Court

F-2021-1220

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-1220, Aaron Struble appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the case for resentencing to fifty years imprisonment, as originally assessed by the jury. One judge dissented. Struble was found guilty by a jury, which sentenced him to fifty years in prison. However, the trial court changed this sentence to life in prison, stating that the fifty years exceeded the maximum allowed. This was incorrect, as the fifty-year sentence was valid. The court acknowledged that the jury did not exceed the legal limits, and that the trial court’s change to life imprisonment was a mistake. Therefore, the case was sent back for proper sentencing. Struble also claimed that the prosecutor’s questions aimed at making the victim seem more sympathetic affected his right to a fair trial. However, since there were no objections during the trial to these questions, the court only looked for plain error. They determined that no major error had occurred in this matter. In summary, the court upheld the jury's conviction but pointed out the wrongfulness of the life sentence imposed by the trial court, sending the case back for the jury's original sentence to take effect.

Continue ReadingF-2021-1220

F-2017-1300

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1300, Emmitt G. Sam appealed his conviction for first-degree murder and robbery with a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Emmitt G. Sam was found guilty of committing serious crimes in Tulsa County. The jury decided his punishment would be life in prison for murder and several years for the robberies, with fines. However, during his appeal, he raised important questions about whether he should have been tried in state court at all. Sam argued that he is a member of the Cherokee Nation and that his crimes occurred in an area recognized as Indian land. He claimed that under previous court rulings, the state did not have the authority to prosecute him because those crimes fell under federal jurisdiction due to their location on Indian territory. The court needed to determine two main things: if Sam is considered an Indian and if the crimes happened within the historic boundaries of the Creek Nation's Reservation. After looking into these questions, the trial court found that Sam had Indian blood and was recognized as an Indian by his tribe, even though he was not formally enrolled at the time of the crimes. The parties agreed the crimes took place in Indian Country. The trial court examined evidence presented in a hearing, including testimonies from witnesses who said that Sam was part of the Cherokee community and received benefits meant for Native Americans throughout his childhood. The evidence showed he lived in a supportive environment that aligned with his claims of being recognized by his tribe. Since the appeals court agreed with the trial court's findings, it ruled that Sam could not be prosecuted by the state but instead should face trial in federal court, where such cases are decided for crimes committed on Indian lands. As a result, the earlier judgments and sentences against Sam were overturned, and the case was sent back for dismissal by the district court. The ruling highlighted the intersection of state and federal law regarding Indian affairs, confirming that the rights of Native Americans must be respected within the court system.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1300

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-2020-452

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2020-452, Katlin Maye Ford appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Katlin pled guilty to Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and received a ten-year sentence that was suspended. This means she did not have to go to prison right away but had to follow certain rules. One rule was that she needed to pay restitution, which is money that goes to the victim to help with their losses. In October 2018, the State of Oklahoma asked the court to end her suspended sentence because she had not paid the restitution. In November 2018, Katlin decided to represent herself in court, meaning she did not want a lawyer. She admitted that she had not paid the restitution as ordered. The court then allowed more time for her to get back on track with her payments. However, in June 2020, the court decided to take away three years of her suspended sentence because she still had not paid the restitution. Katlin thought this was unfair and appealed the decision, making some important claims: 1. She said she was not given proper legal help when she needed it. 2. She believed the court should have helped her get a lawyer for her hearing. 3. She argued that any failure to pay the restitution was not intentional. In examining her first claim, the court noted that people have the right to have a lawyer when their suspended sentences are being revoked. For someone to give up that right, they must do it knowingly, which means they understand what they are doing. The court found that there was no clear record showing that Katlin had enough information about self-representation or that she made her decision with full understanding of the consequences. Since the court did not make sure she understood everything about waiving her right to a lawyer, the appeal was successful. The original decision to revoke her suspended sentence was reversed, meaning Katlin would get another chance to address her restitution payments and have proper legal representation. Therefore, the court instructed for the case to go back to the lower court for further actions that are consistent with its opinion. One judge disagreed with the majority's decision.

Continue ReadingRE-2020-452

C-2019-263

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2019-263, Floyd Joseph Ball, Jr. appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree and Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have the right to prosecute Ball because he is considered an Indian under federal law, and the crimes occurred in Indian Country. The judgment and sentence were reversed, and the case was remanded to the District Court with orders to dismiss it. One judge dissented from this decision.

