Constitutional Rights

C-2018-315

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of David Duane Albright, a petitioner who sought to withdraw his guilty pleas related to charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of a controlled substance, and maintaining a place for keeping/selling controlled substances. ### Key Points: 1. **Background**: - Albright was originally charged in Delaware County with multiple drug-related offenses in 2010. - He entered a guilty plea in December 2010 and was accepted into the Delaware County Drug Court Program. - After being terminated from the program for non-compliance, he was sentenced in September 2013 to life imprisonment on two counts and 20 years on another, with fines imposed. 2. **Procedural Posture**: - Albright filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas shortly after sentencing, which was denied. - He initially failed to appeal but was granted an appeal out of time in 2018. 3. **Claims on Appeal**: Albright raised several propositions of error: - **Proposition I**: He argued his plea lacked an adequate factual basis. - **Proposition II**: Claimed his pleas were not entered knowingly and voluntarily. - **Proposition III**: Contended the $50,000 fine was unauthorized by statute. - **Proposition IV**: Asserted he should have received credit for jail time, violating his due process. - **Proposition V**: Claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. 4. **Court's Analysis**: - **Proposition I and II**: The court found Albright waived appellate review by not raising these claims in his motion to withdraw his plea. - **Proposition III and IV**: These claims were also deemed waived for similar reasons, not raised in the motion to withdraw. - **Proposition V**: While the court reviewed the ineffective assistance of withdrawal counsel, they found no evidence of deficiency or that it prejudiced Albright's case. 5. **Decision**: - The court affirmed the lower court's denial of Albright's Motion to Withdraw Plea, concluding that he did not demonstrate a valid basis for the claims made. 6. **Concurring Opinion**: - Judge Rowland specially concurred, expressing concern regarding the adequacy of the factual basis for the plea related to maintaining a place for keeping/selling a controlled dangerous substance. While recognizing the issues, he noted that because the facts weren’t adequately challenged during the proceedings, the claims were not actionable in this appeal. ### Conclusion: The petitioner's appeal was denied, and the trial court's decision stands, allowing the guilty pleas to remain in effect due to procedural waivers and the lack of substantive evidence to support the claims raised on appeal. The opinion highlights the importance of raising issues timely and thoroughly in the proper forums to preserve them for review.

Continue ReadingC-2018-315

C-2018-410

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEAN ALAN REYNOLDS,** Petitioner, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Respondent. **Case No. C-2018-410** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **APR 18 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- ### SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Petitioner Sean Alan Reynolds entered a negotiated plea of guilty in the District Court of LeFlore County, Case No. CF-2016-1365, to Soliciting Sexual Conduct or Communication with a Minor by Use of Technology (Count 1), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1040.13a, and Possession of Juvenile Pornography (Count 3), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2. On March 7, 2018, the Honorable Marion D. Fry, Associate District Judge, accepted Reynolds' guilty plea and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment on Count 1. On Count 3, Reynolds was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment with all but the first ten years suspended. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. Reynolds filed a timely motion to withdraw his plea, which was denied after a hearing. He now appeals the denial of that motion and raises the following issues: 1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying his plea withdrawal on the grounds that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered; 2. Whether the district court erred by failing to conduct the requested competency hearing; 3. Whether the special condition of probation restricting his internet use is overly broad and infringes upon his rights; 4. Whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel. **1. Denial of Motion to Withdraw Plea** Reynolds argues that his plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily, claiming the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw. The standard of review for such cases is whether there was an abuse of discretion. The district court's decision, based on testimony, demeanor, and the plea form, supports that Reynolds' plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plea withdrawal. **2. Competency Hearing** Reynolds contends that the trial court erred in not ordering a mental health evaluation before ruling on the plea withdrawal motion. However, the record reflects that the district court established Reynolds' competency when accepting his plea. There was no indication during the plea hearing of any mental incapacity, and therefore, the court acted within its discretion by not ordering further evaluation. **3. Condition of Probation** Reynolds challenges a condition of probation prohibiting internet usage for five years, arguing it's overly broad. However, this issue was not raised in his motion to withdraw the plea, leading to a waiver of appellate review on this matter. **4. Effective Assistance of Counsel** Finally, Reynolds argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. To succeed, he must demonstrate both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. He claims his counsel did not address his alleged mental health issues, but there was no evidence presented at the plea hearing to suggest incapacity. Additionally, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to cite non-binding cases. Therefore, Reynolds has failed to show he was denied effective assistance of counsel. ### DECISION The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is **DENIED**. The district court's denial of Petitioner's motion to withdraw plea is **AFFIRMED**. The MANDATE is ordered issued. --- **APPEARANCES IN THE DISTRICT COURT** **CYNTHIA VIOL** ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER **KIMBERLY D. HEINZE** PLEA COUNSEL **MATTHEW R. PRICE** MOTION TO WITHDRAW COUNSEL **MIKE HUNTER** ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA --- **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur in Results **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-410_1734106115.pdf)

