Compliance

RE-2020-452

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2020-452, Katlin Maye Ford appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Katlin pled guilty to Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and received a ten-year sentence that was suspended. This means she did not have to go to prison right away but had to follow certain rules. One rule was that she needed to pay restitution, which is money that goes to the victim to help with their losses. In October 2018, the State of Oklahoma asked the court to end her suspended sentence because she had not paid the restitution. In November 2018, Katlin decided to represent herself in court, meaning she did not want a lawyer. She admitted that she had not paid the restitution as ordered. The court then allowed more time for her to get back on track with her payments. However, in June 2020, the court decided to take away three years of her suspended sentence because she still had not paid the restitution. Katlin thought this was unfair and appealed the decision, making some important claims: 1. She said she was not given proper legal help when she needed it. 2. She believed the court should have helped her get a lawyer for her hearing. 3. She argued that any failure to pay the restitution was not intentional. In examining her first claim, the court noted that people have the right to have a lawyer when their suspended sentences are being revoked. For someone to give up that right, they must do it knowingly, which means they understand what they are doing. The court found that there was no clear record showing that Katlin had enough information about self-representation or that she made her decision with full understanding of the consequences. Since the court did not make sure she understood everything about waiving her right to a lawyer, the appeal was successful. The original decision to revoke her suspended sentence was reversed, meaning Katlin would get another chance to address her restitution payments and have proper legal representation. Therefore, the court instructed for the case to go back to the lower court for further actions that are consistent with its opinion. One judge disagreed with the majority's decision.

Continue ReadingRE-2020-452

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

F-2018-562

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AARON THOMAS BROCK,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2018-562** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Aaron Thomas Brock was convicted by jury of robbery with a dangerous weapon and conspiracy to commit a felony in Oklahoma County District Court, receiving a total sentence of thirty-five years imprisonment. He appeals with two propositions of error. **Proposition One: IAD Violation** Brock argues his rights under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) were violated when the State did not bring him to trial within the mandated 180 days. The trial court ruled that no proper detainer was lodged against him as required by Article III of the IAD. Brock contends that a documentation was sent to the appropriate authorities, triggering the IAD timeline. The trial court determined that there was no evidence of a proper detainer because the Oklahoma County District Attorney's office and the Court Clerk's office had no record of receiving documentation from Brock. Notably, the trial court found a facsimile from the Sheriff's office did not constitute a proper detainer as defined by case law (Fex v. Michigan). The Court agreed with the trial court's findings, ruling that Brock failed to provide sufficient documentation and credible evidence to support his claims. **Proposition Two: Insufficient Evidence** In his second proposition, Brock asserts that the evidence was insufficient to uphold the conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. The standard for reviewing evidence requires this Court to determine if, viewing the evidence favorably to the prosecution, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The facts presented included testimony that a knife was brandished toward a victim and that money was taken by a co-defendant and given to Brock. The Court found that this evidence met the elements for robbery with a dangerous weapon, reinforcing that the presence of fear in the victim suffices for conviction. **Decision** Both propositions of error raised by Brock are denied. The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. A mandate will issue upon filing this decision. **Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County** The Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge **Attorneys for Appellant**: Nick Southerland, Andrea Digilio Miller, Micah Sielert **Attorneys for Appellee**: Kelly Collins, Mike Hunter, Lori McConnell, Jennifer B. Miller **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **CONCURRING:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. [**Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-562_1735316443.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-562

