Criminal Appeal

F-2018-1161

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **KENNETH ALLEN DAY,** Appellant, **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. Case No. F-2018-1161 **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant Kenneth Allen Day was tried and convicted by a jury in the District Court of Oklahoma County (Case No. CF-2017-2586) of: 1. **Count 1:** Sexual Battery (21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 1123(B)) 2. **Counts 2 and 3:** Indecent Exposure (21 O.S.2011, § 1021) The jury recommended a sentence of 30 days imprisonment on Count 1, and 1 year imprisonment each on Counts 2 and 3. The Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge, presided over the trial and executed the sentences as per the jury's recommendations, ordering them to run consecutively and consecutively to Oklahoma County Case No. CF-16-6470. Day was granted credit for 177 days served and was subject to various costs and fees. Day appeals, raising the following proposition of error: **I. THE TRIAL COURT INCORRECTLY INTERPRETED OKLA. STAT. TIT. 57, § 138(G) BY REFUSING TO GRANT MR. DAY CREDIT FOR ALL TIME SERVED WHILE AWAITING TRIAL AND SENTENCING, CLAIMING THAT THE STATUTE WAS DISCRETIONARY AND NOT MANDATORY.** Upon a thorough review of the entire record including transcripts, exhibits, and the parties' briefs, we find no legal error necessitating relief. Therefore, Day's judgments and sentences are AFFIRMED. **Proposition I:** Day's claim pertains to the nature of credit for time served—whether it is mandatory or discretionary. Citing *Loyd v. State*, 1981 OK CR 5, 624 P.2d 74, Day contends that 57 O.S.Supp.2015, § 138(G) mandates credit for all time served prior to judgment and sentence. However, as recently discussed and clarified in *Luna-Gonzales v. State*, 2019 OK CR 11, this argument has been rejected. This Court noted that *Loyd* is inconsistent with the majority of case law on this subject and that the Oklahoma Legislature has amended § 138 multiple times since 1980, which indicates a legislative intent to modify the ruling in *Loyd*. The current statute indicates that defendants automatically receive credit for jail time served only post-judgment and sentencing. Significantly, *Loyd* is overruled to the extent it conflicts with this interpretation. We also recognize that the district court exercised its discretion appropriately in awarding Day partial credit for time served, which aligns with previous ruling in *Luna-Gonzales* that grants sentencing judges discretion regarding credit for pre-sentencing incarceration. Thus, Day's argument is rejected, and his assertion is firmly denied. **DECISION** The judgments and sentences of the District Court are AFFIRMED. According to Rule 3.15 of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE shall be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY R. HENDERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** RICHARD HULL (Counsel for Appellant) HALLIE ELIZABETH BOVOS KRISTEN MESSINA, ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** LORI MCCONNELL MIKE HUNTER RACHEL SMITH JULIE PITTMAN, ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL, (Counsel for Appellee) **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR For further details and access to full judgment, [Click Here to Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1161_1734786325.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-1161