Continue ReadingC-2018-410

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

F-2017-849

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-849, Samuel Cosby appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Samuel Cosby was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County and sentenced to life imprisonment. He raised several arguments to claim that errors during the trial affected his right to a fair trial. First, Mr. Cosby argued that the trial court made a mistake by not having a pretrial hearing to check if the expert testimony about firearms was reliable. The court found no error in allowing the expert testimony because it is generally accepted in trials. Second, he claimed the firearms expert's analysis was flawed and unfair. However, the court decided that there was no plain error since the expert's opinion was based on accepted methods. Third, he argued that a phone call he made from jail should not have been used as evidence. While he objected in court, the judges felt the phone call was relevant because it showed he was aware of the situation. Fourth, Mr. Cosby said there were mistakes in how evidence was handled, particularly about the victim's injuries. The court ruled that the evidence was necessary for proving the case. Fifth, he felt the jury instructions were wrong because his request for an explanation about inconsistent statements was denied. The court explained that the victim's testimony was not inconsistent enough to require such an instruction. Lastly, Mr. Cosby claimed he did not receive effective help from his lawyer. The court found that since these errors did not actually happen, this claim was also not valid. The overall decision was that the judgment and sentence against Mr. Cosby were correct, and his appeals did not show any significant errors that affected the fairness of his trial.

Continue ReadingF-2017-849

F-2017-758

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-758, Shawn Conrad Freeman appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including Kidnapping, Forcible Sodomy, Rape in the First Degree, and Robbery in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the District Court. The court did, however, instruct the District Court to correct a clerical error regarding the fine for one of the robbery counts. Freeman was tried by jury and was found guilty on multiple counts involving four separate women. The jury sentenced him to long prison terms and significant fines. The trial court followed the jury's recommendations for sentencing. Freeman raised several arguments on appeal. He argued that having multiple convictions for crimes like Kidnapping, Rape, and Forcible Sodomy at once was unfair and violated laws against double punishment. However, the court found that the crimes were separate and showed that each act occurred at different times, meaning he could be punished for all of them. He also claimed that trying all fourteen counts together was wrong because it might have led the jury to convict him based on the total evidence rather than on proof for each individual charge. The court determined that the offenses were connected enough to be tried together and that no error occurred. Another point of contention was that one of the victims couldn't testify in court, and the jury was allowed to hear her previously recorded testimony instead. The court upheld this decision, stating that Freeman had previously had the chance to question her during an earlier hearing. Freeman argued that the evidence was not enough to support his robbery conviction. The court disagreed, stating that the evidence clearly showed he unlawfully took property from a victim. He raised questions about misconduct by the prosecutor, ineffective assistance of counsel, and that his sentences were too harsh. The court found no evidence to support his claims of improper actions or ineffective counsel. It ruled that his sentences were not excessively severe given the nature of the crimes he was convicted for. Finally, Freeman claimed that the combined issues during the trial denied him a fair trial. However, the court noted that it found no individual errors that would warrant a new trial. In conclusion, the court affirmed Freeman's convictions and sentences but ordered a correction to a minor error in the judgment regarding the fine imposed for one count of robbery. There was a dissenting opinion from one of the judges.

