Court-Appointed Counsel

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-2013-254

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2013-254, Gina Diane Eslick appealed her conviction for multiple drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her petition for certiorari, meaning they agreed to look at her case closely. The court found that she did not have effective help from her lawyer when she tried to change her guilty plea, as her lawyer had a conflict of interest. The court ordered that her case be sent back to the District Court so she could have a new hearing with a lawyer who did not have a conflict. No one dissented in this decision.

Continue ReadingC-2013-254

M-2017-511

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case: William Robert Burk vs. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No: M-2017-511** #### OPINION BY: Kuehn, VPJ **Background:** William Robert Burk was convicted of Obstruction of Public Officer in the District Court of Payne County, sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined $500. The case arose from an incident on December 13, 2015, where Burk was stopped for driving with an improper license tag. He refused to provide a driver's license, proof of insurance, or identify himself. Police officers were forced to break into his vehicle after he locked himself inside, leading to his arrest. **Proposition I: Self-Representation** Burk contends the trial court erred by allowing him to represent himself without ensuring he made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. The court finds that Burk effectively waived his right to counsel through his actions over time, including repeatedly refusing to secure legal representation. The court cites multiple precedents establishing that a defendant may waive the right to counsel by conduct, and emphasizes the need for a clear understanding of the risks involved in self-representation. While acknowledging Burk's claims of financial capacity to hire an attorney, he nevertheless insisted he would not apply for court-appointed counsel. The court concludes Burk’s behavior—self-characterization of being forced to represent himself and refusal to accept assistance—constituted an implied waiver of his right to counsel, allowing the trial to proceed without an attorney. **Proposition II: Sufficiency of Evidence** In his second claim, Burk argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. However, the court finds that Burk's refusal to provide identification and engage with police clearly obstructed their duties. Citing relevant statutes and case law, the court asserts that any rational jury could find him guilty of obstructing a public officer based on his actions during the encounter. **Conclusion:** The court affirms the judgment and sentence from the District Court of Payne County, asserting that Burk had sufficient warnings about self-representation risks and willingly chose to proceed without counsel. ### Dissenting Opinion - Judge Lumpkin Judge Lumpkin argues against affirming the conviction, citing concerns about Burk's mental state and the trial court's failure to ensure he was adequately informed of the consequences of self-representation. He emphasizes that Burk was not given proper Fairtta warnings about the implications of his decision and suggests that mental health issues should have prompted the court to reevaluate Burk's right to counsel. ### Concurring Opinion - Judge Hudson Judge Hudson agrees with the outcome but asserts that the basis for the decision hinges not on waiver by conduct but rather on forfeiture of counsel due to Burk's dilatory misconduct. He highlights the necessity for courts to maintain order and efficiently administer justice, especially when faced with obstructionist behavior from defendants. **Decision: The Judgment is AFFIRMED.** For further details and full opinions, you may refer to [this PDF link](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/M-2017-511_1734779027.pdf).

Continue ReadingM-2017-511

C-2019-132

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. C-2019-132** **Filed: October 31, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **JAMES ROBERT BROWN,** **Petitioner,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** --- *SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI* **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Petitioner James Robert Brown was charged with Domestic Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon in Garfield County District Court, Case No. CF-2018-496, following prior felony convictions. On December 17, 2018, he entered a negotiated guilty plea before Judge Paul K. Woodward, who sentenced him to six years in prison, including credit for time served and ordered various fees and costs. Subsequently, Brown attempted to withdraw his guilty plea through a pro se motion filed on January 9, 2019. After a hearing on February 7, 2019, where Brown and his plea counsel testified, Judge Woodward denied the motion. Brown now seeks a writ of certiorari alleging: 1. He did not have access to discovery materials prior to his plea, thus could not knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty. 2. He received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon reviewing the record, transcripts, and the petition, we find that no relief is warranted. **Certiorari Review Standard:** Review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently before a competent court. Brown's letter, which was delayed in reaching the judge, was deemed timely. The denial of a motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed for abuse of discretion, defined as an arbitrary action without proper consideration of relevant facts and law. The burden lies with the petitioner to demonstrate a defect in the plea process. **Proposition I:** Brown asserts he was unaware of the State's case when pleading. The record contradicts this claim, showing he chose to proceed with the plea despite not having the requested discovery. Brown was informed of the charge involving a knife in the assault. His desire for additional information does not undermine the voluntary nature of his plea. The trial court's conclusion that Brown's plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered is well-supported. Proposition I is denied. **Proposition II:** To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Brown must show both deficient performance and resultant prejudice. Brown claims his attorney's failure to provide discovery information led him to plead guilty. However, since we found the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, he cannot demonstrate Strickland prejudice—the necessary negative impact on his defense. Therefore, Proposition II is also denied. **DECISION:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED, and the Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall be issued upon this decision's filing. --- **APPEARANCES:** - **Counsel for Petitioner:** Timothy R. Beebe, Norman, OK - **Counsel for Defendant (Plea):** Mark P. Hoover, Enid, OK - **Counsel for Defendant (Motion to Withdraw):** Benjamin Barker, Enid, OK - **Counsel for the State:** Irene N. Asai, Assistant District Attorney, Garfield County Courthouse, Enid, OK **Opinion by:** Hudson, J. **Concurred by:** Lewis, P.J.; Kuehn, V.P.J.; Lumpkin, J.; Rowland, J. *For the complete opinion in PDF format, click [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2019-132_1734231422.pdf).*

