Conflict of Interest

C-2020-668

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2020-668, Jeffrey Montrell Alexander McClellan appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the lower court's order denying McClellan's application to withdraw his guilty plea and remanded the case for a new hearing with conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented. McClellan had entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to twelve years in prison and fined one thousand dollars. Later, he wrote a letter to the court saying he wanted to appeal because he believed he didn’t have proper legal help. The court treated this letter as a request to withdraw his guilty plea, but this request was denied. McClellan’s main argument was that he was not given effective assistance of counsel, especially at the hearing where he wanted to withdraw his plea. He said that the attorney who was supposed to help him at the hearing had represented him during the plea, creating a conflict of interest. The court agreed with him, saying that defendants have a right to a lawyer who can represent their interests without any conflicts. Since McClellan’s attorney did not actively defend him during the hearing and was the same attorney who represented him at the plea, the court found this to be a problem. As a result, the court ordered that McClellan gets a new hearing to discuss withdrawing his guilty plea, but this time with a different attorney who has no conflicting interests.

Continue ReadingC-2020-668

C-2019-815

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2019-815, the petitioner appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary, Second Degree Burglary, and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and remand the case for a new hearing. One member of the court dissented. The case began when the petitioner, after entering guilty pleas for the charges, expressed a desire to withdraw those pleas. He believed he had not been properly represented by his attorney and filed a letter to withdraw his plea. A hearing was held where the petitioner appeared without his attorney. During this hearing, he claimed that he felt misled regarding the likely outcome of his plea. The petitioner argued that the hearing to withdraw his plea was unlawful because he was not given proper legal representation. He said that he didn’t effectively waive his right to counsel at that hearing and claimed there was a conflict of interest since his attorney had represented him in the original plea. The court found that there was no valid waiver of his right to counsel, meaning he didn’t fully understand the implications of representing himself. The trial court had not thoroughly questioned him about his need for counsel or his rights, leading to confusion about whether he was proceeding with an attorney or alone. The state agreed that the hearing had issues because the petitioner didn’t receive conflict-free representation. Therefore, the court ruled that the previous denial of his motion to withdraw his plea was a mistake and sent the case back for a new hearing where these issues could be properly addressed.

Continue ReadingC-2019-815

C-2019-15

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2019-15, Nicholas Allan Daniel appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder (Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance) and Robbery with a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his request for a writ of certiorari, modifying his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder while reversing his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm. One judge dissented from this opinion. Nicholas Daniel faced serious charges after being accused of killing a man while trying to sell drugs and also robbing him. He pleaded guilty to these charges but later wanted to withdraw his plea. He felt that his lawyer did not help him enough during the process, and he raised several reasons for this claim. He argued that the lawyer had a conflict of interest, that he did not fully understand the consequences of his plea, that the plea lacked a good factual basis, and that he did not get effective help from his lawyer. The court carefully examined each of Daniel's arguments. In the first argument, the court found no real conflict of interest because Daniel’s dissatisfaction stemmed from the state’s evidence and the sentence, not from his lawyer's performance. In the second argument, it was decided that Daniel had entered the plea with a clear understanding that he would face sentencing and that it was done voluntarily. For the third argument, about the factual basis for his felony murder conviction, the court found that there were issues with how the charges were presented. It was determined that the way Daniel described the incident in his plea was inadequate to meet the legal requirements for felony murder because he was treated primarily as a buyer, not a seller of drugs. Thus, the combined crimes could not both stand. In terms of Daniel's claims against his lawyer's effectiveness, the court acknowledged that his lawyer could have done better. However, it ruled against some of Daniel's more serious arguments on the effectiveness of his lawyer, finding that he did not provide sufficient proof that his lawyer’s actions negatively affected his defense. In the final decision, the court adjusted Daniel's felony murder conviction based on the issues around how the charges were processed and reversed the robbery conviction, as it should not stand alongside the adjusted murder charge. Ultimately, the court confirmed Daniel's modified conviction for felony murder but sent the case back regarding the robbery count. One judge disagreed with parts of this conclusion, stating that the trial court had not made a mistake in the first place and therefore should not have granted the appeal. The judge argued that since Daniel's plea was expressed clearly and voluntarily, it should have been upheld without modification. The judge emphasized the importance of adhering to proper legal processes and rules when making such determinations. Thus, the outcome celebrated the importance of ensuring that legal principles and procedures are correctly applied, even as it affirmed Daniel’s conviction under modified circumstances.

