Criminal Justice

F-2017-1294

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1294, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. The case involved Terrance Lucas Cottingham, who was found guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon after having been previously convicted of two or more felonies. The conviction took place in the District Court of Washington County, where he was sentenced to 25 years in prison. He would have to serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. Cottingham argued that the court did not have the right to prosecute him because of his status as a member of the Osage Nation and because the crime occurred in what he believed to be Indian Country, specifically the Cherokee Nation's boundaries. He cited a federal law and a Supreme Court decision, McGirt v. Oklahoma, to support his argument. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals decided to send Cottingham's case back to the lower court for a hearing to examine his Indian status and the location of the robbery. They said that Cottingham needed to show that he had Indian blood and was recognized as an Indian by the tribe or by the federal government. If he could prove this, then it would be up to the state to show that it had jurisdiction to prosecute him. During the hearing, Cottingham and the Cherokee Nation agreed on certain facts. They confirmed that he had a degree of Indian blood and was a member of the Osage Nation at the time of the robbery. They also agreed that the robbery happened within the geographic area defined by treaties establishing the Cherokee Nation. The court found that Cottingham was indeed a member of the Osage Nation and that the robbery occurred in Indian Country based on their analysis of the law and treaties. This evidence showed that the state of Oklahoma did not have the legal right to prosecute Cottingham for the crime. The appeals court ultimately agreed with the findings of the lower court and concluded that Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, they reversed Cottingham's conviction and instructed the District Court to dismiss the case. In summary, Cottingham's conviction was undone because it was determined that he was an Indian and that the crime took place in Indian Country. Consequently, the state court did not have the authority to prosecute him.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1294

F-2017-336

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-336, Bea Ann Epperson appealed her conviction for two counts of Embezzlement of Building Trust. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her convictions and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Bea Ann Epperson was found guilty in a trial without a jury for embezzling money related to a building trust. She was sentenced to five years in prison for each count, but her sentences were suspended, meaning she wouldn’t serve time unless she violated certain conditions. Epperson believed that the court did not have the right to try her case because she is a member of the Cherokee Nation, and the victims might be part of the Creek Nation, with the crimes happening on Creek Reservation land. This argument was connected to a U.S. Supreme Court decision called McGirt v. Oklahoma, which deals with whether certain areas are considered Indian Country. The questions involved were Epperson's Indian status, the status of the victims, and the location of the crimes. Because these questions needed more fact-finding, the case was sent back to the District Court. At a hearing to gather more details, it was determined that Epperson had some Indian blood (3/64th degree) and was recognized as a member of the Cherokee Nation. It was also confirmed that the crimes took place within the boundaries of the Creek Reservation. The court accepted these agreements made by both sides regarding what the evidence would show. In a later brief, the State supported the District Court’s findings, but wanted time to consider whether to file new charges against Epperson. After reviewing everything, the court agreed Epperson had shown she was an Indian and that the crimes happened in Indian Country, thus the State of Oklahoma did not have the right to try her. The court reversed the judgment of Epperson's convictions and sent the case back to be dismissed, meaning she wouldn't face charges for the embezzlement anymore.

Continue ReadingF-2017-336

RE-2019-19

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-19, Daniel Lee Hart appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that revoking his suspended sentence without him being present was a violation of his right to due process, and therefore, the revocation was reversed. One judge dissented. Daniel Lee Hart originally pleaded guilty in 2009 to trying to manufacture a controlled substance. He was given a 20-year sentence, with 12 years of that being suspended, meaning he didn't have to serve that part of the time as long as he followed certain rules. One of those rules was that he had to stay clean from drugs and check in regularly with his probation officer. In 2017, the state said that Hart had broken the rules. They said he had used drugs, didn’t show up for meetings with his probation officer in both Oklahoma and Kansas, didn’t register as a drug offender in Kansas, didn’t pay fees for his probation, and hadn’t completed his GED as he was supposed to. Hart later agreed to these claims but was able to be released for drug treatment for a few months before being sentenced. When the time came for his sentencing, Hart did not show up. Because he was absent, the court revoked the suspended part of his sentence completely. This meant he would have to serve the full 20 years instead of just the 8 years that he had left to serve. Hart appealed this decision, saying it was unfair for the court to make such a serious decision without him being there. The court looked at whether Hart's absence affected his right to defend himself. They said that everyone has the right to be present when decisions are made about their punishment. The court noted that Hart had not willingly chosen to skip the sentencing and that his absence could have greatly impacted the outcome. Because of these reasons, the court said Hart deserved a new hearing where he could be present to possibly explain why he wasn’t there and defend himself more fully. The final decision was to send the case back for another hearing. They wanted to make sure Hart had a fair chance to be present when the consequences of his actions were discussed again. In summary, because Hart was missing during a very important hearing, the court agreed that this was a mistake. They reversed the earlier decision and ordered a new hearing where he could be present.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-19

