Criminal Defendant

F-2018-1161

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2018-1161

F-2017-1142

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1142, Daniel Ryan Chadwell appealed his conviction for forty counts of Lewd Acts with a Child Under 16. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Chadwell's judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Chadwell was found guilty by a jury of many serious offenses. He was accused of committing inappropriate acts with children who were under the age of 16. The jury decided he should spend a very long time in prison, giving him a total of several hundred years in sentences. He did not get found guilty on two of the counts. Chadwell's appeal included two main arguments. First, he claimed the jury received wrong instructions about how to decide his punishment. Specifically, he argued that the instructions mentioned the punishment for crimes against children under 12, which was not applicable to his case since he was charged with acts involving children under 16. The court found that while the instructions did have an error, the mistake was not serious enough to change the outcome. They noted that all the child victims were proven to be under 12 at the time of the crimes, so the error was harmless. Second, Chadwell argued that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial, which made it impossible for him to have a fair chance. However, the court looked at what happened during the entire trial and found that these actions did not make the trial unfair either. In the end, the court decided that Chadwell's appeal did not provide enough reason to change the original decision. Therefore, his sentences remained as decided by the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1142

C-2017-1036

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 23, 2019** **DANA MECHELE LANGLEY,** Petitioner, vs. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Respondent. **Case No. C-2017-1036** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Petitioner Dana Mechele Langley was charged in the Tulsa County District Court with multiple counts, including **Lewd Molestation**, **Enabling Child Sexual Abuse**, and **Child Sexual Abuse**. Langley entered a blind plea of guilty to these charges on June 19, 2017. Following a hearing, Judge Sharon K. Holmes sentenced her to significant prison terms. On September 6, 2017, Langley, through her counsel, filed an application to withdraw her guilty plea, which led to the appointment of conflict counsel. After a hearing, her request was denied. Langley then sought a writ of certiorari, raising three propositions of error: 1. The trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw her guilty plea was plain error and an abuse of discretion due to an inadequate factual basis. 2. Denial of effective assistance of counsel during both the plea hearing and the plea withdrawal hearing. 3. The sentences imposed were excessive given the circumstances. **DECISION:** After reviewing the complete record, including transcripts and exhibits, the Court found no grounds for relief. **Proposition I:** The claim regarding the factual basis for the lewd molestation counts was not raised at the withdrawal hearing; thus, it was procedurally defective and not properly before the Court. **Proposition II:** The ineffective assistance claim was similarly waived as it was not included in her motion to withdraw. Furthermore, the Court found sufficient evidence supporting the factual basis of her pleas, dismissing claims about the inadequacy of representation. **Proposition III:** The sentences were consistent with statutory ranges and did not shock the conscience of the Court. **CONCLUSION:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is **DENIED**, and the judgment and sentence from the district court are **AFFIRMED**. **Pursuant to Rule 3.15, RULES OF THE OKLAHOMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.** --- **Click Here To Download PDF** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2017-1036-1_1733900854.pdf)

Continue ReadingC-2017-1036

F-2017-952

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-952, Jerry Don Battenfield appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child under age twelve. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. Mr. Battenfield was found guilty without a jury and received a sentence of thirty years in prison and a fine for each of the two counts, which means he must serve over twenty-five years before he can be considered for parole. He raised several arguments on appeal. First, he argued that he did not understand that he was giving up his right to a jury trial. He believed he might face the death penalty, but the court found he was not misled about the possible punishment. Therefore, his claim was denied. Second, he claimed that the judge improperly relied on evidence that was not admitted during the trial. However, the court found that the judge could only use the evidence that was presented and determined there was no error. Third, he argued that there should have been a hearing to check if child hearsay was reliable before it was allowed in court. The court noted that his attorney had actually agreed to let the hearsay in, which meant that there was no error to review. In the fourth point, he contended that some of the child’s statements were allowed into the trial in a way that violated his right to confront witnesses. The court agreed that there was a mistake concerning some statements but concluded the mistake was harmless, as there was enough other evidence to show he was guilty. Fifth, he stated that his lawyer did a poor job for not fighting harder to protect his rights during the trial. However, the court believed that the lawyer did not make any major mistakes that would have changed the outcome of the trial. Finally, he asked for a review based on multiple mistakes during the trial. The court found that the previous issues did not add up to deny him a fair trial. The court affirmed the judgment and said that the decisions made during the trial were generally correct, despite acknowledging a small error regarding the child’s statements. Overall, his appeal was denied, and he will continue to serve his sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2017-952