Continue ReadingC-2019-15

F-2018-888

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma regarding the appeal of Justin William Dunlap, who was convicted of First Degree Rape by Instrumentation of a Victim under the Age of Fourteen and sentenced to ten years in prison. Dunlap raised multiple propositions of error in his appeal, including claims of insufficient waiver of a jury trial, challenges to the credibility of the victim's testimony, allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, excessive sentencing, and inadequate defense representation, among others. The court considered each proposition in detail: 1. **Waiver of Jury Trial**: The court found that Dunlap's waiver was knowing and voluntary, supported by a written waiver signed by all necessary parties. 2. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: The court analyzed the testimony of the victim (D.H.) and found it sufficient to support the conviction, affirming that the evidence met the necessary legal standard. 3. **Prosecutorial Misconduct**: The court concluded there was no misconduct that affected the trial's fairness, finding that the prosecutor's comments did not misstate the evidence or improperly comment on Dunlap's failure to testify. 4. **Excessive Sentencing**: The court determined that the sentence was within statutory guidelines and did not shock the conscience given the serious nature of the crime. 5. **Right to Present a Defense**: The court upheld the trial court's decision to exclude certain evidence, finding no abuse of discretion in limiting what could be presented as a defense. 6. **Speedy Trial**: The court found no violation of Dunlap's right to a speedy trial, noting delays were justified and not solely attributable to the prosecution. 7. **Competency Evaluation**: The court ruled that since Dunlap did not request an evaluation and provided no evidence to support his claims, this argument was unmeritorious. 8. **Conflict of Interest**: The argument regarding conflicting interests between attorneys was found to lack merit as Dunlap did not demonstrate how this negatively impacted his defense. 9. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: The court scrutinized claims of ineffective assistance, applying the Strickland standard, and found that Dunlap did not demonstrate that any alleged deficiencies affected the trial's outcome. 10. **Cumulative Error**: The court dismissed this claim as there were no individual errors that would warrant a new trial. The court affirmed the judgment and sentence, upholding the findings of the lower court and denying Dunlap's requested evidentiary hearing related to ineffective assistance of counsel. Additionally, a concurring opinion emphasized the handling of extra-record materials submitted by Dunlap, noting the importance of adhering to established procedural rules and advocating for more careful consideration of supplementary materials going forward. In summary, the appeal was denied, and the conviction stands as affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Continue ReadingF-2018-888

F-2018-989

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ARNULFO CAMPOS GONZALES, Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-989** **File Date: January 2020** **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, JUDGE** Appellant Arnulfo Campos Gonzales appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Haskell County, Case No. CF-2017-197. He was convicted for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, Conspiracy to Traffic Methamphetamine, and Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine. His sentences included twenty-five years imprisonment for Count 1 and ten years each for Counts 2 and 3, ordered to be served consecutively. Gonzales raises several issues on appeal: 1. Denial of effective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest. 2. Double punishment for Counts 2 and 3. 3. Violation of the Fourth Amendment regarding the search of his car. 4. Deficient jury instructions on conspiracy. 5. Ineffective assistance of counsel due to failure to suppress and object to instructions. 6. Abuse of discretion in consecutive sentencing. **1. Conflict of Interest** Gonzales argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel due to defense counsel’s prior representation of a co-defendant, Samantha Johnson, who testified against him. The court examined whether an actual conflict arose during representation, determining that Gonzales failed to demonstrate that the former representation affected counsel's performance. The court found that Johnson’s testimony largely did not implicate Gonzales and that counsel's representation was sufficient. **2. Multiple Punishment** Gonzales contends that sentencing him for conspiracy to traffic and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine violates the prohibition against multiple punishments for the same act. The court found both counts stemmed from a single agreement concerning the same methamphetamine and that the convictions constituted a violation of Section 11. The court remanded the case for dismissal of Count 3. **3. Fourth Amendment** Gonzales did not properly contest the legality of the search of his car and thus the court reviewed this claim for plain error. The court concluded that Gonzales had not demonstrated that the timeline of events during the traffic stop violated his rights, as he consented to the search prior to its execution. **4. Jury Instructions** Gonzales argued that jury instructions were insufficient as they failed to name the conspirators. However, the court determined the instructions, when read as a whole, properly conveyed the necessary information. Gonzales did not establish any plain error regarding jury instructions. **5. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel** This claim was evaluated under the standard set by Strickland v. Washington. The court found no prejudice affecting the outcome as Gonzales could not demonstrate ineffective assistance. **6. Consecutive Sentences** Gonzales claims the district court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. The prosecutor’s remark about a presumed policy did not demonstrate that the district court failed to exercise discretion. The court affirmed its decision as the record supported the imposition of consecutive sentences. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED for Counts 1 and 2. Count 3 is DISMISSED. Gonzales’s Application for Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED. **APPEARANCES** *AT TRIAL* Roger Hilfiger, Counsel for Defendant *ON APPEAL* Ariel Parry, Appellate Counsel Christina Burns, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** **LEWIS, P.J., KUEHN, V.P.J., LUMPKIN, J., HUDSON, J.:** Concur. [PDF Download Link](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-989_1734871593.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-989