Continue ReadingF-2017-758

C-2017-567

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-567, the petitioner appealed her conviction for harboring a fugitive from justice. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant part of her request and said that she was wrongly denied her right to have a lawyer help her during important steps of her case. One judge disagreed with this decision. The case involves Teresa Lorena Altobella, who was charged with helping someone avoid the law. She pleaded guilty to the charge and was given a five-year prison sentence, which was suspended, meaning she wouldn’t go to jail if she followed certain rules, such as doing community service and completing a specific program. After her plea, she wanted to change her mind and asked the court to let her withdraw her guilty plea. The court had a hearing where Altobella tried to argue that she should be allowed to change her plea, but she did not have a lawyer to help her. She had trouble getting a lawyer before the hearing, and when she showed up without one, the judge did not allow her to have another lawyer during this important moment. Altobella argued that her guilty plea was not made correctly—she said she didn’t fully understand what she was doing when she pleaded guilty. The higher court looked at these points and agreed with Altobella when it came to the right to have a lawyer. The court said it is important for defendants to have legal help, especially during crucial parts of their cases like asking to withdraw a guilty plea. The court found that Altobella did not waive her right to a lawyer in a proper way, meaning that she should have been given a chance to have legal help. Because of this issue, the court decided to reverse the district court's decision that denied her request to withdraw her guilty plea. They sent the case back to the district court to make sure Altobella could have a lawyer help her figure out if she still wanted to withdraw her plea. The court's ruling on the pleas and other arguments was set aside because they believed it was essential to have proper legal representation in such cases. In summary, the court made it clear that every defendant has the right to legal assistance during important steps in their trial or when making significant legal decisions. This decision ensures that defendants have the support they need to navigate the legal system properly.

Continue ReadingC-2017-567

C-2017-1044

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

The document appears to be a legal summary from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of Auntra Lawan Edmonds. The case revolves around Edmonds' appeal after being convicted of two counts of First Degree Manslaughter. Here’s a concise overview of the case and the court's decision: 1. **Background**: Auntra Lawan Edmonds was charged with two counts of First Degree Manslaughter in Greer County District Court. After entering a no contest plea and being sentenced to life imprisonment for each count (to run concurrently), he later sought to withdraw his plea, which the court denied. 2. **Propositions of Error**: - **Proposition I**: Edmonds argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea, claiming it was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The court found that the record sufficiently demonstrated that Edmonds was aware of his rights and the nature of the charges, thus affirming that his plea was valid. - **Proposition II**: He claimed ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea withdrawal hearing. The court concluded that this claim lacked merit, noting that Edmonds did not provide substantial evidence to support the claim of ineffective assistance. - **Proposition III**: Edmonds argued that his life sentences were excessive. The court reasoned that the sentences were factually substantiated and justified given the severity of the incident, including the presence of alcohol and prior criminal behavior. 3. **Court Decision**: The court denied Edmonds' petition for a writ of certiorari, affirming the judgment and sentence of the District Court. It upheld that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea. 4. **Final Note**: The opinion emphasizes the importance of properly presenting claims during the trial and highlights that a defendant's dissatisfaction with a sentence does not invalidate a plea agreement. This case serves as a reference point for issues regarding plea withdrawals, effective legal counsel, and the proportionality of sentences in criminal proceedings.

Continue ReadingC-2017-1044

C-2017-684

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-684, Bryan Lee Guy appealed his conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle, driving while his license was under suspension, and affixing an unauthorized license plate. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal and remand the case to the District Court for a determination of whether he is a mentally ill person exempt from paying the costs of incarceration. One judge dissented. Bryan Guy was charged with three offenses and entered a guilty plea for all of them. He received a sentence that included time in prison and jail, plus post-imprisonment supervision. After a few days, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, saying he didn't fully understand what he was doing or that he wasn't well advised by his lawyer. The court held a hearing but decided not to allow him to withdraw his plea. In his appeal, Bryan raised three main issues. He argued that he should be allowed to take back his guilty plea because it wasn't made in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary way. He also complained about being charged for incarceration costs and claimed his lawyer didn't provide effective help. The court looked closely at Bryan’s arguments. It found that he didn’t prove that he didn’t understand his plea, concluding that the trial court acted fairly. Bryan's second point about the costs also didn't stand because he didn't raise it during the first hearing, which meant he could not bring it up later in his appeal. His claim about not getting good help from his lawyer was examined using a specific test. The court noted that Bryan claimed to have been misinformed about the minimum punishment for one of the offenses, but this did not affect the outcome since the misunderstanding was in his favor. Ultimately, the court found that there was a chance Bryan might be mentally ill, which means he might not have to pay for incarceration costs. This was a significant factor, leading to the decision to send the case back to the lower court for more examination of his mental health status. The final decision of the court was to deny the appeal for the first two issues but recognized the need to assess Bryan's mental health concerning the costs he was ordered to pay for incarceration. The case was remanded for that specific determination.