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-2018-900

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ANGEL MUNOZ,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-900** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAN - 9 2020** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Angel Munoz, appeals from the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2016-701 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, by the Honorable Glenn M. Jones, District Judge. On March 7, 2018, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to Count 1: Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon, with sentencing deferred for a period of five years under probation conditions until March 6, 2023. On June 26, 2018, the State filed an application to accelerate Appellant's deferred judgment and sentencing, alleging he violated probation by committing the new crime of Possession of a Firearm after a prior felony conviction, as charged in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2018-2625. An amended application was filed on August 21, 2018. At the hearing on this application, the State called Appellant's probation officer, Tammera Saavedra. During a home visit on April 13, 2018, Officer Saavedra found a nine-millimeter semiautomatic pistol and ammunition in plain view in a garage where Appellant claimed to be staying. Additionally, personal items belonging to Appellant were found near the firearm, leading to his arrest for possessing the firearm. Appellant's brother-in-law, Arturo Plascencia, testified that Appellant did not live in the garage, stating that he had never stayed there. Appellant corroborated this, but both testimonies were contradicted by evidence showing Appellant's possession and control of the area where the gun was found. After hearing the evidence, Judge Jones found that Appellant violated his probation. Consequently, he accepted the State's recommendation and sentenced Appellant to a term of ten years. Appellant raises two propositions of error on appeal: 1. **Proposition I**: The trial court abused its discretion by accelerating Appellant's sentence when the State failed to provide sufficient competent evidence of the alleged new offense. 2. **Proposition II**: The acceleration judgment should reflect Appellant's conviction for Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon, rather than Assault and Battery With a Deadly Weapon. **ANALYSIS** In **Proposition I**, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish his knowledge of the firearm's presence. The standard for reviewing such claims requires that the court finds whether a rational trier of fact could have concluded the essential elements of the probation violation were met by a preponderance of the evidence. Evidence presented indicated Appellant's admission to living in the garage at the time the firearm was discovered. Testimony from Officer Saavedra and physical evidence reinforced the conclusion that Appellant had dominion and control over the area where the firearm was located. Conflicting testimonies regarding Appellant's residence and possession were matters for the court to evaluate. Thus, Appellant failed to substantiate that Judge Jones acted irrationally in his ruling. In **Proposition II**, Appellant argues for a correction of the accelerating judgment to accurately reflect his offense. The State agrees that this matter warrants attention. Therefore, it should be remanded to the District Court for the necessary correction. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County accelerating Appellant's deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2016-701 is AFFIRMED. However, the case is REMANDED to the District Court for a correction in accordance with Appellant's request. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2020), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** **For the Appellant:** Kenneth C. Watson, Nancy Walker-Johnson Attorney at Law 119 N. Robinson, Suite 640 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **For the State:** Tiffany Noble, Mike Hunter, Diane L. Slayton Assistant District Attorneys 505 County Office Building Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-900_1735119586.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-900

F-2017-1232

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1232, Adrian Luis Walker appealed his conviction for second-degree murder and robbery by two or more persons. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction on the robbery charge because it violated the law against being punished for the same crime more than once. The court affirmed the other parts of the sentence. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1232

F-2018-120

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-120, Shelton appealed his conviction for Human Trafficking for Commercial Sex. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. No one dissented. Shelton was found guilty of coercing a young woman to engage in prostitution. The jury sentenced him to thirty years in prison, which he must serve at least 85% of before he can be considered for parole. Shelton raised issues claiming that the trial court made several errors that affected his right to a fair trial. First, he argued that the court should have given a different definition for human trafficking. However, since he did not ask for a specific instruction during the trial, the court looked for any major mistakes. They decided that the instruction provided was accurate and that giving a different definition would have confused the jury more than it helped. Second, Shelton argued that there was not enough evidence against him to support the conviction. The victim testified that she was recruited by him, provided with clothing and drugs, and he took away the money she earned. The court found that the evidence clearly supported the jury's determination that Shelton coerced her, even though she was not physically forced to work. Third, a concern was raised about an instruction given by the trial court that explained consent was not a defense in this case. The court ruled that this instruction was correct and did not unfairly shift the burden of proof to Shelton. Finally, Shelton claimed he was unable to present a full defense because the trial court did not let him ask if the victim had engaged in prostitution before meeting him. The court decided that this question was not relevant, as the victim had already shared enough information about her background and that it did not show any reason for her to lie about Shelton. In conclusion, the court firmly upheld the conviction, showing that the trial was fair and that evidence supported the jury’s decision.