Continue ReadingC-2019-263

F-2017-889

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-889, Joseph Stanley Harjo appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case to the District Court of Muskogee County with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Harjo was convicted in a trial where the jury sentenced him to life imprisonment. He argued that the court did not have the right to try him because he is a member of the Creek Nation, and the crime occurred within the Creek Reservation. This raised important questions about whether he is legally recognized as an Indian and if the crime took place on tribal land. The case was sent back to the District Court for a fact-finding hearing, where it was determined that Harjo is 1/4 Indian blood, a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and that the crime took place within the jurisdiction of the tribe. Both parties agreed on these facts, leading the District Court to conclude that the state did not have the authority to prosecute Harjo. After careful review of the case and the findings from the evidentiary hearing, the court determined that Harjo was indeed an Indian under federal law, and the crime occurred in Indian Country. Therefore, the state had no jurisdiction over the case. The court reversed the judgment and sent the case back to be dismissed.

Continue ReadingF-2017-889

F-2019-68

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-68, Johnny Edward Mize, II appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter (Heat of Passion). In a published decision, the court decided that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Mize. Mize had claimed that the State of Oklahoma did not have the authority to prosecute him because the victim was part of a federally recognized tribe and the crime occurred within a reservation. The court supported this claim after an evidentiary hearing, confirming that the victim had Indian status and that the crime happened in the boundaries of the Muscogee Creek Reservation. As a result, the original judgment and sentence were vacated, and the matter was sent back to the district court with instructions to dismiss the case. The decision relied on previous case law stating that Oklahoma does not have jurisdiction over crimes involving Indian victims that take place on tribal land.

Continue ReadingF-2019-68

F-2019-588

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-588, Ricky Eugene Spencer appealed his conviction for two counts of Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Ricky Eugene Spencer was found guilty of shooting at two people, which led to his conviction. The trial took place in Muskogee County, where the jury decided on a twenty-year sentence for each count. However, the judge allowed for some of that time to be suspended and had conditions for probation. During his appeal, Spencer raised several issues, but one stood out: the jury was given the wrong instructions about transferred intent. This is a legal concept that says if someone means to hurt one person but accidentally hurts someone else, the intent to harm can still apply to the actual victim. The court found there was indeed an error in how the jury was instructed. Spencer did not challenge the instruction during the trial, so the court reviewed the mistake under plain error, meaning it was an obvious error that affected the fairness of the trial. The judge explained that the jury was incorrectly told they could find Spencer guilty of intent to kill based on a lesser intention to injure or scare someone else. This meant they could convict him without the proof needed for a serious crime like shooting with intent to kill. The prosecution argued that Spencer aimed to kill one person and mistakenly shot two bystanders. However, the trial's instructions could have allowed the jury to convict him based on weaker proof than required. During discussions, the jury showed they weren't completely convinced, asking questions that suggested they were unsure. The prosecutor's arguments during the trial also emphasized the wrong aspects of the law, pushing the jury toward an improper conclusion. Overall, the court could not be sure that the jury understood what they needed to prove. Therefore, they ruled that the error affected Spencer's rights significantly, requiring a new trial to ensure fairness. The decision means that Spencer would get another chance to defend himself in court, as the guidelines for convicting him were not properly explained the first time.

Continue ReadingF-2019-588

F-2018-1144

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the case of William G. Epperly v. The State of Oklahoma (Case No. F-2018-1144), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court of Oklahoma County. The court found that the evidence presented during Epperly's trial was admissible, and his claims of error, including issues related to hearsay, relevance, and jury instructions, did not warrant reversal of his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. ### Key Points from the Court's Decision: 1. **Admission of Excited Utterance Evidence**: The court found that statements made by Tiffany Epperly (Epperly's spouse) to two witnesses fell under the excited utterance exception to hearsay, as she was under emotional stress when she reported witnessing the alleged abuse. 2. **Text Messages and Witness Testimony**: The court ruled that reading text messages sent by Sutphen to Tiffany Epperly was not hearsay because they were used to challenge Tiffany's credibility rather than to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Additionally, the testimony about Tiffany's changing demeanor was deemed relevant to the case. 3. **Witness Reading from Police Report**: Former Officer Richardson's reading from his police report, which included Tiffany Epperly's statements, was allowed because it served to impeach her trial testimony, not as hearsay. 4. **Internet Search Evidence**: The court deemed the evidence concerning Epperly's internet search about Oklahoma sex laws to be relevant, as it could suggest a consciousness of guilt. 5. **Judgment and Sentence Corrections**: The court noted that the issues regarding credit for time served and the $100 fine were resolved with an amended judgment, making that claim moot. 6. **Jury Instruction on Sex Offender Registration**: The court did not find that the failure to instruct the jury about sex offender registration constituted an error warranting relief, consistent with prior rulings. 7. **Cumulative Error Doctrine**: The court concluded that no individual errors occurred that would justify reversal and therefore found no merit in the cumulative error claim. ### Conclusion: The court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court, concluding that all claims raised by Epperly were without merit. The decision illustrates the court's adherence to evidentiary rules and its support for the discretion exercised by the trial judge in admitting evidence. For more detailed information, the full opinion can be accessed [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1144_1734787047.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-1144