C-2013-254

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2013-254, Gina Diane Eslick appealed her conviction for multiple drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her petition for certiorari, meaning they agreed to look at her case closely. The court found that she did not have effective help from her lawyer when she tried to change her guilty plea, as her lawyer had a conflict of interest. The court ordered that her case be sent back to the District Court so she could have a new hearing with a lawyer who did not have a conflict. No one dissented in this decision.

Continue ReadingC-2013-254

C-2018-415

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **TALISA NICOLE BANKS, Petitioner,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-415** **October 31, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION GRANTING CERTIORARI** Judge Hudson presiding: On November 8, 2016, Talisa Nicole Banks entered blind pleas of guilty to the following charges: Count 1 - Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance - Marijuana; Count 2 - Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug, Marijuana, With Intent to Distribute; and Count 3 - Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance - Methamphetamine in the District Court of Texas County, Case No. CF-2016-64. Sentencing occurred on February 28, 2018, resulting in a combined fifteen-year sentence with conditions on Counts 1, 2, and 3. After sentencing, on March 7, 2018, Banks filed a motion to withdraw her guilty pleas, which was supported by an additional pro se letter outlining her reasons. A hearing on this motion was held on April 4, 2018, but was denied by the Honorable Jon Parsley, District Judge. Banks appealed, arguing she faced multiple forms of conflict regarding her legal representation, which adversely affected her ability to receive effective assistance during her plea withdrawal hearing. This Court has previously established the right to effective counsel at plea withdrawal hearings. The arguments presented by Banks indicated an actual conflict of interest, as her counsel simultaneously represented conflicting interests regarding claims made against his own effectiveness. The evidence suggests Banks was denied the opportunity for conflict-free representation, and thus a new hearing is warranted for the motion to withdraw her guilty pleas. **DECISION** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. The case is REMANDED to the District Court for the appointment of new counsel for Banks’ motion to withdraw her guilty pleas and to conduct a new hearing regarding that motion. **Parties Appeared Below** - **Defense Counsel**: Robert H. Jaques - **Respondent Counsel**: Assistant District Attorney Buddy Leach; Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter **OPINION BY**: HUDSON, J. **CONCUR**: LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J. **[Download Full Decision](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-415_1734109426.pdf)**