Continue ReadingF-2018-120

F-2017-1042

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1042, Vincent Ray Perosi appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. The case began when Perosi, who had recently divorced, was ordered to leave the house he had been living in by January 1, 2016. After that date, his ex-wife, Pamela Perosi, returned to the house with two friends to change the locks because he had not moved out. This led to a confrontation. Perosi shot and killed Pamela and another friend, Buddy Weber, while wounding Karen Priest, who was also present. Perosi claimed he shot in self-defense, saying he was scared of Weber. However, evidence showed that he had a history of threats against his ex-wife and evidence contradicted his version of events. The court ruled that he did not qualify for immunity under the Stand Your Ground law and denied his request for related jury instructions. In reviewing the evidence, the court found sufficient proof to support the convictions, rejecting Perosi's claims of self-defense and that shooting Pamela was accidental. Further, his videotaped confession was admitted as evidence, despite defense claims it was coerced; the court found it was voluntary. In addition, the court allowed testimony about Perosi's bad character and a victim impact statement from Pamela’s family. Ultimately, the court upheld the trial’s decisions and affirmed the conviction, denying any errors raised in the appeal.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1042

F-2017-1038

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1038, Zachary Craig Anderson appealed his conviction for Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Zachary Craig Anderson was found guilty after a trial for neglecting a child, which is against the law. The judge gave him a sentence of 20 years in prison but also gave him credit for the time he had already served. Anderson did not agree with his conviction and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to review the decision made in his original trial. Anderson claimed that his lawyer did not help him effectively by not challenging the statements he made to the police. He argued that his lawyer should have questioned whether those statements could be used against him in court because he was not read his rights, which are important for protecting people when they are being questioned by police. These rights are known as Miranda rights, and they are designed to help ensure that people are not forced to speak without understanding their rights. In the appeal, the court looked at whether Anderson's lawyer did a good job or not. To win this argument, Anderson had to show that his lawyer's performance was poor and that this hurt his chances of a fair trial. The court found that Anderson did not show evidence that his lawyer was ineffective. They said that Anderson actually voluntarily talked to the police and did not feel pressured or threatened. Since he cooperated, the court thought there was no reason for the lawyer to challenge his statements to the police. After looking at all the evidence and arguments, the court decided to keep Anderson's conviction and sentence as they were. They also denied his request for a hearing to discuss the effectiveness of his lawyer's help during the trial. In summary, Anderson's appeal did not lead to any changes in his conviction. The court agreed that the statements he made to the police were allowed and that his lawyer’s actions were reasonable in the situation.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1038

S-2018-6

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** Court Case No: S-2018-51 and S-2018-6 **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellant, **V.** **SHELLEY MARIE BRADLEY,** Appellee. **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellant, **V.** **DYLAN THOMAS BRODIE,** Appellee. **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** 1. The State of Oklahoma, Appellant, appeals from an order affirming the ruling of the magistrate, sustaining the defendants' demurrers to evidence on Counts 1 and 2, and denying the State's request to amend the Informations, in Case Nos. CF-2017-445 and CF-2017-446 in the District Court of Wagoner County. **STATEMENT OF THE CASE** 2. Appellees, Shelley Marie Bradley and Dylan Thomas Brodie, were charged with intimidation of a witness and conspiracy to commit a felony. The magistrate sustained the demurrers to the evidence and denied amendments to include additional charges. 3. The matter was assigned to Judge Mark L. Dobbins as the reviewing judge, who affirmed the magistrate's ruling. 4. The State appealed; on August 9, 2018, this Court held oral arguments, after which the ruling was reversed. **SUMMARY OF FACTS** 5. The Appellees are related to Jacob Ode, charged with several offenses following a police pursuit. Hawkins, a relative of the Appellees, was a passenger and initially provided a statement implicating Ode. 6. Later, Hawkins was approached by the Appellees and persuaded to change her statement to indicate Ode was not the driver during the pursuit. 7. The magistrate found no evidence demonstrating that Hawkins was threatened or coerced into altering her testimony. **ANALYSIS** ### I. Intimidation of Witness 8. The State argued sufficient evidence existed for the charge of witness intimidation. However, the records demonstrated no evidence of Hawkins being prevented from testifying or coerced through force or fear. 9. The judges did not err in finding there wasn’t enough evidence to support the claim of intimidation. ### II. Conspiracy to Commit Intimidation 10. The State similarly could not provide sufficient evidence to show any conspiracy between the Appellees to intimidate Hawkins, as no threats or coercion were substantiated. ### III. Conspiracy to Commit Perjury by Subornation 11. The State argued it presented sufficient evidence to show a conspiracy to commit perjury by subornation. The appellate judges found sufficient cause to remand for the trial on this charge. ### IV. False Preparation of Exhibits 12. The evidence presented indicated that Hawkins’ second statement was prepared under the Appellees' guidance with the intent to be submitted as evidence. 13. The failure to include this evidence as a charge of False Preparation of Exhibits was deemed an error by the appellate judges. **DECISION** 14. The order of the District Court sustaining the magistrate's decisions is REVERSED. The case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to proceed to trial for the charges of Conspiracy to Commit Perjury by Subornation and False Preparation of Exhibits. **APPEARANCES** - **For the State:** Douglas G. Dry, Assistant District Attorney - **For the Appellees:** Michon Hastings Hughes & Clinton C. Hastings, Attorneys at Law **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** - LUMPKIN, P.J., LEWIS, V.P.J., HUDSON, J., and KUEHN, J., concur. --- **[Download PDF of Full Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2018-6_1734333945.pdf)**

