Criminal Appeals Archives - Page 5 of 20

F-2018-531

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 13, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-531, Joseph Green Stoker appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation (Count 1) and Lewd Molestation (Count 2). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court, meaning Stoker would serve ten years on each count, with the sentences served one after the other. One judge dissented. Stoker argued that he was not allowed to present a proper defense because his witnesses were not allowed to testify. The court found that the trial judge was correct in excluding the evidence because Stoker did not follow the proper legal steps to get those witnesses into the trial. Stoker also claimed that the prosecutor acted unfairly, which made it hard for him to have a fair trial. The court looked at previous cases and decided that what the prosecutor did was not harmful enough to change the outcome of Stoker's trial. Another point made by Stoker was that his lawyer did not do a good job defending him. However, the court said Stoker could not prove that this lack of help from his lawyer actually affected the outcome of the trial. Finally, Stoker complained that the trial court wrongly ordered him to pay some costs while he was still in prison. The court explained that there are laws that allow part of an inmate's earnings in prison to be used for paying court fees, so they found no error in the judge's decision. Overall, the court did not find any mistakes significant enough to affect Stoker's conviction or sentencing, so they upheld the original decision.

F-2018-375

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 13, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-375, Jones appealed his conviction for multiple offenses including possession of controlled substances and public intoxication. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of Jones from Drug Court and his sentencing, while also remanding a separate charge for correction regarding sentencing length for public intoxication. One judge dissented. Jones had multiple guilty pleas and was given the chance to participate in a Drug Court program with the understanding that if he successfully completed it, his charges would be dropped. However, if he failed, he would face prison time. Although he had some chances and was sanctioned when he did not adhere to the program, he repeatedly tested positive for drugs, which caused the state to move for his termination from the program. During the hearings, witnesses from the state presented evidence that showed Jones had a new arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol and had failed multiple drug tests. Jones's defense argued that he had made progress and changed for the better, but the judge decided to terminate him from the Drug Court program based on the evidence of his continued drug use and new charges. The court found that his actions justified the termination. Additionally, the court recognized an error in Jones's sentencing for public intoxication because it exceeded the maximum allowed by law. The court ordered that part of the case be sent back to correct the sentence. The final decision was to uphold the termination from Drug Court but allow a correction on the public intoxication charge's sentencing in a separate order.

F-2017-710

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 13, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-710, Alex Moore appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Alex Moore was accused of killing his cellmate, Todd Bush, in a prison. On the evening of March 6, 2014, while they were locked in their cell, an officer checked on them but did not enter the cell. Later, another officer found Moore with Bush on the floor and called for medical help. Despite efforts from medical staff, Bush was pronounced dead at the hospital. Moore claimed Bush had fallen while drinking, but the investigation revealed signs of a struggle and injuries that suggested he had been attacked. The medical examiner determined that Bush died from strangulation and that the injuries were not consistent with a fall. During the trial, the prosecution introduced evidence of Moore's previous assaults on other inmates as part of their case, arguing that these incidents showed he had a pattern of violent behavior. The defense argued that Bush's death could have been accidental. The trial court allowed photographs of the victim's injuries to be presented as evidence, despite Moore's objection that they were too gruesome. The court ruled that these images were relevant to the evidence and helped to prove how Bush died. Moore also raised concerns about the prosecution's statements during jury selection and whether he had been informed of his right to testify. The court ruled that the prosecutor's comments were within proper bounds and that there was no requirement for a formal acknowledgment of Moore's right to testify. Overall, the appeals court found no legal errors significant enough to reverse the trial court's decision, affirming Moore's conviction for murder.