F-2018-563

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **OCT 17 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** --- **BOBBY DALE STOCKTON,** **Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-563** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant Bobby Dale Stockton appeals from the District Court of LeFlore County's order terminating him from Drug Court and sentencing him to seven years in prison, as per the Drug Court contract in Case No. CF-2016-380. On February 14, 2017, Appellant pled guilty to Count 1: Unlawful Possession of CDS - Methamphetamine after a former felony conviction, and Count 3: Resisting an Officer. He agreed to enter Drug Court with a conviction and sentencing of seven years on Count 1 and one year on Count 3, both running concurrently. Successful completion of Drug Court would lead to suspended sentences; failure would result in imprisonment. The State filed an application for termination on June 26, 2017, alleging Appellant's non-compliance—failing to report for intake, missing a urinalysis, and being absent without leave. During a hearing on September 26, 2017, evidence showed Appellant had not participated in the program. He explained his absence was due to caring for his ill mother. Although acknowledging he had not complied, he expressed a willingness to accept a strict ninety-day monitoring. However, Judge Fry found a violation of the Drug Court contract for non-appearance and initiated a no tolerance policy. Subsequently, on September 29, 2017, Appellant failed to attend Drug Court, resulting in an arrest warrant and bail revocation. The State filed a second termination application on April 30, 2018, citing similar violations. At the hearing on May 22, 2018, Appellant admitted to a third heart attack and acknowledged non-compliance without providing documentation on medical issues. Judge Fry noted past assurances of compliance had not been honored and ultimately terminated Appellant from the program, imposing the seven-year prison sentence. **PROPOSITION OF ERROR:** I. The trial court abused its discretion in terminating Mr. Stockton from Drug Court before he had the opportunity to work the program. **ANALYSIS:** Appellant contends hospitalization justified his failures to report. He further claims that, if drug issues were believed to have driven his failures, proper disciplinary measures should have been applied. The discretion to revoke or terminate participation in Drug Court rests with the trial court, and its decision will only be reversed upon a showing of abuse. Under Oklahoma law, judges may impose progressively increasing sanctions for relapses but can revoke participation if necessary. Appellant was given two opportunities to comply with the Program's requirements, both of which he failed. His second failure followed a promise to comply, and although medical conditions were noted, no evidence was presented to substantiate his claims. Therefore, termination was not an abuse of discretion. **DECISION:** The order of the District Court of LeFlore County, terminating Appellant from Drug Court and imposing a seven-year prison sentence, is AFFIRMED. **MANDATE:** Issued forthwith. --- **APPEARANCES:** **Matthew H. McBee** Counsel for Appellant P.O. Box 1303 Poteau, OK 74953 **Joe Watkins & Keeley L. Miller** Counsel for State Assistant District Attorney 100 S. Broadway St., Room 300 Poteau, OK 74953 Assistant Attorney General 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 **OPINION BY:** ROWLAND, J. LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur

Continue ReadingF-2018-563

F 2017-1055

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2017-1055, William Singleton Wall, III, appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Oxycodone). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of Appellant from the Pontotoc County Drug Court Program. One judge dissented. William was charged in 2014 and entered a plea for the Drug Court program, where if he succeeded, his case would be dismissed. However, if he failed, he faced a ten-year prison sentence. In April 2017, the State filed to terminate him from the program because he tested positive for THC, which is a substance found in marijuana. During the termination hearing, the judge decided that the State had enough evidence to terminate William from the program. He was given a ten-year prison sentence with credit for time already served. William argued that he should not have been terminated because he did not receive proper notice of the program's rules and because the State filed its motion after the allowed time for his participation in the Drug Court expired. The court explained that the decision to terminate a participant from Drug Court is at the judge's discretion. William did not object when the evidence of his drug use was presented at the hearing. Furthermore, the records showed that William had understood the terms of the Drug Court when he entered. The court also found that although the approval for his Drug Court participation had a time limit, he was still under the court's jurisdiction until he was properly sentenced. The court ruled that they did not see any errors in how the trial court acted. They affirmed the decision to terminate William, meaning he would serve his ten-year sentence for not following the rules of the Drug Court program.

Continue ReadingF 2017-1055

F-2018-945

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CASE SUMMARY:** **Appellant:** Carey James Buxton **Appellee:** The State of Oklahoma **Case Numbers:** CM-2014-358, CF-2014-578, CF-2017-5 **Opinion Date:** August 8, 2019 **Judge:** Lumpkin --- **BACKGROUND:** Carey James Buxton appealed the termination of his participation in the Drug Court program and the imposition of sentencing by the District Court of Kay County, presided by Judge David Bandy. Buxton had entered pleas of no contest to multiple charges, including drug possession and burglary, and was sentenced to a Drug Court program where successful completion would lead to dismissal of the charges. However, after the State filed applications for his removal from the Drug Court program due to non-compliance, a hearing was conducted on this matter. The judge ultimately decided to terminate Buxton from the program and impose the sentencing terms outlined in the plea agreement. --- **PROPOSITION OF ERROR:** Buxton asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in terminating him from the Drug Court program. --- **ANALYSIS:** 1. **Standard of Review:** The decision to revoke or terminate a Drug Court participant lies within the trial judge's discretion. An abuse of discretion is defined as a clearly erroneous conclusion. 2. **Contentions by Appellant:** - Buxton argues that the court did not assess whether disciplinary measures short of termination would suffice. - He also claims that removal for cheating on drug tests is against Drug Court laws. 3. **Court Findings:** - The court ruled that violations needed to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Buxton repeatedly violated the terms of his Drug Court contract despite receiving multiple jail sanctions. - The appellate court noted that termination was not an automatic consequence of drug test failures; the trial court considered all relevant factors before making its decision. 4. **Conclusion:** - The appellate court determined that the trial court’s decision was supported by the evidence and was not an abuse of discretion. Buxton's proposition of error was denied. --- **DECISION:** The order terminating Buxton from the Drug Court and proceeding with sentencing as per the plea agreement is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is to be issued immediately following the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** - **For Appellant:** Jarrod Stevenson and Jeremy Stillwell (Appellate Defense Counsel) - **For Appellee:** Brian Hermanson (District Attorney), Mike Hunter (Oklahoma Attorney General), Tessa L. Henry (Assistant Attorney General) --- **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** - **Concur:** Lewis, P.J.; Kuehn, V.P.J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. --- For further details, the complete opinion is available in PDF format: [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-945_1734875235.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-945