Continue ReadingS-2018-6

C-2016-40

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-40, Deandre Lashawn Henderson appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a firearm after a former conviction of a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to grant part of his appeal. The court affirmed the convictions for Counts 1 and 5, but reversed and vacated the judgments for Counts 2 through 4. One justice dissented. The case began when Henderson entered a negotiated Alford plea, which means he maintained his innocence but accepted the plea for the sake of a more favorable sentence. He was sentenced to twenty years for the assault counts and ten years for the possession count, all to be served concurrently, meaning at the same time. Later, Henderson wanted to withdraw his plea. He claimed that his plea was not made knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily. He also said that he did not receive effective help from his lawyer and that the trial court should have appointed a different lawyer due to a conflict of interest. During the appeal, the court looked closely at whether Henderson's plea was made voluntarily and if the district court had the authority to accept it. The court found that Henderson's plea was indeed voluntary because he knew the charges and the consequences. His choice to accept the plea was motivated by a desire to reduce his overall prison time, especially given the evidence against him. However, the court agreed that Henderson's lawyer should have argued that some of the charges violated the double jeopardy clause, which means he shouldn't be punished multiple times for the same act. The court found that the counts for assault stemmed from the same event and that it was wrong to punish him multiple times for it. Therefore, while verifying his conviction for some counts, the court ruled that the counts of conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon were not valid as they violated his rights. This decision meant that Henderson would not have to serve time for those three convictions but would still be sentenced for the other charges. Overall, the court upheld some aspects of the conviction but also corrected parts that were not handled properly.

Continue ReadingC-2016-40

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

F-2015-187

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-187, Steven R. Jennings appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation and Domestic Assault and Battery Resulting in Great Bodily Injury. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Jennings’ conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery Resulting in Great Bodily Injury, while affirming the other conviction. One judge dissented. Jennings was found guilty by a jury for two serious crimes against a person in a domestic situation. The jury recommended a punishment of 25 years in prison for each crime, making a total of 50 years. Jennings thought this was unfair and argued several reasons that should change his situation. First, Jennings said both convictions were for one single action, meaning he shouldn't be punished twice for the same act. The court looked closely at whether the injuries were caused by separate actions or not. They decided that Jennings’ actions were connected and not separate incidents. Because of this, the court agreed with Jennings that he should not have been sentenced for both. Next, Jennings argued that the way the trial was conducted was not fair. He wanted the trial to be held in one stage, which would have simplified things. However, the court believed it was appropriate to have two stages so that the jury wouldn’t be overly influenced by his past convictions when deciding if he was guilty of the new charges. Therefore, they didn’t agree with his claim about this issue. Thirdly, Jennings felt that his lawyer did not help him enough, which meant he did not get a fair trial. The court looked at this claim and decided that Jennings did not show how having a different lawyer would have changed the outcome of his case. They found no clear mistakes made by his attorney that harmed his defense. Finally, Jennings felt that a 50-year sentence was too long. Since the court reversed one of his convictions, this concern became less relevant because his total sentence was reduced. In conclusion, the court affirmed one of Jennings’ convictions, it reversed the other, and decided that he should get a new sentence based on the remaining conviction. One judge disagreed and believed there should be a different outcome.