RE-2018-231

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 6, 2019
Post category:RE

This summary opinion addresses the appeal of Latarsha Grant concerning the revocation of her suspended sentences in two criminal cases. Below is a concise breakdown of the key points from the opinion: ### Background - Latarsha Grant was convicted in 2007 for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (Case No. CF-2007-359) and sentenced to ten years with the sentence suspended. - In 2011, she was involved in new criminal activities leading to further actions against her suspended sentence. - By 2012, she had entered a guilty plea in a new case regarding drug distribution (Case No. CF-2011-269) with a concurrent ten-year suspended sentence after completing a rehabilitation program. - In 2017, a motion to revoke her suspended sentences was filed due to allegations of her involvement in a robbery, leading to the revocation hearing in 2018. ### Procedural History - The trial court, after hearing evidence, revoked her suspended sentences due to her involvement in the new crimes and appeared to find sufficient evidence against her. ### Appellate Claims Grant raised seven propositions of error, which the court proceeded to analyze: 1. **Competent Evidence**: The court found sufficient evidence that Grant had violated the terms of her suspended sentences. The evidence established her involvement in planning the robbery and her presence during the crime. 2. **Right to Confront Witnesses**: The court concluded that the hearsay issues raised were not applicable, as revocation procedures allow for such evidence. Furthermore, all relevant witnesses were available for cross-examination. 3. **Jurisdiction Concerns**: Grant's arguments relating to the trial court's jurisdiction or abuse of discretion regarding specific offenses were deemed misdirected, as they pertain to her original plea which she could challenge separately. 4. **Excessive Sentencing**: Grant claimed her overall sentence was excessive, but this is tied to the context of her behavior and criminal activities, which justified the trial court's decisions. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Similar to the above, claims surrounding the inadequacy of her representation in court were not appropriately addressed in this revocation context and would need separate proceedings. 6. **Nunc Pro Tunc Orders**: Grant sought to correct inaccuracies related to her plea and sentencing, which would also need to be handled through a different legal mechanism than this appeal. ### Conclusion The appellate court affirmed the decision of the District Court to revoke the suspended sentences, stating that the evidence supported the trial court's findings. The court dismissed all of Grant's claims based on their analysis of procedural and evidential standards, emphasizing the limitations of their review scope in revocation appeals. ### Decision Issued The order to revoke the concurrent suspended sentences was **AFFIRMED**. The court ordered the issuance of the mandate. ### Document Access A link to the full opinion is provided for those seeking detailed legal reasoning: [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-231_1734701780.pdf).

RE-2018-30

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 6, 2019
Post category:RE

The case presented involves Marty Wayne Green, who appealed the termination of his participation in the Seminole County Anna McBride Court Program after a series of violations related to his plea agreement and mental health treatment. Here's a summary of the court's findings and rulings: 1. **Background**: Green pleaded guilty to Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation and was sentenced to a suspended seven-year prison term. He entered the Anna McBride Court Program as part of his sentence. 2. **Violation Allegations**: The State filed a motion to revoke his suspended sentence, alleging that Green had failed to comply with program requirements, including not attending counseling sessions, testing positive for substances, and committing new offenses. 3. **Hearing Outcome**: After hearing the motion, District Judge George W. Butner terminated Green's participation in the mental health court program based on these violations and sentenced him to the full term of imprisonment. 4. **Propositions on Appeal**: - **Proposition I**: Green argued he should be credited for time served. The court ruled against this, clarifying that since he was not sentenced under the Oklahoma Community Sentencing Act, he had no entitlement to such credit. - **Proposition II**: This proposition did not challenge the validity of the termination order and was deemed improperly before the court. It did not affect the legality of the termination itself. - **Proposition III**: Green contended that the trial court abused its discretion by not seeking lesser sanctions before terminating his participation. The court found that the judge had discretion to terminate the program due to Green's repeated violations and potential danger to himself and others. 5. **Conclusion**: The court affirmed the termination of Green's participation in the Anna McBride Court Program, ruling that the judge acted within his discretion based on the facts presented and the violations of the program. The final decision upheld the termination, emphasizing the importance of compliance with mental health treatment programs and the discretion of judges in such cases. The ruling highlights the responsibility of participants in such programs to adhere to established agreements and the potential consequences of failing to comply.