F-2018-1190

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of Walter Lee Roundtree, who was convicted of violations related to the Sex Offender Registration Act. The court found against him on several propositions of error, including claims of insufficient evidence, double jeopardy, improper sentencing enhancements, and ineffective assistance of counsel. **Key Points from the Opinion:** - Roundtree was convicted of two counts: Violation of the Sex Offender Registration Act and Failure to Comply with the Act, with the jury recommending sentences of four and five years, respectively, to be served consecutively. - The court addressed several legal propositions raised by Roundtree, concluding that the evidence supported the convictions, and there was no violation of double jeopardy laws. - Roundtree's assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel was also denied, as the court found that he did not demonstrate sufficient prejudice from his attorney's performance. - The court ultimately affirmed the judgment and sentences while denying a request to supplement the appeal record due to a lack of evidentiary support. **Judicial Opinions:** - Judge Lumpkin authored the opinion affirming the judgments. - Judge Lewis concurred in part but dissented on the affirmation of Count 1, arguing that Roundtree's single act of moving should not subject him to multiple punishments under the law. The court's ruling underscores the importance of establishing clear legal standards for crimes and how multiple offenses are treated under similar circumstances.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1190

F-2018-562

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AARON THOMAS BROCK,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2018-562** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Aaron Thomas Brock was convicted by jury of robbery with a dangerous weapon and conspiracy to commit a felony in Oklahoma County District Court, receiving a total sentence of thirty-five years imprisonment. He appeals with two propositions of error. **Proposition One: IAD Violation** Brock argues his rights under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) were violated when the State did not bring him to trial within the mandated 180 days. The trial court ruled that no proper detainer was lodged against him as required by Article III of the IAD. Brock contends that a documentation was sent to the appropriate authorities, triggering the IAD timeline. The trial court determined that there was no evidence of a proper detainer because the Oklahoma County District Attorney's office and the Court Clerk's office had no record of receiving documentation from Brock. Notably, the trial court found a facsimile from the Sheriff's office did not constitute a proper detainer as defined by case law (Fex v. Michigan). The Court agreed with the trial court's findings, ruling that Brock failed to provide sufficient documentation and credible evidence to support his claims. **Proposition Two: Insufficient Evidence** In his second proposition, Brock asserts that the evidence was insufficient to uphold the conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. The standard for reviewing evidence requires this Court to determine if, viewing the evidence favorably to the prosecution, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The facts presented included testimony that a knife was brandished toward a victim and that money was taken by a co-defendant and given to Brock. The Court found that this evidence met the elements for robbery with a dangerous weapon, reinforcing that the presence of fear in the victim suffices for conviction. **Decision** Both propositions of error raised by Brock are denied. The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. A mandate will issue upon filing this decision. **Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County** The Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge **Attorneys for Appellant**: Nick Southerland, Andrea Digilio Miller, Micah Sielert **Attorneys for Appellee**: Kelly Collins, Mike Hunter, Lori McConnell, Jennifer B. Miller **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **CONCURRING:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. [**Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-562_1735316443.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-562

F-2017-1104

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1104, Joseph Johnson appealed his conviction for first degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Joseph Johnson was found guilty of killing Quavis Trae Cato during an argument over a car. The jury sentenced Johnson to life in prison without parole. The incident happened on October 10, 2016, when Johnson shot Cato 14 times, after a dispute over a stolen car. Witnesses testified that Johnson was armed with two guns and returned to the argument after briefly leaving the scene. During the trial, Johnson's defense argued for instructions on lesser charges of manslaughter, claiming he acted in the heat of passion or self-defense. However, the court found no evidence that Cato provoked Johnson sufficiently to warrant such instructions. The judges decided that Johnson escalated the situation by bringing guns into the argument and that simply being angry or upset does not justify the use of deadly force. Johnson also claimed that the prosecutor's closing arguments contained misconduct, asserting that they misled the jury about the facts and the law of self-defense, but the court found no errors that affected the fairness of the trial. Finally, Johnson’s defense argued that his lawyer didn't perform adequately by not presenting expert testimony about psychological conditions that might have affected his perception of the situation. However, the court concluded that even if the lawyer's performance was deficient, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the trial because Johnson had initiated the conflict while armed. In summary, the court upheld the conviction for murder, concluding that Johnson acted with intent and malice when he killed Cato. The judges agreed that there was no basis for a lesser charge or for claims of ineffective counsel. Overall, the ruling was in favor of maintaining the original sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1104

F-2017-008

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-08, John Kyle Crandall appealed his conviction for first degree murder, concealing stolen property, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for first degree murder and possession of a firearm but reversed the conviction for concealing stolen property. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2017-008

F-2012-236

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-236, #Jonathan Bear Robe Nahwooksy appealed his conviction for #First Degree Rape and Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence. Nahwooksy was originally sentenced to thirty years imprisonment for First Degree Rape and five years for Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation; however, the court changed the thirty-year sentence to twenty years and ordered both sentences to be served at the same time instead of one after the other. During the trial, Nahwooksy was found guilty of raping his second cousin, K.M., who was fourteen at the time. The case revolved around whether the sexual encounter was forced or consensual. The prosecutor's conduct throughout the case led to concerns about the fairness of the trial. Specifically, the prosecutor made inappropriate comments during the trial that seemed to create sympathy for K.M. and portrayed herself and the investigating officer as champions of justice. The court examined the prosecutor's behavior and found that it went beyond acceptable limits, especially when she made personal comments and depicted herself as fighting for victims. While there was enough evidence for the jury to find Nahwooksy guilty, the court believed that the prosecutor's misconduct during closing arguments likely affected the jury's decision on sentencing. In conclusion, while the conviction was upheld, the court decided to reduce Nahwooksy's sentence to ensure fairness in light of the errors made during the trial. #None dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2012-236