Controlled Dangerous Substance

RE-2021-1290

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2021-1290, Vernon Shawn Miller, Jr. appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking Miller's suspended sentences but vacated the part of the order that imposed post-imprisonment supervision. One member of the court dissented. Vernon Shawn Miller, Jr. had a serious legal history. He pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including kidnapping and domestic assault, and was given a sentence but had part of it suspended after he completed a special drug program. However, in August 2021, the State filed a motion to revoke his suspended sentence because he broke the rules of his probation, which included failing to complete a required assessment and getting arrested for a new crime. The trial court held a hearing and decided to revoke all of Miller's suspended sentence. Miller argued against this decision, claiming it violated the rules because he should not serve more time than the sentence he was given. The court explained during the hearing that it intended to revoke all of the suspended time left on his sentence. Miller raised several arguments during his appeal. He thought the sentence should not exceed what he had left to serve and believed that the facts used to revoke his sentence came from an earlier trial rather than the hearing itself. Miller also said he did not get good help from his lawyer during the process. The court reviewed Miller's arguments closely. It confirmed that the judge's decision to revoke the entire suspended sentence was valid and within their rights. They found no specific errors in what the trial court did, except for the imposition of post-imprisonment supervision, which should not have been added since it was not part of the original sentence. In the end, the court upheld the revocation of Miller's suspended sentence but removed the part about post-imprisonment supervision, meaning Miller had to serve the time his sentence required without additional conditions.

Continue ReadingRE-2021-1290

RE-2020-398

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2020-398, Kenneth Joe Norton appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but ordered the trial court to modify the term executed on one charge to one year. One judge dissented. Norton was charged with two crimes, Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Larceny of Merchandise, and he pleaded no contest in both cases. He was sentenced to ten years in prison, but part of that sentence was suspended as long as he completed a program. Later, the State claimed he broke the terms of his suspended sentence by getting into more trouble, which led to a court hearing. Norton argued that the sentence that was given to him was too long. He believed that the old law allowed a shorter sentence. The court looked at his claims and noted that, since the law changed after he was convicted, he should only serve one year on the larceny charge. This part of his appeal was accepted. Norton also tried to argue that some of the evidence during his revocation hearing should not have been allowed because it was obtained without proper procedures. He claimed that he had not been warned about his rights when he made a statement that led to his arrest. The court explained that during a revocation hearing, the same protections as a criminal trial do not apply. Therefore, the evidence was allowed. Moreover, he claimed his lawyer did not do a good job because they did not raise certain points about his case. However, since one of his claims was accepted, the court decided that it did not matter if the lawyer made mistakes because his issue was already resolved. In conclusion, the court allowed some changes to the sentence but maintained that his revocation was valid. The court focused on the rules for reviewing revocation cases and kept Norton accountable for his actions that led to the revocation of his suspended sentences.

Continue ReadingRE-2020-398

RE-2019-19

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-19, Daniel Lee Hart appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that revoking his suspended sentence without him being present was a violation of his right to due process, and therefore, the revocation was reversed. One judge dissented. Daniel Lee Hart originally pleaded guilty in 2009 to trying to manufacture a controlled substance. He was given a 20-year sentence, with 12 years of that being suspended, meaning he didn't have to serve that part of the time as long as he followed certain rules. One of those rules was that he had to stay clean from drugs and check in regularly with his probation officer. In 2017, the state said that Hart had broken the rules. They said he had used drugs, didn’t show up for meetings with his probation officer in both Oklahoma and Kansas, didn’t register as a drug offender in Kansas, didn’t pay fees for his probation, and hadn’t completed his GED as he was supposed to. Hart later agreed to these claims but was able to be released for drug treatment for a few months before being sentenced. When the time came for his sentencing, Hart did not show up. Because he was absent, the court revoked the suspended part of his sentence completely. This meant he would have to serve the full 20 years instead of just the 8 years that he had left to serve. Hart appealed this decision, saying it was unfair for the court to make such a serious decision without him being there. The court looked at whether Hart's absence affected his right to defend himself. They said that everyone has the right to be present when decisions are made about their punishment. The court noted that Hart had not willingly chosen to skip the sentencing and that his absence could have greatly impacted the outcome. Because of these reasons, the court said Hart deserved a new hearing where he could be present to possibly explain why he wasn’t there and defend himself more fully. The final decision was to send the case back for another hearing. They wanted to make sure Hart had a fair chance to be present when the consequences of his actions were discussed again. In summary, because Hart was missing during a very important hearing, the court agreed that this was a mistake. They reversed the earlier decision and ordered a new hearing where he could be present.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-19

