Cruel and Unusual Punishment Archives

F-2018-989

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 8, 2020
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ARNULFO CAMPOS GONZALES, Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-989** **File Date: January 2020** **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, JUDGE** Appellant Arnulfo Campos Gonzales appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Haskell County, Case No. CF-2017-197. He was convicted for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, Conspiracy to Traffic Methamphetamine, and Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine. His sentences included twenty-five years imprisonment for Count 1 and ten years each for Counts 2 and 3, ordered to be served consecutively. Gonzales raises several issues on appeal: 1. Denial of effective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest. 2. Double punishment for Counts 2 and 3. 3. Violation of the Fourth Amendment regarding the search of his car. 4. Deficient jury instructions on conspiracy. 5. Ineffective assistance of counsel due to failure to suppress and object to instructions. 6. Abuse of discretion in consecutive sentencing. **1. Conflict of Interest** Gonzales argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel due to defense counsel’s prior representation of a co-defendant, Samantha Johnson, who testified against him. The court examined whether an actual conflict arose during representation, determining that Gonzales failed to demonstrate that the former representation affected counsel's performance. The court found that Johnson’s testimony largely did not implicate Gonzales and that counsel's representation was sufficient. **2. Multiple Punishment** Gonzales contends that sentencing him for conspiracy to traffic and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine violates the prohibition against multiple punishments for the same act. The court found both counts stemmed from a single agreement concerning the same methamphetamine and that the convictions constituted a violation of Section 11. The court remanded the case for dismissal of Count 3. **3. Fourth Amendment** Gonzales did not properly contest the legality of the search of his car and thus the court reviewed this claim for plain error. The court concluded that Gonzales had not demonstrated that the timeline of events during the traffic stop violated his rights, as he consented to the search prior to its execution. **4. Jury Instructions** Gonzales argued that jury instructions were insufficient as they failed to name the conspirators. However, the court determined the instructions, when read as a whole, properly conveyed the necessary information. Gonzales did not establish any plain error regarding jury instructions. **5. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel** This claim was evaluated under the standard set by Strickland v. Washington. The court found no prejudice affecting the outcome as Gonzales could not demonstrate ineffective assistance. **6. Consecutive Sentences** Gonzales claims the district court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. The prosecutor’s remark about a presumed policy did not demonstrate that the district court failed to exercise discretion. The court affirmed its decision as the record supported the imposition of consecutive sentences. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED for Counts 1 and 2. Count 3 is DISMISSED. Gonzales’s Application for Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED. **APPEARANCES** *AT TRIAL* Roger Hilfiger, Counsel for Defendant *ON APPEAL* Ariel Parry, Appellate Counsel Christina Burns, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** **LEWIS, P.J., KUEHN, V.P.J., LUMPKIN, J., HUDSON, J.:** Concur. [PDF Download Link](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-989_1734871593.pdf)

PC-2018-723

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 5, 2019
Post category:PC

**Summary of Court Decision: Shawn A. Detwiler v. The State of Oklahoma** *Case Overview:* Shawn A. Detwiler sought post-conviction relief related to multiple convictions stemming from offenses committed as a juvenile, including armed robbery and shooting with intent to kill. After initially pleading guilty to several charges and receiving concurrent sentences, he argued that the combination of his consecutive sentences constituted a de facto life without parole sentence, violating his Eighth Amendment rights. *Key Points of Rulings:* 1. **Case Summation:** Detwiler was convicted on several counts involving crimes such as burglary, robbery, and assault. His sentences ranged from 5 years to life imprisonment, some being discharged over time. 2. **Legal Precedents Cited:** Detwiler's argument was heavily reliant on the legal interpretations established in *Graham v. Florida*, *Miller v. Alabama*, and *Montgomery v. Louisiana*, which emphasize that juvenile offenders should not be sentenced to life without parole for non-homicide crimes. 3. **District Court's Findings:** The District Court found that since Detwiler was not sentenced to life without parole or its functional equivalent, the Eighth Amendment protections cited in those cases did not apply. 4. **Aggregate Sentencing Argument:** Detwiler contended that his sentences, when viewed collectively, equated to a de facto life sentence. However, the court maintained that each sentence should be evaluated independently. 5. **Response to Tenth Circuit Precedent:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals referred to a prior ruling (Martinez v. State) which rejected the idea of viewing multiple sentences in aggregate for Eighth Amendment analysis. 6. **Conclusion by the Court:** Detwiler's post-conviction relief was ultimately denied. The court established that he has the potential for parole consideration and has not received sentences that deal with him as if he was sentenced to life without parole as per the noted precedents. *Dissenting Opinions:* 1. Judge Lewis dissented, arguing that consecutive sentences for multiple serious offenses committed as a juvenile effectively mean a lifetime sentence without a realistic chance for release, which may constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 2. The dissent emphasized that juveniles should be given a chance to demonstrate maturity and rehabilitation, which the current sentencing practices do not permit. 3. It was asserted that the framework of Graham should extend to prevent the imposition of excessively punitive aggregated sentences for juveniles, thereby relieving them of permanent confinement without the chance for parole. *Final Notes:* The court's ruling underscores ongoing debates about sentencing juveniles, the interpretation of constitutional protections, and the lengths of sentences impacting juvenile offenders. The dissent highlights the critical need for opportunities for rehabilitation and review in cases involving young individuals.

