial into stages, which affected his right to a fair trial. He pointed out that the jury was not properly instructed and that misconduct happened from the prosecution's side. He also believed his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial and that the judge wrongly refused to give him credit for time served in jail before sentencing. After looking over the case, the court found that while the trial had some mistakes, they didn’t actually hurt Miller's case enough to impact the verdict for the possession charge. However, they agreed that the trial court made a significant mistake in how it handled sentencing for the murder counts, mainly because it allowed the jury to consider his previous convictions when they should not have. The court decided that the sentencing for the second-degree murders had to be thrown out and that Miller would need to be resentenced, but his conviction for possession would stay. In dissent, one judge noted that the errors made during trial did not affect Miller's rights since he received a relatively lenient sentence given the seriousness of the crimes he was convicted for. The judge believed that the mistakes did not warrant a new sentencing for the murder counts because the nature of the charges and the consequences indicated that the overall outcome would not change. In conclusion, while Miller's appeal was partly successful, with the court affirming his conviction on one count and ordering a new sentencing for the other two, the dissenting opinion felt that the original sentencing should stand.

Continue ReadingF-2016-229

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

F-2013-958

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-958, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Child-Abuse Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but remand the case for re-sentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Gregory Antwon O'Neal, who was convicted for the murder of his two-month-old daughter, Tianna Marie O'Neal. The events began on May 17, 2007, when O'Neal and the child's mother brought Tianna to a hospital because she was unresponsive. At the hospital, doctors found Tianna had multiple injuries, the most serious being a skull fracture that resulted in brain swelling and ultimately her death the following day. Throughout the trial, the prosecution argued that O'Neal had either directly caused the injuries or allowed someone else to do so. O'Neal claimed that Tianna had fallen off a folding chair earlier that day and did not admit to any violent behavior. However, the medical evidence suggested that the injuries were consistent with abuse rather than accidental harm. The prosecution presented multiple medical experts who testified that the injuries Tianna suffered were serious and not likely to have occurred from normal accidents. O'Neal made several statements that appeared to change over time regarding how Tianna was injured. His comments while in custody were interpreted as signs of guilt. For example, when speaking to friends and family from jail, he seemed more worried about the potential consequences for himself rather than the well-being of his daughter. The prosecution used these statements to argue that O'Neal demonstrated a consciousness of guilt. The trial featured a defense expert who suggested that similar injuries could potentially happen through accidental means, which contradicted the prosecution's claims. Despite this, the jury found O'Neal guilty, leading to a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. On appeal, O'Neal argued several points, including the sufficiency of the evidence against him, claims of errors during the trial, and ineffective assistance of his counsel. The court's opinion examined these arguments, ultimately deciding that there was enough evidence to support the conviction. However, the court recognized an issue regarding the prosecutor's conduct during closing arguments, finding that the use of a doll as a prop during closing to dramatize the potential abuse was inappropriate and could have improperly influenced the jury. As a result, the court upheld O'Neal's conviction but ordered a new hearing for re-sentencing, emphasizing the need for proper conduct in courtroom arguments. One judge dissented, arguing that the prosecutor's actions did not merit a new sentencing as they did not sufficiently affect the trial's outcome. In conclusion, the court reiterated the importance of safeguards in the legal process, highlighting the need for a fair trial where jury members follow the evidence and court instructions rather than emotional appeals during closing arguments.

Continue ReadingF-2013-958

F-2014-974

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-974, Donald Edward Tolliver, Jr. appealed his conviction for Shooting With Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence but vacated the restitution order, requiring a new determination of the victim's losses. One judge dissented. Tolliver was found guilty by a jury and received a thirty-five-year sentence, with thirty-two years suspended. He had to pay over $10,000 in restitution, which he appealed, arguing several points about his trial. He claimed the trial court made several errors. First, he believed the court should have instructed the jury on lesser-included offenses, like Assault and Battery, but the court noted that Tolliver had proclaimed his innocence and did not show he committed any lesser crime. Second, he argued the court should have included an instruction about flight, which might help explain his actions after the shooting. However, because he did not properly ask for this during the trial, the court ruled he could not bring this up on appeal. Third, he accused the prosecution of misconduct, arguing this affected his chance for a fair trial. However, the court found that while some actions by the prosecution could be questionable, they didn't constitute an error that would change the outcome of the trial. In his fourth argument, Tolliver said the court didn't follow proper rules regarding restitution calculations. The appellate court agreed with this point, stating that the evidence did not clearly show the victim's actual losses. Fifth, he argued the thirty-five-year sentence was excessive. The court disagreed, finding the sentence appropriate given the crime. Finally, he claimed that all the errors combined took away his right to a fair trial, but the court noted there wasn’t enough evidence to support this claim either. Ultimately, while Tolliver's conviction and sentence were upheld, the restitution order was sent back to the lower court for further consideration of the victim's financial losses.

Continue ReadingF-2014-974

F-2012-732

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2012-732

F-2013-326

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-326, Maurice Cortez Washington, Jr. appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol, and Transporting an Open Container of Beer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Washington's conviction but modified his sentence to fifteen years imprisonment for the first count. One member dissented, arguing that the trial counsel's comments were a reasonable strategic decision.