Continue ReadingC-2019-132

C-2017-567

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

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

Continue ReadingC-2017-567

MA-2018-987

  • Post author:
  • Post category:MA

In OCCA case No. MA-2018-987, Cox appealed his conviction for a criminal case that led to an accelerated sentence. In a published decision, the court decided that the District Court must prepare the appeal record and transcripts at public expense. The court noted that Cox was deemed indigent for the purpose of having an attorney appointed, but the District Court initially ruled that he had enough assets to pay for his transcripts. This created a problem because it delayed his appeal process. The court ultimately granted Cox's request for a writ of mandamus, which allowed him to move forward with his appeal without having to pay upfront for the transcripts. The decision was not unanimous, with some judges disagreeing.

Continue ReadingMA-2018-987

RE-2015-735

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-735, Kathy Lynn Logan appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case. The court found that Logan was not given the proper opportunity to have a lawyer assist her during the revocation hearing, which is a requirement by law. The court noted that both Logan and the State agreed that the trial court did not properly check if Logan needed a lawyer, which meant she was denied her rights.

Continue ReadingRE-2015-735

M-2012-416

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2012-416, #1 Richard Allen House II appealed his conviction for #2 Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3 to reverse the conviction and send the case back for further proceedings. #4 One judge dissented. Richard Allen House II was found guilty after a trial without a jury. He was charged for having drug paraphernalia, which is against the law. The judge sentenced him to pay a fine of $250 and spend a year in jail, but he only had to serve 60 days in jail because the rest of his sentence was suspended as long as he followed certain rules. At the beginning of the case, Richard asked the court for a lawyer to help him, and the court agreed. However, later, his attorney wanted to stop helping Richard because they thought he could pay for a private lawyer. This happened after Richard posted bail and was said to be employed. But there was confusion because it was not clear whether the money was for this case or another case he had. Richard ended up representing himself, which means he did not have a lawyer to help him during the trial or the sentencing. After his trial, he asked for a lawyer to help with his appeal, but the judge did not appoint one, saying Richard had enough money to pay for a lawyer himself. This decision was questioned because there was no proper record showing that Richard understood he could still get a lawyer even though he had posted bail. Richard argued that it was wrong for his lawyer to leave and for him to have to represent himself without really understanding what that meant. The State, which is the side that brought the case against him, agreed that there was a problem because there was no formal record to show that Richard had given up his right to a lawyer. The court referred to earlier cases that showed it is important for defendants to have lawyers. If they can't pay for one, they must be given a lawyer unless they clearly waive that right. Since the proper steps weren't taken in Richard's case, the court decided his conviction should be reversed. They sent the case back to the lower court so they could decide if Richard still needed a lawyer or if he had given up that right properly. In summary, the decision noted that everyone deserves a fair chance to defend themselves with legal help, and if they can't afford a lawyer, they should still get one if they need it. The court made it clear that without the correct procedures being followed, they could not allow the conviction to stand.

Continue ReadingM-2012-416

RE-2011-562

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2011-562, Jack Joseph Taylor appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided in favor of Taylor, reversing the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Taylor entered a guilty plea in 2001 to arson and conspiracy to commit arson, leading to a ten-year sentence, most of which was suspended under probation conditions. In 2011, the State accused him of violating his probation due to a new charge of child abuse. A different judge held the hearing, during which he checked evidence from Taylor's new case and found that Taylor had violated his probation. However, he postponed deciding on the punishment until after the new trial. The new trial resulted in a conviction for child abuse, with a ten-year sentence. The judge then revoked Taylor's suspended sentence, which led him to appeal. Taylor argued that he did not receive a fair hearing because the judge presiding over the revocation was previously involved as a prosecutor in his original case. The court ruled that it is important for judges to be neutral and not have prior involvement in cases they are deciding. The court found that the judge should have recused himself due to his past connection with Taylor's case, stating that a decisionmaker must be fair and detached according to legal standards. Ultimately, the court determined that the revocation hearing was not handled correctly and ordered a new hearing before a different judge.