F-2018-835

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ANTHONY BRUCE HENSON, SR.,** Appellant, **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. Case No. F-2018-835 Summary Opinion FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA JAN - 9 2020 **OPINION** *LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:* Anthony Bruce Henson, Sr., Appellant, was tried by jury and found guilty on Counts 1 through 6 for sexual abuse of a child under twelve (12) years, violating 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(F); and Count 7 for child abuse, violating 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(A), in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2017-3127. The jury sentenced the Appellant to life imprisonment and a $1,000.00 fine for each of Counts 1 through 6, and six (6) years imprisonment for Count 7. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively, though the court did not impose the fines. The State dismissed Count 8, charging child abuse, prior to trial. The jury deadlocked on Counts 9 and 10, also charging sexual abuse of a child under twelve, leading the State to dismiss those counts. Mr. Henson raises the following propositions of error on appeal: 1. The District Court erred in admitting bad act evidence of pornography, violating provisions of the Oklahoma Evidence Code and denying due process and a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment. 2. The jury instruction concerning the other crimes evidence was erroneous, as it did not limit its admission purpose. 3. The consecutive life sentences are excessive and should be modified. 4. Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel per the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. **Proposition One:** Appellant argues the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his possession of child pornography on a cell phone, which counsel did not object to at trial, waiving all but plain error. As established in *Simpson v. State*, Appellant must demonstrate that this plain error affected the trial's outcome. The Court finds no error in the admission of this evidence to show motive or intent for the charged crimes. **Proposition Two:** Appellant contends the trial court used an incorrect limiting instruction for the other crimes evidence of child pornography. The request for this instruction constituted a waiver of the standard error analysis. Although the court erred in using a modified instruction, it did not compromise the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings, thus, relief is unwarranted. **Proposition Three:** Appellant claims his six consecutive life sentences are excessive. The Court will not alter sentences within statutory limits unless they are so excessive that they shock the court’s conscience. The sentences here do not shock the conscience and are within legal limits. **Proposition Four:** The Appellant argues ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to inadmissible evidence and not requesting a proper limiting instruction. Following *Strickland v. Washington*, the Court finds no reasonable probability that the outcomes would have differed due to trial counsel's performance. **DECISION** The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES** **AT TRIAL** Richard Koller, Attorney for Appellant Barbara Woltz **ON APPEAL** Nicole Dawn Herron, Attorneys for Defendant Katie Koljack, Mike Hunter, Mark Morgan, Asst. District Attorneys Sheri M. Johnson, Asst. Attorney General **OPINION BY:** Lewis, P.J. Kuehn, V.P.J.: Concur Lumpkin, J.: Concur in Results Hudson, J.: Concur Rowland, J.: Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-835_1735212413.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-835

RE 2018-1288

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-1288, Jose Santiago Hernandez appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and conspiracy to commit a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Hernandez had pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm and conspiracy in 2017, getting a ten-year sentence for each count, but only had to serve five years if he followed the rules set for his probation. The State accused him of perjury, claiming he lied during a court proceeding about his co-defendant's involvement in the crime. During a hearing in December 2018, the judge found enough evidence to revoke Hernandez’s suspended sentences because he did not truthfully testify. Hernandez argued that the State did not show he committed perjury, but the court explained that they only needed to prove the violation of his probation terms by presenting a greater weight of evidence. The court concluded that they had enough evidence to believe Hernandez had broken the rules. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision to revoke his suspended sentences, meaning he would have to serve the full ten years.