RE-2017-1287

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 6, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Darmaecia Brendette Hill, Appellant,** **vs.** **The State of Oklahoma, Appellee.** **No. RE-2017-1287** **Summary Opinion** **Filed June 6, 2019** **Judge Lewis, Presiding** **ORDER** This appeal arises from the revocation of three and one-half years of suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2014-506 and CF-2015-773 in the District Court of Payne County, presided over by Honorable Stephen R. Kistler. **BACKGROUND** In Case No. CF-2014-506, Appellant was convicted of Child Neglect (felony) and Unlawful Possession of Marijuana (misdemeanor), receiving a seven-year sentence with all but the first 120 days suspended. Case No. CF-2015-773 involved a conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) (felony), also sentenced to seven years with similar suspension conditions. Multiple motions to revoke were filed due to alleged probation violations, including positive drug tests and failure to comply with GPS monitoring. The final revocation hearing on July 25, 2017, resulted in the court revoking three and one-half years of Appellant's suspended sentences. **PROPOSITIONS OF ERROR** 1. **Jurisdictional Issue**: Appellant argues that the District Court unlawfully extended her original sentence by imposing a twelve-month post-confinement supervision after the suspended sentence was revoked. 2. **Excessive Revocation**: Appellant contends that the revocation of three and one-half years of her suspended sentences is excessive considering the circumstances of her case. **ANALYSIS** **Proposition I**: The court finds Appellant’s argument unpersuasive due to the twelve-month post-confinement supervision being within the balance of her original sentences. The initial seven-year sentence, with revocations, allows for this additional supervision under Title 22, § 991a. **Proposition II**: The court concludes that Judge Kistler acted within his discretion in revoking three and one-half years of Appellant's suspended sentences based on the repeated violations of her probation terms. The evidence presented supported the court’s decision as Appellant was granted multiple opportunities for compliance. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Payne County revoking three and one-half years of Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2014-506 and CF-2015-773 is ***AFFIRMED.*** **MANDATE**: Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the mandate is ordered issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** - **For Appellant**: Sarah J. Kennedy (Appellate Defense Counsel), Danny Joseph (Appellate Defense Counsel) - **For Appellee**: Karen Dixon (Attorney General of OK), Mike Hunter (Assistant District Attorney), Cierra Saltan (Assistant Attorney General) **OPINION BY**: LEWIS, P.J. **KUEHN, V.P.J.**: Concur **LUMPKIN, J.**: Concur **HUDSON, J.**: Concur **ROWLAND, J.**: Concur **Download PDF**: [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2017-1287_1734707641.pdf)

C-2018-927

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2019
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SAHIB QUIETMAN HENDERSON,** **Petitioner,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-927** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 30, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Sahib Quietman Henderson entered a blind plea of guilty to Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance within 2,000 feet of a School in the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CF-2016-393. The plea was accepted by the Honorable Ken J. Graham, District Judge, on April 30, 2018, with sentencing delayed until July 25, 2018. On that date, Petitioner was sentenced to thirty (30) years in prison, with the first fifteen (15) years to be served and the remaining fifteen (15) years suspended, alongside a fine of $2,500.00. On August 2, 2018, represented by counsel, Petitioner filed an Application to Withdraw Plea of Guilty. At hearings on August 20 and 22, 2018, Judge Graham denied the motion to withdraw. Petitioner appeals the denial and raises the following propositions of error: 1. Failure of the State and District Court to honor the promised consideration for Appellant's plea requires modification of his inflated sentence, or an opportunity to withdraw his plea. 2. The sentence is shockingly excessive given the circumstances of the case. 3. Ineffective assistance of counsel in identifying, presenting, and preserving issues for review. After thorough review of these propositions and the entirety of the record, including original record, transcripts, and briefs, we find that neither reversal nor modification is required. Our primary concern in evaluating the validity of a guilty plea is whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently. Petitioner carries the burden of proving his plea was entered unadvisedly, through influence, or without deliberation. Voluntariness is assessed through the entire record. In **Proposition I**, Petitioner claims that the plea lacked a knowing and voluntary nature due to non-fulfillment of a promise that he would be sentenced as a first-time offender and because of purported drug buys by his wife reducing his sentence. Contrary to this argument, the record shows Petitioner was treated as a first-time offender, with the court considering the mitigating factors at sentencing. His dissatisfaction with the resulting sentence does not provide grounds for withdrawal of the plea. In **Proposition II**, Petitioner contends the sentence is excessive. However, as he did not raise this claim in his Application to Withdraw Guilty Plea to the trial court, it is waived on appeal. In **Proposition III**, Petitioner argues ineffective assistance of counsel during both the plea and withdrawal hearings. A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is only established by showing that counsel's performance was deficient and that it resulted in prejudice to the defendant. The record does not support that withdrawal counsel's performance was deficient or that it affected the outcome—Petitioner maintained he did not wish to withdraw his plea but rather sought a sentence modification. **DECISION** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon this decision. --- **APPEARANCES IN DISTRICT COURT:** Grant D. Shepherd 601 S.W. C Ave., Ste. 201 Lawton, OK 73501 Counsel for the Defense **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** Kimberly D. Heinze P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 Counsel for Petitioner at the Plea Hearing Ronald L. Williams P.O. Box 2095 Lawton, OK 73502 Counsel for the Defense at the Withdrawal Hearing Jason M. Hicks District Attorney Cortnie Siess & Greg Steward Assistant District Attorneys Stephens Co. Courthouse 101 S. 11th St., Duncan, OK 73533 Counsel for the State **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/C-2018-927_1734182885.pdf)

