Criminal Appeals

RE-2018-1039

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **FRANK REVILLA PAIZ, JR.,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. --- **Case No. RE-2018-1039** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 12 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** On January 4, 2017, Appellant Frank Revilla Paiz, Jr., represented by counsel, entered guilty pleas to multiple charges including Possession of CDS - Methamphetamine (Count 2), Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Count 4), Driving Without a Driver's License (Count 5), Failure to Maintain Insurance or Security (Count 6), and Failure to Pay Taxes Due to the State (Count 7) in Woodward County Case No. CF-2016-114. He received an eight-year sentence for Count 2 and a one-year sentence for Count 4, with all but the first year suspended, subject to probation conditions. Sentences were concurrent. On the same day, Paiz pleaded guilty in Woodward County Case No. CF-2016-117 to Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance - Methamphetamine (Count 1) and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Count 2), receiving similar sentences. On June 2, 2017, the State filed an Application to Revoke Paiz's suspended sentences in Cases CF-2016-114 and CF-2016-117, citing new charges for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance in Case No. CF-2017-142 and failure to pay court costs. Paiz pled guilty to the new offense, receiving a suspended sentence of ten years, contingent on completing a drug treatment program. The State filed another Application to Revoke on August 14, 2018, due to new charges of Carrying Weapons and violations of probation. Following a revocation hearing on September 28, 2018, Paiz stipulated to the allegations, leading to the revocation of approximately 2,495 days of suspended sentences by the District Court of Woodward County. Paiz appeals, arguing the revocation was excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion. He cites that simple possession became a misdemeanor effective July 1, 2017, and criticizes the court for not exploring alternate sanctions. The scope of review in a revocation appeal focuses on the validity of the revocation order. This Court has held that even a single violation justifies revocation. Paiz admitted to multiple violations and new criminal activity, justifying the District Court's actions. **DECISION**: The revocation of Paiz's suspended sentences in Woodward County Case Nos. CF-2016-114, CF-2016-117, and CF-2017-142 is **AFFIRMED**. **Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.** **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WOODWARD COUNTY, THE HONORABLE DON A. WORK, ASSOCIATE DISTRICT JUDGE** --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL:** **CURTIS BUSSETT, ATTORNEY AT LAW** P.O. BOX 1494 CLINTON, OK 73601 **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** **CHAD JOHNSON** P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** **SUSAN K. MEINDERS** **MIKE HUNTER** ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY WOODWARD COUNTY 1600 MAIN STREET WOODWARD, OK 73801 **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** **CAROLINE E.J. HUNT** ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21 ST STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE** **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.:** **LEWIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **LUMPKIN, J.: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-1039_1734355896.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1039

F-2018-565

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** KIMBERLY ANN SMITH-GENTILE, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee. **No. F-2018-565** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 12 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Kimberly Ann Smith-Gentile, was convicted by a jury in Pottawatomie County District Court, Case No. CF-2017-342, of ten counts of Possessing Child Pornography. On May 31, 2018, the Honorable Dawson Engle, Associate District Judge, sentenced her in accordance with the jury's recommendation to ten years imprisonment on Counts 1-8 and twenty years imprisonment on Count 9, with all sentences to be served concurrently. Appellant must serve 85% of her sentences before parole consideration. 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1(16). Appellant raises two propositions of error in support of her appeal: **PROPOSITION I.** THE STATE'S EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT Ms. GENTILE KNOWINGLY POSSESSED 10 IMAGES OR VIDEOS OF JUVENILE PORNOGRAPHY. **PROPOSITION II.** UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, A SENTENCE OF 20 YEARS IS EXCESSIVE IN VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTIONS. After thorough consideration of these propositions, the briefs of the parties, and the record on appeal, we affirm. Appellant was convicted of finding child pornography on a smartphone belonging to her boyfriend, Jaymes Dean, but failing to notify authorities, and instead keeping the phone in her possession for several weeks after Dean left town. The fact that the phone contained multiple files of child pornography was not disputed. In Proposition I, Appellant claims the evidence was insufficient to show that she knowingly possessed the child pornography, particularly ten different items of pornography. Once Dean left the phone behind and traveled out of state, Appellant, with knowledge that the phone contained pornographic material, had the authority to control its disposition. At trial, Appellant claimed she was simply unsure of what to do with the phone. The fact remains, however, that she knew it contained child pornography, viewed a number of the images, and even recognized the daughter of a friend in one of the images. Yet at no time did she attempt to notify authorities, even after a social worker informed her that Dean was a convicted sex offender. Instead, Appellant's conduct suggested that she wanted to use the evidence on her own schedule and for her own purposes. Furthermore, Appellant's claim that she only viewed one video file was convincingly contradicted at trial. A rational juror could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Appellant knowingly possessed ten items of child pornography. **Jackson v. Virginia**, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); **Hamilton v. State**, 2016 OK CR 13, ¶ 4, 387 P.3d 903, 905. Proposition I is therefore denied. In Proposition II, Appellant claims her sentences are shockingly excessive. While the jury recommended the maximum term on one count, the prosecutor never requested a specific punishment, but expressly left that to the jurors' discretion. The trial court ordered concurrent service of all sentences. Finally, we note that the images in question were not simply collected from the internet or some other source; they were direct evidence of child rapes and other sex crimes that Dean himself had committed. Appellant recognized Dean as the adult perpetrator in some of the images. Considering all these circumstances, the cumulative sentences imposed are not shocking to the conscience. **Rea v. State**, 2001 OK CR 28, ¶ 5, 34 P.3d 148, 149. Proposition II is denied. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Pottawatomie County is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE DAWSON ENGLE, ASSOCIATE DISTRICT JUDGE** **ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL** SHELLEY LEVISAY 318 NORTH BROADWAY SHAWNEE, OK 74801 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL** NANCY WALKER-JOHNSON INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **APPELLEE** ABBY NATHAN DAVID HAMMER MIKE HUNTER ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 331 NORTH BROADWAY SHAWNEE, OK 74801 JOSHUA R. FANELLI ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE STATE 313 NE 21 ST STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR --- [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-565_1735315294.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-565

