In OCCA case No. F-2019-37, Suggs appealed his conviction for first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial on that count due to an instructional error, while affirming the convictions on the other counts. One judge dissented.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **VESTER VON DOWNUM,** **Appellant,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-155** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 23, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** On June 15, 2015, Appellant Vester Von Downum, represented by counsel, was convicted of Planning/Conspiring/Endeavoring to Perform an Act of Violence in Muskogee County, Case No. CF-2014-656. He was sentenced to ten (10) years, with all but the first two (2) years suspended, subject to rules and conditions of probation. On December 6, 2017, the State filed an Application to Revoke Downum's suspended sentence, alleging he violated the terms of probation by violating a protective order issued in PO-2014-218. At the hearing on February 7, 2018, the District Court of Muskogee County, presided by the Honorable Norman D. Thygesen, revoked the remainder of Downum's suspended sentence. Downum now appeals, presenting the following propositions of error: 1. The State failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Downum violated the terms of his probation by committing the new crime of violating a protective order; 2. The order of revocation is excessive based on the circumstances; 3. There exists a clerical error in the order revoking the suspended sentence that should be corrected by an order nunc pro tunc. **DECISION:** The revocation of Downum's suspended sentence is AFFIRMED. The scope of review in revocation appeals is limited to the validity of the revocation order. We examine the factual determination and consider whether the court abused its discretion. The trial court's findings will not be disturbed on appeal if there is evidence reasonably supporting them. Downum alleges the State did not prove he violated the protective order. In probation revocations, the State must prove violations by a preponderance of the evidence, and conflicting testimony was presented at the revocation hearing. The victim, T.H., claimed Downum contacted her on Facebook shortly after his release, which she found threatening due to their history. Downum testified the contact was accidental. Given the conflicting evidence, the court found sufficient grounds to support the violation, and we find no abuse of discretion in the decision to revoke Downum's sentence. As to Downum's claim of excessive punishment, we note that violation of even one condition of probation justifies full revocation, especially in this case where the violation occurred less than two weeks after his release. Regarding the clerical error in the Judgment filed February 9, 2018, it correctly reflects the need for a nunc pro tunc order to clarify that Downum was found guilty after a jury trial and not via a guilty plea. **CONCLUSION:** The order of the District Court of Muskogee County revoking Downum's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2014-656 is AFFIRMED. The matter is REMANDED for entry of an order nunc pro tunc to correct the clerical error. **OPINION BY: LEWIS, P.J.:** **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur **[Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-155_1734703626.pdf)**
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1241, Eddie Don Milligan appealed his conviction for Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Milligan's conviction. One judge dissented. Milligan was found guilty by a jury of growing marijuana on his property and was given a six-year prison sentence. He appealed the decision, stating that there were multiple mistakes in his trial, including the improper use of evidence obtained from a search of his property that he believed violated his rights to privacy. The case started when agents from the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics were flying in a helicopter looking for marijuana. Due to engine trouble, they flew over Milligan's property and thought they saw marijuana plants. They did not check for sure but recorded the spot and returned the next day, where they saw only corn. They then obtained a search warrant and found some marijuana leaves near a burn pile, but nothing else that indicated marijuana was being grown. Milligan argued that the helicopter flight over his property violated his right to privacy. The court agreed, saying he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his yard. The agents hadn't done enough to confirm they saw marijuana before getting the warrant. In the end, the court ruled that Miligan's rights were violated and reversed his conviction, sending the case back for further proceedings. The other arguments he made about his trial mistakes were not addressed since this decision resolved the main issue.