RE 2018-0118

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2019
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-0118, Samuel Keith Carolina appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Samuel Keith Carolina had originally been sentenced to twenty years for burglary, but the last ten years were suspended while he followed certain rules. However, in December 2017, the state accused him of committing several new crimes, including assault and battery with a deadly weapon and shooting with intent to kill. Some of these claims were removed before the revocation hearing. At the hearing held on January 30, 2018, the judge found enough evidence to support the state's claims, specifically the first allegation. Carolina argued that the evidence was not strong enough to prove he broke the terms of his sentence. The court explained that to revoke a suspended sentence, the evidence just needs to show that it's more likely true than not, meaning the evidence has to be convincing. Ultimately, because they found that there was enough evidence to support at least one of the violations, the court decided to uphold the revocation of Carolina's suspended sentence.

RE 2018-0118

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2019
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-0118, Samuel Keith Carolina appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order of the District Court revoking his suspended sentence. One justice dissented. Samuel entered a guilty plea to burglary and was given a suspended sentence, which meant he would not serve his full sentence unless he broke the rules. However, after some time, the State accused him of committing new crimes, which led to the revocation hearing. The court found enough evidence to support the claims against him and revoked his suspended sentence. On appeal, Samuel argued that the evidence presented was not sufficient to prove he had committed the new crimes. However, the court explained that for revoking a suspended sentence, the state only needs to show that it is more likely than not (a preponderance of the evidence) that the person violated the terms. Since the court found that the state met this burden, they confirmed the decision to revoke Samuel's sentence.

RE-2018-925

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAREN GLENN SELLERS,** **Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. RE-2018-925** **Filed May 23, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Jaren Glenn Sellers appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Pontotoc County District Court Case No. CF-2012-390. On September 13, 2013, Appellant entered negotiated Alford pleas to First Degree Rape (21 O.S.2011, § 1114) (Count 1) and Forcible Sodomy (21 O.S.2011, § 888) (Count 2). He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for ten years on each count, all suspended, to be served concurrently. On January 16, 2018, the State filed an amended application to revoke the suspended sentences alleging that Appellant committed the new crime of Aggravated Assault and Battery. A revocation hearing was held on August 27, 2018, before the Honorable Gregory Pollard, Special Judge. Judge Pollard granted the State's application and revoked seven years of Appellant's ten-year suspended sentences. On appeal, Appellant asserts the revocation was excessive. **ANALYSIS** At a hearing where the State seeks revocation of a suspended sentence, the question is whether the suspended portion of the sentence should be executed. The court makes a factual determination as to whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated. The violation need be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. A trial court's decision to revoke a suspended sentence should not be overturned absent a finding of an abuse of discretion. We do not find the decision to revoke seven years of Appellant's suspended sentences to be an abuse of discretion. The credibility of witnesses and the weight given their testimony are within the exclusive province of the trier of fact, who may believe or disbelieve the witnesses as it desires. The decision of the trial court to revoke a suspended sentence, in whole or in part, is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof. Judge Pollard considered all evidence presented during the revocation hearing. His decision to partially revoke Appellant's suspended sentence cannot be considered an abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The order of the district court of Pontotoc County revoking a portion of Appellant's suspended judgments and sentences in Case No. CF-2012-390 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. --- **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF PONTOTOC COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE GREGORY POLLARD, SPECIAL JUDGE** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:** LLOYD B. PALMER 1609 ARLINGTON ADA, OK 74820 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:** MARK P. HOOVER INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE:** TARA M. PORTILLO ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY P.O. BOX 146 ADA, OK 74821 **ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL:** MIKE HUNTER JENNIFER B. MILLER COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE 313 N.E. 21st STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **HUDSON, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-925_1734359840.pdf)