RE-2017-484

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JERMAINE THRASH,** Appellant, **VS** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2017-484** **Filed April 4, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Jermaine Thrash, appeals from the revocation of his ten-year suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2005-4341 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, by the Honorable Michelle D. McElwee, District Judge. On October 11, 2005, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 - Rape in the First Degree; and Count 2 - Forcible Oral Sodomy. He was sentenced to fifteen years for each count with the first five years to be served and the remaining ten years suspended, with the sentences running concurrently. On September 29, 2015, the State filed an application to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence, alleging multiple violations of probation: testing positive for illegal drugs, failure to pay supervision fees, failure to participate in a sex offender treatment program, and possession of pornographic material. Appellant waived the twenty-day hearing requirement, and the hearings were subsequently continued several times to allow him to comply with probation requirements. The revocation hearing took place on May 1, 2017, before Judge McElwee. The State's witness, Megan Hicks, Appellant's probation officer, testified about Appellant's consistent failures to complete his probation requirements. She noted his non-participation in court-ordered sex offender treatment and multiple positive drug tests, including methamphetamines and cocaine, spanning over several months between 2015 and 2017. Notably, Appellant admitted to using drugs even shortly before the hearing. Appellant offered mitigation, arguing that he used drugs to cope with his circumstances as a convicted felon and sex offender. However, the court found that his continued drug use and failure to adhere to his probation terms constituted substantial violations. On appeal, Appellant asserts that his violations were merely technical and therefore do not justify the full revocation of his sentence. However, the ruling emphasizes that continued drug use while on probation is not merely a technical violation. The court noted that Appellant had numerous opportunities to comply with the probation requirements, and the trial judge's discretion in revoking the suspended sentence was upheld. **DECISION:** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's ten-year suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2005-4341 is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** **FOR APPELLANT:** Kenda H. McIntosh Andrea Digilio Miller Oklahoma County Public Defender **FOR THE STATE:** Merydith Easter Mike Hunter Oklahoma County District Attorney Jennifer Miller Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J., LUMPKIN, J., HUDSON, J., ROWLAND, J. [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2017-484_1734711166.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2017-484

F-2017-970

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-970, Angelica C. Coats appealed her conviction for several crimes including drug possession and obstruction of an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court’s decision to accelerate her deferred judgment and sentence because she had violated probation by failing to pay required fees. One judge dissented, arguing that she was not willfully failing to pay because she had been declared indigent in court and there was no inquiry into her ability to pay.

Continue ReadingF-2017-970

F-2017-1259

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1259, Davis appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving with a suspended license. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of Davis from the Drug Court program and upheld his sentencing. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1259