Continue ReadingRE 2018-1288

F-2018-302

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-302, Jorge R. Medina appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child Under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Medina's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. The case involved Medina being found guilty by a jury of a serious crime against a young child. The court imposed a severe sentence of forty years imprisonment. Medina raised several arguments in his appeal, claiming he did not receive a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct, issues with his confession, introduction of evidence regarding his past behavior, and ineffective assistance of his attorney. First, Medina argued that the prosecutor made incorrect statements during the trial and suggested that the jury should assume certain things rather than find them to be true based on evidence. However, the court reviewed the prosecutor's comments and determined they did not misstate the law or unfairly influence the jury. Next, Medina claimed he did not fully understand his rights when he confessed, which should have meant that his confession was not valid. But the court found that Medina had waived this right and that the confession was given voluntarily after he understood his rights. Medina also contested the admission of evidence about his past bad acts. The court found that the prosecution had properly notified Medina of this evidence beforehand, so it was admissible. Regarding hearsay statements made by the victim, which were brought up as evidence at the trial, Medina’s team did not object to this during the trial. The court observed that since the defense had been aware of the basis for these statements and did not raise any objections, it affected their ability to contest them later. Moreover, Medina argued his attorney did not provide effective legal help because they did not object to issues during the trial. The court concluded that the alleged deficiencies of the attorney did not impact the outcome of the case due to the strength of the evidence against Medina. Finally, Medina claimed that the accumulation of errors throughout his trial added up to a denial of his rights. However, the court found that the trial did not have enough significant errors to justify this claim. In conclusion, the court upheld Medina's conviction and sentence, emphasizing that the errors he pointed out did not meet the threshold to alter the jury's decision.

Continue ReadingF-2018-302

J-2019-2

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

This document is a summary of a court case from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals involving an appeal by B.J.H., a youthful offender, contesting an order that allowed the State of Oklahoma to sentence him as an adult. The case centered around multiple charges, including Assault With a Deadly Weapon, and the court's decision on whether the public would be adequately protected if the appellant were sentenced as a youthful offender. **Key Points:** 1. **Background**: B.J.H. was charged as a youthful offender at the age of 16 for multiple violent offenses. The State filed a motion to sentence him as an adult under Oklahoma law. 2. **Court Proceedings**: Hearings were held to review the motion, where evidence included testimonies and psychological evaluations. The presiding judge, David A. Stephens, granted the State's motion based on findings that the public would not be adequately protected if B.J.H. were sentenced as a youthful offender. 3. **Appellant's Claims**: B.J.H. appealed the decision on four grounds, including claims of abuse of discretion regarding public safety findings, denial of due process, procedural issues related to preliminary hearings, and lack of service notice to his guardians. 4. **Court's Ruling**: The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion or merit in B.J.H.'s claims. The ruling stated that the evidence supported the conclusion regarding public safety. 5. **Dissenting Opinion**: Presiding Judge Lewis dissented, arguing that the overwhelming evidence presented at the hearing indicated that the public would be adequately protected if B.J.H. were sentenced as a youthful offender. He highlighted that the majority’s ruling contradicted the facts presented during the hearings. Overall, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the decision to sentence B.J.H. as an adult despite disagreements on the interpretation of evidence and procedural fairness.