Continue ReadingC-2017-684

F-2016-229

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-229, Marcus Stephon Miller appealed his conviction for murder and possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for possession of a firearm but vacated and remanded his convictions for second-degree murder for resentencing. One judge dissented from the decision to remand for resentencing. Miller was charged with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of possession of a firearm while under supervision. A jury convicted him of lesser charges of second-degree murder for the first two counts and of possession of a firearm for the third count. Miller received sentences of 25 years for each murder count and 5 years for the firearm count, with the sentences scheduled to run one after the other. Miller argued that errors were made during his trial. He claimed that the trial court did not follow the right procedures for splitting his trial into stages, which affected his right to a fair trial. He pointed out that the jury was not properly instructed and that misconduct happened from the prosecution's side. He also believed his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial and that the judge wrongly refused to give him credit for time served in jail before sentencing. After looking over the case, the court found that while the trial had some mistakes, they didn’t actually hurt Miller's case enough to impact the verdict for the possession charge. However, they agreed that the trial court made a significant mistake in how it handled sentencing for the murder counts, mainly because it allowed the jury to consider his previous convictions when they should not have. The court decided that the sentencing for the second-degree murders had to be thrown out and that Miller would need to be resentenced, but his conviction for possession would stay. In dissent, one judge noted that the errors made during trial did not affect Miller's rights since he received a relatively lenient sentence given the seriousness of the crimes he was convicted for. The judge believed that the mistakes did not warrant a new sentencing for the murder counts because the nature of the charges and the consequences indicated that the overall outcome would not change. In conclusion, while Miller's appeal was partly successful, with the court affirming his conviction on one count and ordering a new sentencing for the other two, the dissenting opinion felt that the original sentencing should stand.

Continue ReadingF-2016-229

C-2016-1000

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-1000, Bryan Keith Fletcher appealed his conviction for multiple charges including kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon, rape, and child abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant part of his appeal regarding one misdemeanor charge while denying all other claims. The court modified the sentence for the misdemeanor related to threatening violence to six months in jail but affirmed the sentences for all other counts, which resulted in a significant time in prison. The petitioner argued several points, including that he did not receive effective legal help, that he was not competent when he entered his plea, and that his plea was not voluntary. However, the court reviewed these claims and found that they did not hold up under scrutiny. The judges opined that the actions taken during the plea process were appropriate and upheld the ruling on the grounds that there was no evidence of ineffective assistance or invalid plea. One judge disagreed with some aspects of the decision.

Continue ReadingC-2016-1000

M-2016-596

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2016-596, Lyndol Keith Nunley appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. The case began with a non-jury trial in which Nunley was found guilty of committing domestic abuse against someone he knew. The judge sentenced Nunley to pay a fine and to spend time in county jail. Initially, he was required to serve his jail time day for day, meaning he would serve the full year without any reductions. However, this requirement was later changed. Nunley appealed for three main reasons. First, he claimed his lawyer did not do a good job because there was no record of what happened during the trial, which made it hard for him to appeal. The court explained that to prove a lawyer was ineffective, a person must show how this caused them harm. Since Nunley did not give enough proof or show that any errors happened during the trial, his claim was not accepted. Second, Nunley argued that his sentence was too harsh. He believed the day for day term made his punishment excessive. However, since that requirement was removed after he filed his appeal, this argument was no longer valid. Lastly, Nunley pointed out that he received the maximum penalty allowed by law. The court noted that while it did impose the maximum jail time, his fine was much lower than what he could have received. The judges decided that Nunley did not show that his sentence was shocking or unfair, so they rejected his request to change it. In the end, the judges upheld the decision made in the lower court, meaning Nunley had to serve his sentence as it was decided.