F-2017-1053

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1053, Greenwood appealed her conviction for drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her termination from the Drug Court program but required the lower court to remove a $500 fine that had been improperly assessed. One judge dissented. The case began when Greenwood, on October 13, 2015, agreed to participate in the Drug Court program after pleading no contest to a charge of possessing methamphetamine and guilty to having drug paraphernalia. If she successfully completed the program, her sentence would be deferred, meaning she wouldn't have to serve time unless she failed to meet the program requirements. However, on August 31, 2017, the State asked to terminate Greenwood from the Drug Court program. The judge held a hearing where they discussed her progress. The judge decided to end her participation because Greenwood had not been following the rules of the program. As a result, she was sentenced according to her plea agreement, but the judge also added a $500 fine. Greenwood did not agree with this fine and argued that it was illegal because it wasn't part of her original plea deal. She also claimed it wasn't fair to terminate her from the program since she felt that the court hadn't tried hard enough to help her comply with the program's requirements through smaller penalties before jumping to termination. The court looked at her arguments. They found that the fine was indeed not allowed because of the rules surrounding Drug Courts, which require that once admitted, a judge can't change the conditions of someone's plea agreement. Since Greenwood's agreement stated she wouldn't have a fine, the court ordered the lower court to remove that $500 fine. As for her termination from the Drug Court, the judges looked at the evidence that showed she had repeatedly not followed the rules. There was testimony showing she missed meetings, didn’t show up for drug testing, and was not engaging with the services offered to her. The court found that while Greenwood believed she wasn't given enough help, it was ultimately her responsibility to follow the rules. In the end, the court decided to keep the termination of Greenwood from the Drug Court but mandated that the fine be taken away. The ruling confirmed that the Drug Court successfully supported the justice system while also highlighting the importance of personal responsibility in such programs.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1053

RE-2017-706

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

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

Continue ReadingRE-2017-706

F-2014-452

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-452, Roderick Leandrew Jackson appealed his conviction for various crimes, including knowingly concealing stolen property and drug-related offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the termination of his participation in the Drug Court program. The state also agreed that the termination was a mistake. Jackson had previously been sanctioned for his violations, and since there was no new evidence of violations presented at the hearing, he was reinstated in the Drug Court program. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2014-452

RE 2014-0706

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2014-0706, Sean Eddie Howland appealed his conviction for possessing a stolen vehicle and obstructing an officer. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of Howland's suspended sentence and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Howland had pled guilty to the charges in 2009 and was given a suspended sentence that included time in jail and fines. He was supposed to follow rules while on probation. However, the State accused him of not staying in touch with his probation officer after he got out of prison in New Mexico. In 2011, Howland admitted to the allegations, and the judge gave him more time to comply with the probation rules. When Howland didn't show up for a review hearing later, the judge revoked his suspended sentence in 2014. Howland then argued that he didn’t get good help from his lawyer during the revocation process and that the delays were unfair. The State also admitted that the delays hurt Howland's case. After looking at everything, the court agreed with Howland and decided to reverse the revocation. The case was sent back to the lower court to dismiss the revocation.

Continue ReadingRE 2014-0706

S-2011-544

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-544, the State of Oklahoma appealed a court's decision where evidence was suppressed in a criminal case. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling. One member of the court did not agree with this decision. The case began when the district court, under the Special Judge, found that the State had not followed the rules about sharing evidence, known as the Discovery Code. The State argued that it had done nothing wrong and claimed that the court should not have punished them for this. They believed the judge’s decision to tell the jury about the supposed violation was also wrong, especially since they didn't act in bad faith. The court examined the arguments from both sides and concluded that the district court did not make a mistake. They believed that the State really did not follow the rules and agreed that it was appropriate to impose penalties for this. The court also explained that they don't usually review jury instructions in these matters. Ultimately, the higher court decided to keep the ruling from the district court, meaning the previous decision to suppress the evidence remained in effect. The ruling was considered important in the context of the legal process. In the end, the reasoning emphasized that having a fair process helps both sides in a case and that knowing the strengths and weaknesses of each other's arguments can make trials go better. Even though some might think the penalties were harsh, the court felt it was essential to make sure that such rules are followed in the future.

Continue ReadingS-2011-544

S-2011-543

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-543, the State of Oklahoma appealed its conviction for suppressing evidence against DAREN LEVI GEYER. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's order. The judges noted that the trial court was correct in determining that the State had violated rules regarding evidence disclosure and imposed sanctions on the State for not following these rules. The court found that the State's failures warranted these sanctions, and the imposition of a jury instruction against the State was also upheld. One judge dissented, emphasizing the importance of fair play in the discovery process during trials.