F-2018-358

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-358, Sean Daniel Simmons appealed his conviction for domestic abuse by strangulation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Sean Daniel Simmons was found guilty by a jury for hurting his girlfriend on three occasions during a long argument at their apartment. The girlfriend's twelve-year-old son was in a nearby room sleeping at the time. The girlfriend testified that he choked her until she lost consciousness three times. Once, when he called 911, he slapped her when she tried to take the phone. After the incidents, she sought medical help and was diagnosed with a throat injury, although there were no visible marks on her throat, and she didn’t suffer any serious long-term effects. Simmons argued in his first claim that the evidence against him was not enough to support the conviction. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that it was reasonable for the jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for domestic abuse by strangulation. In his second claim, Simmons believed the trial court should have explained what “great bodily harm” meant to the jury. He wanted a clear definition because he felt the term was too vague. However, the trial court used standard jury instructions that explained the elements of the crime, including how strangulation was defined. Ultimately, the court held that the trial court did not make a mistake when it refused to define “great bodily harm” more specifically. The decision to not elaborate on this term was appropriate, as the standard instructions already provided enough information to the jury for them to make an informed decision. The judgment was affirmed, and the judges agreed that the trial court acted correctly in these matters.

Continue ReadingF-2018-358

C-2018-1235

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AUGUST 29, 2019** **CASE NO. C-2018-1235** **ROY DEAN HARJO,** *Petitioner,* **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** *Respondent.* **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Roy Dean Harjo entered a blind plea to Counts I, Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, and Counts II-V, Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, after previous convictions for two or more felonies, in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Case No. CF-2017-665. Following a sentencing hearing, the Honorable John Canavan sentenced Harjo to life on each Count I-V, concurrent for Counts II-V but consecutive to Count I, requiring Harjo to serve 85% before parole eligibility. Harjo filed a motion to withdraw his pleas, which was denied after a hearing on November 28, 2018. Harjo then filed a timely Petition for Writ of Certiorari, asserting four propositions of error: I. Harjo should be allowed to withdraw his pleas for Counts II-V due to lack of factual basis. II. His plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was uninformed about sentencing ranges, violating his rights under the Constitution. III. His plea was not knowing and voluntary due to misinformation regarding sentencing. IV. He was denied effective assistance of counsel. **Decision:** After comprehensive review, we find the evidence does not warrant relief. Proposition I cannot be considered as it was not presented in the motion to withdraw or the certiorari petition. In Propositions II and III, we find the pleas were knowing and voluntary. Harjo's assertion that he believed he would receive a thirty-year maximum sentence is contradicted by the record, which shows he understood the plea form stating potential life sentences. Therefore, his claims regarding plea counsel’s advice lack merit. In Proposition IV, we determine that there was no ineffective assistance from either plea or conflict counsel. Harjo's claim regarding the factual basis for his plea is unsupported, as ample facts exist to justify the plea. Any assertion that conflict counsel was ineffective for not challenging plea counsel also fails, as no substantial claims could have been made given the determination of a solid factual basis. **Conclusion:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is therefore **DENIED**. Upon filing this decision, the **MANDATE is ORDERED issued.** **This decision is concurred by all Justices.** --- *To view the complete decision, click [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-1235_1734229271.pdf).*

Continue ReadingC-2018-1235

RE-2018-662

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **RYAN MITCHELL CRONIC,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-662** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA AUG 29 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Ryan Mitchell Cronic, pleaded guilty to three felony counts of Concealing Stolen Property in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2013-2184. He was sentenced to five years suspended on each count and was ordered to pay restitution. Additionally, he pleaded guilty to one felony count of Concealing Stolen Property in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2015-580, which resulted in a five-year imprisonment sentence, also suspended in full and ordered to run concurrently with Case No. CF-2013-2184, with credit for time served. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence for each case, alleging Appellant failed to pay supervision fees and restitution. Appellant stipulated to these allegations and received a sentence of thirty days in the custody of the Oklahoma County Sheriff. The applications to revoke were later dismissed by the State's motion. A second Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence was filed alleging that Appellant again failed to pay supervision fees and restitution, as well as including new charges: Aggravated Attempting to Elude a Police Officer, Driving While Revoked, and Failure to Provide Proof of Security Verification. After a hearing, the Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge, ordered Appellant's suspended sentences revoked in full. Appellant appeals this revocation, claiming it was an abuse of discretion. We affirm the order of the District Court regarding the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences. The decision to revoke suspended sentences lies within the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed unless there is an abuse. An abuse of discretion is described by this Court as a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented. Appellant has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion in the present case. However, there is a discrepancy in the record regarding Appellant's sentences. The Judgment and Sentence for both cases states Appellant was given a ten-year suspended sentence, while all other documents refer to a suspended sentence of five years. Consequently, we remand this matter to the District Court to address this inconsistency. **DECISION** The District Court's revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2013-2184 and CF-2015-580 is **AFFIRMED**, but the case is **REMANDED** to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the **MANDATE is ORDERED** to 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 APPEAL REVOCATION HEARING** **RICHARD HULL** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **HALLIE E. BOVOS** **611 COUNTY OFFICE BLDG.** **OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102** **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** **KELLY COLLINS** **OKLAHOMA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY** **MIKE HUNTER** **ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA.** **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J.: **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR**