Continue ReadingRE-2011-562

M 2011-0870

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2011-0870 and case No. M 2011-0871, Sherry Kay Taylor appealed her conviction for driving under the influence and other related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and ordered a new trial. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingM 2011-0870

M 2011-0871

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2011-0870 and M 2011-0871, Sherry Kay Taylor appealed her conviction for misdemeanors related to driving under the influence and other offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing her to have a lawyer during her hearings. One judge dissented. Sherry was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol, driving without a license, and improper backing in a case from December 21, 2010. She initially pleaded no contest to driving under the influence and received a six-month deferred sentence. Later, she was charged again for driving under the influence of both drugs and alcohol. In September 2011, Sherry went to a hearing where she was supposed to represent herself because her request for a lawyer was denied. The judge believed she had enough time to find a lawyer but Sherry argued that she didn't understand how to represent herself and didn't want to waive her right to have an attorney. The court looked into whether Sherry had been properly informed about her right to a lawyer and whether she had given up that right knowingly. It was found that there was no clear record showing that she had chosen to represent herself or that she understood the risks involved. Ultimately, the court decided that denying her the help of a lawyer was a mistake and ordered that she should have a new trial and a new hearing to review her sentence in a fair manner.

Continue ReadingM 2011-0871

RE-2010-512

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-512, Christopher Lee Anthony appealed his conviction for violating his probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of Anthony's suspended sentences and ordered a new hearing. One judge dissented. The case started when Anthony pled guilty to several charges and was given suspended sentences, meaning he wouldn’t serve time if he followed the rules of his probation. However, the State accused him of breaking those rules by not following a court report and not showing up for court. After the State filed to revoke his sentences, Anthony was given an attorney but later posted bail. The judge then told him he needed to either find his own lawyer or represent himself. During the hearing, Anthony didn't have a lawyer and argued his case on his own. The judge found that he had violated probation and took away his suspended sentences. Anthony then appealed, claiming the judge made a mistake by not allowing him a court-appointed attorney just because he posted bail. The court agreed that the judge should have checked to see if Anthony could afford a lawyer and had not properly addressed Anthony's right to counsel. They ruled that the revocation of Anthony's sentences must be undone, and there should be a new hearing with a proper inquiry about his finances and legal representation.

Continue ReadingRE-2010-512

F-2005-786

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided that the trial court had made a mistake by ruling that the Smiths were not entitled to a court-appointed attorney, which violated their right to legal representation. Consequently, the court reversed their sentences and ordered a new trial. One judge disagreed with the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2005-786

F-2005-468

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-468, Rebecca R. Pettit appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved the tragic death of Pettit's six-year-old son, Adam. The state accused Pettit of murdering her son by asphyxiation and attempting to take her life afterwards by cutting her wrists. When the trial began, Pettit had been appointed a lawyer to help her, but later the court decided that she was not poor enough to need a public defender and made her represent herself. During her appeal, Pettit argued two main points. First, she said the trial court wrongly decided that she did not need a lawyer. Second, she claimed there was no proof that she chose to represent herself willingly. It is important for accused people to have the option to either have a lawyer or represent themselves, but if they choose to go without a lawyer, the court must make sure they understand what that means. The appellate court noted that there was no record showing Pettit was aware of the risks of representing herself. With no evidence she truly wanted to do this, the court ruled that she should not have had to stand trial alone. So, the court reversed her conviction and sent the case back for a new trial. The appellate court did not look at other issues raised by Pettit because of this main point regarding her representation. Ultimately, the court ordered that Pettit's case be retried, ensuring she has the chance to have a lawyer represent her this time.

Continue ReadingF-2005-468

RE-2003-660

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2003-660, Fox appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the revocation order should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Fox was found guilty of Concealing Stolen Property and received a suspended sentence, which meant he wouldn't serve jail time right away but had to follow certain rules. He had to pay money as part of his sentence and stay employed. Over time, Fox struggled to meet these requirements due to health issues and other challenges, and the State said he violated the rules of his probation. Upon review, the Court looked at whether Fox’s actions were willful. This means they examined if he meant to break the rules or if there were reasons he couldn’t comply. Fox's attorney had agreed with the State's claims but there was confusion about whether Fox could argue that he had a good reason for not following the rules. In the end, the Court found that Fox had the right to argue that he did not willfully break the rules of probation. The previous order revoking his sentence was reversed, and more discussions were needed to figure out his situation properly.

Continue ReadingRE-2003-660