Constitutional Error

F-2018-1023

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CAMERON LEE SCHEMMER,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2018-1023** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAN 23 2020** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Appellant, Cameron Lee Schemmer, was tried by the court and convicted of Count 1, Forcible Sodomy, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 888, and Counts 2-4, Lewd Molestation, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1123, in Kingfisher County District Court, Case No. CF-2017-96. The trial court sentenced Appellant to twenty years imprisonment with all but the last five years suspended for Count 1. For Counts 2-4, the court sentenced him to twenty-five years imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently to one another but consecutively to the sentence for Count 1. As a result, Appellant will be required to serve 85% of his sentences before becoming eligible for parole, as per 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1. From this judgment and sentence, Appellant appeals, raising the following propositions of error: **I.** The record in this case does not sufficiently demonstrate that Appellant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. **II.** Mr. Schemmer received an excessive sentence when the trial court followed the wrong sentencing statute. Upon thorough consideration of these propositions and the entire record, including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we find no relief is warranted under the law and evidence presented. **Proposition I:** Appellant argues that the record is insufficient to support a finding that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. Since he did not object before the non-jury trial, we review this claim for plain error, as established in *Simpson v. State*, 1994 OK CR 40, 876 P.2d 690. Plain error requires that Appellant demonstrate an actual error that is plain or obvious and affects substantial rights. A defendant may waive their right to a jury trial, but the waiver must be knowingly, competently, and intelligently made. The record shows that prior to trial, the court engaged in a colloquy with Appellant regarding his jury trial waiver. Appellant confirmed his satisfaction with his attorney and expressly indicated his desire to waive the jury trial right. This established a knowing and intelligent waiver by Appellant. Therefore, we deny this proposition as the trial court's assessment was in compliance with the law. **Proposition II:** Appellant contends his sentence is illegal because the Information alleged that R.N. was a child under sixteen, not under twelve. Thus, Appellant argues that the sentencing range should have been from one or three years to twenty years instead of a minimum of twenty-five years, as required when the child is under the age of twelve. Since Appellant failed to object at sentencing, we again look for plain error. The Information indicated that R.N. was under the age of sixteen at the time of the offenses, and the evidence revealed she was ten years old when the abuse began and eleven when it ceased. Appellant was charged under 21 O.S.2011, § 1123(A), which necessitates a minimum of twenty-five years imprisonment when the child is under twelve years of age. A court in a non-jury trial retains the presumption of knowing the law correctly. The facts show that R.N. was indeed under twelve when the offenses occurred, and the court found this circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the claim of an illegal sentence based on an erroneous application of the statute is without merit. **DECISION:** The **JUDGMENT and SENTENCE is AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the **MANDATE is ORDERED issued** upon this ruling. **APPEARANCES:** **Trial Counsel:** Blayne Allsup **Appellate Counsel for Appellant:** Cindy Brown Danner **Counsel for State:** John Salmon, Assistant District Attorney, and Theodore M. Peepers, Assistant Attorney General. **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE:** CONCURS **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur in Result **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J., CONCURRING IN RESULT:** While I concur with the outcomes reached, I note a discrepancy in the standard of review applied to Proposition I. The burden rests with the State to prove any constitutional error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as highlighted in *Chadwell v. State* and *Chapman v. California*. The majority's application of the plain error standard does not recognize this shifting burden adequately. **[Document ends here]**

Continue ReadingF-2018-1023

F-2018-147

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-147, Marcus Dewayne Boyd appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder, Shooting with Intent to Kill, and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentences from the trial court. One judge dissented. Marcus Dewayne Boyd was found guilty by a jury of serious crimes, including murder and several counts of shooting at people. The jury decided that he should spend life in prison for the murder, twenty years for each shooting count, and two years for the weapon possession. The judge ordered that these sentences should be served one after the other, meaning Boyd would spend a long time in prison before having a chance for parole. During the appeal, Boyd argued several points, saying that his trial was unfair. He mentioned that it was wrong for the court to allow evidence about his gang affiliation. The court saw that this evidence helped explain why the crimes happened, so they disagreed with Boyd's claim. He also said it was unfair that the prosecutor questioned a witness about her relatives who had been prosecuted. The court agreed that this questioning was okay to show potential bias and did not cause an error. Boyd claimed that the way police showed the lineup of suspects was unfair and could influence witnesses. However, the court found the lineup was appropriate and did not break any rules about how police should conduct lineups. Boyd further argued that the prosecution did not share some evidence that could have helped him in his defense, but the court decided that he did not prove this claim. Boyd also objected to how one of the witnesses, who had a prior conviction, was treated in court. The court stated that having a history of misdemeanors is generally allowed as it can show a witness's credibility. Furthermore, Boyd said he was made to wear a ankle restraint during the trial without a good reason. The court recognized that this was not justified but ultimately decided it did not affect the outcome of the trial significantly. On the point of his lawyer's performance, Boyd claimed his lawyer did not defend him properly and raised many issues that could have been objected to but were not. However, the court noted that there were no errors in the trial that would change the outcome, so the attorney’s actions were acceptable. Finally, Boyd argued that the combination of all these issues made the trial unfair. The court agreed that there was only one area where there was an error, but this alone was not enough to convince them that it affected the jury's decision. In summary, the court found no reason to change the conviction or sentence, agreeing that the trial was mostly fair and that Boyd received appropriate legal representation, despite a few concerns about courtroom procedures.