Continue ReadingRE-2018-662

RE-2018-484

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case No. RE-2018-484** **Summary Opinion** **Appellant:** Orville Tabe Keith, Jr. **Appellee:** The State of Oklahoma **Judge Hudson:** Orville Tabe Keith, Jr. appeals the revocation of his concurrent twelve-year suspended sentences following a revocation hearing where the State alleged that he violated probation by committing Manslaughter in the First Degree. **Background:** On March 5, 2009, Appellant pled guilty to two counts of Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon. He was sentenced to twelve years on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently and suspended under specific probation conditions. The State filed a Motion to Revoke on March 23, 2017, based on allegations that Appellant committed Manslaughter in connection with the death of Brandon Martinez during an altercation on June 27, 2015. Evidence presented included DNA matching Appellant to items found at the crime scene and testimony from a neighbor, Donna Underwood, who claimed Appellant admitted to killing Martinez. **Revocation Hearing:** The revocation hearing took place on May 1, 2018. The court reviewed evidence including: - DNA analysis linking Appellant to the crime scene. - Testimony from Underwood about Appellant’s self-incriminating statements. Judge Fry found that Appellant violated his probation conditions, leading to a full revocation of his suspended sentences. **Appellant's Argument:** Keith appeals on the grounds that the evidence presented was insufficient to justify the revocation of his suspended sentences. He challenges the credibility of Underwood's testimony and suggests that another individual, Paul Anderson, may have committed the homicide. **Analysis:** Oklahoma law requires that alleged violations of probation conditions be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The appeals court found that Underwood's testimony and the DNA evidence were adequate for a rational trier of fact to conclude that Appellant had violated the terms of his probation. **Decision:** The court affirmed the trial court's decision to revoke Appellant's concurrent twelve-year suspended sentences, concluding there was no abuse of discretion in Judge Fry's ruling. **Order:** The order of the District Court of LeFlore County is **AFFIRMED**. **Opinion by**: HUDSON, J. **Concurrences by**: LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J. --- For further details, you can [**download the PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-484_1734542820.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-484

F-2018-77

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-77, Jose M. Diaz appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Diaz's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Diaz was tried by a jury in Tulsa County. The jury found him guilty of the crime and recommended he spend thirty years in prison. The trial was overseen by a district judge, who followed the jury's recommendation for sentencing. Three main points were raised by Diaz in his appeal. First, he argued that the court made a mistake by allowing certain testimony from victims' family members, which he believed unfairly impacted the jury's feelings about the case. Second, he claimed that the prosecutors made improper statements during their closing arguments that harmed his right to a fair trial. Lastly, he argued that the issues combined created a situation where he could not receive a fair trial. The court looked carefully at all the evidence from the trial and the records of the case. For the first point about the victim's family's testimony, the court decided that it was relevant to the case. It helped the jury understand the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the victim, which connected to the nature of the crime. The court found no mistake in allowing that testimony. In the second point about the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments, Diaz did not object to some of the comments during the first closing statement, which limited his ability to challenge them later. The court noted that most of what the prosecutor said was based on evidence presented during the trial. Although one comment about the victim not being able to have children was deemed inappropriate, the overall context did not make the trial unfair. For the last point on cumulative error, the court stated that there were no significant mistakes to consider together that would change the outcome of the trial. Ultimately, the court decided that Diaz received a fair trial and did not find any major errors in the way the trial was conducted. As a result, they upheld the original judgment and sentence given to him.

