Court Opinion

C-2018-410

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

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

Continue ReadingC-2018-410

S-2015-446

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-446, James Leonard Martinez appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and operating without mud flaps. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the District Court's ruling that suppressed evidence in the case. One judge dissented. The case began when Officer Porter stopped Martinez's vehicle because he believed it lacked the required mud flaps, which the officer thought was a violation of the law. However, the trial court found that Martinez's car had fenders, and according to the statute, if a vehicle has fenders, it does not need mud flaps. Thus, the officer's stop was not justified. The State argued that even if the law did not apply to Martinez's vehicle, Officer Porter had a reasonable but mistaken belief about the law when he stopped Martinez. However, the trial court ruled that the officer's misunderstanding of the law was not reasonable because the law's language was clear. The court reviewed the officer's actions and concluded that he made a mistake of law, which means he misunderstood the actual law regarding mud flaps. Because of this, the court agreed with the trial court's decision to suppress evidence gathered during the stop and to dismiss the case against Martinez. Ultimately, the court confirmed that the stop was not lawful and upheld the trial court's ruling.

Continue ReadingS-2015-446

F-2014-889

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-889, Klayton Jordan Kitchens appealed his conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substances, specifically methamphetamine and marijuana, as well as unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of the convictions related to marijuana possession but affirmed the other convictions. The events leading to the case began when the police served a search warrant at Kitchens' home in Lawton, Oklahoma, and found methamphetamine and marijuana. They initially found meth but returned later with a new warrant, where they found both drugs and drug paraphernalia in his room. Kitchens argued that having two convictions for possession of different controlled substances violated the law against double jeopardy, which means a person cannot be punished for the same offense twice. The court agreed, stating that both drugs were found as part of one act—meaning one violation of the law. Therefore, he should not have been punished twice for the two different drugs since they were found in the same piece of furniture. On the other hand, Kitchens also argued that the judge made a mistake by making his sentences run consecutively, rather than concurrently. The court disagreed, saying that it was within the judge's authority to decide how the sentences should be served, and there wasn't enough reason to change this decision. In summary, the court reversed the conviction for possession of marijuana since it felt that Kitchens should not be punished twice for the same action, but it upheld the decision on the other drug offenses. The case was sent back to the lower court just for that change.

Continue ReadingF-2014-889

RE-2012-1032

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2012-1032, Jacob Keith Meyer appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance and grand larceny. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences for some charges but remanded for a lawful sentence on one count. One judge dissented. Jacob Keith Meyer had pleaded guilty to four different charges, including possession of methamphetamine and grand larceny, and was given a sentence of eight years in prison, with five years suspended. This meant he would only have to serve the first five years right away, while the rest would be postponed under probation rules. However, in 2012, the State accused him of violating his probation by committing new crimes, which led to a hearing to determine whether he truly violated the terms of his probation. During the hearing, it was shown that contraband, including marijuana, was found in a mattress from the jail cell where Meyer had been sleeping. The evidence suggested that Meyer was aware of the contraband since it was hidden inside the mattress he was lying on. Although Meyer challenged the evidence, stating that it wasn't sufficient to prove he violated probation, the court believed there was enough proof to support the revocation of his suspended sentences for three of the four charges. However, Meyer’s sentence for the first count in one of the cases was too long according to the law, so the court decided to send that particular charge back to the lower court to set a proper sentence. This decision meant that while Meyer would still have his other sentences revoked, the court would not enforce the invalid sentence associated with the larceny charge for the amount it exceeded legal limits. The court ultimately ruled that it had the authority to affirm some parts of Meyer’s case while needing to correct others where the law had been misapplied.

Continue ReadingRE-2012-1032

F-2012-914

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-914, Bradley Joe Raymond appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Domestic Abuse in the Presence of a Minor, and Domestic Abuse by Strangulation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for one count. One judge dissented. Raymond was found guilty of three serious crimes connected with domestic violence. After the trial in McCurtain County, the jury decided that he should spend life in prison for each count. However, the judge decided that Raymond's sentences for two of the counts would be served at the same time, while the sentence for the third count would be served after the first two. Raymond's appeal included questions about whether the jury received the correct instructions regarding his possible punishments given his past crimes and whether certain evidence presented during the trial might have harmed him. The court found that the jury instructions relating to his first and third counts were correct but that there was a mistake concerning the instructions for the second count of Domestic Abuse in the Presence of a Minor. For the second count, the law at the time stated that certain punishments were not allowed if the crime was a second or later offense. Since the sentencing guidelines given to the jury were incorrect, Raymond’s sentence for that count was changed from life in prison to five years in prison, while the sentences for the other counts remained the same. The appeals court also addressed a concern that some evidence presented during the trial might have caused unfair prejudice to Raymond. After reviewing the evidence, the court determined that it did not find any significant error as it did not affect the overall outcome of the case. The court ultimately confirmed the convictions for the first and third counts and changed the sentence for the second count, ensuring that Raymond would serve five years instead of life for that specific offense.