PR 2018-1203

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 24, 2019
Post category:PR

OPINION ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF AND REMANDING MATTER TO DISTRICT COURT On November 29, 2018, Petitioner, by and through counsel Melissa A. French, filed an application for an…

PC-2017-322

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

In OCCA case No. CF-2004-4488, the petitioner appealed his conviction for murder and shooting with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed the conviction, stating that his consecutive sentences do not violate constitutional protections against cruel punishment. One judge dissented on the reasoning. [occa_caption]

F-2014-942

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 4, 2016
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-942, Eric Josiah Mardis appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts With a Child Under Sixteen and Engaging in a Pattern of Criminal Offenses in Two or More Counties. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modify his sentences. Two judges dissented regarding the sentence modification. Mardis was found guilty by a jury for multiple counts of lewd acts against a child and received very harsh sentences of 100 years for each of the first five counts and 2 years for the last count, which were to be served one after the other. He questioned the fairness of his trial by stating that the prosecution used information from his mental health records improperly. The court found that while the trial had some errors, they did not significantly harm the fairness of the trial regarding his guilt. However, these errors did affect how the jury decided on his punishment, leading to a modification of those sentences. In his appeal, Mardis raised several concerns, including that his long sentences were cruel and unusual since he was a minor when he committed the offenses. The court noted that he was not given a sentence of life without parole and would have a chance for parole after serving part of his sentence. This meant he had an opportunity for early release based on his behavior and rehabilitation. Mardis also questioned whether there was enough evidence to support his convictions and claimed that his right to confront witnesses was violated when the testimony of a physician’s associate was allowed. The court rejected these claims, finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's decision and that the use of some statements for medical diagnosis purposes did not violate his rights. In summary, his convictions were upheld, but due to the mistakes made during the trial, Mardis's sentences were reduced to 50 years each for the first five counts. This means he would serve a total of 52 years with the last count included. The final decision reflected the need for a fair process while recognizing the severe nature of the crimes committed. Mardis's appeal was partially successful, leading to a lesser punishment than initially given, which was seen as a fair outcome given the legal issues at hand.

F-2011-407

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 29, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-407, Kevin Maurice Brown appealed his conviction for multiple counts of robbery and firearm possession. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions on all counts except for one count of possession of a firearm, which was reversed. One judge dissented. Kevin Brown was found guilty of robbing several businesses in Tulsa, using a firearm during these crimes. The jury decided on severe punishment, including life imprisonment and hefty fines. The trial also took note of Brown's previous felonies, which influenced the decisions. During the case, issues arose regarding double punishment for two counts of firearm possession that were related to the same gun. Brown’s defense argued that charging him with both counts violated the principle against double jeopardy, which protects individuals from being punished multiple times for the same crime. The court agreed that the evidence showed he was being punished twice for the same offense, which is not allowed, and reversed the conviction for one of those counts. Brown also felt he didn’t receive good legal help during his trial because his lawyer didn’t challenge the double counting of the firearm charges. However, since one count was reversed, this concern was considered resolved. Additionally, Brown thought his sentences were too harsh, especially since no one was hurt in the robberies. The court stated that while the sentences were serious, they were within the law, and given his past convictions, they did not seem extreme or unjust. Brown submitted additional concerns in a separate brief, but these were not accepted because they did not follow required guidelines. As a result, the court denied those arguments. In summary, while Brown's convictions for robbery and firearms were mostly upheld, one of the firearm possession counts was overturned due to improper double punishment. The court found no errors significant enough to change his overall sentence, which reflected the severity of the crimes committed.