Continue ReadingF-2018-77

C-2018-1119

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

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

Continue ReadingC-2018-1119

RE-2018-611

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SHAZEL STEEL,** Appellant, v. **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-611** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, STATE OF OKLAHOMA AUG 15 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** On June 6, 2015, Appellant, Shazel Steel, pled guilty in three separate cases in Tulsa County. The details of these cases are summarized as follows: 1. **Case CF-2015-1948**: Appellant was convicted of Robbery in the First Degree and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment and fined $500.00. 2. **Case CF-2015-2091**: Appellant was convicted on Count 1 of Robbery with a Firearm and Count 2 of Burglary in the First Degree, receiving a twenty-year sentence and a fine of $100.00 for each count. (Count 3 was dismissed). 3. **Case CF-2015-2152**: For Count 1 (Robbery with a Firearm) and Count 2 (Kidnapping), Appellant received a twenty-year sentence each, while Count 3 (Assault with a Dangerous Weapon) led to a ten-year sentence and a fine of $100.00. (Count 4 was dismissed). All sentences were set to run concurrently, with a two-year judicial review period established. During the Judicial Review proceeding on June 5, 2017, Appellant's sentences were modified to be suspended in full. However, the State subsequently filed applications to revoke these suspended sentences based on allegations of violations related to ongoing criminal activity and non-compliance with probation conditions. The revocation hearing revealed that Appellant was in possession of a firearm while driving without a license, which was a violation of probation Rule #7 that prohibited being in a vehicle where firearms are located. Multiple other violations related to probation were also noted, leading to the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in full by the Honorable James M. Caputo. On appeal, Appellant challenges the revocation on the following grounds: 1. The evidence was insufficient to establish that he knowingly and willfully possessed a firearm. 2. The District Court abused its discretion in revoking the entire sentence. The Court addressed these propositions: **I.** The standard for revocation is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Given the evidence from Officer Terwilliger indicating that a loaded firearm was found in a car Appellant was operating, the Court deemed that the evidence sufficiently supported the revocation of the suspended sentences. **II.** As for the claim of abuse of discretion, the trial court’s decision to revoke the full suspended sentence was found to be reasonable given the multiple violations of probation. Thus, the Court affirmed the order granting the State's applications for revocation of the suspended sentences in all three Tulsa County District Court Cases. **DECISION:** The order revoking Appellant's suspended sentences is **AFFIRMED**. **APPEARANCES:** - **At Trial**: Kayla Cannon, Assistant Public Defender for Appellant; Sean Waters, Assistant District Attorney for the State. - **On Appeal**: Nicole Herron, Counsel for Appellant; Mike Hunter and Tessa L. Henry, Counsel for the State. **OPINION BY:** **LUMPKIN, J.:** **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur **[Download PDF of Full Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-611_1734429007.pdf)**

Continue ReadingRE-2018-611

F-2018-923

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **PHILIP JAN CANNON,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2018-923** **FILED** **AUG 15 2019** **Clerk** **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant Philip Jan Cannon was tried by a jury in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Case No. CF-2016-541, for Possession of Child Pornography, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2. The jury found Cannon guilty and assessed punishment at twenty years imprisonment and a $25,000.00 fine. The Honorable John Canavan, District Judge, who presided over Cannon's trial, sentenced him according to the jury's verdict. Cannon appeals, raising the issue of whether improper closing remarks by the prosecutor deprived him of a fair trial. Under 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1, Cannon must serve 85% of his sentence before he is eligible for parole consideration. We find relief is not required and affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. 1. Cannon complains of prosecutorial misconduct, arguing it deprived him of his right to a fair trial. Because the comments at issue were not objected to at trial, our review is for plain error only. *Harney v. State*, 2011 OK CR 10, ¶ 23, 256 P.3d 1002, 1007. To qualify for relief based on plain error, Cannon must demonstrate: (1) the existence of an actual error (a deviation from a legal rule); (2) that the error is plain or obvious; and (3) that the error affected his substantial rights, meaning it impacted the trial's outcome. *Hogan v. State*, 2006 OK CR 19, ¶ 38, 139 P.3d 907, 923. This Court only corrects plain error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings or represents a miscarriage of justice. *Stewart v. State*, 2016 OK CR 9, ¶ 25, 372 P.3d 508, 514. We evaluate alleged misconduct in the context of the entire trial, considering not only the propriety of the prosecutor's actions but also the strength of the evidence against Cannon and the arguments of defense counsel. Both parties have broad latitude to discuss the evidence and make reasonable inferences. Relief is granted only where the prosecutor's flagrant misconduct has so tainted the trial that it is rendered fundamentally unfair. *Jones v. State*, 2011 OK CR 13, ¶ 3, 253 P.3d 997, 998. It is rare that prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument necessitates reversal. *Pryor v. State*, 2011 OK CR 18, ¶ 4, 254 P.3d 721, 722. Cannon alleges the prosecutor argued facts not in evidence and appealed to the jury's sympathy for the victims. However, we find there was no plain error in these remarks. Therefore, this claim is denied. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE JOHN CANAVAN, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** **ADAM BANNER** **DUSTIN PHILLIPS** **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** 1900 N.W. Expressway, P.O. Box 926 Suite 601 Norman, OK 73070 **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** **ROBERT W. JACKSON** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** Oklahoma City, OK 73118 **ADAM PANTER** **COUNSEL FOR STATE** **MIKE HUNTER** Pottawatomie County Attorney General of Oklahoma 331 N. Broadway Shawnee, OK 74801 **DIANE L. SLAYTON** Assistant Attorney General 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 **OPINION BY:** ROWLAND, J. **LUMPKIN, P.J.:** Concur **LEWIS, V.P.J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **KUEHN, J.:** Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-923_1734954802.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-923

F-2018-290

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-290, John Wesley Hart appealed his conviction for child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentences. One judge dissented. John Wesley Hart was found guilty by a jury on three counts of child sexual abuse that happened at different times. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, which means he will serve a total of sixty years. As part of the appeal, Hart argued that the jury did not receive proper instructions about what constitutes child sexual abuse, which he claimed violated his rights. Specifically, he believed the jury instructions on the definitions of lewd or indecent acts were confusing and could have led to non-unanimous verdicts. The court explained that the trial judge did instruct the jury correctly on the law and the acts that led to Hart's conviction. The judge pointed out that the acts Hart committed were clearly defined and separated by time, which meant they did not violate double jeopardy rights. The court also determined that it is not necessary for the jury to agree on every specific act as long as they are all considered part of the same crime of child sexual abuse. Hart also challenged the length of his sentence, claiming it was too harsh. However, the court noted that his sentences were justified based on the facts of the case and were within the limits of the law. The trial court had the discretion to make the sentences run one after another instead of at the same time, and the Court of Criminal Appeals found that there was no mistake in this decision. In conclusion, the court upheld Hart's conviction and the sentences given in the trial court.

