Concealing Stolen Property Archives

RE-2019-683

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 21, 2021
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-683, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but modify it to be limited to six months. One member dissented. The case involved the appellant who had earlier been sentenced for multiple crimes, including possession of a controlled substance and driving under the influence. Initially, he was given a suspended sentence where he would serve time in jail only on weekends. However, he violated the terms of his probation several times by failing to report, pay fees, and complete required programs. After a while, he faced new charges for more serious crimes, which led to the state seeking to revoke his suspended sentence altogether. During the hearing for the revocation, the judge decided to revoke all five years of his suspended sentence. However, the court found later that this action was not appropriate. The court ruled that even though the appellant had committed technical violations, he could only be punished with a maximum of six months because the alleged new crimes occurred after his probation had expired. The court concluded that the trial judge had made a mistake when revoking the whole five years instead of just six months based on the technical violations proven. Thus, the revocation punishment was modified by the court to six months instead of five years.

RE-2018-769

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant, Robert Kenneth Kramer, appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2015-100. On September 9, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere to Financial Exploitation by a Caregiver (21 O.S.2011, § 843.1) After Former Conviction of a Felony (21 O.S.Supp.2011, § 51.1). He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for ten years, with the final six years suspended. On May 31, 2017, the trial court modified the suspended portion of the sentence from six to eight years. On March 28, 2018, the State filed an application to revoke the suspended sentence, alleging that Appellant had committed new crimes: possessing a cell phone while incarcerated and knowingly concealing stolen property. A hearing on the application was held on July 11, 2018, before the Honorable Lawrence W. Parish, District Judge. Judge Parish granted the State's application and revoked the eight-year suspended sentence in full. **ANALYSIS** The standard for revocation of a suspended sentence requires a determination of whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated, which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. A trial court's decision to revoke should not be reversed unless there is an abuse of discretion. 1. **Proposition I: Violation of the 20-day Rule** Appellant claims the district court violated the 20-day Rule as stated in 22 O.S.Supp.2012, § 991b(A). Since Appellant did not raise this objection at the hearing, the review is for plain error. Appellant failed to demonstrate that any deviation affected his substantial rights, and he had previously waived his right to a hearing within the statutory time-frame. Therefore, this proposition is denied. 2. **Proposition II: Sufficiency of Evidence** Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conclusion that he possessed a cell phone while in jail. Testimony from Appellant's ex-wife indicated that she received text messages from a phone she associated with him. Additionally, a jailer testified about witnessing inmates, including Appellant, trying to destroy a cell phone. This evidence satisfies the preponderance standard. **DECISION** The order revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2015-100 is AFFIRMED. **APPEARANCES:** - Counsel for Appellant: Curt Allen, Jeremy Stillwell, Indigent Defense System - Counsel for State: Emily Mueller, Assistant District Attorney; Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma; Theodore Peeper, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.:** LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur in Results HUDSON, J.: Concur **[End of Summary Opinion]** For further details, you may view the full court opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-769_1734420410.pdf).

C-2018-1002

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 13, 2019
Post category:C

**Summary of Case No. C-2018-1002: Carey James Buxton v. The State of Oklahoma** **Court:** Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals **Date Filed:** June 13, 2019 **Parties:** - **Petitioner:** Carey James Buxton - **Respondent:** The State of Oklahoma **Background:** Carey James Buxton entered a negotiated plea of no contest on multiple criminal charges across three cases in the District Court of Kay County. The charges included unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, second-degree burglary, and knowingly concealing stolen property. The plea agreement included entering a drug court program, which promised potential leniency upon completion. **Plea Agreement Details:** - **Successful Completion:** District Attorney would recommend dismissal of certain charges and suspended sentences. - **Failure:** Imposition of lengthy prison time. The State later filed a motion to terminate Buxton from the drug court program, which was granted after a hearing. Consequently, Buxton was sentenced according to the plea agreement. Attempting to contest this outcome, Buxton filed a motion to withdraw his plea, claiming it was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. **Issues on Appeal:** Buxton appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by not allowing him to withdraw due to the involuntariness of his plea. **Court Findings:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the district court's decision, determining that: 1. The review of the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea is for an abuse of discretion. 2. It is the petitioner's burden to prove that there was a defect in the plea process. 3. The district court based its ruling on a comprehensive review of the record, included plea forms, and Buxton's testimony. Ultimately, the appeal court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Buxton's request to withdraw his plea, affirming the decision. **Decision:** - The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. - The district court's denial of Buxton's Motion to Withdraw Plea is AFFIRMED. **Mandate:** The mandate will be issued following the filing of this decision as per the applicable court rules. **Opinion Author:** Judge Rowland **Concurring Judges:** Lewis, Kuehn, Lumpkin, Hudson