F-2003-1252

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 22, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1252, Reed appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from life imprisonment to twenty years. One judge dissented. Reed faced charges including first-degree murder and possession of a firearm, but the jury could not agree on the murder charge, leading to a mistrial for that count. The state decided not to pursue one of the firearm charges. The jury convicted Reed on the remaining firearm possession charge and recommended a life sentence. On appeal, Reed argued that the trial court made a mistake by not declaring a mistrial for each charge after the jury couldn't reach a verdict on the murder. He believed his life sentence was excessive and went against the Constitution. The court reviewed the facts and concluded that the trial court acted within its rights when it denied Reed's request for a mistrial. However, they found that a life sentence for the firearm possession was too harsh under the circumstances. As a result, they changed Reed's sentence to twenty years in prison instead of life. The final decision was to keep Reed's conviction, but to lessen his punishment.

F-2003-747

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 10, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-747, John Carl Marquez appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery Upon a Police Officer, Prisoner Placing Bodily Fluids on a Government Employee, and Domestic Abuse, Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Resisting a Police Officer and Domestic Abuse but modified the sentence for the charge of Prisoner Placing Bodily Fluids from life imprisonment to thirty years. One judge dissented regarding the length of the modified sentence. The case involved an incident where Marquez got into a fight with his wife after a night of drinking. His wife called her parents for help, which led to the police being called. When officers arrived at their trailer, Marquez was found in the bathtub and refused to cooperate. After struggling with the officers, he was handcuffed and later spat on one of them. The jury convicted him for several offenses based on this behavior, and the trial court initially sentenced him to one year for the first and third counts and life imprisonment for the second count. During the appeal, Marquez argued that the life sentence was too harsh and that his arrest was illegal. The court found the arrest was lawful, the prosecution’s conduct was acceptable, and the cumulative errors did not deny him a fair trial. However, the court agreed that the life sentence for a non-violent act, such as spitting, was excessive and changed it to thirty years, citing a need for more reasonable sentencing. While the majority of the court upheld most of the trial court's decisions, a dissenting judge expressed that even the thirty-year sentence was excessive compared to the gravity of the crime Marquez committed against his wife, suggesting a need for sentencing reform to ensure fair punishment across similar cases.

F-2002-108

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 30, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-108, Ricky Dion Bruner appealed his conviction for multiple crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse two of his kidnapping convictions but affirmed the rest of his sentences. One judge dissented. Ricky Dion Bruner was found guilty of serious crimes, including robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, and rape. A jury decided his punishment, giving him life in prison for several charges and various other sentences for the remaining counts. However, when Bruner appealed, he argued that some of these convictions shouldn't have happened because they violated rules against being tried for the same crime twice and that the evidence didn’t support some of the charges. The court examined these arguments. They agreed that Bruner shouldn’t have been convicted of both kidnapping and robbery in two cases because they happened during the same event and were too closely related. Therefore, they reversed those two kidnapping charges. However, they found enough evidence to support his other convictions, deciding that the jury could have reasonably reached those conclusions. Regarding his sentences, though they were harsh, the court determined they were not so extreme as to be unfair or against the law. So, they upheld most of his sentences but made sure that the two kidnapping convictions were dismissed and sent the matter back to the lower court for further actions.

RE-2001-1375

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 29, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2001-1375, the individual appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Theft of a Debit Card, Grand Larceny, Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, and others. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but modified the sentence for Grand Larceny in one count due to an error. One member of the court dissented. The case began when the individual pled guilty to several offenses on December 5, 2000. He was given sentences that were mostly suspended, meaning he would not have to serve time unless he broke the rules of his probation. However, on September 25, 2001, the State of Oklahoma said he violated those rules by not reporting to his probation officer and committing another crime, which led to a hearing. During the hearing, the judge decided to revoke his suspended sentences. The appellant argued that his punishment for Grand Larceny was too harsh since it violated the rules for sentencing that say he should not have gotten more than a year in jail for that specific crime. The court agreed that the original sentence was incorrect but also ruled that it did not harm the individual too much since his other sentences were still valid. The individual also claimed that he was unfairly required to pay for restitution he believed he should not have been responsible for, but the court found he did not follow the proper steps to challenge that. Lastly, he argued that his overall sentences were excessive, but the court determined that since the sentences were within a reasonable range and he had indeed violated his probation, there was no unfairness in the judge's decisions. So, the court affirmed most of his sentences and ordered a correction for the incorrect Grand Larceny sentence, which should only require one year of confinement.