Continue ReadingF-2018-290

F-2017-1284

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1284, Jesse Earl Maupin appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child Under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Maupin was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. He raised several issues on appeal, arguing that there was not enough evidence to prove he was guilty, that his life sentence was not a valid punishment, that the sentence was too harsh, and that there were mistakes in his trial that required a new trial. The court carefully reviewed the evidence and found that there was enough proof for the jury to convict Maupin based on the law. They explained that juries can use both direct evidence and indirect evidence to make their decisions. Maupin also claimed that a life sentence should not have been an option given the laws around his charges. The court found that the sentence was legal and appropriate. They ruled that a life sentence is a valid punishment when the law does not specify a maximum sentence. Regarding the sentence itself, the court determined that the life sentence did not shock their conscience or seem overly harsh given the circumstances of the case. Finally, since the court found no errors in the trial, they also declined to grant a new trial based on the idea of cumulative errors. In conclusion, the court affirmed Maupin's conviction and sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1284

F-2018-211

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-211, Lewis Long, III appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. No judge dissented. The case began when Lewis Long, III was tried and found guilty by a jury in Beckham County. He was convicted for trafficking in methamphetamine after having previous felony convictions. The jury recommended a sentence of twenty years in prison, which the judge followed. Long was found not guilty of a separate charge involving drug paraphernalia. Long raised a few concerns in his appeal. He argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because police entered a place without properly announcing themselves. He also felt the state did not provide enough evidence to prove he had control or possession of the methamphetamine. Lastly, he believed there wasn't enough evidence for him to go to trial for the drug trafficking charge. The court looked closely at the evidence and procedures from Long's trial. They first addressed the entry of police into the motel room. Even if not knocking and announcing was an error, the court decided that this did not impact the overall case because the evidence found was still valid. Next, the court evaluated whether the evidence presented during the trial was strong enough to support a verdict of guilty. They determined that there was enough evidence to show that Long had joint possession of the methamphetamine found at the motel. Lastly, the court examined whether Long should have been able to challenge the charges before his trial but concluded that he did not show any clear error that would affect the outcome of his case. Since the state showed enough probable cause for his charges at the preliminary hearing, they found no reason to reverse the decision. In conclusion, the court decided not to grant any relief for Long's appeal, confirming his conviction and the sentence imposed.

Continue ReadingF-2018-211

F-2018-43

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-43, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction and falsely personating another to create liability. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. The appellant, Anthony Paul Ornder, was found guilty by a jury in the Washington County District Court of two counts of possession of a firearm after a prior felony conviction and one count of falsely impersonating another. The jury recommended a total sentence of forty years for each firearm count and forty-five years for the impersonation count, all to be served at the same time. Ornder raised several arguments on appeal. He claimed that the state did not have enough evidence to prove he possessed the firearm or to show that he gained any benefit from using a false identity. He also argued that his lawyer did not represent him properly, which hurt his chances of a good defense, and asked the court to reduce his sentence because it was too harsh. The court looked carefully at the whole case, including evidence, witness testimonies, and records. They found that there was enough evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that he was guilty. They explained that the law allows both direct and indirect evidence to support charges. The court determined that the claims about ineffective help from his lawyer were not strong enough because they were based on guesses without solid evidence. Lastly, regarding the length of the sentence, the court concluded that it did not seem overly severe given his past criminal record and the nature of his actions during the incident. They affirmed his judgment and sentence, meaning they agreed with the original decision without changes.

Continue ReadingF-2018-43

C-2018-698

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

The text you provided is a legal summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, regarding the case of Joe Saucedo Guerrero. The opinion details the background of the case, the pleas entered by the petitioner, the subsequent motion to withdraw those pleas, and the court's final decision denying the petitioner's request for relief. Here is a breakdown of the main points: 1. **Case Background**: - Joe Saucedo Guerrero pled guilty to multiple charges including Lewd or Indecent Proposal to a Child, Soliciting a Minor for Indecent Exposure/Photos, and Possession of Child Pornography. - He was sentenced to a total of twenty years for the first seven counts and five years for the eighth count, with all sentences running consecutively. 2. **Motion to Withdraw Plea**: - Guerrero filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas shortly after sentencing, claiming his pleas were not entered knowingly and voluntarily, misunderstanding of the charges, ineffective assistance from his counsel, and that the sentences were excessive. - The judge denied this motion after a hearing where Guerrero was the only witness. 3. **Propositions of Error**: - The court examined Guerrero's arguments which included claims of inadequate factual basis for the pleas, ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the sentences were excessive. - The court found that Guerrero had waived some claims due to failure to raise them properly in his motion or during the hearing. 4. **Court's Findings**: - The court held that Guerrero's pleas were entered knowingly and voluntarily, especially since he had been informed of all charges and had signed a plea form acknowledging them. - The court found no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel that warranted the withdrawal of his plea. - The court concluded that the sentences imposed were within statutory limits and not excessive. 5. **Final Decision**: - The court denied Guerrero's petition for certiorari and affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence. This summary captures the critical elements of the judicial opinion and reflects the legal reasoning utilized by the court in reaching its conclusion.