Continue ReadingJ-2019-2

RE-2018-925

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAREN GLENN SELLERS,** **Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. RE-2018-925** **Filed May 23, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Jaren Glenn Sellers appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Pontotoc County District Court Case No. CF-2012-390. On September 13, 2013, Appellant entered negotiated Alford pleas to First Degree Rape (21 O.S.2011, § 1114) (Count 1) and Forcible Sodomy (21 O.S.2011, § 888) (Count 2). He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for ten years on each count, all suspended, to be served concurrently. On January 16, 2018, the State filed an amended application to revoke the suspended sentences alleging that Appellant committed the new crime of Aggravated Assault and Battery. A revocation hearing was held on August 27, 2018, before the Honorable Gregory Pollard, Special Judge. Judge Pollard granted the State's application and revoked seven years of Appellant's ten-year suspended sentences. On appeal, Appellant asserts the revocation was excessive. **ANALYSIS** At a hearing where the State seeks revocation of a suspended sentence, the question is whether the suspended portion of the sentence should be executed. The court makes a factual determination as to whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated. The violation need be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. A trial court's decision to revoke a suspended sentence should not be overturned absent a finding of an abuse of discretion. We do not find the decision to revoke seven years of Appellant's suspended sentences to be an abuse of discretion. The credibility of witnesses and the weight given their testimony are within the exclusive province of the trier of fact, who may believe or disbelieve the witnesses as it desires. The decision of the trial court to revoke a suspended sentence, in whole or in part, is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof. Judge Pollard considered all evidence presented during the revocation hearing. His decision to partially revoke Appellant's suspended sentence cannot be considered an abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The order of the district court of Pontotoc County revoking a portion of Appellant's suspended judgments and sentences in Case No. CF-2012-390 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 delivery and filing of this decision. --- **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF PONTOTOC COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE GREGORY POLLARD, SPECIAL JUDGE** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:** LLOYD B. PALMER 1609 ARLINGTON ADA, OK 74820 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:** MARK P. HOOVER INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE:** TARA M. PORTILLO ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY P.O. BOX 146 ADA, OK 74821 **ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL:** MIKE HUNTER JENNIFER B. MILLER COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE 313 N.E. 21st STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **HUDSON, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-925_1734359840.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-925

C-2018-943

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. M 2018-0277, the appellant appealed his conviction for speeding (21-25 mph over the limit). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence from the District Court. One judge dissented. The appellant was found guilty after a non-jury trial in Texas County. He was fined $10.00 for speeding. During the appeal, the appellant claimed that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was indeed speeding. He argued that there was no rule in Oklahoma law that allowed a speeding conviction based solely on visual estimation. The State countered this claim by saying that Oklahoma law does not require a radar gun to show that someone was speeding. A trained Oklahoma State Trooper testified that he could visually estimate a vehicle's speed within 5 miles per hour of its real speed. He specifically said that he saw the appellant's vehicle speeding. The court reviewed the evidence to see if a reasonable person could find that the essential parts of the speeding crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court concluded that any logical juror could decide that there was enough proof of the speeding violation. In conclusion, the court upheld the appellant's conviction for speeding, stating that the evidence presented was sufficient.

Continue ReadingC-2018-943

J-2019-113

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** --- **A.W.,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **The State of Oklahoma,** **Appellee.** **No. J-2019-112** --- **I.F.,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **The State of Oklahoma,** **Appellee.** **No. J-2019-113** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** The Appellants, A.W. and I.F., appeal from an order by Honorable Patrick Pickerill, Associate District Judge, adjudicating them delinquent for participating in a conspiracy to perform an act of violence in Case Nos. JDL-2018-3 and JDL-2018-4 in Pawnee County. The appeals were consolidated for oral argument, with both Appellants asserting three propositions of error. ### FACTS The Appellants were charged as juveniles under 21 O.S.2011, § 1378(A) for planning a school shooting at Pawnee High School on August 7, 2018. A bench trial took place on February 4, 2019. The State's key witnesses included: 1. **D.C.**: A classmate who testified about A.W.'s possession of firearms and I.F. discussing threats made to a girl over social media. 2. **Wesley Clymer**: Chief of Police who reported the threats received through a tip. 3. **Chad Colclazier**: Deputy who testified about interviews with the Appellants and evidence collected, including social media communications and pictures of firearms. 4. **Jimmy Meeks**: Another Deputy who recounted the search of A.W.'s home, where firearms were seized. Judge Pickerill found that Appellants had communicated about a school shooting, and their actions constituted an overt act necessary to establish a conspiracy. Thus, both were adjudicated delinquent. ### PROPOSITIONS OF ERROR 1. **Proposition I**: **Sufficiency of Evidence** Appellants argued the evidence was insufficient for a conviction. The appellate court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the trial court's findings beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. **Proposition II**: **Hearsay Statements** Appellants claimed the court erred by allowing purported hearsay statements from one to be used against the other in their joint trial. The argument was unsuccessful as the trial was a bench trial, and there was sufficient evidence independent of the hearsay claims. 3. **Proposition III**: **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel** The Appellants asserted their counsel failed to utilize evidence suggesting the incident was a joke rather than a threat. The court noted that no strong evidence was presented to demonstrate that a different defense would have altered the trial's outcome. ### DECISION This Court affirms the orders of the District Court, finding adequate support for the adjudicated delinquency of both Appellants. ### APPEARANCES - **Counsel for Appellant A.W.** Royce A. Hobbs Attorney at Law 801 S. Main St., P.O. Box 1455 Edmond, OK 73013 - **Counsel for Appellant I.F.** Cheryl A. Ramsey Attorney at Law 801 S. Main St., P.O. Box 1206 Edmond, OK 73013 - **Counsel for the State** Jeff Mixon Assistant District Attorney Pawnee County Courthouse, Room 301 Pawnee, OK 74058 **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** *Concur: LEWIS, P. J., KUEHN, V. P. J., HUDSON, J., ROWLAND, J.* --- **Click Here To Download PDF** [PDF Link](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-113_1734446783.pdf)