F-2018-1263

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-1263, Leatherwood appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree, Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Possession of a Firearm During Commission of a Felony, Maintaining a Place for Keeping/Selling Controlled Substances, and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. Travis Michael Leatherwood fatally shot Aaron Smith on Halloween night in 2017. They were once friends and worked together selling marijuana, but their friendship soured when Smith stole marijuana from Leatherwood. On the night of the shooting, Smith, upset by an exchange of insults with Leatherwood, went to confront him, unarmed. Leatherwood shot Smith with a rifle before he could say a word. Smith later died from the gunshot wound. After the shooting, police found a lot of evidence connecting Leatherwood to marijuana distribution at his home, including a rifle that he had used to shoot Smith and other drug-related items. Leatherwood argued in court that he acted in self-defense, but the jury did not agree. They concluded that he was the aggressor, especially since he called Smith a coward and provoked him. The jury found him guilty of first-degree murder, along with several drug-related charges. Leatherwood raised multiple issues on appeal, including claims that the state did not prove he acted outside of self-defense, that the court gave confusing jury instructions, allowed improper amendments to the charges, and that he had ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the court disagreed with all of his claims. In terms of self-defense, the court ruled that Leatherwood’s actions and words indicated he was not acting in self-defense but rather was the one who provoked the situation. He had armed himself before Smith arrived and shot him before any confrontation occurred. The court also discussed the jury instructions, concluding that the district court did not err by omitting instructions on a lesser charge of heat of passion manslaughter since there was no evidence to support that Smith's actions would provoke such a response from Leatherwood. As for the amendment of charges, the court determined that Leatherwood was sufficiently informed of the charges he faced and that he could defend against them adequately. The evidence showed that he had both the firearm and the controlled substances as part of his operations, fulfilling the requirements for his convictions. Leatherwood's claim that his lawyer was ineffective was also denied because the court found that the lawyer's strategies were reasonable given the overwhelming evidence against Leatherwood. The lawyer focused his arguments on the more serious murder charge rather than the drug offenses, which the jury could have easily decided against Leatherwood irrespective of those counts. Finally, the court ruled that Leatherwood's sentence was not excessive given the nature of the crime and his actions. The judge pointed out that the jury was aware of his age (20 at the time of the crime) and other circumstances, which did not make the sentence shockingly excessive. Ultimately, the court affirmed Leatherwood's convictions and ordered a separate hearing regarding the restitution amount, which needed to be calculated more accurately.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1263

RE-2018-1287

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

Here is a summary of the Court of Criminal Appeals decision regarding Darryn Lamar Chandler, Jr.: **Case Summary:** - Appellant: Darryn Lamar Chandler, Jr. - Appellee: The State of Oklahoma - Case Numbers: CF-2015-2683 and CF-2016-534 - Date of Decision: February 6, 2020 - Judge: Honorable Glenn Jones **Background:** - Chandler was previously convicted in two separate cases involving serious crimes: 1. Case No. CF-2015-2683: Guilt for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, possession of an offensive weapon during a felony, and possession of an imitation controlled substance. 2. Case No. CF-2016-534: Guilt for robbery with a firearm and conspiracy to commit robbery with a firearm. - Sentences: In both cases, he received suspended sentences with the first year of incarceration. **Allegations of Violation:** - On September 21, 2018, the State filed to revoke Chandler’s suspended sentences due to new charges related to his involvement in a violent robbery while on probation. **Revocation Hearing:** - The hearing began on November 27, 2018, where evidence was presented by the State indicating Chandler's direct involvement in the robbery of a loan business, during which he threatened employees with a firearm. - Chandler did not present any evidence in his defense. - The judge found Chandler in violation of probation, leading to the revocation of his suspended sentences. **Sentencing Hearing:** - A presentence investigation report was requested and filed before the sentencing hearing, which took place on December 20, 2018. - The State argued for full revocation based on the violent nature of the robbery, while Chandler's counsel argued for a more lenient approach citing Chandler's background and potential for rehabilitation. **Court's Decision:** - The Court upheld the trial court's decision to revoke the suspended sentences in full, emphasizing that Chandler committed a violent crime in direct violation of the conditions of his probation, which warranted no abuse of judicial discretion. **Conclusion:** - The Court affirmed the revocation of Chandler's suspended sentences, noting the trial court’s discretion in making its determination based on the evidence of Chandler’s actions while on probation. **Final Note**: For more detailed information, there is a downloadable PDF available [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-1287_1734352969.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1287