Continue ReadingF-2012-914

F-2012-168

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-168, Tommie Joe Moore appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, and Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Moore's convictions but modified his fine on one count. One judge dissented. Moore was found guilty after a jury trial and received a sentence of twenty years for Distribution and a $25,000 fine, ten years for Possession and a $7,500 fine, and twenty-five years for Trafficking with another $25,000 fine. The sentences for the Distribution and Possession counts were ordered to be served at the same time, but the Trafficking sentence was to be served afterward. Moore raised several points in his appeal. He argued that the fine for the Distribution count was too high and that it should be corrected. He claimed that the jury should have been instructed about a lesser charge related to Possession and that he did not get a fair trial because of mistakes made during the trial, including some comments made by the prosecution. He also stated that the sentences he received were too harsh and should not have been served one after another, but at the same time. After reviewing all the evidence and arguments, the court agreed that the fine for the Distribution count was indeed too high and changed it to $10,000. However, the court found that there was no need for a lesser charge instruction, and that the prosecution's actions did not affect the fairness of Moore's trial. The sentences given to Moore were within legal limits, and the court did not think they were excessively harsh. In the end, the court affirmed Moore's convictions but made a change to reduce the fine in one of the counts. This meant that while the convictions stood, Moore would not have to pay the original high fine, and he could continue to serve his sentences as ordered.

Continue ReadingF-2012-168

RE-2010-819

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-819, Joshua Dee Taylor appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Abuse-Assault and Battery in Presence of Minors. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of three years of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Joshua Dee Taylor was sentenced for two crimes: one serious and one misdemeanor. These were combined into a single sentence where he was supposed to serve time in prison but was allowed to stay out under certain rules, like not leaving Oklahoma without permission and taking his medication. However, he got into trouble after the state said he broke the rules of his probation. The state said Taylor didn’t report to his probation officer, left the state without permission, didn’t pay required fees, and had trouble with taking his medications. Because of these violations, the court held a hearing and decided that he had indeed violated the rules. The judge revoked part of his probation, taking away three years of his suspended sentence. In his appeal, Taylor claimed the judge made mistakes in deciding to revoke his probation. He argued that the written order did not match what the judge said in court and that the judge unfairly included conditions that were not agreed upon verbally. He also claimed the decision to revoke was unreasonable because his mental state made it hard for him to follow the instructions. Taylor said he could not pay the probation fees and that there were many errors made during his case. The court looked closely at his arguments. They noticed that there was an error in the written order compared to what was said in court and suggested the lower court fix this. However, they decided that even with this error, the other reasons for revoking his probation were valid, and he still broke the rules by not complying. Even though they acknowledged his points about medication and fees, they agreed that other violations were enough to support the judge’s decision to revoke his probation. They stated that he understood the rules but chose not to follow them. The appeal resulted in the court affirming the revocation while instructing the lower court to correct the paperwork.

Continue ReadingRE-2010-819

F-2009-530

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-530, Jacinda Simone Osborne appealed her conviction for First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify her conviction to Second Degree Robbery. No one dissented. Osborne was found guilty of robbing someone in Tulsa County. The jury said she should serve fifteen years in prison and pay a $5000 fine. She felt that the trial did not go well for her. She raised three main points that she thought were errors. First, she believed the court should have explained to the jury what serious bodily injury meant. Second, she thought the jury should have been given the option to consider a lesser crime, Second Degree Robbery. Third, she claimed there wasn't enough evidence to support the serious charge of First Degree Robbery. The court reviewed everything carefully. They looked at the facts of the case and the laws. They agreed with Osborne on her third point. Even though the victim was hurt during the robbery, the proof did not show that the robbery met the higher standard needed for First Degree Robbery. There were no serious injuries or threats that would elevate the crime from Second to First Degree. So, the court changed her conviction to Second Degree Robbery, which is a lesser charge. The court said her original sentence would stay the same. This means that while the serious charge was changed, she would still serve fifteen years in prison and pay the fine. Since they found merit in her third point, they did not need to decide on the first two points she raised. The conclusion was that Osborne's conviction was modified, but the punishment was upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2009-530

F-2006-429

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-429, David Michael Graham appealed his conviction for three counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences to be served concurrently and dismissed the restitution order. One judge dissented. Graham was found guilty by a jury of three counts of Lewd Molestation. The jury recommended that he serve 20 years in prison for each count, with the last 10 years suspended under probation conditions. The judge also ordered him to pay $10,000 to each victim. In his appeal, Graham argued several things. First, he claimed that the way the prosecutors behaved during the trial made it unfair. He also said the judge didn’t properly inform the jury about how much of his sentence he would have to serve before getting paroled. Lastly, he felt the restitution amount was too high and lacked support from facts. After reviewing the case, the court agreed there was some misconduct but concluded it did not affect the conviction. The appeal also highlighted that the jury should have been told that he needed to serve 85% of his sentence, which led to changing the sentences to concurrent rather than consecutive. The judges found the order for restitution of $10,000 per count was not backed by evidence, so that part was dismissed. The overall opinion was that while the convictions were upheld, the sentences needed to be modified, and the restitution removed. One judge disagreed with modifying the sentences to run concurrently, believing the original sentencing was appropriate.