Continue ReadingJ-2019-113

F-2017-1140

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1140, Michael Harold Denham appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Michael Harold Denham was found guilty of a crime related to domestic abuse. The jury, which is a group of people that decides if someone is guilty or not, recommended that he be sentenced to three years in prison. The judge who oversaw the trial followed this recommendation and also ordered that Denham pay some fees and receive credit for the time he had already spent in jail before the trial. Denham's appeal claimed that several mistakes had occurred during his trial. He listed five main points where he believed the trial had not been fair: 1. The trial court allowed the state to have an expert witness testify about domestic abuse. Denham argued that this was a mistake. 2. He said that one of the witnesses who testified about domestic violence was not properly qualified to do so. 3. Denham claimed that some evidence was admitted that should not have been according to the rules of evidence. 4. He argued that the court did not let his defense team ask questions about one juror, which meant they could not see if the juror was biased. 5. Finally, he said that all these mistakes happened together and made the whole trial unfair. The court looked closely at Denham's claims and the evidence from the trial. They decided that the court did not make errors that were significant enough to change the outcome of the trial. For the first point about the expert witness, the court ruled that Denham did not show why his defense would have benefited from having his own expert witness. His claim of needing a continuance (more time) to prepare for the trial was not justified because he could not show how it would have helped his case. For the second point, the court decided that the qualifications of the expert witness were acceptable. The judge found that the officer had enough training and experience in domestic violence matters to testify. Regarding the third point, Denham did not follow the right procedure to complain about the late disclosure of the expert witness. As a result, the court found no major violations that would affect the trial's fairness. For the fourth point, the court reviewed how the trial judge handled questions for the jurors. They found that the process was fair because the juror had given no indication beforehand that she would be biased. Lastly, for the fifth point about the overall fairness of the trial, the court did not agree that the combined claims could show any level of unfairness. They found no cumulative error that would merit a different outcome. In conclusion, the court upheld Denham's conviction, deciding that he received a fair trial and that the claims of error did not have enough merit to change the verdict. The appeal was denied, and the conviction was confirmed, meaning Denham would serve his sentence as decided by the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1140

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

S-2017-986

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2017-986, Simms appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court’s ruling to exclude certain evidence. One judge dissented. The case involved Simms being charged with two counts of First Degree Murder. Before the trial started, he asked the court to keep out certain video and photographs from the trial. He felt these images were too gruesome and could unfairly influence the jury against him. The judge held a hearing to discuss this issue. During the hearing, the judge decided to exclude the officer’s body camera video, which showed the crime scene where one of the victims was struggling for her life. The judge felt the video was unnecessarily graphic and did not provide any new important information that could not be shown in a different, less disturbing way. The State of Oklahoma disagreed with this decision and appealed, arguing that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing the video to be shown in court. However, after reviewing the case, the court upheld the trial judge's decision. They concluded that there was no misuse of discretion when the judge decided to keep the video out, as it could be too disturbing for the jury and did not add significant information to the case. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals confirmed the lower court's decision to exclude the evidence, meaning that Simms' conviction stood as initially determined. The judges also noted that one judge disagreed with the decision, but the majority agreed with the ruling to keep the gruesome video out of the trial.