Continue ReadingF-2015-187

RE 2014-0706

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2014-0706, Sean Eddie Howland appealed his conviction for possessing a stolen vehicle and obstructing an officer. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of Howland's suspended sentence and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Howland had pled guilty to the charges in 2009 and was given a suspended sentence that included time in jail and fines. He was supposed to follow rules while on probation. However, the State accused him of not staying in touch with his probation officer after he got out of prison in New Mexico. In 2011, Howland admitted to the allegations, and the judge gave him more time to comply with the probation rules. When Howland didn't show up for a review hearing later, the judge revoked his suspended sentence in 2014. Howland then argued that he didn’t get good help from his lawyer during the revocation process and that the delays were unfair. The State also admitted that the delays hurt Howland's case. After looking at everything, the court agreed with Howland and decided to reverse the revocation. The case was sent back to the lower court to dismiss the revocation.

Continue ReadingRE 2014-0706

F-2011-1062

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-1062, Scott Allen Phillips appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Phillips' conviction and sentence, but remanded the case for consideration of whether Phillips' sentence should be suspended. One judge dissented. Scott Allen Phillips was found guilty by a jury of Lewd Molestation, which is a serious crime involving inappropriate touching of a child. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison, during which he must serve at least 85% before he can be considered for parole. Phillips claimed there were several errors during his trial that should lead to his conviction being overturned. Phillips argued that the prosecutor presented too many instances of inappropriate touching without clearly stating which one he was being accused of for the charge. He also believed there wasn't enough evidence to support the conviction. Additionally, he stated that the judge's decision not to consider a less severe punishment for him was unfair because he exercised his right to a jury trial. Phillips raised multiple issues during the appeal. The court looked at arguments closely and decided that the prosecutor's actions were correct and that they followed the law. They found that there were enough facts for the jury to conclude that Phillips had molested the child. The judges pointed out that the jury's role is to decide who they believe and what evidence to trust. Regarding the sentencing process, the judges noted that the trial judge didn't consider Phillips' request for a lesser sentence. This became important because a judge is expected to think about such requests carefully, regardless of whether the defendant went to trial. This is why the court decided to give the case back to the lower court for a fresh look at Phillips' request for a suspended sentence. Another major point Phillips raised was his concern about how the trial was handled. He asked to speak with jurors after the trial ended, hoping to gather more insight about their decision. However, the court said this was not allowed because jurors cannot discuss their deliberations or decisions after the trial is over. The court also examined the use of videotaped evidence during the trial. Phillips complained that the videos of the alleged victim’s statements should not have been shown again to the jurors while they were discussing. However, the judges felt the decision to show the videos was acceptable and did not harm Phillips' chances at a fair trial. Ultimately, the judges concluded that they would not disturb Phillips' conviction since there was sufficient evidence and no significant errors during the trial that affected the outcome. However, they did want the lower court to look again at Phillips' request for a suspension of his sentence, ensuring he had a fair chance at having that request reviewed properly. In conclusion, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence while allowing the opportunity for reconsideration regarding the potential suspension of the sentence, which shows that even in serious cases, there are processes in place to ensure fair treatment under the law.

Continue ReadingF-2011-1062

S-2012-573

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-573, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the orders of the lower court. The dissenting opinion was not specified. In this case, the appellant was charged after being arrested by a trooper from the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. A preliminary hearing took place, and the judge decided there was not enough evidence to proceed with a trial. The state disagreed and appealed this decision. Another judge upheld the first decision, leading to the current appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The main issue in the appeal focused on whether the highway patrol trooper had the authority to arrest the appellant. After careful consideration and a hearing, the court found no error in how the lower courts handled the case. They determined that the facts and legal interpretations were correct, and therefore, the original decision was upheld. The case was reviewed under specific procedures that allow this kind of state appeal, and the court confirmed that there was no abuse of discretion in the previous rulings. As a result, the final rulings and orders from the lower courts were affirmed, and the court ordered that their decision be enforced.