Continue ReadingF-2013-326

F-2012-236

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-236, #Jonathan Bear Robe Nahwooksy appealed his conviction for #First Degree Rape and Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence. Nahwooksy was originally sentenced to thirty years imprisonment for First Degree Rape and five years for Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation; however, the court changed the thirty-year sentence to twenty years and ordered both sentences to be served at the same time instead of one after the other. During the trial, Nahwooksy was found guilty of raping his second cousin, K.M., who was fourteen at the time. The case revolved around whether the sexual encounter was forced or consensual. The prosecutor's conduct throughout the case led to concerns about the fairness of the trial. Specifically, the prosecutor made inappropriate comments during the trial that seemed to create sympathy for K.M. and portrayed herself and the investigating officer as champions of justice. The court examined the prosecutor's behavior and found that it went beyond acceptable limits, especially when she made personal comments and depicted herself as fighting for victims. While there was enough evidence for the jury to find Nahwooksy guilty, the court believed that the prosecutor's misconduct during closing arguments likely affected the jury's decision on sentencing. In conclusion, while the conviction was upheld, the court decided to reduce Nahwooksy's sentence to ensure fairness in light of the errors made during the trial. #None dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2012-236

F 2012-639

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2012-639, Marty Lee Langley appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Langley was found guilty of lewd molestation after a jury trial in Marshall County. The incident involved two separate and unrelated claims of molestation, but the jury was instructed that they could convict Langley based on either act. Langley argued that this was unfair because the jury should have agreed on one specific act. The court agreed that this was a significant error, stating that all jurors must be on the same page about which act they are considering when deciding a case. Additionally, the prosecutor made comments during closing arguments that suggested the jury should convict Langley to prevent him from harming other children in the future. The court found this to be improper as it is not right to convict someone based on the idea that they might commit future crimes. While Langley had other claims about the fairness of his trial and the effectiveness of his legal counsel, the court determined that the main issue had to do with the way the jury was instructed and the prosecutor's comments. Because of these errors, Langley's original trial was deemed unfair, leading to the decision for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2012-639

F-2010-267

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-267, James Lyman Mahaffey appealed his conviction for Assault & Battery with a Deadly Weapon, Kidnapping, and Possession of Firearm After Conviction. In a published decision, the court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences to be served concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Mahaffey was accused and found guilty of serious crimes against his wife, including assault and kidnapping. The trial took place in the District Court of Grady County. After the jury convicted him, the judge sentenced him to life in prison for the assault, 10 years for the kidnapping, and 6 years for possession of a firearm, all lined up to be served one after the other, or consecutively. Mahaffey asked to represent himself during the trial, which means he wanted to defend himself without a lawyer. He argued that the court should not have allowed him to do this because he didn't clearly understand the risks involved in self-representation. However, the court decided that he was competent to represent himself and had made an informed decision. They had warned him that representing himself could be risky and could lead to mistakes that might change the outcome of the trial. During the trial, Mahaffey raised some claims against the prosecutor's behavior. He argued that the prosecutor acted unfairly by making comments that may have influenced the jury. For instance, Mahaffey claimed the prosecutor misrepresented the meaning of a life sentence and made other comments that distracted from the trial's fairness. However, the court concluded that while there were some mistakes made by the prosecutor, they were not serious enough to change the outcome of the case concerning his guilt. Despite this, the court found that the conduct during sentencing raised concerns about the fairness of the sentencing itself. The jury specifically asked about how the sentences would be served, indicating they were worried about the total time Mahaffey would spend in prison. Because of this, although Mahaffey’s convictions were upheld, the court changed the sentences to allow them to be served concurrently, meaning all the prison time would be served at the same time rather than one after the other. Ultimately, the court's decision meant Mahaffey would still have to serve his time, but the way his sentences were structured was altered to be less severe. The case was sent back to the lower court to fix the official documents to reflect that change in sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2010-267

S-2009-363

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-363, Heather Renee Trask appealed her conviction for First Degree Child Abuse Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that prevented the State from arguing alternative theories of guilt against her. One judge dissented. Heather Trask was arrested and charged with very serious crimes after her baby daughter, Mackenzie, died. The baby had injuries that suggested she had been hurt badly. Evidence from doctors showed that the baby died from head injuries caused by blunt force trauma. When the baby was found, she was not breathing and could not be revived. During the trial of Heather's husband, he testified about the night of the baby’s incident. Heather left for work after 7:00 p.m. on the night of the tragedy, and her husband was the only adult with the baby after that time. The experts in the trial said the baby must have suffered severe injuries shortly before she died, but they could not pinpoint the exact moment it happened. The district court listened to the arguments and decided that there was enough evidence to show that Heather’s husband was likely the one who caused the fatal injuries. Because of this, the court ruled that the State could not present alternative theories that might shift blame to Heather. After hearing everything, the appeals court agreed with the district court's decision. They determined that the lower court did not make a mistake by blocking the State from using other theories to argue guilt. Therefore, the ruling that prevented the State from pursuing various angles was upheld, affirming the decision made by the district court.

Continue ReadingS-2009-363