RE-2018-932

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ANTHONY CURTIS CREEK,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. RE-2018-932** **SUMMARY OPINION** **Filed January 23, 2020** ROWLAND, JUDGE: Anthony Curtis Creek, Appellant, entered a guilty plea on March 16, 2015, in Garfield County District Court Case No. CF-2013-393, to Count 1 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, a misdemeanor, and Count 2 - Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a misdemeanor. He received a sentence of one year in the County Jail on Count 1, with 90 days to be served and the remainder suspended; Count 2 was sentenced to one year suspended, with penalties running consecutively. He was also fined $500.00. On January 20, 2017, the State applied for the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence on Count 2, alleging violations: (1) possession or consumption of alcohol; (2) DUI-A, a misdemeanor; and (3) Defective Equipment, a misdemeanor, in Oklahoma County Case No. CM-2016-2776. During the revocation hearing on June 2, 2017, Appellant admitted to the first allegation. The trial judge, Honorable Dennis Hladik, determined that the State proved the other allegations and revoked six months of Appellant's suspended sentence. Appellant appeals this decision, raising several propositions of error: 1. **Abuse of Discretion:** The trial court allegedly utilized a strict liability standard, resulting in a cruel and excessive sentence. 2. **Prosecutorial Misconduct:** Claiming that Appellant was deprived of a fundamentally fair proceeding due to misconduct. 3. **Plain Error:** The trial court's finding on the State's evidence and the standard of proof was erroneous. 4. **Equal Protection Violation:** Appellant asserts he was denied equal protection under the law. 5. **Cumulative Error:** The accumulation of errors deprived Appellant of due process. Upon review, the Court affirms the District Court's order revoking six months of Appellant's suspended sentence. 1. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence is within the substantial discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. The evidence supported Judge Hladik’s decision to revoke only part of the sentence after considering a stipulation and witness testimonies. 2. The Court agrees with Appellant's counsel that prosecutorial misconduct is more appropriate for post-conviction matters. The record does not support claims of misleading behavior by the prosecutors. 3. The standard of proof for such violations is a preponderance of the evidence, adequately satisfied in Appellant's case. Revocation is valid with any proven violation. 4. The trial court's exclusion of evidence does not equate to an equal protection violation. The ruling was consistent and reasonable. 5. As there were no individual errors identified, the argument for cumulative error also fails. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Garfield County District Court Case No. CF-2013-393 is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is ordered to be issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** **David J. Batton** Counsel for Defendant **Tallena Hart** Carter Jennings Assistant District Attorney Counsel for the State **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J:** **LEWIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **LUMPKIN, J: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-932_1734358983.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-932

F-2018-1137

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the appeal of Parron Lavon Burrus. Burrus was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, after being found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Caddo County. The court sentenced him to 30 years in prison for the first count and 25 years for the second, running consecutively. In the appeal, Burrus contended that the sentences were excessive and should be modified. He argued that the offenses were interconnected and that the trial court exhibited prejudice against him during sentencing, referencing the requirement for his testimony to be under oath and the judge's prior role in prosecuting him. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment and sentence. The court noted that the sentences fell within the statutory range, that there is no constitutional right to concurrent sentences, and that Burrus did not demonstrate that the trial judge's actions or previous involvement in prior prosecutions caused an unfair sentencing outcome. The court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in sentencing, emphasizing the separate nature of the offenses committed by Burrus. In essence, the appeal was denied, and the court's decision was upheld, confirming the sentences imposed on Burrus.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1137

C-2018-1119

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AARON MARCUS SHORES,** **Petitioner,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-1119** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Petitioner Aaron Marcus Shores entered a negotiated plea of no contest in the District Court of LeFlore County to resolve his felony and misdemeanor charges in three cases. The charges included: 1. **Case No. CF-2018-239:** Failure to Notify Address Change of Sex Offender (felony). 2. **Case No. CM-2018-371:** Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (misdemeanor). 3. **Case No. CM-2018-373:** Malicious Injury to Property Under $1,000.00 (misdemeanor). Pursuant to the plea agreement, one count of Obstructing an Officer and one count of Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia were dismissed by the State. Judge Marion Fry subsequently sentenced Shores to four years of imprisonment on the felony count and one year in the county jail for each misdemeanor count, with all sentences running concurrently. He was also ordered one year of post-imprisonment supervision and awarded credit for time served. Shores filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, which was denied after a hearing. He appeals this denial, claiming: 1. The district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea as he did not receive the benefits of his plea bargain. 2. He received ineffective assistance of counsel. **1. Denial of Motion to Withdraw Plea** Shores argues he did not receive the promised benefits of his plea bargain. The court evaluated this claim against the standard set forth in *Couch v. State*, noting that promises made in plea agreements must be fulfilled. While Shores did not specifically raise his current argument in his initial motion to withdraw, it was discussed during the evidentiary hearing. The appellate court reviews the denial for abuse of discretion and affirmatively holds that Shores received the benefits of his plea agreement. The district court's order confirmed that Shores's Oklahoma sentences would run concurrently with his sentences from Arkansas, fulfilling the terms agreed upon during the plea process. **2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel** Shores claims ineffective assistance from conflict counsel, who allegedly failed to preserve his claim regarding the benefits of the plea agreement. To prevail on such a claim, Shores must demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel's performance. The court found that conflict counsel adequately raised Shores's concerns at the withdrawal hearing, effectively preserving the issue for appeal. Therefore, Shores could not establish that his counsel's performance resulted in any prejudice. **CONCLUSION** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The district court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to withdraw plea is AFFIRMED. **MANDATE ordered to be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.** **Appearances:** - Doug Schmuck, Appellate Defense Counsel, for Petitioner. - Matt McBee, Counsel for Withdraw Motion. - Kevin Merritt and Margaret Nicholson, Assistant District Attorneys for the State. --- This summary is designed for clarity and understanding without retaining excessive legal jargon, while accurately reflecting the decisions and arguments presented in the original case summary.