C-2017-1044

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

The document appears to be a legal summary from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of Auntra Lawan Edmonds. The case revolves around Edmonds' appeal after being convicted of two counts of First Degree Manslaughter. Here’s a concise overview of the case and the court's decision: 1. **Background**: Auntra Lawan Edmonds was charged with two counts of First Degree Manslaughter in Greer County District Court. After entering a no contest plea and being sentenced to life imprisonment for each count (to run concurrently), he later sought to withdraw his plea, which the court denied. 2. **Propositions of Error**: - **Proposition I**: Edmonds argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea, claiming it was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The court found that the record sufficiently demonstrated that Edmonds was aware of his rights and the nature of the charges, thus affirming that his plea was valid. - **Proposition II**: He claimed ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea withdrawal hearing. The court concluded that this claim lacked merit, noting that Edmonds did not provide substantial evidence to support the claim of ineffective assistance. - **Proposition III**: Edmonds argued that his life sentences were excessive. The court reasoned that the sentences were factually substantiated and justified given the severity of the incident, including the presence of alcohol and prior criminal behavior. 3. **Court Decision**: The court denied Edmonds' petition for a writ of certiorari, affirming the judgment and sentence of the District Court. It upheld that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea. 4. **Final Note**: The opinion emphasizes the importance of properly presenting claims during the trial and highlights that a defendant's dissatisfaction with a sentence does not invalidate a plea agreement. This case serves as a reference point for issues regarding plea withdrawals, effective legal counsel, and the proportionality of sentences in criminal proceedings.

Continue ReadingC-2017-1044

C-2015-573

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-573, Jeremy Ross Wilson appealed his conviction for Escape from the Department of Corrections. In a published decision, the court decided to modify Wilson's sentence. One judge dissented. Jeremy Ross Wilson was an inmate who escaped from a work center. He was arrested later and faced charges for his escape. He pleaded guilty and was given a long sentence, but he later wanted to take back his guilty plea. His motion to do so was denied, and he appealed that decision. The case included a problem with how the state used Wilson's past felony convictions. The law says you cannot use the same prior convictions to charge someone with a crime and to make the punishment worse for that crime. The state did that with Wilson, using five of his past felonies to both charge him and to increase his punishment. Because of this, the court found that Wilson had been given a harsher sentence than what was allowed by law. The main question was whether Wilson had entered his guilty plea voluntarily and intelligently. It was found that he had. However, the court also decided that the sentence needed to be corrected. Wilson's lawyer did not challenge the state's use of the prior felonies, which was seen as ineffective help. As a result, the court modified Wilson's sentence to a shorter term of seven years instead of fifteen. Wilson would also have to be supervised for a year once released and pay fines. The court affirmed the decision to deny his request to withdraw his guilty plea but changed the length of his sentence.

Continue ReadingC-2015-573

C 2015-473

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2015-473, Johnny Allen Ross appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) and Possession of a Controlled and Dangerous Substance (Marijuana). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the appeal because Ross was denied effective assistance of counsel during the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC 2015-473

C-2012-686

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2012-686, Joseph Dewayne Conner appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery and First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal regarding the robbery conviction, but granted it concerning the burglary conviction. The court found that Conner had been misinformed about the possible sentence for burglary, which affected his decision to plead guilty. Although Conner’s actual sentence was within the correct range, the incorrect information he received could have influenced his plea. #n dissented on the decision regarding the robbery conviction.

Continue ReadingC-2012-686

F-2011-866

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-866, Emanuel D. Mitchell appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony (Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand the case for a new trial where Mitchell may have the chance to represent himself. One judge dissented. Mitchell was found guilty of serious crimes and was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and additional years for conspiracy. He felt he was not being properly defended by his attorney and had asked multiple times to have his attorney replaced. Eventually, he requested to represent himself, expressing dissatisfaction with his legal counsel. The court found that Mitchell’s request to represent himself was clear and that he understood the risks of doing so. The court concluded that he had the constitutional right to self-representation, which had been violated when his request was denied. Although the court addressed other issues raised in Mitchell’s appeal, the main reason for the reversal was the denial of his right to represent himself. The dissenting opinion argued that the trial court acted correctly by not allowing Mitchell to self-represent due to his disruptive behavior during the trial process. In summary, the decision allows Mitchell another opportunity to conduct his own defense, considering that he properly requested this right before the trial proceedings were fully underway.