Continue ReadingM-2016-596

C-2016-140

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-140, Hiram Frank Mutters appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to grant him a new hearing. One judge dissented. Mutters pleaded no contest to Child Sexual Abuse on December 7, 2015, and was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and a fine. He later wanted to withdraw his plea, so he filed a motion. However, during the hearing for this motion, he was not present because he was taken to another facility. His lawyer thought Mutters would prefer to stay away from jail rather than return for the hearing. This decision meant that Mutters could not explain his reasons for wanting to withdraw his plea. The court found that it is very important for a person to be present during such hearings because their testimony is vital. Since Mutters was not there, the hearing did not meet the required standards for fairness. Thus, the court ruled that the case should go back for a new hearing where Mutters can be present to share his side of the story and explain why he thinks he should withdraw his plea.

Continue ReadingC-2016-140

M-2015-506

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2015-506, Bell appealed her conviction for Disorderly Conduct and Interfering or Obstructing by Disobeying a Lawful Command. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and instructed to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. Bell was arrested on September 21, 2014, after protesting against a Satanic Black Mass at the Oklahoma City Civic Center. She was initially charged with trespassing but this was changed to Disorderly Conduct and Interfering or Obstructing by Disobeying a Lawful Command. Bell had gone to the Civic Center to pray against the event and knelt to pray on public property. She refused to leave when asked by police officers and was arrested. During the trial, witnesses, including police officers, testified that she did not block any entrances, and the City could not prove that she had obstructed access as per the ordinance she was charged under. The court found there was not enough evidence to support the claims that Bell had violated the law concerning disorderly conduct and interfering with the police. The judge reviewing the case decided that Bell's actions, which were protected under the First Amendment, did not constitute criminal obstruction. Although there were differences in opinion among the judges, the majority felt there was a lack of legal basis for the charges.

Continue ReadingM-2015-506

F 2015-121

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2015-121, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the district court, but vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Erica Lashon Harrison, who was accused of murder but was convicted of the lesser charge of first-degree manslaughter. The jury sentenced her to 25 years in prison and a fine of $10,000. Harrison raised multiple issues on appeal. She argued that the state did not prove she was not acting in self-defense, that improper evidence was allowed, and that she did not have proper legal representation. The court reviewed the case and found that the evidence supported the jury's verdict. They determined Harrison's claim of self-defense could not stand as there was not enough evidence to show she was in danger. The court noted that while some incorrect evidence was introduced, it did not affect the conviction. However, they decided that the sentence should be vacated and the case sent back for resentencing due to the improper character evidence brought up during the trial. The judges concluded that this error needed to be addressed, even if the earlier convictions were proper. The opinion recognized that although some arguments made by Harrison were valid, overall, the court found her conviction was supported by overwhelming evidence. The dissenting judges believed the error did not have a significant impact on the jury's decision. They argued that the sentence should not be changed since the evidence clearly proved guilt, even if procedural mistakes were made during the trial. Overall, the court upholds the conviction but sends the case back for a new decision on sentencing. The judges agreed on the main decision, while differing on whether the sentence change was necessary.

Continue ReadingF 2015-121

F-2014-764

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-764, Hawks appealed her conviction for Murder in the First Degree, Burglary in the First Degree, and two counts of Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Count I, which was the murder conviction, but affirmed Counts II, III, and IV, which were the burglary and kidnapping convictions. One judge dissented on the reversal of the murder conviction. Hawks was accused of being involved in serious crimes, including murder, along with two other co-defendants. After being found guilty by a jury, Hawks was sentenced to a long prison term, with the murder sentence being life imprisonment. Hawks argued that the evidence against her was weak, claiming she didn’t participate in the crimes or know about them beforehand. She believed the jury wasn't given a fair chance to make their decision because the prosecution made mistakes in explaining the law regarding aiding and abetting. Aiding and abetting means that someone helped or supported a crime, even if they weren't the main person committing it. For Hawks to be found guilty, the evidence needed to show she had some knowledge or intent to support the crimes of her co-defendants, which involved planning and executing the murder and kidnappings. However, the court found that there were major issues with how the prosecutors explained the law, which misled the jury. The judges agreed that the jury may not have properly understood the law because the prosecutor repeatedly misstated it, even if the jury was given the correct instructions. As a result, the court agreed to give Hawks a new trial for the murder charge. For the kidnapping and burglary charges, the evidence seemed sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, so those were upheld. In conclusion, while Hawks' murder conviction was reversed for a new trial due to errors in how the law was presented to the jury, her other convictions were confirmed as valid. One judge disagreed with reversing the murder conviction, believing that the verdict was just and the evidence against Hawks clear.