Continue ReadingC-2018-1119

F-2018-945

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CASE SUMMARY:** **Appellant:** Carey James Buxton **Appellee:** The State of Oklahoma **Case Numbers:** CM-2014-358, CF-2014-578, CF-2017-5 **Opinion Date:** August 8, 2019 **Judge:** Lumpkin --- **BACKGROUND:** Carey James Buxton appealed the termination of his participation in the Drug Court program and the imposition of sentencing by the District Court of Kay County, presided by Judge David Bandy. Buxton had entered pleas of no contest to multiple charges, including drug possession and burglary, and was sentenced to a Drug Court program where successful completion would lead to dismissal of the charges. However, after the State filed applications for his removal from the Drug Court program due to non-compliance, a hearing was conducted on this matter. The judge ultimately decided to terminate Buxton from the program and impose the sentencing terms outlined in the plea agreement. --- **PROPOSITION OF ERROR:** Buxton asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in terminating him from the Drug Court program. --- **ANALYSIS:** 1. **Standard of Review:** The decision to revoke or terminate a Drug Court participant lies within the trial judge's discretion. An abuse of discretion is defined as a clearly erroneous conclusion. 2. **Contentions by Appellant:** - Buxton argues that the court did not assess whether disciplinary measures short of termination would suffice. - He also claims that removal for cheating on drug tests is against Drug Court laws. 3. **Court Findings:** - The court ruled that violations needed to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Buxton repeatedly violated the terms of his Drug Court contract despite receiving multiple jail sanctions. - The appellate court noted that termination was not an automatic consequence of drug test failures; the trial court considered all relevant factors before making its decision. 4. **Conclusion:** - The appellate court determined that the trial court’s decision was supported by the evidence and was not an abuse of discretion. Buxton's proposition of error was denied. --- **DECISION:** The order terminating Buxton from the Drug Court and proceeding with sentencing as per the plea agreement is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is to be issued immediately following the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** - **For Appellant:** Jarrod Stevenson and Jeremy Stillwell (Appellate Defense Counsel) - **For Appellee:** Brian Hermanson (District Attorney), Mike Hunter (Oklahoma Attorney General), Tessa L. Henry (Assistant Attorney General) --- **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** - **Concur:** Lewis, P.J.; Kuehn, V.P.J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. --- For further details, the complete opinion is available in PDF format: [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-945_1734875235.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-945

F-2018-411

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-411, Joey Elijo Adames appealed his conviction for Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold his convictions and the order revoking his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when Adames was charged with several serious offenses. After a trial, a jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to a total of 45 years in prison. This included 35 years for the conspiracy charge and 10 years for the gun possession charge, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. Adames had previous felony convictions, which affected his sentences. Furthermore, Adames had prior suspended sentences due to earlier charges, including Domestic Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. The state decided to revoke those suspended sentences after Adames committed the new crimes. During the trial, Adames argued that the prosecutor acted unfairly by making comments that hinted he should have testified, which he did not. He believed this made it hard for him to get a fair trial. However, the court examined Adames' claims. They found that the prosecutor’s comments did not directly force attention to the fact he did not testify and were within the acceptable limits of court arguments. The judges believed the jury was properly instructed to not hold his silence against him, and thus they did not see an error in the trial process. Adames also complained about the sentencing part of the trial, saying the prosecutor made remarks that were inappropriate and could have influenced the jury to give him a harsher sentence. Again, the court found that the comments focused more on his past behavior and did not unfairly sway the jury’s decision. Lastly, about the revocation of Adames' previous suspended sentences, he argued that he should have had a hearing within 20 days after pleading not guilty to the revocation. The court reviewed the record and concluded that Adames had waived his right to that fast hearing when he entered his plea of not guilty. Therefore, the court ruled that since no rule was broken, the revocation of his suspended sentence was valid. In summary, the court found no significant errors in Adames' trial or the revocation order. As a result, his convictions and the revocation of his suspended sentences were upheld, affirming the decisions made by the lower court.

Continue ReadingF-2018-411

C-2018-1002

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**Summary of Case No. C-2018-1002: Carey James Buxton v. The State of Oklahoma** **Court:** Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals **Date Filed:** June 13, 2019 **Parties:** - **Petitioner:** Carey James Buxton - **Respondent:** The State of Oklahoma **Background:** Carey James Buxton entered a negotiated plea of no contest on multiple criminal charges across three cases in the District Court of Kay County. The charges included unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, second-degree burglary, and knowingly concealing stolen property. The plea agreement included entering a drug court program, which promised potential leniency upon completion. **Plea Agreement Details:** - **Successful Completion:** District Attorney would recommend dismissal of certain charges and suspended sentences. - **Failure:** Imposition of lengthy prison time. The State later filed a motion to terminate Buxton from the drug court program, which was granted after a hearing. Consequently, Buxton was sentenced according to the plea agreement. Attempting to contest this outcome, Buxton filed a motion to withdraw his plea, claiming it was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. **Issues on Appeal:** Buxton appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by not allowing him to withdraw due to the involuntariness of his plea. **Court Findings:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the district court's decision, determining that: 1. The review of the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea is for an abuse of discretion. 2. It is the petitioner's burden to prove that there was a defect in the plea process. 3. The district court based its ruling on a comprehensive review of the record, included plea forms, and Buxton's testimony. Ultimately, the appeal court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Buxton's request to withdraw his plea, affirming the decision. **Decision:** - The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. - The district court's denial of Buxton's Motion to Withdraw Plea is AFFIRMED. **Mandate:** The mandate will be issued following the filing of this decision as per the applicable court rules. **Opinion Author:** Judge Rowland **Concurring Judges:** Lewis, Kuehn, Lumpkin, Hudson