RE 2018-0118

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2019
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-0118, Samuel Keith Carolina appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Samuel Keith Carolina had originally been sentenced to twenty years for burglary, but the last ten years were suspended while he followed certain rules. However, in December 2017, the state accused him of committing several new crimes, including assault and battery with a deadly weapon and shooting with intent to kill. Some of these claims were removed before the revocation hearing. At the hearing held on January 30, 2018, the judge found enough evidence to support the state's claims, specifically the first allegation. Carolina argued that the evidence was not strong enough to prove he broke the terms of his sentence. The court explained that to revoke a suspended sentence, the evidence just needs to show that it's more likely true than not, meaning the evidence has to be convincing. Ultimately, because they found that there was enough evidence to support at least one of the violations, the court decided to uphold the revocation of Carolina's suspended sentence.

RE 2018-0118

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2019
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-0118, Samuel Keith Carolina appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order of the District Court revoking his suspended sentence. One justice dissented. Samuel entered a guilty plea to burglary and was given a suspended sentence, which meant he would not serve his full sentence unless he broke the rules. However, after some time, the State accused him of committing new crimes, which led to the revocation hearing. The court found enough evidence to support the claims against him and revoked his suspended sentence. On appeal, Samuel argued that the evidence presented was not sufficient to prove he had committed the new crimes. However, the court explained that for revoking a suspended sentence, the state only needs to show that it is more likely than not (a preponderance of the evidence) that the person violated the terms. Since the court found that the state met this burden, they confirmed the decision to revoke Samuel's sentence.

RE-2018-644

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 25, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DUSTIN ARDELL CRUCE,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-644** **FILED APR 25 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** ROWLAND, JUDGE: This appeal arises from the revocation of Dustin Ardell Cruce’s suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2016-143, adjudicated by the Honorable Lawrence W. Parish. On February 22, 2017, Cruce entered a guilty plea to multiple charges, including Assault With a Dangerous Weapon and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, resulting in a total sentence of ten years for the most serious counts, suspended in part. On October 31, 2017, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence, citing Cruce's failure to pay ordered reimbursement fees and alleged new criminal activity. However, the State subsequently abandoned the new crime allegation as part of a plea agreement in a separate case, leaving only the failure to pay as the basis for revocation. At the revocation hearing on May 2, 2018, the trial court determined that Cruce had indeed violated his probation by failing to fulfill financial obligations. Despite Cruce's claims regarding his employment status and efforts to comply, he provided no evidence of bona fide attempts to make the required payments. The standard for revocation allows the State to meet its burden by a preponderance of the evidence, and one proven violation is sufficient to justify a full revocation of a suspended sentence. Judge Parish opted to revoke only half of Cruce's remaining suspended sentence, demonstrating leniency. Cruce’s appeal asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing revocation. However, as established in previous case law, including *Sparks v. State* and *Livingston v. State*, the court has broad discretion in these matters. The trial court was within its rights to revoke the suspension based on the stipulated violation of payment obligations. The decision of Judge Parish is affirmed, as Cruce has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2016-143 is AFFIRMED. **Legal Representation:** Counsel for Appellant: CURT ALLEN Counsel for Appellee: EMILY MUELLER, ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY **OPINION BY:** ROWLAND, J. **Concur:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J. (Concur in Results); LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.