Continue ReadingS-2011-543

M-2009-1146

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2009-1146, Ronald Dean Gallaway appealed his conviction for Driving while Impaired (Count 1). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reversed the sentence and ordered a remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Gallaway was tried in Texas County for two offenses: Driving while Impaired and Speeding. The jury found him guilty of the lesser offense of Driving while Impaired and decided on a sentence of six months in jail and a $500 fine for that charge, plus a $200 fine for speeding. Gallaway's appeal focused on two main issues. First, he argued that the breath test results should not have been allowed in the trial because the proper procedures for administering the tests were not followed. However, the court found that even if this was an error, it was harmless because the evidence from the trial was still strong enough to support the conviction for Driving while Impaired. The jury chose not to convict Gallaway for the more serious charge of Driving under the Influence, which would have required reliance on the breath test results. Second, Gallaway claimed that his sentence was incorrect because the court did not follow the rules regarding alcohol assessments. The law requires that an alcohol and drug assessment be done before sentencing and that the recommendations from this assessment be included as part of the sentence. The court found that while an assessment was done, the judge did not include all of the recommended conditions in the sentence. As a result, the court decided to reverse the sentence and send the case back for resentencing in accordance with the law. Gallaway was given the opportunity to request an order to suspend part of his sentence during this new hearing.

Continue ReadingM-2009-1146

J-2010-653

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2010-653, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including arson and assault on a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the juvenile court's order certifying the appellant as an adult. Two justices dissented. The appellant, who was around seventeen-and-a-half years old at the time of the incidents, faced serious charges, including arson and endangering human life. The state wanted to treat him as an adult, and a judge agreed to this on June 25, 2010. However, the appellant's defense argued that the state did not provide clear and convincing evidence to support this decision. During the appeal, the court examined whether the evidence justified treating the appellant as an adult. The judges noted that the law allows for such decisions only in exceptional cases, where a child is deemed not able to benefit from rehabilitation provided in juvenile programs. The appellant's side argued that he was receptive to treatment, as shown by his actions post-incident. He was receiving proper medical treatment after struggling with prescription medication and alcohol use, and he was advancing in his rehabilitation efforts. The justices found that the evidence presented showed the appellant was amenable to treatment and could be rehabilitated if kept within the juvenile system. The court emphasized that just because the acts committed were serious does not mean the child should be treated as an adult without proper evidence. Ultimately, the appeal resulted in the reversal of the certification order, meaning the appellant should not be treated as an adult and should be retained in the juvenile system. The dissenting opinions raised concerns about the risks of letting the appellant remain a juvenile, suggesting that not treating him as an adult could endanger the community given the serious nature of his actions. They believed that the judge's original decision should have been upheld. In conclusion, the majority opinion favored rehabilitation over punishment as an adult, highlighting the importance of the juvenile justice system's focus on the potential for reform and supervision.

Continue ReadingJ-2010-653

C-2010-77

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-77, Markeese Kreashawmn Ward appealed his conviction for Trafficking CDS and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his petition for a writ of certiorari and affirmed the trial court's order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Markeese Kreashawmn Ward was in court for committing serious crimes. On December 19, 2007, he said he was guilty to two charges: Trafficking in Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS) and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. Because he was a young adult, the judge decided he could join a special program called the Delayed Sentencing Program for Young Adults. This program was supposed to give him a second chance, and his sentencing was scheduled for a year later, on December 19, 2008. When that day came, the judge decided that Markeese had not done well in the program, so he was punished with five months in jail. After his jail time, he was supposed to go into another program designed to help him. Later, on November 13, 2009, the judge sentenced him to 45 years in prison for Trafficking and 5 years for unauthorized vehicle use, with both sentences running at the same time. Markeese didn't like the sentences he received and wanted to change his mind about pleading guilty. He filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, but the court held a hearing and decided not to allow him to withdraw his plea. Markeese believed there were two main reasons why he should be allowed to change his plea: 1. He claimed that some conditions added by the judge to his plea agreement were unfair because he didn’t agree to them. He thought this broke the rules about how judges and other branches of government should work separately. 2. He argued that the judge didn’t sentence him within the year required by law, making the sentence illegal. As the court reviewed these claims, they decided that the judge had done everything by the rules. First, they found that the judge's notes did not change the original agreement Markeese had made when he pleaded guilty, and he could have refused to accept the new conditions if he wanted. Therefore, his plea was still valid. For the second point, the court noted that even though Markeese thought the judge’s actions were a delay in sentencing, they were not. Instead, the judge was just giving him another chance to succeed in the program. The court pointed out that the judge was following the law properly by looking at Markeese's progress and determining if he deserved to have his sentence delayed further. Eventually, the court realized that the judge’s actions had led to a misunderstanding. To account for it properly, the court determined that Markeese had already been treated as if he had been given a part of his sentence when he was sanctioned to jail time and sent to the aftercare program. However, since Markeese had also been sentenced again later, it was like giving him two different sentences for the same crime, which is not allowed. In summary, the court decided to keep the original decision to deny Markeese's request to withdraw his plea but corrected what would happen next. They asked that his official record reflect that the sentence imposed during the sanction in December 2008 was what he needed to serve, and they mentioned that he should be released from custody. The result was that Markeese's case was somewhat settled, and his future would look different than it may have before, with the court noting a mistake that needed fixing without adding more time to his punishment.