Continue ReadingC-2018-1002

RE-2018-425

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ROBERT JOSEPH CLARK, JR.,** **Appellant,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-425** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** On April 9, 2015, Appellant Clark, represented by counsel, entered a guilty plea to Count 1, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (CDS) (Methamphetamine), and Count 2, Possession of a CDS (Psilocybin) in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2014-8289. Sentencing was deferred for five (5) years, subject to terms and conditions of probation. On September 9, 2015, Clark's sentence in Case No. CF-2014-8289 was accelerated, and he was sentenced to eight (8) years each for Counts 1 and 2, all suspended, with terms and conditions of probation. That same date, Clark entered a guilty plea to Count 1, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Count 2, Possession of a CDS in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2015-3126. He was sentenced to eight (8) years for each count, all suspended, also subject to terms and conditions of probation. Clark's sentences in Case No. CF-2015-3126 were ordered to run concurrently with his sentences in Case No. CF-2014-8289. Additionally, Clark entered a guilty plea in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2015-3693 for Possession of a CDS, receiving a sentence of three (3) years, all suspended, which was ordered to be served consecutively to his sentence in Case No. CF-2015-3126. On March 24, 2017, the State filed an Application to Revoke Clark's suspended sentences in all three referenced cases, alleging the commission of new offenses in Oklahoma County Case Nos. CF-2016-7039 (possession of stolen property and possession of drug paraphernalia) and CM-2016-2833 (obstructing an officer and failing to wear a safety belt). Following a revocation hearing on April 17, 2018, the District Court of Oklahoma County, presided over by the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, revoked Clark's suspended sentences in full. Clark's sole proposition of error on appeal alleges an abuse of discretion in revoking his suspended sentences, claiming that the sentence is excessive. The revocation of Clark's suspended sentences is AFFIRMED. The scope of review in a revocation appeal is limited to the validity of the revocation order executing the previously imposed sentence. We examine the basis for the factual determination and assess whether there was an abuse of discretion. It is established that violation of even one condition of probation is sufficient to justify the revocation of a suspended sentence. Based on the appeal record, there appears to be no merit in Clark's contention that the full revocation of his suspended sentences is excessive, nor do we find an abuse of discretion in Judge Elliott's decision. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2014-8289, CF-2015-3126, and CF-2015-3693 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** **THOMAS HURLEY** **ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER** **OKLAHOMA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE** **611 COUNTY OFFICE BLDG.** **320 ROBERT S. KERR AVE.** **OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102** **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** **KIRK MARTIN** **ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY** **OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **320 ROBERT S. KERR SUITE 505** **OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102** **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **LUMPKIN, J.: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** **ROWLAND, J.: Concur** --- [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-425_1734692953.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-425

F-2018-375

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-375, Jones appealed his conviction for multiple offenses including possession of controlled substances and public intoxication. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of Jones from Drug Court and his sentencing, while also remanding a separate charge for correction regarding sentencing length for public intoxication. One judge dissented. Jones had multiple guilty pleas and was given the chance to participate in a Drug Court program with the understanding that if he successfully completed it, his charges would be dropped. However, if he failed, he would face prison time. Although he had some chances and was sanctioned when he did not adhere to the program, he repeatedly tested positive for drugs, which caused the state to move for his termination from the program. During the hearings, witnesses from the state presented evidence that showed Jones had a new arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol and had failed multiple drug tests. Jones's defense argued that he had made progress and changed for the better, but the judge decided to terminate him from the Drug Court program based on the evidence of his continued drug use and new charges. The court found that his actions justified the termination. Additionally, the court recognized an error in Jones's sentencing for public intoxication because it exceeded the maximum allowed by law. The court ordered that part of the case be sent back to correct the sentence. The final decision was to uphold the termination from Drug Court but allow a correction on the public intoxication charge's sentencing in a separate order.