Continue ReadingC-2018-415

F-2017-1306

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1306, Rebecca Faith Clark appealed her conviction for four counts of Child Abuse by Injury and one count of First Degree Child Abuse Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. The case involves serious allegations against the appellant and her husband, who adopted two boys after they were removed from their biological parents due to neglect. The abuse came to light after the younger boy, Colton, went missing in 2006. An extensive search was conducted, but he was never found. During this time, the older brother, T.J.S., raised concerns about the treatment he and Colton were receiving at home. He reported incidents of physical abuse, including being beaten and isolated by the appellants. After several years, T.J.S. contacted law enforcement about the mistreatment and his brother's disappearance, which led to reopening Colton's case. The trial revealed chilling details about the life of the brothers in the appellants' care. T.J.S. provided testimony about the physical and emotional abuse they suffered, including beatings, emotional manipulation, and the traumatic events surrounding Colton's disappearance. In her defense, the appellant denied any wrongdoing and argued that the boys were troubled and often acted out. She claimed T.J.S. was the source of the injuries he reported, and she maintained that Colton had run away rather than suggesting any harm had come to him. The court examined various claims raised by the appellant, including ineffective assistance of counsel and improper admission of evidence. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction, indicating that the overwhelming evidence against the appellant affirmed the decision of the jury. The opinion emphasized the role of the older brother's testimony and the psychological and physical marks left from the alleged abusive environment. It highlighted the principles of joint representation and the appellant's decisions during the trial process. Given these factors, the appellate court found no compelling reason to reverse the lower court's decision. Overall, the OCCA concluded that the appellant received a fair trial, despite her arguments to the contrary, and affirmed the judgment and sentence. The dissenting opinion focused on specific aspects of the trial proceedings but ultimately shared the conclusion regarding the affirmance of the convictions.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1306

C-2018-679

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

It appears that you've shared a document detailing a legal opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals denying a writ of certiorari for petitioner Jerry Ray Hawkins. He was appealing his convictions related to exhibiting obscene material to minors, procuring child pornography, and lewd acts, asserting that his guilty pleas were not made knowingly, that he did not receive conflict-free counsel, and that his sentence was excessive. Here’s a summary of the main points covered in the opinion: ### Case Overview: - **Petitioner**: Jerry Ray Hawkins - **Charges**: Multiple counts including Exhibiting Obscene Material to a Minor, Procuring Child Pornography, and Lewd Acts. - **Sentencing**: Total of twenty years for some charges and ten years for others, with certain counts running concurrently and others consecutively. ### Key Legal Issues Raised by Petitioner: 1. **Withdrawal of Guilty Pleas**: Hawkins argued he should be allowed to withdraw his pleas because they were not made knowingly or voluntarily, claiming that he was misled by his attorney regarding potential plea agreements. 2. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: He claimed that the failure to appoint conflict-free counsel during the plea withdrawal hearing resulted in inadequate legal representation. 3. **Excessive Sentence**: He contended that the aggregate sentence was excessive for the charges he pleaded to. ### Court's Findings: - **Proposition I (Withdrawal of Pleas)**: The court found that Hawkins had waived his right to argue that his pleas were not knowing and voluntary by failing to raise it during his motion to withdraw. Therefore, this claim was denied. - **Proposition II (Ineffective Assistance of Counsel)**: The court concluded that there was no actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel's performance, as Hawkins did not accuse his plea counsel of misconduct. Therefore, this claim was also denied. - **Proposition III (Excessive Sentence)**: The court noted that Hawkins similarly failed to raise this issue during the appropriate proceedings, resulting in a waiver of his excessive sentence claim. ### Conclusion: The court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court, concluding that no legal grounds existed to warrant relief. #### Final Notes: Petitioner’s appeals were denied on all fronts, with the court emphasizing the need for claims to be preserved at the trial level to be considered on appeal. If you have any specific questions or need further analysis regarding this case or related legal concepts, feel free to ask!