Continue ReadingC-2010-77

F-2008-963

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-963, Richard Lloyd VanMeter appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor-Second Offense and multiple new charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the termination of his participation in the DUI/Drug Court Program and vacate his convictions, instructing to reinstate him in the program based on the conditions of his plea agreement. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2008-963

RE-2005-355

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2005-355, Bobby Ray Wyles, Jr. appealed his conviction for Second Degree Burglary and False Personation. In a published decision, the court decided that the trial judge wrongly ordered Wyles’ sentences to run consecutively with a later sentence instead of concurrently, which violated the original sentencing agreements. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2005-355

M-2004-66

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2004-66, Foy Anthony Boyd appealed his conviction for Driving While Impaired (DWI). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Boyd’s judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Boyd was convicted in the District Court of Coal County after a jury trial. He was sentenced to pay court costs and a fine because he was found guilty of DWI. Boyd argued that he should not have been convicted because he believed the results of his breath test should not have been used as evidence. He claimed that the rules about how the breath test should be given were not followed, so the results were not valid. The state, which was against Boyd in the case, argued that they did not make a mistake and that there was enough evidence to convict him without the breath test results. However, the court pointed out that it was the responsibility of the state to prove that all rules were followed when giving the breath test. The state did not show what the relevant rules were or that the officers followed them properly. Boyd presented evidence showing that the breath test was not conducted according to the rules that the Board had in place. The state just had officers say they believed the rules were followed without providing the actual rules or clearing up the concerns about them. The court decided that this was a significant error. Even though officers testified that Boyd showed signs of being impaired before the breath test was done, the court concluded that the use of the test in the trial was a violation of Boyd's rights. Since the state didn't prove that the breath test was done correctly, the court believed Boyd deserved a new trial. Boyd asked for his conviction to be completely dismissed. However, the court felt that it was fairer to allow the state to have another chance to present the case with proper evidence. If the state could show that the breath test was given correctly in the retrial, they could use those results against Boyd. The court ordered that Boyd's conviction be overturned and that the case be sent back for a new trial where the state could fix the issues with the evidence. In the dissenting opinion, the judge believed that the evidence supporting Boyd’s conviction was strong enough even without the breath test. This judge pointed out that the officers had seen signs of intoxication in Boyd, like the smell of alcohol, his bloodshot eyes, and his poor performance on sobriety tests. The judge argued that Boyd's guilty verdict should stand since traditional signs of impairment by officers could be enough for a conviction.

Continue ReadingM-2004-66

RE-2003-918

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2003-918, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that terminated him from the Drug Court program. One judge dissented. The case began on April 10, 2002, when the appellant pleaded no contest to a DUI charge. He was given a suspended sentence, meaning he would not serve time in prison if he followed the rules. He also had to pay a fine and do community service. Later, he faced another DUI charge. He pleaded guilty again with a promise that if he successfully completed the Drug Court program, he wouldn’t have to face further charges for the first DUI. However, on May 1, 2003, the State accused him of violating the terms of the Drug Court program. The State claimed he had been sanctioned multiple times for not following the rules. On August 5, 2003, the court decided to revoke his suspended sentence and ended his participation in the Drug Court program. The appellant believed the court made a mistake by terminating him from Drug Court based on violations he had already been punished for. He felt this was unfair and argued it amounted to double jeopardy, which means being punished twice for the same offense. The State argued that they were not punishing him again for those violations but believed that the sanctions had not helped him change his behavior. The court examined the situation and found that the appellant had already faced consequences for his earlier violations. It agreed with him that the reasons for his termination were flawed. The judges noted that if prior violations were allowed to be counted again for the same termination, it would be unfair and might discourage other participants in Drug Court. The court decided to remand the case back to the lower court, allowing the appellant to return to the Drug Court program with the original rules he had agreed upon. The judges highlighted that a new violation must occur in order for more severe actions, like termination, to be taken. In summary, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, indicating that the reasons for his termination from Drug Court were not valid, thus restoring his opportunity to complete the program.

Continue ReadingRE-2003-918