Continue ReadingF-2018-375

RE-2017-1287

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Darmaecia Brendette Hill, Appellant,** **vs.** **The State of Oklahoma, Appellee.** **No. RE-2017-1287** **Summary Opinion** **Filed June 6, 2019** **Judge Lewis, Presiding** **ORDER** This appeal arises from the revocation of three and one-half years of suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2014-506 and CF-2015-773 in the District Court of Payne County, presided over by Honorable Stephen R. Kistler. **BACKGROUND** In Case No. CF-2014-506, Appellant was convicted of Child Neglect (felony) and Unlawful Possession of Marijuana (misdemeanor), receiving a seven-year sentence with all but the first 120 days suspended. Case No. CF-2015-773 involved a conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) (felony), also sentenced to seven years with similar suspension conditions. Multiple motions to revoke were filed due to alleged probation violations, including positive drug tests and failure to comply with GPS monitoring. The final revocation hearing on July 25, 2017, resulted in the court revoking three and one-half years of Appellant's suspended sentences. **PROPOSITIONS OF ERROR** 1. **Jurisdictional Issue**: Appellant argues that the District Court unlawfully extended her original sentence by imposing a twelve-month post-confinement supervision after the suspended sentence was revoked. 2. **Excessive Revocation**: Appellant contends that the revocation of three and one-half years of her suspended sentences is excessive considering the circumstances of her case. **ANALYSIS** **Proposition I**: The court finds Appellant’s argument unpersuasive due to the twelve-month post-confinement supervision being within the balance of her original sentences. The initial seven-year sentence, with revocations, allows for this additional supervision under Title 22, § 991a. **Proposition II**: The court concludes that Judge Kistler acted within his discretion in revoking three and one-half years of Appellant's suspended sentences based on the repeated violations of her probation terms. The evidence presented supported the court’s decision as Appellant was granted multiple opportunities for compliance. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Payne County revoking three and one-half years of Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2014-506 and CF-2015-773 is ***AFFIRMED.*** **MANDATE**: Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the mandate is ordered issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** - **For Appellant**: Sarah J. Kennedy (Appellate Defense Counsel), Danny Joseph (Appellate Defense Counsel) - **For Appellee**: Karen Dixon (Attorney General of OK), Mike Hunter (Assistant District Attorney), Cierra Saltan (Assistant Attorney General) **OPINION BY**: LEWIS, P.J. **KUEHN, V.P.J.**: Concur **LUMPKIN, J.**: Concur **HUDSON, J.**: Concur **ROWLAND, J.**: Concur **Download PDF**: [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2017-1287_1734707641.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2017-1287

C-2018-927

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SAHIB QUIETMAN HENDERSON,** **Petitioner,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-927** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 30, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Sahib Quietman Henderson entered a blind plea of guilty to Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance within 2,000 feet of a School in the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CF-2016-393. The plea was accepted by the Honorable Ken J. Graham, District Judge, on April 30, 2018, with sentencing delayed until July 25, 2018. On that date, Petitioner was sentenced to thirty (30) years in prison, with the first fifteen (15) years to be served and the remaining fifteen (15) years suspended, alongside a fine of $2,500.00. On August 2, 2018, represented by counsel, Petitioner filed an Application to Withdraw Plea of Guilty. At hearings on August 20 and 22, 2018, Judge Graham denied the motion to withdraw. Petitioner appeals the denial and raises the following propositions of error: 1. Failure of the State and District Court to honor the promised consideration for Appellant's plea requires modification of his inflated sentence, or an opportunity to withdraw his plea. 2. The sentence is shockingly excessive given the circumstances of the case. 3. Ineffective assistance of counsel in identifying, presenting, and preserving issues for review. After thorough review of these propositions and the entirety of the record, including original record, transcripts, and briefs, we find that neither reversal nor modification is required. Our primary concern in evaluating the validity of a guilty plea is whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently. Petitioner carries the burden of proving his plea was entered unadvisedly, through influence, or without deliberation. Voluntariness is assessed through the entire record. In **Proposition I**, Petitioner claims that the plea lacked a knowing and voluntary nature due to non-fulfillment of a promise that he would be sentenced as a first-time offender and because of purported drug buys by his wife reducing his sentence. Contrary to this argument, the record shows Petitioner was treated as a first-time offender, with the court considering the mitigating factors at sentencing. His dissatisfaction with the resulting sentence does not provide grounds for withdrawal of the plea. In **Proposition II**, Petitioner contends the sentence is excessive. However, as he did not raise this claim in his Application to Withdraw Guilty Plea to the trial court, it is waived on appeal. In **Proposition III**, Petitioner argues ineffective assistance of counsel during both the plea and withdrawal hearings. A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is only established by showing that counsel's performance was deficient and that it resulted in prejudice to the defendant. The record does not support that withdrawal counsel's performance was deficient or that it affected the outcome—Petitioner maintained he did not wish to withdraw his plea but rather sought a sentence modification. **DECISION** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon this decision. --- **APPEARANCES IN DISTRICT COURT:** Grant D. Shepherd 601 S.W. C Ave., Ste. 201 Lawton, OK 73501 Counsel for the Defense **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** Kimberly D. Heinze P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 Counsel for Petitioner at the Plea Hearing Ronald L. Williams P.O. Box 2095 Lawton, OK 73502 Counsel for the Defense at the Withdrawal Hearing Jason M. Hicks District Attorney Cortnie Siess & Greg Steward Assistant District Attorneys Stephens Co. Courthouse 101 S. 11th St., Duncan, OK 73533 Counsel for the State **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur --- [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-927_1734182885.pdf)