Continue ReadingF-2018-147

F-2018-290

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-290, John Wesley Hart appealed his conviction for child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentences. One judge dissented. John Wesley Hart was found guilty by a jury on three counts of child sexual abuse that happened at different times. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, which means he will serve a total of sixty years. As part of the appeal, Hart argued that the jury did not receive proper instructions about what constitutes child sexual abuse, which he claimed violated his rights. Specifically, he believed the jury instructions on the definitions of lewd or indecent acts were confusing and could have led to non-unanimous verdicts. The court explained that the trial judge did instruct the jury correctly on the law and the acts that led to Hart's conviction. The judge pointed out that the acts Hart committed were clearly defined and separated by time, which meant they did not violate double jeopardy rights. The court also determined that it is not necessary for the jury to agree on every specific act as long as they are all considered part of the same crime of child sexual abuse. Hart also challenged the length of his sentence, claiming it was too harsh. However, the court noted that his sentences were justified based on the facts of the case and were within the limits of the law. The trial court had the discretion to make the sentences run one after another instead of at the same time, and the Court of Criminal Appeals found that there was no mistake in this decision. In conclusion, the court upheld Hart's conviction and the sentences given in the trial court.

Continue ReadingF-2018-290

F-2017-952

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-952, Jerry Don Battenfield appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child under age twelve. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. Mr. Battenfield was found guilty without a jury and received a sentence of thirty years in prison and a fine for each of the two counts, which means he must serve over twenty-five years before he can be considered for parole. He raised several arguments on appeal. First, he argued that he did not understand that he was giving up his right to a jury trial. He believed he might face the death penalty, but the court found he was not misled about the possible punishment. Therefore, his claim was denied. Second, he claimed that the judge improperly relied on evidence that was not admitted during the trial. However, the court found that the judge could only use the evidence that was presented and determined there was no error. Third, he argued that there should have been a hearing to check if child hearsay was reliable before it was allowed in court. The court noted that his attorney had actually agreed to let the hearsay in, which meant that there was no error to review. In the fourth point, he contended that some of the child’s statements were allowed into the trial in a way that violated his right to confront witnesses. The court agreed that there was a mistake concerning some statements but concluded the mistake was harmless, as there was enough other evidence to show he was guilty. Fifth, he stated that his lawyer did a poor job for not fighting harder to protect his rights during the trial. However, the court believed that the lawyer did not make any major mistakes that would have changed the outcome of the trial. Finally, he asked for a review based on multiple mistakes during the trial. The court found that the previous issues did not add up to deny him a fair trial. The court affirmed the judgment and said that the decisions made during the trial were generally correct, despite acknowledging a small error regarding the child’s statements. Overall, his appeal was denied, and he will continue to serve his sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2017-952

C-2017-1050

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma Summary Opinion** **David Neil Dunn v. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No. C-2017-1050** **Filed November 8, 2018** **Summary:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the case of David Neil Dunn, who sought to withdraw his no contest plea for various serious charges. Dunn appealed on the basis that he was denied his due process right to be present during the evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw the plea, and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. **Key Points:** 1. **Charges and Plea**: Dunn was charged with multiple felonies, including First Degree Robbery and Burglary. He entered a blind plea of no contest, which resulted in significant prison sentences. 2. **Motion to Withdraw Plea**: Dunn filed a motion to withdraw his plea shortly after sentencing, claiming various legal grounds, including concerns about the validity of his plea. An evidentiary hearing was held, but Dunn was not present as he had been transported to the Department of Corrections. 3. **Court's Ruling**: The Court found that Dunn had a due process right to be present during this critical stage of the proceedings. The absence of Dunn hindered a fair and just hearing, particularly concerning his claims about the voluntariness of his plea. 4. **Counsel’s Role**: The court clarified that defense counsel's belief that Dunn's presence was unnecessary does not equate to a valid waiver of his right to be present. The decision emphasized that Dunn's testimony was crucial for effectively contesting the plea's validity. 5. **Outcome**: The Court granted Dunn's petition for certiorari and remanded the case back to the District Court for a proper evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw the plea, ensuring he would be present. 6. **Dissenting Opinion**: One judge dissented, arguing that the absence of Dunn did not constitute a violation of his rights, noting that his counsel had effectively represented him at the hearing. It was contended that the procedural complexities of representation should not be interpreted as waivers of due process. **Conclusion**: The Court ruled in favor of Dunn, stressing the importance of a defendant's presence in legal proceedings, particularly when their rights and pleas are being challenged, which underscores the principles of fairness and due process within the judicial system. For a detailed reading, [click here to download the PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2017-1050_1733996496.pdf).