Continue ReadingS-2012-573

S-2011-1115

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-1115, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction regarding defendants accused of conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided that the evidence presented during the preliminary hearing was not enough to support a conspiracy charge against the defendants. The ruling of the lower court was affirmed, and one judge dissented. In this case, the defendants were accused of agreeing to a bribe related to an election. The State claimed that one defendant offered the other a job to persuade her not to run for a Senate seat. The court looked carefully at the evidence and found that there was not enough proof to show that the defendants had a plan to commit a crime together. Thus, their appeal was rejected, and the original decision was upheld, concluding that the charge of conspiracy was not valid based on the information provided.

Continue ReadingS-2011-1115

F-2009-998

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-998, Frye appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child, Procurement of Child for Pornography, and Possession of Child Pornography. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Frye's convictions and sentences but ordered the removal of a $1,000 fine that was imposed without jury authorization. One judge dissented regarding the trial court's handling of voir dire questioning.

Continue ReadingF-2009-998

C-2009-1033

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-1033, the petitioner appealed his conviction for two counts of permitting child abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for the writ of certiorari, allowing the petitioner to withdraw his plea of no contest. One judge dissented. The petitioner, Huyen Cleveland Tran, was charged in 2004, with permitting child abuse in Oklahoma County. In May 2007, the petitioner entered a no contest plea and received a deferred sentence, which means she wouldn’t have to go to prison right away if she followed certain rules. However, in 2009, the State asked the court to speed up her sentence, and the court decided she should serve five years in prison. Tran then wanted to take back her plea of no contest because she believed she didn’t fully understand it and thought she had a valid defense. She raised several issues in her appeal, including that she did not have effective legal help because her attorney represented both her and her husband, who was also charged. This was seen as a conflict of interest. The court agreed with Tran that her attorney had a conflict because he could not fully defend her without hurting her husband’s case. Since this conflict affected her legal representation, the court granted her request to withdraw her plea. The ruling means that Tran can now have a new chance to argue her case without the problems that came from the conflict of interest with her previous lawyer. One judge felt that rather than allowing Tran to withdraw her plea completely, the case should be sent back for a proper hearing with a new lawyer who does not have a conflict of interest.

Continue ReadingC-2009-1033

S-2009-944

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-944, the defendant appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling that the amendments to the Sex Offender Registration Act did not apply to the defendant. A dissenting opinion was not stated. The case involved the defendant, who was previously charged under the Sex Offender Registration Act. The key question was whether later amendments to the law should apply to him or not, given that he had entered a plea in 1999 and had complied with the previous legal conditions. The magistrate in the lower court determined that the law changes would be unfair to apply retroactively in the defendant's case. The court explained that new laws usually apply to future actions unless they are explicitly stated to have retroactive effects. They found no clear indication in the legislature's changes to imply that the new requirements should apply to those who had already been sentenced under the old rules. The court confirmed that since the amendments would change the defendant's obligations significantly, these substantive changes should not apply to him. As a result, the decision maintained that the lower court's refusal to move forward on the charge against the defendant could stand, with the matter being sent back to the District Court for any further actions needed, while affirming that the defendant was correct in his assertion that the recent amendments did not apply to him.

Continue ReadingS-2009-944

S-2009-858

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-858, Jeffrey Dale Brumfield appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court affirmed the district court's ruling that evidence discovered during a search of his vehicle should be suppressed. The ruling was based on the fact that the officer did not have enough probable cause to conduct the search after initially letting the Brumfields go. In this case, one judge dissented. In OCCA case No. S-2009-862, Margaret Ann Brumfield also appealed her conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. The decision in her case followed the same reasoning as her husband's case, reaffirming the district court's decision to suppress evidence. The judge's ruling was similarly supported by the reasoning that the officer lacked the necessary probable cause for the searches conducted. Again, one judge dissented on the conclusion reached by the majority. The essential facts involved a traffic stop initiated because of speeding and a lack of a valid driver's license. The officer suspected drug use and searched the vehicle, which initially produced no evidence. The second search resulted in the discovery of methamphetamine after a recording revealed incriminating conversation. Ultimately, the court concluded that the officer's actions were not justified legally, leading to the suppression of the evidence collected.