Continue ReadingC-2018-679

RE-2017-964

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case No. RE-2017-964** **Antonio Depew Rhone, Appellant** **State of Oklahoma, Appellee** **Filed: April 4, 2019** **Summary Opinion:** Judge Hudson delivers the opinion of the court, affirming the revocation of Rhone's suspended sentence. ### Background: - On May 19, 2004, Antonio Depew Rhone pleaded guilty to Robbery with a Firearm and Kidnapping. - He received a 20-year sentence for the robbery (12 years suspended) and a concurrent 10-year sentence for kidnapping. - In July 2016, the State filed a motion to revoke his suspended sentence due to multiple probation violations, including new criminal charges. - After a revocation hearing on July 10, 2017, the District Court revoked Rhone's suspended sentence in full. ### Propositions of Error: 1. **Denial of Counsel of Choice:** Rhone claimed the trial court erred by not allowing him to hire his chosen attorney and denied his motion for a continuance. The court found no abuse of discretion, noting that Rhone had ample time to secure counsel but did not do so and had not shown any conflict with the appointed counsel. 2. **First Amendment Rights:** Rhone argued that his Facebook posts, which included threats, constituted protected speech. The court noted that Rhone did not object to the evidence's admissibility at the hearing, limiting review to plain error. The court ruled the statements were threats and not constitutionally protected speech. 3. **Insufficient Evidence for Revocation:** Rhone asserted the evidence against him was insufficient to support his revocation based on new criminal charges and other alleged probation violations. The court found that the State only needed to prove violations by a preponderance of the evidence and was satisfied the evidence presented justified the revocation. 4. **Abuse of Discretion in Revocation Decision:** Rhone contended that completely revoking his suspended sentence was excessive. The court reiterated that even one violation can justify a full revocation and found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision. ### Decision: The court affirmed the District Court's decision to revoke Rhone's suspended sentence. **Concurring Opinion (Kuehn, V.P.J.):** Kuehn concurred with the result, emphasizing that the evidence for the new drug charge alone justified the revocation. The other propositions were deemed moot. Kuehn agreed with the majority's analysis regarding the First Amendment claim, concluding there was no error in charging Rhone for his statements. **Conclusion:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the revocation of Rhone’s suspended sentence, affirming the trial court's findings and rulings across all raised propositions. **[Download PDF of the full opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2017-964_1734708773.pdf)**

Continue ReadingRE-2017-964

C-2016-778

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-778, Donald Garra Patterson appealed his conviction for Abuse by Caretaker, Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body, and Obtaining a Controlled Substance by Forgery/Fraud. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions on most counts but modified the sentence for Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body due to it being greater than allowed by law. One judge dissented. Patterson had entered a plea of guilty to various charges and was sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment, including ten years for Abuse by Caretaker and seven years for each of the other charges. Afterward, he wanted to withdraw his plea, claiming he did not fully understand what he was pleading guilty to and felt his lawyer had not helped him properly. The main issues raised included whether his plea was made knowingly and if his lawyer had conflicts of interest or failed to give him correct information. The court found that Patterson didn't support his claims about not understanding the plea and concluded his sentence for the crime of Unlawful Removal had to be changed because it was wrongly set longer than the law allowed. The court also confirmed that the mistakes in advising Patterson were not enough to prove he was treated unfairly by his lawyer. Ultimately, the court decided to lower his sentence for Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body to the correct maximum of five years and instructed the lower court to fix some record-keeping errors regarding fees.

Continue ReadingC-2016-778

C-2016-40

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-40, Deandre Lashawn Henderson appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a firearm after a former conviction of a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to grant part of his appeal. The court affirmed the convictions for Counts 1 and 5, but reversed and vacated the judgments for Counts 2 through 4. One justice dissented. The case began when Henderson entered a negotiated Alford plea, which means he maintained his innocence but accepted the plea for the sake of a more favorable sentence. He was sentenced to twenty years for the assault counts and ten years for the possession count, all to be served concurrently, meaning at the same time. Later, Henderson wanted to withdraw his plea. He claimed that his plea was not made knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily. He also said that he did not receive effective help from his lawyer and that the trial court should have appointed a different lawyer due to a conflict of interest. During the appeal, the court looked closely at whether Henderson's plea was made voluntarily and if the district court had the authority to accept it. The court found that Henderson's plea was indeed voluntary because he knew the charges and the consequences. His choice to accept the plea was motivated by a desire to reduce his overall prison time, especially given the evidence against him. However, the court agreed that Henderson's lawyer should have argued that some of the charges violated the double jeopardy clause, which means he shouldn't be punished multiple times for the same act. The court found that the counts for assault stemmed from the same event and that it was wrong to punish him multiple times for it. Therefore, while verifying his conviction for some counts, the court ruled that the counts of conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon were not valid as they violated his rights. This decision meant that Henderson would not have to serve time for those three convictions but would still be sentenced for the other charges. Overall, the court upheld some aspects of the conviction but also corrected parts that were not handled properly.