Continue ReadingC-2017-1050

F-2017-189

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-189, William Todd Lewallen appealed his conviction for Child Neglect, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court. A dissenting opinion was not recorded. Lewallen was found guilty in a previous trial and sentenced to twenty-three years in prison. He appealed this sentence, and the court decided to change the sentence to fourteen years during a resentencing trial. Lewallen wanted to testify during this resentencing but was not allowed to do so by the trial court. This decision led to Lewallen's appeal. Lewallen claimed that not allowing him to testify was a serious mistake called structural error, which means it affected the fairness of the entire trial process. However, the court explained that most errors in trials can be harmless unless they are structural errors. The court ultimately found that Lewallen's case did not involve what would be classified as structural error. The court noted that while everyone has the right to present a defense and testify, this right has limits and must follow the rules of court. In Lewallen's case, his request to testify was denied because the court believed it didn't relate to the sentencing phase of his case. The court held that his testimony would not change the outcome of the sentencing because it was not relevant to the issues that the jury was deciding at that time. The decision emphasized that the resentencing was not a chance to revisit the guilt or innocence of Lewallen, as he was already found guilty. The new jury was only tasked with deciding how long his punishment should be based on what they learned from the original trial. In summary, the court affirmed Lewallen's new sentence and ruled that there were no errors that would affect the outcome of the case, including the denial of his request to testify.

Continue ReadingF-2017-189

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

F-2010-1079

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-1079, Dale Anthony Chambers appealed his conviction for two counts of Child Sexual Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved allegations made by Chambers's twelve-year-old stepdaughter against him, claiming he had sexually abused her while her mother was away. The girl testified that the abuse began in early 2009 and included inappropriate sexual acts and exposure to adult content. She ultimately revealed the abuse to her mother after first denying it, fearing punishment. Chambers's appeal centered around several arguments, particularly that he was denied his right to confront witnesses against him. This was due to the admission of evidence from a sexual assault examination report that included statements from a forensic interviewer who did not testify at trial. The court found that this violated Chambers's constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to confront witnesses. The court assessed whether this error affected Chambers's substantial rights and the fairness of his trial. They noted that the admission of hearsay evidence was significant and that it likely influenced the jury's verdict, as the report was specifically requested during deliberations. Since the physical evidence was not strong, the judge emphasized that the case heavily relied on the victim's testimony alone. In conclusion, the court ruled that the improper admission of evidence was not harmless and reversed the conviction, ordering a new trial for Chambers.

Continue ReadingF-2010-1079

F-2009-998

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-998, Frye appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child, Procurement of Child for Pornography, and Possession of Child Pornography. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Frye's convictions and sentences but ordered the removal of a $1,000 fine that was imposed without jury authorization. One judge dissented regarding the trial court's handling of voir dire questioning.

Continue ReadingF-2009-998

F-2008-329

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-329, the appellant appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, Possession of Controlled Substance, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Driving a Motor Vehicle while Under the Influence of Alcohol and Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that because there was no record showing that the appellant waived his right to a jury trial, his conviction must be overturned and he is entitled to a new trial. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2008-329

F-2005-363

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-363, Adan Ramos, Jr. appealed his conviction for Robbery by Force or Fear. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. The court found that there was no valid waiver of Ramos's right to a jury trial, which is a fundamental right. Ramos's other claims about ineffective assistance of counsel, exclusion of evidence, and interpreter issues became moot since the court ordered a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2005-363

F-2004-1266

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1266, Darrell W. Hogan appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Hogan's conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Hogan was found guilty of killing his cellmate, James Wise, at the prison. On the morning of February 24, 2004, Wise had threatened Hogan with a knife. Later, Hogan killed Wise by choking him with a laundry bag drawstring and then called for help, but Wise died weeks afterward. Hogan confessed to the crime when investigators spoke with him. During his trial, Hogan was supposed to have nine chances to dismiss potential jurors, known as peremptory challenges, but he was only allowed five. He argued that this was unfair and violated his rights. The court agreed with Hogan's argument, stating that denying him the proper number of peremptory challenges was a serious mistake. They ruled that he deserved a new trial where he would have all his legal rights. The dissenting judge felt that the mistake was not harmful and that Hogan did not prove he was disadvantaged by the limited number of challenges, and therefore, the trial's outcome should have been upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1266

F 2004-582

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-582, Ryan Golden appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided that he was entitled to a new trial because he was not given the correct number of chances to challenge jurors. The ruling was that the trial court's mistake was serious enough to affect the fairness of the trial, and because of this error, the original sentence was reversed and a new trial was ordered. One judge dissented, arguing that there should have been a demonstration of actual prejudice or harm caused by the mistake.

Continue ReadingF 2004-582