Criminal Case

F-2018-954

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. F-2018-954** --- **CHRISTIAN D. MOLINA-SOLORZANO, Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant Christian D. Molina-Solorzano appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Beckham County, Case No. CF-2017-259, for Aggravated Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2015, § 2-415. The Honorable F. Douglas Haught presided over the non-jury trial, found Molina-Solorzano guilty, and sentenced him to fifteen years imprisonment, $1,000.00 fine, and one year of post-imprisonment supervision. Molina-Solorzano raises the following issues: 1. Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge the basis for the traffic stop. 2. Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to inform him of his rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). 3. Entitlement to retroactive application of recent changes in law regarding parole eligibility for aggravated trafficking convictions. **DECISION:** After review, we find relief is not warranted and affirm the district court's Judgment and Sentence. **1. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Traffic Stop Challenge** Molina-Solorzano asserts that defense counsel was ineffective by not challenging the validity of the traffic stop, which he claims was based on race discrimination and an inadequate fog light infraction. To succeed on an ineffective assistance claim, Molina-Solorzano must demonstrate: - Counsel's performance was deficient. - The deficiency resulted in prejudice that affected the outcome of the trial. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and a traffic stop is valid if the officer had probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation. The record, including video evidence from the traffic stop, supports that the stop was justified due to a fog light infraction. The trooper's testimony confirmed that visibility was over a mile, and thus the use of fog lights constituted a violation under Oklahoma law. Since the stop was justified, Molina-Solorzano cannot establish that counsel's failure to challenge it affected the trial's outcome, denying his ineffective assistance claim. **2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: VCCR Rights** Molina-Solorzano also contends that defense counsel failed to inform him of his rights under the VCCR, which would have allowed him to contact the Mexican consulate for assistance. To evaluate this claim, we consider: - Whether he was unaware of his right to contact his consulate. - Whether he would have utilized that right had he known. - Whether the consulate's assistance would have likely aided his defense. The record lacks evidence that Molina-Solorzano was unaware of his rights or that assistance from the consulate would have changed the trial's outcome. Appellate counsel's assertions do not suffice to demonstrate these conditions. Therefore, this claim is also denied. **3. Retroactive Application of Parole Changes** Molina-Solorzano argues that he should benefit from recent legislative proposals reducing parole eligibility terms for aggravated trafficking convictions. However, as legislation is not retroactive unless explicitly stated, and the referenced Senate Bill was never enacted, his claim is moot. **CONCLUSION:** The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** - Kenny R. Goza, Counsel for Defendant - Debra K. Hampton, Counsel for Appellant - Gina R. Webb, Counsel for State - Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma - Joshua R. Fanelli, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** ROWLAND, J. **Concur in Results:** KUEHN, V.P.J. **Concur:** LUMPKIN, J. **Concur:** HUDSON, J. --- For the full decision, click here: [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-954_1734874505.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-954

F 2017-1055

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2017-1055, William Singleton Wall, III, appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Oxycodone). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of Appellant from the Pontotoc County Drug Court Program. One judge dissented. William was charged in 2014 and entered a plea for the Drug Court program, where if he succeeded, his case would be dismissed. However, if he failed, he faced a ten-year prison sentence. In April 2017, the State filed to terminate him from the program because he tested positive for THC, which is a substance found in marijuana. During the termination hearing, the judge decided that the State had enough evidence to terminate William from the program. He was given a ten-year prison sentence with credit for time already served. William argued that he should not have been terminated because he did not receive proper notice of the program's rules and because the State filed its motion after the allowed time for his participation in the Drug Court expired. The court explained that the decision to terminate a participant from Drug Court is at the judge's discretion. William did not object when the evidence of his drug use was presented at the hearing. Furthermore, the records showed that William had understood the terms of the Drug Court when he entered. The court also found that although the approval for his Drug Court participation had a time limit, he was still under the court's jurisdiction until he was properly sentenced. The court ruled that they did not see any errors in how the trial court acted. They affirmed the decision to terminate William, meaning he would serve his ten-year sentence for not following the rules of the Drug Court program.