Continue ReadingC-2016-40

C-2015-856

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-856, Misty Dawn Smith appealed her conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to deny Smith's petition for a writ of certiorari but modified her post-imprisonment supervision from two years to one year. One judge dissented. Smith was charged with having methamphetamine and entered a guilty plea in December 2012. She was supposed to complete a drug court program which could lead to a lighter sentence. If she did well, her sentence would be a five-year suspended sentence and a fine. If she didn't, she could face ten years in prison and a larger fine. She was taken to a treatment facility and started the drug court program in May 2013. However, in July 2015, the state asked to remove her from this program because she was not following the rules. A judge agreed, and Smith was sentenced to ten years in prison and a fine. Smith wanted to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing that she didn’t understand everything about her plea and the consequences of the drug court program. She also argued that her sentence was too harsh. The court looked at these claims but determined that there was no reason to allow her to change her plea. Her initial plea was considered to be made knowingly and voluntarily. The court found that Smith knew about the difficult nature of the drug court program and that she had many chances to follow the rules. They also stated that she didn’t raise her claim about the excessive sentence in the correct way, and therefore, it could not be considered. The court agreed that the two years of post-imprisonment supervision given to her was incorrect and lowered it to one year, which is what the law allows. The decision was made after reviewing all details and records of the case.

Continue ReadingC-2015-856

F-2015-393

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-393, Tucker Ryan McGee appealed his conviction for First Degree Malice Aforethought Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed his conviction but vacated his sentence of life without the possibility of parole and remanded the matter for re-sentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved the tragic disappearance of 16-year-old JaRay Wilson, who went missing in October 2012. Investigators later connected Tucker McGee and his friend Cody Godfrey to JaRay's disappearance. Evidence presented during the trial showed that McGee, while under the influence of drugs, shot JaRay in the head and subsequently helped dispose of her body. Throughout the trial, McGee raised numerous issues regarding jury instructions and the fairness of his trial, arguing that certain instructions on lesser offenses were improperly given or omitted, that the jury was misled by a flight instruction, and that he was deprived of a fair trial due to the evidence presented against him. He also claimed that the prosecution engaged in misconduct and that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel. The court reviewed all the claims made by McGee and found that while certain instructions were given that could be considered errors, they did not ultimately affect the outcome of the trial. The strengths of the evidence against McGee, including his confessions and the testimony of witnesses, led the court to determine that the errors did not warrant reversal of his conviction. Importantly, the court also addressed the implications of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on juvenile sentencing, specifically those related to life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders. The court acknowledged that the previous standards did not adequately consider the unique circumstances surrounding juvenile offenders and determined that McGee's sentence required re-evaluation under updated legal interpretations regarding the treatment of juveniles in the criminal justice system. As a result, while McGee's conviction was upheld, his life sentence without the possibility of parole was vacated, allowing for the opportunity for re-sentencing that would take into account his age and circumstances at the time of the crime.

Continue ReadingF-2015-393

C-2015-1063

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-1063, Pete Wolfe appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including attempted robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his request for a writ of certiorari and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Pete Wolfe entered guilty pleas without fully understanding what that meant. He later said that his lawyer's advice was not good and wanted to take back his guilty pleas. The court looked at whether he had a fair chance to do this and said that he did not have a lawyer who could represent him properly during the hearing. The court agreed that his lawyer might not have given him the best advice, which was important. So, they decided to let him have a new lawyer who could help him better and to have a new hearing on his request to withdraw the guilty pleas. This was to make sure his rights were protected in the legal process.

Continue ReadingC-2015-1063

C-2015-942

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-942, Prince Edward Myers appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including Running a Roadblock and Eluding a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm several parts of the case. However, they found errors concerning sentences that exceeded what was allowed by law. Myers received a mix of sentences, including prison time and fines, and the court ruled that some of his jail sentences were not valid because the offenses only allowed for fines. One judge disagreed with some aspects of the decision.