F-2017-1166

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 14, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1166, the appellant appealed his conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of the appellant's deferred sentence. One judge dissented. The appellant, Kenneth Allen Day, was charged with two crimes: unauthorized use of a vehicle and concealing stolen property. He pleaded guilty to the first charge, and the second was dismissed. His sentence was postponed until 2021, with conditions he needed to follow during probation. However, the State later claimed he had not followed these conditions, including not reporting as he was supposed to and being involved in new criminal activity. During a hearing, it was found that he had indeed violated his probation rules. As a result, the court decided to move up the date for his sentencing, leading to a five-year prison term and a fine. The appellant argued that the court had made a mistake in this decision. However, the court found that the trial court acted within its rights and did not abuse its discretion. Thus, they confirmed the earlier decision about the appellant's sentence.

C-2018-687

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 7, 2018
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2018-687, the petitioner appealed his conviction for concealing stolen property and drug-related crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the petition but remanded for further proceedings. One judge dissented. In OCCA case No. C-2018-688, the petitioner also raised issues about his sentences and fines. He argued that the fines were too high, and he expressed concerns about the costs of his incarceration. The court found some merit in his claims, particularly regarding the fines exceeding legal limits and the lack of consideration for his mental health concerning incarceration costs. However, the court did not find that the total sentences were excessively long. The petitioner had previously pleaded guilty to charges and was placed in a program for young adults but later faced new misdemeanor charges, leading to the state seeking to accelerate his sentencing. Ultimately, while the court upheld the denial of his request to withdraw his pleas, it recognized problems regarding the assessment of fines and costs, which warranted a remand for further investigation. Thus, the case will go back to the lower court for resolution of these issues.

C-2018-688

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 7, 2018
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2018-688, the petitioner appealed his conviction for concealing stolen property, endeavoring to distribute marijuana, and possession of a sawed-off shotgun. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the petition for certiorari but remanded for further proceedings. One judge dissented. On January 6, 2015, the petitioner entered guilty pleas for the above crimes and was put in a program meant to help young adults. After showing good behavior, the court decided in August 2015 to delay his sentencing for ten years, allowing him to be on probation with some financial responsibilities. However, in March 2018, the state said the petitioner had broken his probation by committing new crimes, so they asked to speed up the sentencing. In May 2018, the court accepted the petitioner's guilty pleas for the new crimes, which included possession of a controlled substance and public intoxication, and imposed additional sentences. Altogether, he was sentenced to twelve years in prison. The petitioner then tried to take back his guilty pleas, but the court denied this request. He appealed this decision, bringing up several arguments. He felt the financial penalties were unfair and too high, that he did not receive good legal help, and that the total twelve-year sentence was excessive given his previous achievements in the diversion program. The court looked at these claims carefully but decided that while some of the fines were too high, particularly calling for a correction of the $1,000 fee in his case involving concealing stolen property, they would not change the length of the total prison time. They said the sentences were within the law and not shockingly excessive, affirming the lower court's decisions in many respects. The court concluded that they would not change the ruling on the guilty pleas but would send the case back for hearings on the issues related to the fines and costs.

F-2017-008

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 10, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-08, John Kyle Crandall appealed his conviction for first degree murder, concealing stolen property, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for first degree murder and possession of a firearm but reversed the conviction for concealing stolen property. One judge dissented.