F-2018-384

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-384, Jimmy Dean Coke, Jr. appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property and Obstructing an Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Jimmy Dean Coke, Jr. was convicted of two crimes. The first was knowing concealment of stolen property, and the second was obstructing an officer. The court sentenced him to twenty-five years for the first charge and one year for the second, and he also had to pay fines. Coke argued that the proof against him was not strong enough. He believed there was not enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt for either charge. However, the court reviewed the evidence in a way that favored the state. This meant they looked for any reasonable way a jury could have found him guilty. They decided there was enough evidence to support both convictions. Coke also claimed the trial court didn’t tell the jury about the value of the stolen property, which he thought was a mistake. For a charge of concealing stolen property to be a felony, the property must be worth $1,000 or more. Although the judge did not instruct the jury about this value, they still found that the property was worth $1,500 based on testimony, so the court determined that the omission was harmless. Coke left the courthouse during the jury's deliberation. The jury reached a verdict, and he was not there. Coke argued that he had the right to be present during this critical time. The court decided that because Coke chose to leave, he waived his right to be there, and the judge acted correctly by continuing without him. Coke believed that the prosecutor’s arguments were unfair and made it hard for him to have a fair trial. They reviewed the claims of misconduct and found that some were not objected to during the trial; therefore, they could only check for obvious errors. The court found minimal misconduct and did not feel it affected his trial's fairness. He also felt that he was not treated fairly by the judge. However, the court believed the evidence did not show that the judge was biased against him. The decisions made during the trial were consistent with legal practices. Coke said the judge gave him fines even though the jury did not decide on fines. The court agreed that the judge could impose fines even if the jury did not because the law allows it. Coke claimed that his lawyer did not do a good job and that this hurt his chance for a fair trial. The court found that since there were no significant mistakes made, the claims for ineffective counsel did not hold. Coke lastly argued that even if no single mistake was significant enough to reverse the decision, the total of all mistakes could warrant a new trial. The court decided that since they did not find any errors, this claim was also denied. In conclusion, the court affirmed the original decision, meaning Coke would remain convicted and serve his sentences as decided by the original trial.

F-2018-243

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-243, Ivan Luna-Gonzales appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. The case involved a serious incident where Luna-Gonzales attacked the mother of his child with a two-by-four, causing her significant injuries that required medical treatment. After the attack, he attempted to escape but was later found by the police. At the trial, Luna-Gonzales denied the assault and tried to claim that the victim had hurt herself. However, the evidence presented showed otherwise. A central issue in the appeal was whether Luna-Gonzales should receive credit for the time he spent in jail while awaiting his trial. He argued that the trial court made a mistake by not giving him this credit. The relevant law states that certain credits for time served apply but focus on time after sentencing—not while someone is waiting for their trial. The court explained that the statute referenced by Luna-Gonzales did not apply to the time he spent in jail before his judgment and sentence. Instead, it was meant to address the time inmates spend in jail after sentencing. The court emphasized that the trial judge has the discretion to decide on jail credit, which is not automatically given. In Luna-Gonzales’s case, the court found no fault with the trial court's decision. His longer time in jail was largely due to an immigration hold, which prevented his release. The court also noted that he did not cooperate with a required investigation before sentencing. Therefore, the court concluded that the trial court acted within its rights, and the appeal was denied. Ultimately, the judgment from the Payne County District Court was upheld, meaning Luna-Gonzales would serve his sentence without the additional jail credits he sought.

F-2018-119

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-119, Arthur Tequon Hill, Jr. appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm, Kidnapping, and Gang Association. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. No one dissented. Arthur Tequon Hill, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for several serious crimes. The jury decided he should go to prison for 25 years for robbery, 20 years for kidnapping, and 5 years for gang association. The court said he must serve these sentences one after the other. Hill made several arguments in his appeal. First, he suggested that there wasn’t enough evidence to support his conviction and that the case should be dismissed. However, the court found that there was enough evidence for a reasonable person to believe he was guilty, so this argument was rejected. Second, Hill argued that the court should not have allowed the jury to hear about other robberies he was involved in just days before this crime. The court ruled that this evidence was permissible because it showed similarities between the robberies and helped prove his identity in this case. Third, he claimed the court made a mistake by letting the jury separate after they finished hearing the case, which he said could lead to unfair influence. The State agreed this was an error but said it wasn't harmful. The court concluded the jurors followed instructions not to talk about the case while they were apart, so this did not harm Hill’s case. Lastly, Hill argued that evidence about his gang membership was presented in a way that was too unfair and made his trial less fair. The court disagreed and stated that the evidence was important to the case. They believed it helped confirm his involvement in the robbery. In the end, the court found no reasons to change Hill's conviction or punishment. The decision to affirm his sentencing was based on thorough review of all the points made in his appeal and the evidence presented during the trial.