Continue ReadingS-2017-986

F-2015-886

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-886, Russell Carl McCrillis appealed his conviction for two counts of Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the case for the trial court to assess a specific term of years for post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. McCrillis was convicted in a jury trial and received a twenty-year prison sentence and a $20,000 fine for each count of lewd molestation. The sentences were ordered to be served at the same time. McCrillis raised several issues in his appeal. He claimed that his statement to the police should not have been allowed at trial because it was not made freely and voluntarily. He also argued that the jury should have been instructed about the voluntariness of his statement. Additionally, he pointed out that the trial court could not change his sentence to an indefinite probation after prison. Finally, he believed his sentences were too harsh. The court looked closely at whether McCrillis's statement to the police was voluntary and found that he had waived his rights properly and given his statement willingly. This meant the trial court did not make a mistake when it allowed the statement to be presented during the trial. The court did notice that while the judge should have instructed the jury on the voluntary nature of his confession, the lack of instruction didn’t really have an impact on the trial's outcome, as there was strong enough evidence against McCrillis. Regarding the trial court's authority to modify the sentence, the court agreed that it should have set a clear term for post-imprisonment supervision, which means after McCrillis serves his time, he should be supervised for a set number of years. The law says people convicted of certain crimes, like lewd molestation, must have a period of supervision after serving time, usually between nine months and a year. However, there is also a specific law stating that in cases of sexual offenses, supervision could be longer. The court noted that the trial judge didn’t give a fixed duration for supervision, which was a mistake. In the end, while the court agreed with McCrillis on the need for a specified period of supervision upon release, it found that his twenty-year sentence was not too severe based on the details of the crimes committed. Therefore, the court upheld the conviction but sent the case back to have the trial court determine the proper length of post-imprisonment supervision.

Continue ReadingF-2015-886

RE-2015-765

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-765, Jimmy Lee Fields appealed his conviction for sexually abusing a minor child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Fields' suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Fields, in 2000, pleaded guilty to sexually abusing a child. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, but all but five years were suspended. This meant he would not have to serve the full sentence if he followed the rules. In 2001, his sentence was modified to fourteen years and the execution of that sentence was also suspended with conditions he had to follow while on probation. In 2015, the state accused Fields of breaking the rules of his probation by committing more serious crimes, including child sexual abuse. After a hearing, the court revoked his suspended sentence completely, meaning he had to serve time in prison. Fields disagreed with this decision, claiming the court made errors. Fields presented two main arguments for his appeal. First, he argued that the court was wrong to impose post-imprisonment supervision at the time of revocation, which was not part of the original sentence. Second, he believed the court acted unfairly when it revoked his entire sentence because he had mitigating circumstances like health issues and past good behavior. The court reviewed his claims but found no errors in the decision to revoke the suspension. It highlighted that committing new crimes while on probation justified the revocation. Therefore, the court upheld the revocation but instructed to correct the official written order to remove the additional supervision requirement that was added later. Overall, the court affirmed the decision to revoke his probation with the clarification needed for the written records.

Continue ReadingRE-2015-765

C-2015-1063

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

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

Continue ReadingC-2015-1063

S-2016-29

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-29, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Jones for unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine) with intent to distribute and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to dismiss the appeal because the State did not file the required Petition in Error within the time limit. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2016-29

JS 2015-1076

  • Post author:
  • Post category:JS

In OCCA case No. JS 2015-1076, R.Z.M. appealed his conviction for Forcible Oral Sodomy. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's order that dismissed the charge. One judge dissented. R.Z.M. was born on November 21, 1997, and was charged with serious crimes in Tulsa County. The charges included Rape-First Degree and Forcible Oral Sodomy. However, the first charge was dismissed before the trial. When it came to the second charge, R.Z.M.'s defense team asked to have it dismissed too. The judge agreed and granted the motion to dismiss on November 30, 2015. The State of Oklahoma was not happy with this decision, so they decided to appeal it. They argued that the trial court made a mistake by ruling that someone cannot be charged with Forcible Sodomy if the victim is too intoxicated to be aware during the act. However, the court decided that there was no error in the trial court’s ruling. The opinion explained that the law about Forcible Sodomy does not mention anything about intoxication. In this case, the law is very specific and does not allow for broad interpretations. Since the law does not include intoxication as a reason for the crime of Forcible Sodomy, the dismissal was upheld. In summary, the court sided with R.Z.M. and kept the trial court's decision to dismiss the charge.

Continue ReadingJS 2015-1076

RE-2015-104

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-104, Eric Lamont Muhammad appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the District Court's order to revoke his sentence and send the case back for further proceedings. One judge dissented, arguing that the hearing was held in a timely manner.

Continue ReadingRE-2015-104