Concur

RE-2018-858

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JEREMY LANCE LABBY,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-858** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AUG 15, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Jeremy Lance Labby appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Cherokee County District Court Case No. CF-2015-149. Labby was originally charged with Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, in violation of 47 O.S.2011, § 4-102. On December 15, 2016, Labby entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced to three years imprisonment, with all three years suspended. On June 20, 2018, the State filed a 2nd Amended Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence, alleging multiple violations of probation, including new crimes related to two counts of Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, Theft of Property in Benton County, Arkansas, and First Degree Burglary and Resisting Arrest in Cherokee County. Following a revocation hearing, Special Judge Gary Huggins revoked Labby's suspended sentence in full. In his sole proposition, Labby contends that the revocation of his suspended sentence was excessive and represents an abuse of discretion. He argues that despite his limited intellect and efforts to comply with probation requirements—such as being current on probation fees and meeting with probation officers—Judge Huggins’s decision to revoke his sentence in full was unwarranted. The Court finds Labby’s claims to be without merit. A suspended sentence is a matter of grace, and the State needs to establish only one violation of probation to revoke a suspended sentence in its entirety. The State successfully demonstrated that Labby committed multiple violations, including new felony offenses, while on probation. The determination to revoke a suspended sentence, either in whole or in part, rests within the trial court’s sound discretion, and such decisions are not to be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Although it is noted that Judge Huggins had the option to impose a lesser penalty, his discretion to choose full revocation is justified by the evidence presented, which established significant violations by Labby. **DECISION** The Court affirms the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Cherokee County District Court Case No. CF-2015-149. Pursuant to Rule 3.15 of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the Mandate is ordered issued upon the filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHEROKEE COUNTY, THE HONORABLE GARY HUGGINS, SPECIAL JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT REVOCATION** **CRYSTAL JACKSON** Counsel for Defendant 239 W. Keetoowah Tahlequah, OK 74464 **MARK HOOVER** Counsel for Appellant P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 **CODY BOWLIN** Counsel for State ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 213 W. Delaware Tahlequah, OK 74464 **MIKE HUNTER** Counsel for Appellee OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur **RA/F** *Click Here To Download PDF*

Continue ReadingRE-2018-858

F-2017-356

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-356, Elizabeth A. Jennings appealed her conviction for Permitting Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed her conviction. One judge dissented. The case took place in Tulsa County, where Jennings was found guilty of allowing child sexual abuse to happen, which is against the law. The jury decided she should go to prison for 14 years. She was very unhappy about this and wanted to challenge the ruling. Jennings raised three big points in her appeal: 1. She said the prosecutor made a wrong hypothetical question during jury selection, which is called voir dire, and that this violated her rights. 2. She also argued that a lot of evidence was shown about her co-defendant's sexual misconduct, which she thought made it hard for her to get a fair sentence. 3. Lastly, she complained that the judge didn't tell the jury that she would have to register as a sex offender after her conviction, which she thought was an important piece of information. The court looked at everything carefully, including the evidence, the transcripts, and the arguments from both sides. It decided that Jennings did not deserve any relief from her conviction based on her arguments. For the first point, the court said that the prosecutor's question was okay. It was meant to see if jurors could be fair and follow the law without making decisions before hearing all the evidence. In the second point, the court agreed that the evidence about the co-defendant was relevant and helped to show Jennings' knowledge of the situation. The court found that this evidence was not unfairly hurtful to her case. On the third point, the court decided that it was not wrong for the judge to skip giving out the information about sex offender registration because it wasn't necessary for the case. In the end, the court upheld Jennings' sentence of 14 years in prison. The judges considered all the arguments but concluded that everything was handled correctly during the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2017-356