Continue ReadingF 2017-1055

F-2018-629

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BRIAN KEITH FULLERTON,** Appellant, vs. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. F-2018-629** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 26 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Brian Keith Fullerton, was convicted by a jury in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2016-4430, of four counts of Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. The Honorable Bill Graves, District Judge, sentenced him in accordance with the jury's recommendation to life imprisonment on each count, with the sentences to be served as follows: two pairs of life terms to run concurrently, with one pair served consecutively to the other. Appellant must serve 85% of each sentence before being considered for parole. Appellant raises four propositions of error in support of his appeal: **PROPOSITION I:** The evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction for both Count 1 and Count 2 Lewd Acts with a Child Under the Age of Sixteen because the State failed to prove Mr. Fullerton touched L.D. on the vagina more than once. **PROPOSITION II:** The information filed in this case was insufficient as it failed to apprize Mr. Fullerton of what he was charged with and was not specific enough to allow him to plead former jeopardy should the State seek to file other charges, in violation of the due process clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions. **PROPOSITION III:** The prosecutors invoked improper sympathy toward the victim, L.D., and appealed to the jury's emotions, violating Mr. Fullerton's right to a fair trial. **PROPOSITION IV:** Trial errors, when considered in an accumulative fashion, warrant a new trial. After thorough consideration of these propositions, the briefs of the parties, and the record on appeal, we affirm. **Analysis of Propositions:** 1. **Proposition I:** Appellant claims the victim's statements were too vague for the jury to reasonably find he committed the acts described in Counts 1 and 2 more than once. However, the Court found the victim's consistent statements to family, the forensic interviewer, and her anatomical drawing support the conviction on both counts. The evidence was deemed sufficient as per precedent. 2. **Proposition II:** The Court noted that since Appellant did not challenge the specificity of the Information at trial, this complaint was waived except for plain error. The factual allegations of the Information were sufficient for Appellant to prepare a defense and to advance a plea of former jeopardy for similar subsequent charges. No error was found. 3. **Proposition III:** Appellant argued that the prosecutor's closing remarks improperly invoked sympathy for the victim. With no objection raised at the time of the closing argument, the Court reviewed for plain error and found no basis for relief, as the comments were grounded in the evidence presented at trial. 4. **Proposition IV:** The Court determined that since no errors were identified in the prior propositions, there could not be cumulative error. **DECISION:** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Oklahoma 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. --- **APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE BILL GRAVES, DISTRICT JUDGE** **ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL** KENDA MCINTOSH MELTEM KARLA TANKUT ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER OKLAHOMA COUNTY **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL** HALLIE ELIZABETH BOVOS ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER OKLAHOMA COUNTY **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE** MEREDITH EASTER MIKE HUNTER MCKENZIE MCMAHAN ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OKLAHOMA COUNTY --- **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR**

Continue ReadingF-2018-629

F-2017-1149

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1149, Moore appealed his conviction for Permitting Invitees Under 21 to Possess or Consume Alcohol, Child Neglect, and Transporting a Loaded Firearm in a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court. One judge dissented. Moore was convicted for crimes related to a party where a fifteen-year-old boy named N.F. drank too much alcohol and died from alcohol poisoning. The party took place at the home of a sixteen-year-old friend, and although Moore was not there, the court had to decide if he was responsible for what happened because he was in a relationship with the boy's mother, who lived at that house. The first major point in the case was whether there was enough evidence to support Moore’s convictions. The court found that there was, especially because Moore admitted he lived with the mother and his driver's license listed that address. This was important as the law stated that he could be held responsible for underage drinking and neglect if he was living there. Moore also argued that he didn’t get a fair trial because his lawyer did not do a good job. He mentioned that his lawyer failed to object to certain testimonies from a worker in child protective services. The court looked into this claim but concluded that it didn’t affect the fairness of the trial enough to change the outcome. They thought that defense counsel did present evidence to support Moore's case, showing he may not have lived at the home when N.F. died. Another issue was about evidence presented during the trial. Moore’s lawyer did not object to the testimony from the child protective services worker, which led to the question of whether this testimony hurt his case. The court found that while this testimony might have been improper, it did not significantly affect the trial's result since the jury could have made their decision based on other evidence presented. Moore also claimed he should get credit for the time spent in jail before his sentencing. However, the court said it was up to the judge to decide about giving credit for time served, not mandatory. They believed the judge made the right choice and affirmed the decision. In conclusion, the court upheld Moore's convictions and sentences, affirming that there was enough evidence against him and that his rights to a fair trial were not violated. Moore was denied the motion to have a hearing about his lawyer's effectiveness in defending him.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1149