Continue ReadingF-2014-764

F-2015-374

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-374, Jerrell Otis Thomas appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, Robbery with a Weapon, and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and Possession of a Firearm, but to reverse the conviction for Robbery with a Weapon with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Jerrell Otis Thomas was found guilty by a jury for three serious crimes. The main issue was whether he was being punished too harshly for his actions. He argued that he should not have been convicted for both Shooting with Intent to Kill and Robbery with a Weapon because they were connected, like two parts of the same event. The court agreed with him on this point and felt that, under the law, he should not be punished twice for what they saw as one act. Thomas also claimed that he did not get a fair trial because the public was kept out of the courtroom while a key witness testified. The court looked into this and decided that the closure was justified due to threats made against the witness, ensuring their safety. He further claimed that his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial. After considering all the facts, the court found that his lawyer did their job okay, and there wasn't enough evidence to show he was harmed by their actions. Finally, the judge determined that the way Thomas's sentences were set to run (one after another) was acceptable, even though they reversed one of his convictions, meaning he would serve less time than originally planned for that charge. Overall, Thomas won on one point regarding his robbery conviction, meaning that part of the punishment was taken away, but his other convictions were upheld. The court’s decisions aimed to ensure no unfair punishment occurred while also maintaining the law's integrity.

Continue ReadingF-2015-374

F-2013-1129

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-1129, Aaron Mitchell Stigleman appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involves Aaron Stigleman, who shot and killed his mother in Elk City, Oklahoma, on February 13, 2013. At the time of the incident, he lived with his girlfriend and mother, both of whom had a history of drug use, specifically methamphetamine. Aaron was believed to be suffering from paranoia and hallucinations due to his drug use leading up to the shooting. Witnesses, including his girlfriend, testified that he accused them of trying to kill him before he shot his mother in the head. During his trial, Stigleman's attorneys failed to secure an expert witness to help argue that he was under the influence of methamphetamine and not in control of his actions at the time of the crime. They tried to get funding for an expert, but their requests were either late or not sufficiently justified. As a result, they could not present an argument related to his mental state or introduce expert testimony that could aid in the defense of insanity or diminished capacity. The court noted that Stigleman's behavior before, during, and after the incident indicated the possibility of a serious mental health issue caused by drug use, which warranted an expert’s evaluation. The silence of an expert on the mental health issues surrounding his drug use could have made a significant difference in the outcome. The court ruled that Stigleman’s attorneys did not adequately represent him by failing to present a complete defense. The decision emphasized that the right to present a complete defense is constitutionally guaranteed. Based on these findings, the court deemed it necessary to grant Stigleman a new trial to allow for proper evaluation of his mental state. While one judge expressed disagreement, arguing that the defense had not shown that the lack of expert testimony prejudiced Stigleman's case, the majority concluded that the claims and evidence presented merited a reversal and a new opportunity for a fair trial.