Continue ReadingF-2011-866

F-2002-1351

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1351, Barrett appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Randy Barrett was found guilty of First Degree Murder in a trial. The jury said he should go to prison for life and pay a fine. Barrett thought the judge and the jury made mistakes. He raised several points in his appeal, saying there were errors during his trial. One of the main issues was that Barrett's lawyer did not tell him about the lesser charges that he could have been found guilty of instead of First Degree Murder. Barrett felt that he didn’t understand this and claimed his lawyer gave him bad advice. Barrett wanted to fight for a chance to potentially get a lesser sentence but didn’t pursue it because he was worried his lawyer said that mentioning those charges could lead to a longer prison sentence. Barrett argued that the evidence against him didn’t really support the murder charge, especially the claim about kidnapping the victim as part of the crime. He also thought the jury saw unfair photographs that shouldn’t have been leaked during the trial, hurting his chance for a fair trial. Additionally, he believed his lawyer wasn’t allowed to explain certain details about the case, which affected the way the jury viewed his actions. The court looked carefully at Barrett’s complaint. It found that Barrett was right in saying his lawyer didn't give him good advice about applying for the lesser charges. This misguidance led Barrett to give up an important option that could have benefited him. The court pointed out that Barrett’s lawyer was confused and didn't accurately inform him about his chances for parole based on different sentences. Because of these mistakes by his lawyer, the court decided that Barrett deserved another trial to get a fair chance. They reversed the earlier decision and sent the case back to start again. One judge disagreed with this choice, believing that Barrett was a smart individual who made a choice in consultation with his lawyer and understanding the risks.

Continue ReadingF-2002-1351

F 2003-1036

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-1036, Mark Anthony Troutt appealed his conviction for Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Cocaine). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Mark Anthony Troutt was tried and found guilty of distributing cocaine, which is a serious crime. The trial took place in the Oklahoma County District Court. During the trial, Troutt's lawyers argued that he did not receive a fair trial because the judge did not let the jury hear about his defense, which was based on entrapment. Entrapment means that someone was tricked into committing a crime they wouldn’t have done otherwise. The jury decided that Troutt was guilty and gave him a punishment of fifteen years in prison. Troutt did not agree with the decision and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to review the case. In the appeal, Troutt's lawyers pointed out three main problems with the trial. First, they said the trial judge should have allowed the jury to hear about his defense of entrapment. They believed this was important because the jury needed to decide for themselves if Troutt had been tricked into committing the crime. Second, they claimed that some of the evidence presented during the trial was not relevant and could have unfairly influenced the jury. Third, they argued that together, all these issues made it impossible for Troutt to get a fair trial. After reviewing everything, the court agreed that Troutt had been denied a fair trial. They ruled that the judge's refusal to let the jury consider his entrapment defense was a significant mistake. Because of this, the court decided to reverse Troutt's conviction and ordered a new trial where the jury could properly consider all the evidence, including his defense. The case highlights the importance of a fair legal process and the right for a defendant to have a jury hear their side of the story.

Continue ReadingF 2003-1036

MA-2001-117

  • Post author:
  • Post category:MA

In OCCA case No. MA-2001-117, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for two counts of Murder in the First Degree and two counts of Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for an extraordinary writ, which means the court decided to stop the prosecution from seeking the death penalty in the retrial. The dissenting opinion noted concerns regarding the outcome of the case based on previous legal interpretations and precedents. The case began with the Petitioner charged in two separate cases, related to tragic events that resulted in the loss of life and armed robbery. Initially, the jury found him guilty of all charges and recommended life sentences without parole for the murders and life imprisonment for the robbery offenses. However, this verdict was reversed, and the case was sent back for separate trials, which created a new legal situation. The Petitioner argued that he should not face the death penalty again because the first jury had already decided on a life sentence, indicating that they did not believe the death penalty should apply. This idea connects to the legal protection known as the Double Jeopardy Clause, which prevents someone from being tried multiple times for the same offense. The court looked closely at the issue of double jeopardy, discussing how it applies not just to being tried for the same crime, but also regarding the severity of punishment. They acknowledged that once a jury has had a chance to decide on a punishment like the death penalty, the state should not get a second opportunity to change that if the first jury chose not to impose it. As a result, the court found that the Petitioner should not have to go through the additional stress and public scrutiny of another capital sentencing trial when they had already made a clear decision against it previously. Thus, the petition to prohibit the state from seeking the death penalty was granted.

Continue ReadingMA-2001-117