S-2018-6

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

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

Continue ReadingS-2018-6

F 2014-3

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-3, Edwin Jermaine Daniels appealed his conviction for several serious crimes including burglary, robbery, kidnapping, and assault. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the trial court's decisions but did vacate some of the fines associated with his sentences. One judge dissented. During the trial, Daniels was found guilty of multiple counts connected to violent crimes he committed with a co-defendant. The judge sentenced him to a total of many years in prison and imposed fines for each count. Daniels raised several issues on appeal, arguing that there were mistakes made during his trial that affected the fairness of the process. First, he claimed that the jury instructions were confusing and reduced the State’s burden to prove guilt. The court found that since there were no objections to the instructions during the trial, they did not affect the trial's result. Second, Daniels objected to being told the fines were mandatory, but the court found that this was also a mistake that the State admitted to; thus, the fines were removed for certain counts. He also claimed prosecutorial misconduct, arguing that comments made by the prosecutor during the trial unfairly influenced the jury. The court ruled that these comments did not significantly change the trial's outcome. Daniels further contended that he did not receive effective legal assistance. The court concluded that his lawyer's performance did not meet a standard of failure that would have changed the trial's result. In the end, while the court affirmed the convictions, it removed the fines that were wrongly imposed, ensuring that Daniel's rights were respected where the trial process fell short.

Continue ReadingF 2014-3

M-2012-416

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

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

Continue ReadingM-2012-416

F-2011-354

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-354, Isaiah Hasan Gilbert appealed his conviction for Felonious Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirty years to twenty years in prison. Gilbert was found guilty after a jury trial. He was charged with having a gun even though he was not allowed to because of his past criminal record. The jury recommended a sentence of thirty years and a fine of $5,000. Gilbert argued that his lawyer did not do a good job during the trial and that his sentence was too long considering the circumstances. The court looked carefully at everything that happened during the trial. It agreed that Gilbert's lawyer made mistakes but concluded that they did not affect the trial's outcome enough to reverse the conviction entirely. One of the main issues was that Gilbert's lawyer did not call a witness who could have said the gun belonged to someone else. Instead, the lawyer tried to bring that information up in a way that was not allowed, which was a mistake. The court also found that the jury heard improper information about Gilbert’s past, specifically that he had been given suspended sentences from previous convictions. The prosecutor mentioned this to the jury, which could have unfairly influenced their decision on how long to sentence him. Because of these issues, the court decided to reduce Gilbert's sentence from thirty years to twenty years. In conclusion, the decision by the court maintained Gilbert's conviction but reduced the time he had to spend in prison due to the unfair use of his past criminal history in the trial process.