Continue ReadingC-2015-942

F-2014-279

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-279, Cruz-Brizuela appealed his conviction for Aggravated Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for new trials with conflict-free counsel. Guevara also appealed his conviction for the same charge, and the court made a similar decision for him. A dissenting opinion was filed. Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara were both found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County for having a large amount of cocaine hidden in a truck they were driving. The police had stopped them for a minor traffic issue and, upon inspection, discovered the cocaine in a secret compartment. During the trial, both men claimed they did not know about the drugs, but because they shared the same lawyer, there were concerns about an actual conflict of interest that seemed to affect their defense. The case stemmed from an incident on April 25, 2012, when an officer pulled their truck over. The officer had suspicions about the trip based on the men's log books and their explanations about stops they made along the way. The prosecutor argued that it was more likely that either Cruz-Brizuela or Guevara had placed the cocaine in the trailer during a long stop during their journey. Both men argued that their lawyer’s conflict made it impossible for him to defend them properly, as he could not use certain evidence to benefit one without hurting the other. Because their defense relied on the idea that neither of them knew about the drugs, the conflict prevented their lawyer from arguing effectively. The court found that the actual conflict had indeed affected the counsel's performance and, thus, both convictions were reversed. The judges agreed that it was important for defendants to have lawyers without conflicting interests to ensure a fair trial. The case was remanded for new trials where both Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara could have separate attorneys who could focus on their individual defenses. So, the outcome was that Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara were given another chance to defend themselves against the charges, this time with legal representation that wasn’t hindered by conflicts of interest.

Continue ReadingF-2014-279

F-2013-974

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-974, Karena L. Gilbreath-Hancock appealed her conviction for Actual Physical Control of a Motor Vehicle under the Influence of Alcohol. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for resentencing but affirmed her original conviction. One judge dissented. Gilbreath-Hancock was found guilty after a jury trial and was sentenced to two and a half years in prison along with a fine. She appealed for two main reasons. First, she claimed that her lawyer had a conflict of interest. However, the court found there was no actual conflict because Gilbreath-Hancock did not object to her lawyer's representation during the trial. The court stated that just because she disagreed with her lawyer's strategy, it did not mean there was a conflict of interest. Second, Gilbreath-Hancock argued that her rights were violated as the trial court failed to give the jury all the possible sentencing options available. The court agreed that the trial court made a mistake and needed to correct it. Because of this, they ordered the case to be sent back for resentencing, making sure that the jury would know all their options. In summary, while the court upheld the conviction of Gilbreath-Hancock, they recognized a mistake in the sentencing process and ordered that it be fixed.

Continue ReadingF-2013-974

C-2014-124

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-124, Roach appealed her conviction for three counts of Child Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her petition to withdraw her guilty plea and remanded the case for a new evidentiary hearing with conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2014-124

RE-2013-939

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-939, Quinton Blake Richardson appealed his conviction for larceny of merchandise from a retailer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that revoked a part of his suspended sentence based on a conflict of interest involving his attorney. One judge dissented. Mr. Richardson had originally entered a guilty plea to stealing items worth over $500 from a Wal-Mart and was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment, which was suspended under probation. However, he later faced a motion to revoke his suspended sentence. This motion claimed he violated his probation with new charges in Kansas for threatening and hitting a person, as well as failing drug tests. During the revocation hearing, Mr. Richardson's attorney had previously represented the victim in his case, which created a conflict of interest. The victim testified against Mr. Richardson, and the court judged that this situation affected how well Mr. Richardson was defended. The court emphasized that if a lawyer has a conflict of interest that harms their representation, the defendant may have their case overturned. Therefore, since the court believed Mr. Richardson did not get the fair help he needed because of the attorney's former relationship with the victim, they decided to reverse the revocation of his sentence and sent the case back for further proceedings. Additionally, the court found that other issues raised by Mr. Richardson about paperwork errors were not necessary to address further because of the main reversal decision. Overall, this case highlighted the importance of fair legal representation and how conflicts of interest can lead to wrong decisions in court.

Continue ReadingRE-2013-939

C-2013-1046

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2013-1046, Ronald Franz appealed his conviction for Accessory After the Fact to Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for writ of certiorari and remanded the case to the district court for a proper hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2013-1046

RE-2013-212

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-212, Alvin Lavan Johnson appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Johnson's revocation order and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. In 2003, Johnson was charged with the felony crime of domestic abuse. After pleading guilty in 2004, he received a suspended sentence of seven years. Years later, the State issued a warrant to revoke his suspension. Johnson was arrested and a revocation hearing took place with a judge and a prosecutor who had both been involved in the previous stages of his case. Johnson argued that this created an unfair situation. In his appeal, Johnson raised several points. He claimed that the delay in processing his case required dismissal. He also argued that it was unfair for the same attorney who had defended him to now be prosecuting him, and that the judge who revoked his sentence was involved in the original case. The State admitted errors but thought that a new hearing would be enough to fix the issues. The court agreed with Johnson on two of his claims, stating that the previous judge and prosecutor had conflicts of interest due to their past involvement in the case. Because of this, the court reversed the revocation order and sent the case back for further examination. Johnson will have a chance to present his arguments, including the claim about the delay, in front of a new and impartial judge. The court concluded that the other claims raised by Johnson didn’t need to be discussed at this time.