Continue ReadingS-2009-858

S-2009-623

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-623, Walker appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that reduced the charge to a misdemeanor for possession of marijuana. One judge dissented from the decision. Walker was originally charged after police found a small amount of marijuana at his home. A person named Brawdy had earlier told deputies that he bought marijuana from Walker. When the police searched Walker's home, they found a very small quantity of marijuana and no other evidence like cash or scales that would suggest he was selling drugs. Two district judges reviewed the evidence and concluded that it did not support the idea that Walker intended to distribute drugs; they only found evidence that he might have had the marijuana for personal use. The state argued that since Brawdy mentioned buying drugs from Walker earlier, this should mean Walker had intent to sell. However, the court pointed out that without more evidence, like packaging or cash, they could not say Walker intended to sell the drug. The judges decided that the lower court acted correctly in reducing the charge. Therefore, the ruling from the District Court that lowered Walker's charge to a misdemeanor was upheld.

Continue ReadingS-2009-623

F-2006-1168

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1168, Steven Allen Flynn, Jr. appealed his conviction for Second-Degree Felony Murder, Concealing Stolen Property, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine), Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana), and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for Concealing Stolen Property, Possession of Methamphetamine, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. However, they modified his conviction for Second-Degree Felony Murder to First Degree Manslaughter While Driving Under the Influence and reduced his sentence to twenty years. The court also reversed the conviction for Possession of Marijuana with instructions to dismiss the case. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2006-1168

F-2005-829

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-829, Clarence Andre Gatewood appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Gatewood's conviction but remand for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Gatewood was found guilty by a jury of Second Degree Murder after initially being charged with First Degree Murder. He was sentenced to life in prison. During the appeal, he raised several issues, including that the trial court didn't notify his lawyer about a jury note, denied his request for a specific sentencing instruction, and allowed an involuntary confession to be used against him. The court examined these claims. It determined that Gatewood's confession was voluntary since he was aware of his rights, was sober, and spoke to the police without any threats or promises. Therefore, this part of his appeal was denied. However, the court found that Gatewood should have received instructions about parole eligibility, based on a previous case ruling. Since the jury had even asked a question related to the meaning of a life sentence with the possibility of parole, the court felt that this instruction was necessary. Consequently, while Gatewood's conviction stands, his sentence was overturned, and the case was sent back to lower court to determine a new sentence. The court did not consider his claim about the severity of his sentence because the other findings made it unnecessary to address.

Continue ReadingF-2005-829

F-2004-146

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-146, Luke Sinclair appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that his conviction would be upheld, but he would be resentenced. One judge dissented. Luke Sinclair was found guilty of murdering James Robbins by shooting him four times in the chest. The incident happened in the early hours after Sinclair and his friends had been drinking at a bar. Robbins, a retired Army veteran, approached Sinclair and his friends in the parking lot, trying to engage them in conversation. Sinclair and his friends found Robbins to be strange and made dismissive comments. Sinclair even jokingly suggested that Robbins should be shot. Believing they were joking, Sinclair's friends egged him on when he drove after Robbins, blocked his van, and then shot him. After the shooting, Sinclair instructed his friends to keep quiet about the incident. Sinclair admitted on appeal that the evidence against him was strong and that he was guilty. Sinclair raised several issues in his appeal, particularly concerning the sentencing process. He argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence about his character during sentencing and that his lawyer did not provide effective representation. The court found these claims unpersuasive, noting that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and suggesting that presenting this character evidence could have hurt Sinclair's case more than helped it. One of the significant points in Sinclair’s appeal related to whether the jury was instructed about the state law that required defendants convicted of murder to serve 85% of their sentences before being eligible for parole. Sinclair argued that jurors mistakenly believed a life sentence meant he could be released after a few years. The court agreed with Sinclair regarding the instructions on the 85% rule, so they decided to reverse the sentence and remand the case for resentencing. Additionally, Sinclair complained about the prosecutor's arguments in closing that he was a dangerous man lacking conscience, which were not supported by the evidence. The court found that the prosecutor's statements were problematic and influenced the jury in reaching their sentencing decision. In conclusion, while Sinclair's conviction remained intact, the court ruled that he should be resentenced due to the errors in the jury instructions and the inappropriate comments made during his trial.