Continue ReadingF-2013-1129

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-2014-254

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-254, the petitioner appealed his conviction for embezzling over $25,000. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling regarding the petitioner's motions, but vacated the restitution order and remanded the case for a new determination of the victim's loss. One judge dissented. The petitioner, who is William Reeves Cathey, was accused of embezzlement by the state. He pleaded guilty to the charge in 2012, and his sentencing was delayed multiple times so he could repay the money he took. When his sentencing finally took place in January 2014, he decided to represent himself after dismissing his lawyer due to their illness. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison, but allowed him to suspend six years of that sentence and ordered him to pay $96,500 in restitution to the victim. Before he was sentenced, the petitioner made several requests to withdraw his guilty plea and to disqualify the District Attorney's office, claiming it was unfair. The court denied these requests. He also claimed that he did not understand the plea agreement because he thought the maximum fine would be much lower than what it was. He felt that the judge had not properly explained the charges to him when he entered his plea and claimed this made his plea involuntary. During the appeal process, the court looked at the petitioner's points. They decided that his concerns about the restitution order were valid. The court found that the lower court had not made it clear how the restitution amount was determined, and they thought that a new hearing was needed to sort this out. The court also rejected all of the petitioner's other arguments. They believed that he had entered his plea knowingly and that his sentence, while long, was not excessively severe. In conclusion, the court confirmed the denial of his motions to withdraw his plea but returned the issue of the restitution amount back to the trial court for further evaluation.

Continue ReadingC-2014-254

F-2013-1073

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-1073, George H. Pinkney appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) in the presence of a minor, among other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence for the first count to five years but upheld other convictions. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification.

Continue ReadingF-2013-1073

M-2013-918

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2013-918, the appellant appealed his conviction for direct contempt of court. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented, stating that while the court's warning was correct, the error in not allowing the appellant a chance to be heard was harmless because the appellant's sentence was later reduced.

Continue ReadingM-2013-918

C-2014-373

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-373, Jack Eugene Metzger appealed his conviction for multiple charges including First Degree Burglary, Larceny of an Automobile, Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (second offense), Eluding a Police Officer, Violation of Protective Order, and Driving Without a Driver's License. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Metzger could withdraw his guilty plea for certain counts but denied the request for others. One judge dissented. Metzger entered a guilty plea for several crimes and was sentenced to serve time in prison along with fines. After his plea, he asked to take it back, saying he hadn’t been fully informed. He raised several issues in his appeal, claiming his pleas were not voluntary, the sentences for some charges were illegal, and he didn’t get help from his lawyers when he needed it. The court looked at whether Metzger's pleas were made knowingly and voluntarily. It noted that mistakes were made when explaining the possible punishments for some of the charges. The court decided that while Metzger did understand a lot, there were significant errors in how he was informed about some counts. Since he didn’t receive the correct information on charges related to driving under the influence, eluding police, and violations of protective orders, his plea for those counts was not properly made. Therefore, he was allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas for those specific counts but not for the burglary or larceny charges. In summary, the court allowed Metzger to take back his guilty plea on the counts where he was not informed correctly about the punishment, but it did not agree with his claims regarding other counts.

Continue ReadingC-2014-373

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

F-2013-305

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-305, Lonnie Waylon Craighead appealed his conviction for endeavoring to manufacture methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Craighead's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Craighead was found guilty in a jury trial and sentenced to thirty years in prison with a $50,000 fine. He raised several complaints about his trial, including that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof, his arrest was not lawful, and his rights were violated during questioning. He also claimed that the evidence against him was not strong enough, and he was not given fair representation by his lawyer. After reviewing the case, the court wrote that they did not see a problem with how the prosecution handled the case. They felt there was enough evidence for the jury to find Craighead guilty. The court believed the police had valid reasons for stopping and questioning him. They stated that Craighead had been informed of his rights before being interviewed and that he agreed to talk. The court also noted that while the prosecutor made a few mistakes, they did not harm Craighead’s right to a fair trial. The details of his previous crimes were shared, but it did not seem to affect the outcome of the trial. The jury also had enough evidence to verify that Craighead had prior felony convictions. Regarding the claim of ineffective help from his lawyer, the court decided that Craighead was not denied a good defense. They found that the sentence he received was not excessive, given the nature of his actions and past crimes. However, the court did find an issue with the jail fees Craighead was assessed after sentencing. These fees were not discussed during the trial, and Craighead was not given a chance to contest them. Therefore, the court sent the case back to the district court to address the jail fee situation. In summary, the court upheld Craighead’s conviction but revised the part about the jail fees, ordering a hearing for that matter.

Continue ReadingF-2013-305

S-2013-718

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-718, Tutson and Heartfield appealed their conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana) With the Intent to Distribute and other related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling to suppress evidence, which means they agreed that the evidence should not be used against Tutson and Heartfield because the consent to search was not clearly given. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2013-718