F-2017-1301

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1301, William Curtis Box appealed his conviction for Aggravated Domestic Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of his deferred judgment, which meant that his earlier decision to defer judgment was changed to a conviction. One judge dissented. The case started when Box was found guilty of a crime related to domestic violence and was given a deferred judgment, meaning he wouldn’t have a criminal record if he followed certain conditions for ten years. However, he did not follow those conditions and committed another crime called Obstructing an Officer. When the State of Oklahoma found out, they asked the court to change his deferred judgment to a conviction. Box argued that his probation should not be accelerated because the court did not have a written list of rules for his probation. He referred to previous cases from 1969 and 1970 which ruled in favor of defendants when there were no signed probation rules. However, the court explained that in later cases, they decided that a person on probation should understand they cannot commit any further crimes, even without a written agreement. Box also asked to withdraw his agreement to the State's application to change his probation status but could not find any laws that allowed him to do so. The court noted that a stipulation, or agreement, to accelerate a deferred judgment is different from things like guilty pleas, and there is no established way to take back such an agreement. Moreover, Box claimed that his sentence was too harsh. However, the court stated that during an acceleration appeal, they can only examine whether the acceleration was lawful, not whether the sentence was too long. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision to accelerate Box's judgment to a conviction based on his probation violation. They found no evidence of an abuse of discretion by the lower court in making this decision.

F-2017-892

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-892, David Lee Seely appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. David Seely was found guilty of murdering Jackie Tyler Wesnidge during a fight that escalated in a car. Seely and Misty Dawn Benefield had left the house they were staying in after an argument between Wesnidge and Benefield. Seely, who had previously expressed strong feelings for Benefield, ended up stabbing Wesnidge seventeen times after a confrontation in the car. After the murder, Seely and Benefield crashed the car and tried to escape on foot. They were eventually found by the police. Seely claimed several errors during his trial, including the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on certain defenses, the exclusion of evidence he wanted to present, the admission of graphic photographs, and issues of prosecutorial misconduct. He also argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reviewed Seely's arguments and found that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on defenses like defense of another or voluntary intoxication, as there was no sufficient evidence to support those claims. It also determined that the evidence excluded by the court was not necessary for understanding the case, and that the photographs admitted were relevant to the crime. Prosecutorial misconduct claims were examined, yet the court concluded these did not significantly harm Seely's right to a fair trial. Finally, it ruled that his counsel performed adequately, and there were no grounds for claiming he received ineffective representation. The court affirmed Seely's conviction, finding all claims of error were without merit.

F-2018-418

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-418, Ebrima Tamba appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Ebrima Tamba was sentenced to twenty years in prison for his involvement in trafficking illegal drugs, specifically marijuana. Tamba felt that this sentence was too harsh. He argued that it was unfair because it was longer than the minimum penalty for the crime and that he had less marijuana than what the law required for a more serious charge. He also mentioned that since his arrest, the laws in Oklahoma changed, allowing people with a medical marijuana license to use marijuana legally. However, the court explained that even if laws changed after Tamba's crime, the new laws did not apply to his case. They noted that he was given a sentence that followed the laws in place when he committed the crime, and his sentence was within the legal limits. Tamba also claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly during the trial. He believed his attorney should have challenged how police stopped him and questioned whether the evidence used against him was acceptable. However, the court found that Tamba did not prove that his lawyer's actions negatively affected the outcome of his trial. In conclusion, the court decided that Tamba's twenty-year sentence was appropriate and that his lawyer provided adequate help during his trial. Therefore, his appeal did not lead to any changes in his case.