Continue ReadingC-2018-927

F-2017-1011

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1011, Johnny Ray Hopes appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute and two counts of Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. Johnny Ray Hopes was found guilty by a jury for having illegal drugs and for attacking police officers. The jury decided he should go to prison for four years for the drug crime and for thirteen months in jail with a $500 fine for each of the two assaults. The judge ordered that all of these punishments would happen one after the other, not at the same time. Hopes had a few reasons for his appeal. First, he said that the trial court did not properly explain what it meant to represent himself in court. He believed that because he was not fully informed, his choice to represent himself was not made knowingly or voluntarily. The court looked at the facts and found that Hopes was well informed about what it meant to represent himself. They agreed that he made a clear decision and understood the risks involved in not having a lawyer. Therefore, the court decided that he had made a valid choice to represent himself. Second, Hopes claimed that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing the jury to hear about a lesser crime called Resisting Arrest. The court explained that for a jury to receive instructions about a lesser crime, there must be enough evidence for a reasonable jury to be able to find the person guilty of that lesser crime instead of the more serious crime they were charged with. The court found that there wasn’t enough evidence to support a charge of Resisting Arrest because Hopes had attacked the officers rather than just resisting their attempts to arrest him. So, they decided the trial court did not make a mistake by not including that lesser charge. Lastly, Hopes argued that the trial court shouldn’t have made his punishments run consecutively. The court explained that there is no rule saying he must receive concurrent sentences, meaning they cannot run at the same time. They confirmed that the judge had the right to decide that Hopes should serve his time one after the other. The court found that there was no evidence showing that the judge didn't consider all the facts when making that decision. In conclusion, the court upheld Hopes’ convictions and punishments. The appeal did not change the earlier decision. One judge disagreed, believing there were reasons to reconsider the case.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1011

F-2017-622

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-622, Dakota William Stewart appealed his conviction for two counts of First Degree Manslaughter and one count of Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Stewart's judgment and sentence. One member of the court dissented. Stewart was involved in a car accident where his vehicle collided with another, resulting in two deaths. He was critically injured and taken to the hospital, where, without a warrant or his consent, a nurse drew blood to test for drugs. The blood tests showed the presence of methamphetamine and marijuana. Stewart contested the legality of the blood draw, arguing it violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Initially, the district court denied his motion to suppress the blood evidence, citing Oklahoma law that permits blood draws without a warrant in severe vehicle accidents. The court referenced previous rulings that support this statute. However, the higher court reviewed these past decisions, particularly focusing on whether the law upheld constitutional protections. The decision highlighted that legal procedures must include an individualized assessment of probable cause by a neutral magistrate to justify warrantless searches. The court found that the law in question, while attempting to streamline procedures for serious accidents, created a blanket rule that bypassed this necessary step. Ultimately, the court ruled that even if the blood draw violated constitutional principles, the good faith reliance on the statute by law enforcement meant the results could still be admitted as evidence. Therefore, the court upheld Stewart's conviction, emphasizing the importance of proper procedure while acknowledging the complexities involved in such tragic incidents.

Continue ReadingF-2017-622

F 2017-1074

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2017-1074, Brown appealed his conviction for Drug Court termination. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination, stating the trial court acted within its discretion. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF 2017-1074

RE-2018-644

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DUSTIN ARDELL CRUCE,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-644** **FILED APR 25 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** ROWLAND, JUDGE: This appeal arises from the revocation of Dustin Ardell Cruce’s suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2016-143, adjudicated by the Honorable Lawrence W. Parish. On February 22, 2017, Cruce entered a guilty plea to multiple charges, including Assault With a Dangerous Weapon and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, resulting in a total sentence of ten years for the most serious counts, suspended in part. On October 31, 2017, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence, citing Cruce's failure to pay ordered reimbursement fees and alleged new criminal activity. However, the State subsequently abandoned the new crime allegation as part of a plea agreement in a separate case, leaving only the failure to pay as the basis for revocation. At the revocation hearing on May 2, 2018, the trial court determined that Cruce had indeed violated his probation by failing to fulfill financial obligations. Despite Cruce's claims regarding his employment status and efforts to comply, he provided no evidence of bona fide attempts to make the required payments. The standard for revocation allows the State to meet its burden by a preponderance of the evidence, and one proven violation is sufficient to justify a full revocation of a suspended sentence. Judge Parish opted to revoke only half of Cruce's remaining suspended sentence, demonstrating leniency. Cruce’s appeal asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing revocation. However, as established in previous case law, including *Sparks v. State* and *Livingston v. State*, the court has broad discretion in these matters. The trial court was within its rights to revoke the suspension based on the stipulated violation of payment obligations. The decision of Judge Parish is affirmed, as Cruce has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2016-143 is AFFIRMED. **Legal Representation:** Counsel for Appellant: CURT ALLEN Counsel for Appellee: EMILY MUELLER, ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY **OPINION BY:** ROWLAND, J. **Concur:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J. (Concur in Results); LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.