RE-2018-357

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 2, 2018
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CASE NO. RE-2018-357** **JAMES MONROE JONES, Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** James Monroe Jones (Appellant) appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290, and CF-2013-6519, adjudicated by the Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge, in the District Court of Oklahoma County. On June 16, 2010, Appellant pled guilty in Cases CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, and CF-2010-290, receiving concurrent sentences with significant portions suspended. Specifically, in CF-2008-7440, he was convicted of two counts of Concealing Stolen Property and sentenced to fifteen years on each count, with the first five years served. Similar sentences were imposed for offenses stemming from the other cases. On May 1, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated nolo contendere plea in CF-2013-6519 for an amended count of Concealing Stolen Property, resulting in a ten-year sentence with the first year served. On August 26, 2016, the State filed applications to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences due to reported violations, including failure to report, change of address, and new criminal activity related to Domestic Assault and Battery. Enhanced allegations were added on March 7, 2018, encompassing additional crimes attributed to Appellant. A hearing was conducted on April 2, 2018. Appellant's counsel objected to the State's evidence, citing inadequate discovery. The trial court, however, noted Appellant had received relevant documents previously, and dismissed the objections after reviewing the evidence. Judge Henderson ultimately found Appellant had violated his probation through specific new criminal conduct and revoked his suspended sentences in full. Appellant presents two propositions of error on appeal: **PROPOSITION I:** The trial court violated Jones's right to due process and a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II § 7 of the Oklahoma State Constitution. **PROPOSITION II:** Defense counsel failed to prepare adequately for trial, resulting in ineffective assistance of counsel. **ANALYSIS** In addressing Proposition I, Appellant contends that the overruling of his objections regarding discovery violations deprived him of due process. It is established that defendants have minimal due process rights in revocation hearings, including evidence disclosure. However, since Appellant’s counsel did not request discovery prior to the hearing, the burden falls on them for preparation. The trial court did not deny Appellant the opportunity to defend—therefore, Proposition I is denied. Regarding Proposition II, Appellant asserts his counsel's ineffectiveness based on a lack of preparedness stemming from unrequested discovery. The Strickland standard evaluates ineffective assistance claims through performance deficiency and resultant prejudice. Appellant has not substantiated claims that better-prepared counsel would have altered the outcome, as evidence showed several violations were confirmed. Thus, Proposition II is also denied. **DECISION** The order from the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290, and CF-2013-6519 is **AFFIRMED**. --- **APPEARANCES:** **AT TRIAL** Katie Samples, Assistant Public Defender Marva A. Banks, Assistant Public Defender **ON APPEAL** David Nichols, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Attorney General Keeley L. Miller, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. **[Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-357_1734695459.pdf)**

C-2016-718

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 1, 2017
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-718, Jones appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon and kidnapping. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the sentence for one count where he was not charged, but affirmed the rest of the convictions. One judge dissented.

RE-2015-206

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 5, 2016
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-206, Akers appealed his conviction for Burglary in the Second Degree, Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, Conspiracy to Commit Burglary II, and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation order against him. One judge dissented. In this case, Akers had entered pleas of no contest to several charges after a plea agreement. He was sentenced to serve time in prison, but part of his sentence was suspended, meaning he wouldn’t have to serve it right away if he followed certain rules. However, a few months later, a judge revoked part of his suspended sentence because of a violation. Akers argued that the court did not follow the rules properly during the revocation process. Specifically, he claimed that the court didn’t hold a required hearing within 20 days after he entered a plea of not guilty to the motion for revocation. According to the law, if this time frame is not followed, the court loses the authority to revoke the suspended sentence. The record showed that the state filed a motion to revoke Akers' suspended sentence, and although he entered a plea of not guilty, he did not receive a hearing within the 20-day period. Akers' lawyer pointed out this issue during the hearing, claiming the court should not have moved forward with the revocation as it did not meet the required timeframe. The dissenting judge had a different opinion, but the majority agreed that Akers was right. Because the required hearing was not held on time, they decided to reverse the revocation order and told the lower court to dismiss the state’s motion, meaning Akers’ rights were upheld, and he would not face the consequences of the revocation. Thus, the decision was made to give Akers another chance by reversing the revocation.