F-2018-359

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-359, Antonio Tiwan Taylor appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, conspiracy to commit a felony, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. Taylor was found guilty of robbing a home along with two other men. During the robbery, they used guns and threatened the residents, forcing them to the floor and taking their belongings. After the robbery, one of the witnesses, Felicia Alvarado, identified Taylor as one of the robbers. Alvarado explained that even though Taylor wore a bandanna over his face, she saw his face clearly when it fell off for a moment. A couple of weeks later, the police found jewelry that had been taken during the crime in Taylor's possession. Another accomplice in the robbery, who had pleaded guilty, also testified against Taylor, naming him as a participant. Although that person changed his story during Taylor's trial, the court still considered his initial statement as evidence. Taylor raised multiple points in his appeal. He argued that the evidence wasn’t enough to prove he was guilty. The court disagreed, stating that the witness's strong identification of him and the jewelry found with him provided enough evidence. Taylor also argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury to be cautious about eyewitness testimony. The court ruled that since there was solid evidence, the instruction wasn't necessary. Next, Taylor claimed it was unfair to convict him for both robbery and gun possession since they were connected to the same crime. The court found no issue with this and explained that the laws allowed for separate convictions in these cases. Finally, Taylor argued that all these points together should lead to a new trial. However, since the court found no errors in the points raised, they denied this request as well. In conclusion, the court upheld the original sentences of thirty years for the robbery counts and ten years for the other charges.

F-2018-103

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-103, the appellant appealed his conviction for manslaughter in the first degree, heat of passion. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. David Wayne Ellis was charged with first degree murder, but the jury found him guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter in the first degree. This happened after a trial in which the jury decided on a sentence of life imprisonment. The judge took into account the time Ellis had already served in jail. Ellis raised several issues in his appeal: 1. He argued that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self-defense when he stabbed the victim. The court looked at the evidence and decided that the jury had enough information to find that Ellis was not acting in self-defense. The court noted that Ellis had confronted the victim with a knife and had made threats, showing he was the aggressor. 2. Ellis claimed that the prosecutor made a mistake by calling the decedent's death a murder during the trial. He believed this was wrong because it was up to the jury to decide on the nature of the death. However, the court found that since the jury had been instructed correctly and had not convicted him of murder but rather manslaughter, this was not a mistake that would affect the trial's fairness. 3. Ellis argued that he did not receive effective legal help during the trial. The court considered this argument but found that his lawyer’s performance did not fall below what is acceptable. Moreover, since there was no error established in the previous points of appeal, this claim also failed. 4. Finally, he objected to the admission of a photograph of the decedent that he felt was unfairly prejudicial. The court determined that the photo was allowed under the law because it provided context about the victim and was relevant to the trial. They did not find any error in allowing it. Overall, the court affirmed the conviction and determined that there were no significant mistakes made during the trial that would change the outcome.

F-2018-15

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-15, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of drugs causing great bodily injury, felony eluding, running a roadblock, and assault with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. The case involved Marcus Ray Smith, who was found guilty in a non-jury trial of several serious offenses related to a high-speed police chase. The judge sentenced Smith to ten years for some crimes and thirty years for others, but with some time suspended, allowing for parole. Smith appealed for multiple reasons. He argued that he was being punished too harshly for actions that were part of one event. According to the law, people usually can't be punished multiple times for the same act. However, the court found that the crimes he committed were separate incidents. For example, running a roadblock is recognized as a distinct crime, and his actions while fleeing from the police qualified as two separate acts that endangered others. Smith also claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he had intended to cause harm with his vehicle when he drove recklessly towards others. The court disagreed and stated that the way he drove clearly showed that he intended to hurt someone. Lastly, Smith said his lawyer didn't do a good job by not arguing about the double punishment issue during the trial. However, the court found that since his double punishment claim was not valid, there was no failure on his lawyer's part. In conclusion, the court upheld Smith's convictions, deciding he had received a fair trial and that his legal arguments were not strong enough to change the outcome.

C-2018-943

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:C

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

F-2017-1098

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1098, Rodger Dale Stevens appealed his conviction for performing a lewd act in the presence of a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Stevens' conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Stevens was found guilty of a serious crime because he masturbated in front of a seven-year-old boy. The court looked closely at the evidence to see if it proved Stevens was doing this for sexual gratification. The victim testified and provided strong evidence that Stevens derived satisfaction from what he did. Even though Stevens argued that he was just trying to help the boy feel comfortable with his body, the jury did not believe him. Stevens also argued that his punishment was too harsh. Since he had previous felony convictions, his sentence was enhanced under a specific law that allows for harsher penalties for repeat offenders. Stevens said the law was applied wrongly and that he should have received a lighter sentence, but the court found that the jury was correctly instructed on the range of punishment. He raised several other issues, including claims that irrelevant and prejudicial evidence was admitted, and that his lawyer did not defend him properly. However, the court upheld that the lawyer's actions did not negatively impact the trial's outcome. Stevens argued that the life sentence he received was excessive, even claiming the situation was not severe enough for such a strong punishment. The court disagreed, noting the nature and seriousness of the crime and confirming that the sentence was within legal limits and did not shock the conscience. In summary, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence, ruling that the evidence supported the jury's decision and that the legal procedures followed were appropriate.