Continue ReadingF-2004-146

F 2005-41

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-41, James Nye appealed his conviction for Manufacture or Attempted Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence. One judge dissented. James Nye was found guilty by a jury in a district court in Grady County. The jury decided he should go to prison for sixty years for his crime. After the trial, Nye believed there were problems that made his trial unfair, so he appealed the decision. He raised six main reasons for his appeal: 1. He said there wasn't enough good evidence to prove he did the crime based on what his co-defendant said. 2. He thought the court made mistakes by allowing too much evidence that helped the co-defendant's story without being necessary. 3. He claimed that the people working for the state did things that were unfair and made the jury give him a harsher sentence. 4. He felt that some evidence presented was not related to the case and led to a higher sentence than it should have been. 5. He argued that the sentence he got was too harsh. 6. Finally, he believed that all these problems combined made the trial not fair. After looking at the evidence and the reasons presented by Nye, the court agreed that his conviction should not be changed because there was enough evidence to support the decision. However, they also found that there were issues in the trial that affected his sentence. The court recognized that while some mistakes were made, they ultimately did not affect the conviction itself. The court highlighted that the prosecutor said things that should not have been said and presented evidence that was prejudicial. The judge noted that bringing up Nye’s past in court and how long he spent in jail might have made the jury unfairly biased against him. Because of these mistakes and the belief that the original sentence was excessive, the court changed the sentence from sixty years to a new sentence of twenty years. The judges felt that this new sentence was a fairer punishment for the crime Nye committed. One judge disagreed with the amount the sentence was lowered to, suggesting it should be reduced to thirty-five years instead. In summary, James Nye's conviction is upheld, but he will now serve twenty years in prison instead of sixty because of errors made in the trial.

Continue ReadingF 2005-41

F-2004-332

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-332, Sheila Ann Sutton appealed her conviction for grand larceny and knowingly concealing stolen property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify her conviction to petit larceny and reversed and dismissed the charge of concealing stolen property. One judge dissented. Sutton was accused of stealing electronic items, including DVD players, with friends. The jury found her guilty and she was sentenced to five years in prison for grand larceny and four years for concealing stolen property, with the sentences running at the same time. During her appeal, Sutton argued several points. She claimed that simply being in a car with stolen shoes did not mean she was hiding them. The court agreed that the evidence did not show she attempted to conceal the shoes and reversed the charge for that reason. Sutton also argued that she only took property worth less than $500, which should be classified as petit larceny, not grand larceny. The evidence showed that she took one DVD player worth $487, and the other players taken by her companions did not change that. The court agreed and changed her conviction to petit larceny. Additionally, Sutton claimed that the jury was not properly instructed about the law surrounding the charges against her. The court found that the instructions were lacking and noted that without proper guidance, the jury might have struggled to understand how to reach their decision on grand larceny. Sutton also pointed out that there was an instruction about flight, but the circumstances didn't support it, meaning it should not have been mentioned during the trial. The court acknowledged this, saying that giving such an instruction without proper context was wrong. After reviewing all of Sutton's claims, the court modified her conviction to petit larceny and changed her sentence to two years in prison. They dismissed the second charge. The dissenting opinion argued that there was enough evidence to support the original conviction and that the jury understood what happened during the events in question. In summary, the court modified Sutton's conviction and sentence due to errors in the trial process, particularly related to jury instructions, while the dissenting judge believed the jury's original decision was justified.

Continue ReadingF-2004-332