RE 2008-0961

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 27, 2009
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2008-0961, Adrian Smith appealed his conviction for robbery and burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but also ordered that the judgment be corrected to show that he had nine years remaining instead of ten years. One judge dissented. Adrian Smith had pleaded guilty to several crimes, including robbery with a weapon. He got a sentence of ten years for each crime, but all of them were set to run at the same time, which means he would only serve the longest sentence. If he completed a substance abuse program, he would not have to serve the sentences after the first year. After being released, the state asked to take back his suspended sentence because they believed he had not followed the rules. After a court hearing, the judge decided to revoke the suspended sentences completely. Smith then appealed, saying the judge made mistakes. First, Smith claimed the judge was wrong to revoke his sentence for ten years. However, the state agreed that it should state nine years instead. Second, Smith argued that he did not get a fair process because the judge did not write down why his sentence was revoked. The court found that he was given enough information about why this decision was made, so he was not denied due process. Lastly, Smith argued that revoking his full sentences was too much. The court concluded that the judge had the right to make this decision and found no abuse of discretion. In the end, the appeal confirmed that the sentences would stay revoked but corrected the record to show the appropriate time remaining.

F-2008-127

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 11, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-127, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple offenses including False Declaration of Ownership in Pawn, Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, and various Computer Crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of the appellant from the Drug Court program but vacated one conviction for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer since the charges had been dismissed before the time of termination. One judge dissented.

F 2008-287

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 25, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2008-287, Matthew Thornbrough appealed his conviction for several counts, including possession of a firearm and operating a police radio. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction for operating a police radio and ordered it to be dismissed, while affirming his convictions for the other charges. One judge dissented.

RE 2007-0484

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 1, 2008
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2007-0484, Shaun Lee Gessel appealed his conviction for multiple charges including unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and threatening a witness. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but ordered the cases to be sent back to the District Court for re-sentencing to fix the errors related to how the sentences were to run. One member of the court dissented.

F-2006-1168

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 6, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1168, Steven Allen Flynn, Jr. appealed his conviction for Second-Degree Felony Murder, Concealing Stolen Property, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine), Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana), and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for Concealing Stolen Property, Possession of Methamphetamine, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. However, they modified his conviction for Second-Degree Felony Murder to First Degree Manslaughter While Driving Under the Influence and reduced his sentence to twenty years. The court also reversed the conviction for Possession of Marijuana with instructions to dismiss the case. One judge dissented.

RE 2005-0473

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 20, 2006
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2005-0473, the appellant appealed his conviction for burglary in the second degree and knowingly concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences because the hearing was not held within the required twenty days. The appellant had a dissenting opinion.

C-2004-1017

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 16, 2005
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2004-1017, Libera appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Libera's petition to withdraw his guilty plea and remand for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Stephen Mark Libera was charged for concealing stolen property in Tulsa County. He chose to waive a preliminary hearing and entered a guilty plea. During the plea, there was some confusion about what the consequences would be. Although there was mention of a possible deferred sentence (which would mean he might not have to serve time), Libera felt he was not given clear advice about what this plea meant for him. When he was sentenced, the court did not follow what a previous report suggested, which was to give him probation instead of prison time. Libera believed that if the recommendation by the pre-sentencing investigation (PSI) was not followed, he should be allowed to change his guilty plea. He felt he had been led to believe that probation would be granted, and when it wasn't, he wanted to withdraw his plea. The court agreed that he should have been given a chance to do so. Thus, they decided in favor of Libera, allowing him to withdraw his plea and sending the case back for further actions consistent with the new decision. One judge did not agree with this outcome.