Continue ReadingC-2018-698

C-2018-1024

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

It appears that you have provided a court document from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals relating to the case of Larado James Smith, who entered a guilty plea to multiple counts of rape and sodomy. The document outlines the background of the case, the procedural history, and the court's decision to deny Smith's petition for a writ of certiorari. To summarize the key points: 1. **Background of the Case**: Larado James Smith entered a negotiated guilty plea to six counts of Second Degree Rape and three counts of Forcible Sodomy, resulting in a 15-year prison sentence. 2. **Motion to Withdraw Plea**: Smith later filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he had valid reasons for doing so, including alleged pressure from his counsel and stress from his incarceration. 3. **Court's Findings**: The trial court conducted a hearing on this motion and ultimately denied it, finding that Smith had entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily. This decision was based on the court's assessment of the circumstances and Smith's understanding of the plea. 4. **Appeal**: Smith appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw the plea. The appellate court reviewed the record and determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. It was concluded that Smith’s plea was made voluntarily, after a thorough understanding of the implications. 5. **Final Decision**: The Court of Criminal Appeals denied Smith's petition for certiorari, affirming the lower court's judgment and sentence. If you have specific questions about the case or need information on a particular aspect of the document, please let me know!

Continue ReadingC-2018-1024

RE-2018-769

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant, Robert Kenneth Kramer, appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2015-100. On September 9, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere to Financial Exploitation by a Caregiver (21 O.S.2011, § 843.1) After Former Conviction of a Felony (21 O.S.Supp.2011, § 51.1). He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for ten years, with the final six years suspended. On May 31, 2017, the trial court modified the suspended portion of the sentence from six to eight years. On March 28, 2018, the State filed an application to revoke the suspended sentence, alleging that Appellant had committed new crimes: possessing a cell phone while incarcerated and knowingly concealing stolen property. A hearing on the application was held on July 11, 2018, before the Honorable Lawrence W. Parish, District Judge. Judge Parish granted the State's application and revoked the eight-year suspended sentence in full. **ANALYSIS** The standard for revocation of a suspended sentence requires a determination of whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated, which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. A trial court's decision to revoke should not be reversed unless there is an abuse of discretion. 1. **Proposition I: Violation of the 20-day Rule** Appellant claims the district court violated the 20-day Rule as stated in 22 O.S.Supp.2012, § 991b(A). Since Appellant did not raise this objection at the hearing, the review is for plain error. Appellant failed to demonstrate that any deviation affected his substantial rights, and he had previously waived his right to a hearing within the statutory time-frame. Therefore, this proposition is denied. 2. **Proposition II: Sufficiency of Evidence** Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conclusion that he possessed a cell phone while in jail. Testimony from Appellant's ex-wife indicated that she received text messages from a phone she associated with him. Additionally, a jailer testified about witnessing inmates, including Appellant, trying to destroy a cell phone. This evidence satisfies the preponderance standard. **DECISION** The order revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2015-100 is AFFIRMED. **APPEARANCES:** - Counsel for Appellant: Curt Allen, Jeremy Stillwell, Indigent Defense System - Counsel for State: Emily Mueller, Assistant District Attorney; Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma; Theodore Peeper, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.:** LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur in Results HUDSON, J.: Concur **[End of Summary Opinion]** For further details, you may view the full court opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-769_1734420410.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-769

RE-2018-674

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **LEON DESHAWN WRIGHT,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. RE-2018-674** **Filed July 18, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** This case involves an appeal by Appellant Leon Deshawn Wright from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2014-1676. **Background:** On April 30, 2015, Wright entered a guilty plea to Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property after a previous felony conviction, for which he was sentenced to five years of imprisonment, all suspended. The State filed an application to revoke this sentence on May 9, 2016, citing multiple violations, including failure to obtain a mental health assessment, failure to report to a drug rehabilitation program, failure to pay supervision fees, and possession of marijuana. A hearing was conducted on August 27, 2018, overseen by the Honorable Bill Graves, where the judge granted the State's application for revocation, leading to the current appeal. **Analysis:** At a revocation hearing, the court determines if the terms of the probation have been violated, which should be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Revocation should not be overturned unless there's an abuse of discretion by the trial court. 1. **Possession of Marijuana:** Appellant argues insufficient evidence for this charge. The court agrees but finds sufficient evidence for the remaining violations. 2. **Failure to Pay Fees:** Appellant contends his failure to pay fees was not willful. The court finds it was Appellant's responsibility to demonstrate he was not willful in this failure. As Appellant did not provide evidence regarding his employment status or good-faith efforts to pay, the burden was not met. 3. **Full Revocation Justification:** Appellant argues that the violations do not justify full revocation. However, the court finds the failure to report alone is an adequate basis for revoking the suspended sentence. **Decision:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirms the District Court's order revoking the suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2014-1676. **Judges’ Concurrence:** - **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concurred in part/dissented in part, stating that while he agreed some violations justified revocation, he dissented concerning the failure to pay fines, emphasizing that Appellant's evidence of homelessness and unemployment should have been considered. He finds the court should demonstrate more clarity on when failure to pay fines due to indigence suffices to avoid revocation. For further details and the full legal opinion, you can [download the PDF here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-674_1734423903.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-674