F-2005-1031

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1031, Edgar Allen Moore appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Concealing Stolen Property and affirmed the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, but ordered a remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Moore was found guilty by a jury of two charges. The first was that he shot someone, and the second was for hiding a stolen gun. The jury said Moore should spend fifty years in prison for the shooting and five years for concealing the gun. Moore believed he shouldn’t be punished for Concealing Stolen Property because the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he knew the gun was stolen. When the police arrived, Moore acted nervous. He removed the ammunition from the gun and claimed he did it, but he didn’t say anything to show he knew the gun was stolen. The prosecution had to show that he knew the gun was stolen for him to be guilty of concealing it, but the court found that they didn’t have enough proof. Another issue was that the prosecutor talked about Moore’s right to stay silent in front of the jury. The comments made by the prosecutor were not allowed. The court decided that the prosecutor made a mistake by suggesting that Moore was acting suspiciously because he didn’t say anything about the gun being stolen. This made it hard for the jury to decide fairly. For the Shooting with Intent to Kill charge, there was enough evidence presented, as many people saw Moore shoot the gun at the victim. The jury deliberated and sent a note asking questions about the potential length of the sentence and whether Moore could get parole. Moore’s attorney asked the court to tell the jury about the law that states he must serve 85% of his sentence for this type of crime, but the court refused to provide this information. Ultimately, the court decided that Moore's first conviction was valid, but he deserved a new sentencing hearing so he could have proper instructions given to the jury regarding his sentence. The bad ruling about the Concealing Stolen Property charge meant that this conviction was completely reversed. The court confirmed that the results were correct but expressed that reminders about procedures regarding juries should have been followed properly. The final ruling led to Moore's sentence for the serious crime being upheld, but he will have another chance with a new hearing about how much time he must actually serve.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1031

F 2001-1497

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-1497, Michael Keith Brock appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction for one count but affirmed the convictions for the other counts. One judge dissented. Michael Brock was found guilty after a jury trial on several counts including manufacturing methamphetamine and trafficking illegal drugs. The court sentenced him to a total of 40 years in prison and fines totaling $185,000. He appealed the decision, raising multiple issues regarding the legality of his search and seizure, his treatment in court, and the sufficiency of the evidence against him. The court reviewed several arguments from Brock. He claimed that the search was unreasonable and violated his rights, and he argued that he should not have been brought before the jury in jail clothes. He also contended that the affidavit for the search warrant did not give enough reason for the police to search him and that the search of a person not named in the warrant was illegal. The court found that Brock did not properly object to many of the issues he raised during the trial. It ruled that the search and seizure were valid and did not violate his rights. They determined that wearing jail clothing did not prejudice him during his trial. While the court agreed that one of the charges—possession of a precursor substance—was incorrectly charged and reversed that conviction, they upheld the remaining convictions. Ultimately, the decision led to the reversal of one count against Michael Brock while affirming the rest of his convictions.

Continue ReadingF 2001-1497

F-2001-655

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-655, Robert Leroy Martin appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Robert Leroy Martin was found guilty of serious crimes by a jury. The judge gave him life imprisonment for rape, fifty years for robbery, and twenty years for burglary, and said he had to serve these sentences one after the other. Martin then appealed this decision. During the appeal, the court looked closely at the case and the arguments made. They considered several points raised by Martin. The first point was about the instructions the jury received during the trial about burglary. The court found this was not a mistake that affected the trial unfairly because Martin’s explanation was different from that of another case. The second point Martin made was about the jurors not getting complete information on the punishments they could choose for each crime. However, the court said Martin did not object during the trial, so he couldn’t claim this as an error now. The third and final point discussed was whether the sentences were too harsh. The court agreed that the long sentences felt excessive for the circumstances of the case. In the end, the court said Martin would still be found guilty but changed the way the sentences would be served from one after the other to at the same time. One judge disagreed with changing the sentences, believing the original decision by the trial judge should stand.

Continue ReadingF-2001-655

F-2000-796

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-796, Ronald Phipps appealed his conviction for attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine (as a subsequent offense), possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the $1,000 fine for the possession of marijuana but affirmed all other convictions and sentences. One judge dissented on the issue of the fine.

Continue ReadingF-2000-796