RE-2003-660

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 23, 2004
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2003-660, Fox appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the revocation order should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Fox was found guilty of Concealing Stolen Property and received a suspended sentence, which meant he wouldn't serve jail time right away but had to follow certain rules. He had to pay money as part of his sentence and stay employed. Over time, Fox struggled to meet these requirements due to health issues and other challenges, and the State said he violated the rules of his probation. Upon review, the Court looked at whether Fox’s actions were willful. This means they examined if he meant to break the rules or if there were reasons he couldn’t comply. Fox's attorney had agreed with the State's claims but there was confusion about whether Fox could argue that he had a good reason for not following the rules. In the end, the Court found that Fox had the right to argue that he did not willfully break the rules of probation. The previous order revoking his sentence was reversed, and more discussions were needed to figure out his situation properly.

F-2002-1470

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 25, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1470, Wafford appealed his conviction for several crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm part of the convictions and reverse one of them. One judge dissented. Michael Orlando Wafford was found guilty by a jury of trafficking in illegal drugs, possession of a firearm while committing a felony, possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, and concealing stolen property. The jury gave him a total of fifty-five years in prison for these crimes. There were several issues that Wafford raised in his appeal. First, he argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to support his conviction for possessing a gun while committing a felony and that the evidence for trafficking was also weak. The court, however, found that the evidence was enough to show that Wafford had control over the drugs found and that there was a connection between the gun and the drug crimes. Next, Wafford pointed out that it was unfair to charge him with two different crimes because of the same gun. The court agreed, sending back instructions to dismiss the conviction for concealing stolen property since it stemmed from the same act of having the gun. Wafford also claimed that some evidence during the trial was unfair to him and that he did not get a fair trial because of it. The court found that the objections raised did not significantly affect the outcome of the trial. Overall, the court upheld the conviction for trafficking and the possession of a firearm while committing a felony, concluding that the evidence supported those charges. However, they also ruled that Wafford's conviction for concealing stolen property was not valid and ordered it to be dismissed.

F 2002-869

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 29, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-869, Bennie Jay Edwards, Jr., appealed his conviction for Concealing Stolen Property and Breaking and Entering. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for Concealing Stolen Property to ten years imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. Bennie Jay Edwards, Jr. was found guilty in a trial that took place in May 2002. The jury decided he should go to prison for 30 years for the first crime, which was concealing stolen property, and one year for the second crime, which was breaking and entering. These sentences were set to happen at the same time, meaning he would serve the longest one. After the trial, Edwards appealed, saying that there were mistakes during the trial and that he did not get a fair chance to defend himself. His lawyers said the jury was told the wrong information about how long he could be sentenced for his crime of concealing stolen property. The proper punishment should have been four years to life in prison, but the jury was told it could be no less than 20 years. After looking into the issues raised by Edwards, the court decided that he did not lose his chance for a fair trial because of the mistakes that were made about the instructions. However, they agreed that the jury was given the wrong information about the punishment for his first conviction. Because of this error, the court changed the sentence for his first conviction from 30 years to 10 years. The second conviction remained the same. The court explained that even though there were some mistakes, they did not think those mistakes were serious enough to change the conviction itself, just the sentence. In the end, the court found Edwards guilty but reduced his punishment for one of the crimes due to the trial mistakes related to jury instructions.

C-2000-750

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 5, 2001
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2000-750, Nikisha Lynn Farris appealed her conviction for robbery in the first degree and concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to modify her sentence. One judge dissented. Farris pleaded guilty to robbery and concealing stolen property. She did not have a deal with the District Attorney about her sentence. The judge sentenced her to 100 years for robbery and 5 years for concealing stolen property, and both sentences would be served at the same time. After her sentence, Farris wanted to take back her guilty plea. However, the trial court said no when she asked to withdraw her plea. Farris then appealed the trial court's decision, and the court looked at everything in the case including records and Farris's arguments. The court found that Farris's plea was knowing and voluntary, meaning she understood what she was doing when she pleaded guilty. The court also determined that her lawyer did not make mistakes that harmed her case. However, the court thought the 100-year sentence for robbery was too harsh. They decided to change her sentence to 30 years instead. So while Farris would still have to spend time in prison, it would be less time than what she was originally given. The court agreed to modify the sentence while keeping the other parts of the original decision.