M-2018-335

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JULIUS LAMAR WRIGHT,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE 2018-0144** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JUL 11 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant Julius Lamar Wright entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2009-228, for Count 1 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute (Marijuana) and Count 2 - Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. On April 28, 2009, Appellant received a five-year deferred sentence on each count. On March 6, 2012, Appellant pled guilty to allegations in the application to accelerate his deferred sentences, resulting in a ten-year suspended sentence (first five years in custody) for Count 1, and one year in the Oklahoma County Jail for Count 2. These sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other and with CF-2011-1457. Appellant was charged with Domestic Abuse by Strangulation on December 9, 2015, in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2015-8860. He entered a no contest plea and was given a ten-year suspended sentence with probation conditions, which ran concurrently with the earlier cases and included credit for time served. The State's motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2009-228 due to the new charge and failure to pay restitution was dismissed on June 28, 2016, as part of the plea agreement in Case No. CF-2015-8860. On June 29, 2017, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in Cases CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860, alleging a new crime of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2017-2733. After a revocation hearing on January 31, 2018, Appellant's suspended sentences in both cases were revoked. Appellant appeals the revocation of his suspended sentences, raising two propositions of error: 1. The evidence presented during his revocation hearing should have been excluded as it was obtained through egregious police conduct violating his Fourth Amendment rights. 2. The trial court abused its discretion by revoking Appellant's sentences in full, constituting a violation of his due process rights and resulting in an excessive sentence. We affirm the District Court's decision to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in full. Appellant's first argument was not raised at the revocation hearing, leading us to review for plain error. To claim relief under the plain error doctrine, Appellant must prove: (1) an actual error occurred; (2) the error is clear and obvious; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights, impacting the outcome of the hearing. We find no plain error and conclude that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in finding Appellant violated the conditions of his suspended sentences. Regarding the second argument, the court has broad discretion in revoking suspended sentences, and this discretion will not be disturbed without showing an abuse thereof. Appellant has not demonstrated any such abuse. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **REVOCATION APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS** **THOMAS HURLEY** **MARVA A. BANKS** Assistant Public Defender Oklahoma County Public Defender's Office 611 County Office Building 320 Robert S. Kerr Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for Defendant **KIRK MARTIN** Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma County 320 Robert S. Kerr Suite 505 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for the State **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur **[PDF VERSION AVAILABLE HERE](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/M-2018-335_1734421708.pdf)**

Continue ReadingM-2018-335

RE 2018-0457

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-0457, Tommy Lee Tucker appealed his conviction for domestic assault and battery along with other charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings to fix some inconsistencies in the records. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE 2018-0457

F-2018-646

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the appeal of Ashley Dawn Bost. She was convicted of several offenses in LeFlore County District Court, including trafficking in illegal drugs and possession of a controlled substance, along with additional charges related to a firearm and drug paraphernalia. In her appeal, Bost raised a single proposition of error arguing that her convictions for trafficking in methamphetamine and possession of oxycodone violated the prohibition against multiple punishments for a single offense, as outlined in 21 O.S.2011, § 11. The court found that Bost did not preserve this argument for appeal as she failed to raise it during the trial, thus waiving her right to full review, except for considering it for plain error. The appellate court applied a three-part test for assessing plain error and determined that Bost did not demonstrate actual or plain error. The court explained that the analysis under Section 11 focuses on the relationship between the crimes and whether they require different proofs. Since the two charges involved different drugs and amounts required for trafficking and possession, the court concluded that they were indeed separate and distinct offenses and affirmed the trial court's judgments and sentences. The court's final decision was to affirm Bost's convictions and sentences, with the mandate ordered to be issued promptly. The opinion included a list of counsel for both the appellant and the appellee. For more information, a link to the full opinion is provided at the end of the summary.