Continue ReadingRE-2013-212

C-2013-150

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2013-150, a person appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance in the presence of a child and child neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to deny some requests but modified the sentence. One judge dissented. The case involved Jennifer Michelle Stumpe, who pled guilty to two crimes. The first was possessing marijuana in front of a child, and the second was child neglect. She entered a program to help people with drug problems. Unfortunately, her participation in the program did not go well, leading the state to seek to terminate her involvement in the program. After agreeing to terminate her program participation, Stumpe was sentenced to five years in prison for each crime, but the sentences would run together. She later asked the court to let her take back her guilty plea, claiming she did not get a fair chance because of her lawyer and that she didn't understand the consequences of her plea. The court looked closely at her claims. Stumpe argued she did not get good help from her lawyer and that she was confused about the law and the possible punishments. However, the court found that these claims should not change the outcome of her case and that there was no big mistake made that would affect her rights significantly. Stumpe specifically challenged the length of her sentence for the first crime. The law said she could only get a maximum of two years in prison for that charge, but the court had given her five years. The court agreed that this was a mistake and decided to change her five-year sentence for that crime down to two years while keeping the other parts of her punishment the same. In summary, while Stumpe's requests to withdraw her pleas based on poor advice were denied, the court granted her request to reduce her sentence for the first crime to match the law.

Continue ReadingC-2013-150

C-2011-1119

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2011-1119, Hollis Michael Anson appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Hollis Michael Anson was charged in Osage County District Court with making a controlled dangerous substance. He pleaded guilty, which means he admitted to the crime. After that, he was given a long sentence of twenty-five years in prison. Later, he wanted to take back his guilty plea, so he filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. However, the court did not agree with his request after a hearing. In his appeal, Anson claimed there were mistakes made that affected his trial and his plea. He argued that his lawyer had a conflict of interest, which meant that his lawyer could not effectively help him. This was because the same lawyer had worked on his plea and sentencing, which made it hard for the lawyer to clearly represent Anson during the hearing to withdraw his plea. Anson believed that there wasn’t enough proof that he understood what he was pleading guilty to. He also thought that the sentence he received was too harsh. After looking closely at all the details of the case, the court agreed that there was a significant problem with Anson's representation during the motion to withdraw his plea. They found that his lawyer did not provide the help he needed because he couldn't argue properly without pointing out his own mistakes. So, the court said they would send the case back to the lower district court. There, Anson would have the chance to have a different lawyer represent him—one without any conflicts—to properly address his concerns about withdrawing his guilty plea. This was an important decision because it meant Anson would have another chance to argue his case.

Continue ReadingC-2011-1119

C-2011-546

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2011-546, Myron Emanuel Louie appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for the appointment of conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented. Myron Louie was originally charged with a more serious crime, but he later pleaded guilty to a lesser offense. However, after pleading guilty, he wanted to change his mind and withdraw his plea. The court sentenced him to ten years in prison, even after he expressed his desire to withdraw the plea. Louie then filed a motion to officially withdraw his guilty plea, but the court denied his request during a hearing. During the appeal, Louie claimed that his lawyer had a conflict of interest that affected how well he was represented. He argued that this made it hard for him to get fair legal help, especially during the hearing to withdraw his plea. The judges explained that a lawyer must represent their client fully and not have any conflicts that could hurt the client’s case. The court agreed that the original lawyer did not handle the motion to withdraw effectively and that this lack of proper representation meant Louie's appeal needed to be looked at again with a new lawyer who doesn't have a conflict of interest. They ordered the case to go back to the original court to appoint a new attorney. The judges also stated that if the new attorney managed to get the guilty plea withdrawn, this would be considered a successful outcome in this appeal. But if the motion to withdraw was denied again, all the decisions and details of that hearing would need to be sent back to the appellate court for review. In conclusion, the case was sent back to be re-evaluated with a new lawyer, making it a measurement of fairness and justice for Louie.

Continue ReadingC-2011-546