Continue ReadingF-2011-354

F-2010-466

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-466, William Michael DeMoss appealed his conviction for three Counts of Shooting with Intent to Kill and one Count of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but vacated the fines associated with each count. One judge dissented. William Michael DeMoss was found guilty of serious crimes, including trying to kill people and attacking someone with a weapon. The jury decided he should go to prison for a long time and also pay money as fines. DeMoss didn’t think the trial was fair and said there were many mistakes made. He argued that there wasn't enough proof to find him guilty, that he couldn’t hear well during the trial, and that he should have had help from experts to prove he had problems. The court looked closely at what DeMoss said and also reviewed all the evidence. They decided that there was enough proof to show that DeMoss did commit the crimes. The court didn’t think his defense attorney did anything wrong to hurt DeMoss's case and that the decisions made during the trial were fair. They also found out that even though there were some mistakes, such as telling the jury they had to give fines when they really didn’t have to, it didn’t change the outcome of the trial. In the end, they agreed with the jury’s decision but took away the fines because it wasn’t right for the jury to have to give them. This means he still has to serve a long prison sentence, but he won't have to pay those extra fines. The court decided that everything else about the trial was okay, and DeMoss's appeal was mostly denied.

Continue ReadingF-2010-466

F-2007-66

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-66, Lyle Wayne Strickland appealed his conviction for multiple offenses, including burglary and assaulting a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one for eluding a police officer, ordering it to be dismissed. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2007-66

F-2006-669

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-669, Coronado appealed his conviction for attempted burglary in the second degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the district court did not make a reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of malicious mischief. The court also found that the restitution amount ordered by the district court was not supported by sufficient evidence, and this part of the case was sent back for proper determination. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2006-669

C-2005-1

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-1, Victor Alfonso Duenas-Flores appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his appeal, vacate the judgment and sentence, and allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Victor Duenas-Flores, who is from Mexico, was involved in a car accident on August 9, 2003, where he crossed the centerline of a highway and hit another car head-on, resulting in the death of the other driver. Duenas-Flores had a high blood alcohol content of 0.21 at the time of the accident. Due to this event, he was charged with first-degree manslaughter. On August 12, 2004, Duenas-Flores pleaded guilty to the charge in court and was sentenced to 45 years in prison. After some time, he wanted to change his plea but the court denied his request. He then took his case to a higher court, claiming that he was not informed about his rights under a treaty that allows foreign nationals to contact their consulate when they are in legal trouble. This lack of information made him feel pressured to plead guilty because he thought he would not have enough resources to defend himself without expert testimony, which he hoped to get help for from the Mexican consulate. The higher court found that the trial court had made an error. Even though it was confirmed that Duenas-Flores was not informed about his consulate rights as required, the trial court ruled that he could not prove that this violation affected his understanding of his guilty plea. The higher court disagreed and said that it was likely that Duenas-Flores would have chosen to go to trial instead of pleading guilty if he had known about his rights, and thus he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. The ruling meant that Duenas-Flores had a chance to defend himself again, and the court did not assess whether his sentence was too long since they granted relief based on the violation of his rights.

Continue ReadingC-2005-1

F-2005-1094

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1094, #x appealed his conviction for #y. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. #n dissented. Charles Arnold Fields was found guilty of delivering a controlled drug after having been convicted of felonies before. The jury gave him a sentence of 15 years to life in prison and a big fine. Fields did not like his representation during the trial, and he wanted to fire his lawyers. But the judge told him he could either continue with his lawyers or represent himself with them helping him. The case had three main issues. The first one was about whether Fields gave up his right to have a lawyer in a way that was clear and fair. The second issue questioned whether his long sentence was okay. The last issue looked at whether the judge made a mistake by not allowing Fields to challenge some evidence. The court found that Fields did not really ask to represent himself, and the judge did not explain to him the problems that could arise from not having a lawyer. Because of this, the court said he deserved a new trial. Since they decided on the first issue, they did not need to look into the other two issues. The court's final decision was to cancel the previous judgment and send the case back for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1094

F-2001-1444

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1444, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (2nd offense) and Driving While Privilege Suspended. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Driving Under the Influence and ordered a new trial with proper instructions. The judgment for Driving While Privilege Suspended was affirmed. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2001-1444

F 2002-101

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-101, Danny Joe Boomershine appealed his conviction for Forcible Sodomy and Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentences should be modified to life.

Continue ReadingF 2002-101