Continue ReadingF-2018-646

RE-2018-630

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CHRISTOPHER CHARLES DOWNUM,** **Appellant,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-630** **FILED JUN 20 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** On July 14, 2017, Appellant Downum, represented by counsel, entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of Malicious Injury to Property in McIntosh County Case No. CM-2017-317. Downum was sentenced to one (1) year in the McIntosh County jail, all suspended, subject to terms and conditions of probation. On October 18, 2017, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Downum's suspended sentence alleging he committed the new offenses of Public Intoxication and Obstructing An Officer in McIntosh County Case No. CM-2017-457. The District Court of McIntosh County, presided over by the Honorable James D. Bland, held a combined revocation hearing and preliminary hearing on May 31, 2017, and revoked ten (10) days of Downum's suspended sentence in Case No. CM-2017-317. From this Judgment and Sentence, Downum appeals with the following propositions of error: 1. The trial court used the wrong legal standard in revoking Downum's suspended sentence. 2. The evidence was insufficient to show that Downum committed the acts of public intoxication and obstructing an officer. 3. The sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive. The revocation of Downum's suspended sentence is **AFFIRMED**. The scope of review in a revocation appeal is limited to the validity of the revocation order executing the previously imposed sentence. The Court examines the basis for the factual determination and considers whether the court abused its discretion. Downum agues in Proposition I that Judge Bland used the wrong standard in revoking his suspended sentence by confusing the burden of proof for revoking a suspended sentence with that required for a preliminary hearing. This concern relates to Proposition II, where Downum claims there was insufficient evidence even if the appropriate standard had been applied. However, alleged violations of conditions of a suspended sentence need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court finds no evidence in the appeal record supporting Downum's claim that Judge Bland did not apply the correct standard. The record shows competent evidence was presented at the revocation hearing, allowing the court to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Downum violated his probation terms. Consequently, Propositions I and II are denied. In Proposition III, Downum argues that the ten-day revocation is excessive, citing no supporting authority. The Court has established that violation of any condition of probation can justify revocation of a suspended sentence. No abuse of discretion is found in Judge Bland's decision to revoke ten days of Downum's suspended sentence. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of McIntosh County revoking ten (10) days of Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CM-2017-317 is **AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MCINTOSH COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE JAMES D. BLAND, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** WARREN GOTCHER GOTCHER & BEAVER 323 E. CARL ALBERT PKWY. P.O. BOX 160 MCALESTER, OK 74502 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** WARREN GOTCHER GOTCHER & BEAVER 323 E. CARL ALBERT PKWY. P.O. BOX 160 MCALESTER, OK 74502 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT GREGORY R. STIDHAM ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY MCINTOSH COUNTY 110 NORTH FIRST STREET EUFAULA, OK 74432 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE MIKE HUNTER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA THEODORE M. PEEPER ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21ST STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** **[END OF DOCUMENT]** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-630_1734428440.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-630

J-2019-2

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

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

Continue ReadingJ-2019-2

RE-2018-435

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOSE FIGUEROA MESTA,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-435** **FILED** IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA JUN 20 2019 JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK **SUMMARY OPINION** LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Appellant appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Texas County District Court Case No. CF-2015-1. On March 4, 2016, Appellant entered a plea of no contest to Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance Within 1,000 Feet of a Park, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2012, § 2-402(C)(1). The Honorable Jon Parsley, District Judge, convicted Appellant and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment, with all but the first eighty days suspended. On February 27, 2018, the State filed an Amended Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence alleging Appellant failed to submit probation reports; failed to report his arrest for public intoxication; moved back into Oklahoma without reporting it to the district court; and committed new crimes of Possession of a Controlled Drug, Marijuana, Within 2000 Feet of a School or Park, With Intent to Distribute (Count 1), and Possession of CDS Without a Tax Stamp Affixed (Count 2) as alleged in Texas County District Court Case No. CF-2018-58. Following a hearing, Judge Parsley revoked Appellant's remaining suspended sentence in full. **Proposition I:** Appellant alleges the trial court erred in assessing him attorney fees of $500, which he claims exceeds the amount allowed by statute. **Proposition II:** Appellant argues he cannot be assessed the costs of his incarceration because he is mentally ill. These claims are outside the scope of a revocation appeal. The consequence of judicial revocation is to execute a penalty previously imposed in the judgment and sentence. The scope of review in a revocation appeal is limited to the validity of the revocation order executing the previously imposed sentence. As noted on numerous occasions, arguments regarding attorney fees and incarceration costs are administrative and not properly presented as part of the appeal of an order revoking a suspended sentence. Thus, we deny Propositions I and II. **Proposition III:** Appellant objects to the inclusion of post-imprisonment supervision in the revocation order. The State concedes this point, arguing the issue is moot because Judge Parsley entered an amended revocation order on January 17, 2019, deleting post-imprisonment supervision from the revocation order. We agree that this proposition is moot. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence in whole or part is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof. Appellant has not established that Judge Parsley abused his discretion. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Texas County District Court Case No. CF-2015-1 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** AT REVOCATION **VONDA WILKINS** P.O. BOX 1486 GUYMON, OK 73492 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT ON APPEAL **LISBETH McCARTY** P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **TAOS SMITH** ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 319 N. MAIN GUYMON, OK 73942 COUNSEL FOR STATE **MIKE HUNTER** OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL KEELEY MILLER ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21st ST. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J:** Concur **ROWLAND, J:** Concur [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-435_1734691413.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-435

F-2018-158

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-158, Nathan Simmons appealed his conviction for accessory to first degree murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Nathan Simmons was found guilty after a jury trial held in Tulsa County. He was charged with being an accessory to first degree murder, which means he helped someone commit that crime, and for robbery with a dangerous weapon, which means he was involved in taking something with a weapon. The jury gave him a tough sentence: 36 years for being an accessory, 10 years for the first robbery, and 17 years for the second robbery. All the sentences were to be served one after the other. Simmons had two main arguments for his appeal. First, he said that the prosecutor made a mistake during the closing argument that took away his chance for a fair trial. He believed the prosecutor suggested that he would not serve the full amount of time for his first conviction and this made the jury decide to give him longer sentences. However, the court found that there was no significant error in what the prosecutor said during the trial that would change the outcome. Second, Simmons claimed that his lawyer did not do a good job because they did not object to what the prosecutor said. The court reviewed this claim carefully. Using a standard that looks at whether the lawyer's actions were truly wrong and if they affected the trial’s outcome, the court decided that Simmons did not have a strong case. Ultimately, the court kept the original sentence and decision made by the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2018-158