Continue ReadingRE-2018-644

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

F-2017-1270

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1270, Bryan James Abner appealed his conviction for several offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the decision to terminate him from drug court and sentence him according to the plea agreement. One judge dissented. Bryan James Abner was involved in multiple criminal cases related to theft, guns, drugs, and burglary. He was given the chance to join a Drug Court program to help him with his drug addiction instead of going straight to prison. However, if he did not follow the rules of the program, he would be sentenced for his crimes. Abner did well in the Drug Court for the first six months, but then he started to have problems. He tested positive for methamphetamine several times, had legal troubles, and missed appointments. The State's attorney asked to terminate him from the Drug Court because of these issues. During the hearing, witnesses testified about Abner's behavior. One officer found drugs on him, and a supervisor explained that Abner had many chances to improve but did not make enough progress. Abner's counselor testified that he had learned from some difficult experiences, including the death of his son, and asked for another chance in the program. The judge decided against Abner, saying that despite what the counselor said, Abner's problems continued. She noted that he had broken the rules of the Drug Court many times and had not responded to the chances he had been given. In summary, the court ruled that Abner needed to be removed from the Drug Court program for not following the rules, and he was sentenced based on his plea agreement. The court found that the evidence supported this decision, and there was no abuse of discretion by the judge.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1270

RE-2016-1049

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2016-1049, George appealed his conviction for violating the conditions of his probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence in one case and reversed the revocations in three other cases with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. George had a history of criminal activity, including a guilty plea to second-degree statutory rape. He received a sentence with parts suspended, allowing him to leave prison if he followed probation rules, including not having contact with minors. This became an issue when George was found to be in contact with his biological son, which he claimed was unconstitutional since he was not the victim of his previous crime. During a hearing, evidence showed that George was discovered with a child, and while he later claimed that it was his son, the court found that the state proved he violated his probation by having contact with a minor. The court affirmed the revocation in the case where this violation occurred, stating that a single violation is enough to revoke probation. However, George was also accused of failing to pay court costs in three other cases. The court decided that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he failed to pay, thus reversing the decision to revoke his probation in those cases. The court instructed the lower court to dismiss those revocations. This decision recognized the importance of proving probation violations with solid evidence, especially regarding financial obligations.

Continue ReadingRE-2016-1049

RE-2017-57

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2017-57, Leslie Kay Mosby appealed her conviction for burglary and drug possession. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold her revocation from the mental health court program and the resulting sentences. One judge dissented. Leslie Kay Mosby was convicted for several crimes, including burglary and possession of a controlled substance. She was sentenced to seven years for two felony counts and one year for a lesser charge. She entered a plea agreement that allowed her to participate in a mental health court program, which meant that if she did well, her sentences would not need to be served in prison. However, if she failed in the program, her sentences would be enforced. During her time in the mental health court program, Mosby had many problems, including missing appointments and using drugs. The state noticed these issues and asked the court to take her out of the program. After a hearing, the court agreed that she had not followed the program rules and removed her from the program. This meant that she would now serve her sentences in prison. Mosby believed that the court was wrong to remove her from the mental health program without giving her proper chances to improve. She also argued that her sentences should run at the same time instead of one after the other. However, the court decided that the original agreement was not clear enough about the sentences running together and confirmed the judge’s decision to impose consecutive sentences. Lastly, Mosby pointed out that there was a mistake in the paperwork about the charge against her, but she did not follow the right steps to correct it. The court decided that the judge's rulings were mostly correct, but they would send the case back so the judge could ensure that the correct parts of the sentences were listed properly. Overall, the court affirmed the decision to revoke her from the mental health court program and ruled that her longer sentences would stand, with some corrections to the paperwork.

Continue ReadingRE-2017-57

F-2016-1015

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DERRECK RYAN GRAY,** Appellant, Case No. F-2016-1015 **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Derreck Ryan Gray was convicted by jury of Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) With Intent to Distribute (Count I) and Obstructing an Officer (Count II) in the District Court of Payne County. The jury recommended a sentence of twenty-four years for Count I and one year in jail with a $500 fine for Count II. The trial court sentenced Appellant according to the jury's recommendations, though it reduced the fine in Count II to $100. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appellant appeals, raising one proposition of error: 1. The trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during what he contends was an illegal seizure. After reviewing the details of the case and the arguments presented, we conclude that no relief is warranted. During the traffic stop for a violation, neither the driver nor Appellant had valid driver's licenses. Consequently, the vehicle was to be impounded. Upon concluding the traffic stop, Appellant was free to leave, but officers instructed him to exit the vehicle to inventory it. As he did, Officer Cluck observed a plastic bag drop to the floor. When instructed not to touch it, Appellant ignored this and attempted to flee with the bag. Officer Cluck arrested Appellant for Obstructing an Officer, which permitted retrieval of the bag. Subsequent analysis of the bag revealed it contained methamphetamine. Appellant asserts that the seizure of the bag was improper; however, he does not dispute the legality of the traffic stop or the imminent impoundment. His attempt to flee with the bag constituted obstruction, providing probable cause for his arrest. This established legal basis nullifies his argument against the seizure of the evidence. In reviewing the trial court's actions regarding the suppression motion, we find no abuse of discretion. The trial court's denial of the motion to suppress is affirmed, as Appellant's conduct provided justification for his detention and the subsequent evidence seizure, which does not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. **DECISION** The JUDGMENT and SENTENCE is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** Royce Hobbs, Stillwater, OK, Counsel for Defendant **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** Robert W. Jackson, Norman, OK, Counsel for Appellant Laura Austin Thomas, Payne County District Attorney **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, P.J. **Concur:** LEWIS, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; KUEHN, J.; ROWLAND, J.

Continue ReadingF-2016-1015

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