J-2019-113

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 15, 2019
Post category:J

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

F-2018-104

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-104, Dameon Tyrese Lundy appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Dameon Tyrese Lundy was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for having drugs and cash that suggested he intended to sell drugs. He was sentenced to sixty years in prison and had to pay a fine. He was acquitted of another charge related to money from drug sales. Lundy had two main arguments in his appeal. First, he said the trial court made a mistake by not allowing his lawyer to suppress evidence found by the police. He argued that the police did not have the right to approach him outside a bar. However, the court found that the police were allowed to speak to him in a public place and had a good reason to suspect him because they could smell marijuana and he acted suspiciously. So, they decided there was no mistake by the trial court. Secondly, Lundy claimed there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he intended to sell drugs. His defense was that the drugs were for personal use, but the court said that a reasonable jury could think that Lundy was selling drugs due to the large amount of different drugs and cash he had. This means that the evidence was enough to support his conviction. Lundy then argued that his sentence was too harsh. He pointed out that the laws changed after his crime, meaning someone charged now would face a lower maximum sentence. However, the court stated that the new laws couldn’t be applied to Lundy's case because his crime was committed before the law changed. They concluded that the sentence was proper because of his past convictions. In the end, the court upheld the original decision from the district court, meaning Lundy will have to serve his sentence.

F-2017-1240

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1240, Kevin Eugene Fowler appealed his conviction for five counts of Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Kevin Eugene Fowler was found guilty by a jury of neglecting his children, which included not providing them enough food and medical care. The jury recommended that he be sentenced to 30 years in prison for four of the counts and 10 years for the last count, with all sentences to be served one after the other, totaling 130 years. Fowler was required to serve 85% of his sentences before being eligible for parole. Fowler raised several points during his appeal, arguing that there were issues with how evidence was presented in court. He claimed that comments made by a police officer were unfair and that he did not receive a fair trial because of them. However, the court found that these comments were relevant and did not harm his case. Fowler also argued that he was wrongly punished multiple times for the same actions regarding his children, but the court ruled that his separate actions of failing to provide food and medical care could be treated as different crimes. He accused the State of misconduct during the trial, but the court concluded that the comments made were either allowed within the context of the trial or did not unfairly influence the jury. Another point raised was about his attorney not doing a good job. Fowler claimed his lawyer failed to object to improper arguments and was not sufficiently prepared. The court found that his lawyer's actions were not deficient and that there was no actual conflict of interest in defending both him and his co-defendant. Fowler believed that his lengthy sentences were excessive. Yet, the court determined that the sentences fell within the legal limits, and the trial judge had considered all relevant facts before deciding to make the sentences consecutive. Lastly, Fowler argued that all these issues combined made it impossible for him to get a fair trial, but since the court did not find any individual errors significant, they ruled against this claim as well. Overall, the court affirmed Fowler's multiple convictions and sentences, concluding that no errors were made that would warrant a new trial or a change in sentencing.

F-2016-375

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 25, 2019
Post category:F

This document is the opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the appeal of James Stanford Poore from his convictions of four counts of First Degree Murder and two counts of Robbery with a Firearm, which occurred in Tulsa County District Court. The jury recommended sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder convictions and life imprisonment for the robbery charges. The opinion outlines the factual background of the case, including the brutal murders of four victims during a robbery and the subsequent evidence linking Appellant Poore and his brother Cedric Poore to the crime. Key pieces of evidence included witness testimonies, DNA analysis, and ballistic evidence connecting the Poores to both the murders and an earlier robbery. The appellate court addressed several propositions raised by Poore, reviewing the admission of expert testimony, the exclusion of certain third-party perpetrator evidence, the relevance of other crimes evidence, the legality of the search warrant executed at Poore's mother's residence, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. After careful consideration, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence or denying Poore's requests for different evidence and upheld the sufficiency of the search warrant. The court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court, providing a detailed legal rationale for its decisions. The final decision includes an order for the mandate to be issued upon the filing of this opinion. The judgment for both the defendant and the state was documented, with all judges concurring in the decision. For those interested in viewing or downloading the original document, a link is provided at the end of the summary.