Continue ReadingF-2006-429

C-2003-1342

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-1342, Clifford Feaster appealed his conviction for robbery and other crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Feaster could not withdraw his guilty pleas, but they modified the judgment in one case. One judge dissented. Feaster had pleaded guilty in 1998 to several serious crimes, including robbery. After being sentenced to 45 years in prison, he tried to change his mind about the plea. The trial court initially did not allow him to withdraw it. The appeals court looked at Feaster's reasons for wanting to change his plea and held a hearing to examine the situation. Feaster argued that the trial judge did not provide enough information (a factual basis) for the guilty pleas and that he had not entered the pleas knowingly and voluntarily. However, the appeals court found that there was enough justification for his pleas and that he understood what he was doing when he agreed to plead guilty. In the final decision, the appeals court allowed a small change to the original judgment to make sure it correctly reflected what happened in the case, specifically concerning counts that were dropped. Overall, the appeals court did not find enough reason to let Feaster withdraw his guilty pleas.

Continue ReadingC-2003-1342

F-2001-1048

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1048, Wendy Leann Underwood appealed her conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Here’s a simple summary of the case: Wendy Leann Underwood was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine after she had committed other crimes before. The jury decided she should go to prison for 40 years. However, Wendy thought there were problems with how her case was handled, so she asked a higher court to review it. Wendy raised several points for why she believed her conviction and sentence should be changed: 1. She argued that the police search which found the drugs was not done properly, so the drugs should not have been used against her in court. She also said her lawyer did not fight this issue well enough. 2. She thought the trial did not properly explain to the jury that a person who testified against her was an accomplice and that there should have been supporting evidence for what that person said. 3. Wendy pointed out that many of her past criminal cases were actually part of the same situation, so they should not count as multiple offenses. 4. She believed her punishment should have been based on specific drug laws instead of general laws for repeat offenders. 5. Wendy thought she should get a lighter sentence because of new laws that help non-violent offenders. After looking carefully at everything, the court found that the police search was legal and that Wendy's lawyer did not make a mistake by not challenging it. They also decided that the person who testified against Wendy was not someone who required additional proof, so that was fine too. However, the court agreed that too many of Wendy's past convictions were counted, since many of them happened during the same event. Therefore, they decided to change her sentence from 40 years to 30 years. They felt that was fair based on the laws. Regarding the other issues raised by Wendy, the court determined that the punishment was appropriately based on the laws and that the new laws did not apply to her case. Thus, they kept her conviction but made her time in prison shorter. In conclusion, her conviction stood, but her time in prison was reduced to 30 years, with one judge thinking it should be even less.

Continue ReadingF-2001-1048

F-2000-1308

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1308, Recil Gravitt appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Maintaining a Dwelling for Drugs, and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in the Presence of a Minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions, but modified the fine on Count I to $10,000. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2000-1308

F-2000-451

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-451, Christopher B. Andrews appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Andrews' conviction and send the case back for a new trial. One justice dissented. Andrews was found guilty of robbing someone and sentenced to thirty-five years in prison. After the jury finished their discussions about the case but before they made their final decision, the judge let the jury go home for the night. This happened even though both Andrews' defense team and the state's lawyers did not want this to happen. According to the law, after the jury starts talking about the case, they should stay together and not be allowed to go home or talk to others about the case. If they are allowed to separate, it can hurt the fairness of the trial, and courts believe that this is automatically a problem for the defendant. The court carefully examined the situation in Andrews' case and found that since the jury was allowed to leave, they could have been influenced by others, which is not fair. The state did not show enough evidence that the jury would not be prejudiced by being separated. As a result, the court reversed the original decision, meaning that Andrews' conviction was not valid, and the case was sent back for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2000-451

F-2000-1232

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1232, Virginia Lee Patton appealed her conviction for Second Degree Murder and Injury to a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Second Degree Murder but reversed the conviction for Neglect of a Minor Child with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Virginia Lee Patton was found guilty by a jury of killing someone (which was labeled as Second Degree Murder) and of causing harm to a child (originally charged as Injury to a Minor Child). The jury recommended a punishment of fifty years in prison for the murder, and a one-year sentence for the charge related to the minor child. The sentences were set to be served one after the other. During her appeal, Patton claimed two main issues. First, she argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support the murder conviction and that it was wrong to charge her with Second Degree Murder. Secondly, she pointed out that it was unfair to charge her with two crimes based on the same situation, which might violate her rights. The court examined all details and evidence from the trial. After reviewing everything, the judges agreed that there was enough evidence to support the murder conviction. They felt that a reasonable person could conclude she was guilty of that offense based on the facts presented during the trial. However, the court also recognized that charging Patton with both Second Degree Murder and Neglect of a Minor Child was a problem because it relied on the same evidence for both charges. Due to this, they decided to reverse the conviction for Neglect of a Minor Child and ordered it to be dismissed, meaning she would not be punished for that crime. In summary, the court upheld the serious conviction for murder while removing the lesser charge related to the child. One judge disagreed with the decision about the murder conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2000-1232