In OCCA case No. F-2021-522, Trevor Leif Toppah appealed his conviction for Aggravated Assault and Battery, After Former Conviction of Three Felonies (Count 1), and Conspiracy to Commit Assault and Battery (Count 2). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court but modified the indigent defense fee. One judge dissented regarding the evidence for the conspiracy conviction.
In OCCA case No. F-2019-68, Johnny Edward Mize, II appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter (Heat of Passion). In a published decision, the court decided that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Mize. Mize had claimed that the State of Oklahoma did not have the authority to prosecute him because the victim was part of a federally recognized tribe and the crime occurred within a reservation. The court supported this claim after an evidentiary hearing, confirming that the victim had Indian status and that the crime happened in the boundaries of the Muscogee Creek Reservation. As a result, the original judgment and sentence were vacated, and the matter was sent back to the district court with instructions to dismiss the case. The decision relied on previous case law stating that Oklahoma does not have jurisdiction over crimes involving Indian victims that take place on tribal land.
In OCCA case No. F-2019-369, Collins appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment but vacated and remanded the restitution and fees due to errors in their assessment. One judge dissented. Joseph Willis Collins was found guilty by a jury for committing assault with a dangerous weapon. He faced this trial in Comanche County where he was sentenced to spend twenty-five years in prison and was ordered to pay restitution and court costs. Collins claimed that several things went wrong during his trial that justified overturning his conviction. First, Collins argued that when he asked police if he could go back downstairs, it meant he wanted to stop talking to them, and police should have immediately respected that request. He believed this request was an important part of his rights, which should not have been pushed aside during the questioning. However, the court decided that even though admitting his statements without considering his right not to speak was a mistake, it was not significant enough to change the outcome of the case because there was a lot of clear evidence proving he was guilty. Next, Collins argued that some embarrassing information from his cellphone should not have been used against him during the trial. He thought that this evidence made it hard for him to get a fair trial because it focused on his relationships in a negative way. However, the court did not find this evidence to be unfairly prejudicial, as it was used to help explain details relevant to the case. Collins also believed that his lawyer did not competently defend him, especially regarding the use of the testimony linked to the cellphone and the earlier statements made to police after he asked to stop being questioned. The court looked at all these claims and found that there were no significant mistakes made by Collins’s lawyer that affected the trial's outcome. The other issues Collins raised were about financial matters from his sentencing. Collins was ordered to pay $7,504 in restitution for the victim’s losses, but the court admitted this amount wasn't properly justified, so they decided it should be determined again. The court also acknowledged a mistake in charging Collins a $1,500 indigent defense fee instead of the maximum allowed of $1,000. There was also a dispute about the juror fees that Collins thought were incorrectly calculated, but since he did not raise this objection during the trial, the court decided not to change this part of the decision. In the end, the court upheld the conviction and the lengthy sentence Collins received. They ordered the lower court to redo the calculations for restitution and the indigent defense fee to comply with the law and ensure a fair process. The judgment of conviction and the twenty-five-year prison sentence were upheld, while the restitution and indigent fees were vacated and remanded for further action.
In OCCA case No. F-2019-310, Kedrin Ray Dixon appealed his conviction for first-degree burglary, sexual battery, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for sexual battery to ten years imprisonment, making it consecutive to the other sentence, and otherwise affirmed the convictions. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence for sexual battery. Dixon was found guilty by a jury on multiple counts after a trial in the District Court of Washington County. The jury sentenced him to twenty years in prison for burglary and sexual battery, and one year for possession of a controlled substance. The trial judge ordered the sentences for burglary and sexual battery to be served back-to-back. Dixon then appealed, raising several points of error, including issues related to jury instructions and evidence. The first issue was about the trial judge not mentioning that he was presumed innocent in the instructions at the start of the trial. The court found this error was not significant since the final instructions did include the presumption of innocence. Next, Dixon claimed that the evidence was not strong enough for the first-degree burglary conviction. The court disagreed, stating that there was enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find him guilty. Dixon also argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence regarding his intoxication at the time of the crime. The court ruled that the trial judge had the right to refuse his request since the evidence did not clearly support intoxication as a defense. Another point of concern for Dixon was what he called evidentiary harpoons, which are when comments are made that suggest knowledge of other crimes. The court found that he did not object to these comments at the trial and they did not seriously affect the verdict. Dixon claimed that he was unfairly prevented from presenting a full defense regarding reports of his previous erratic behaviors. The court decided that these reports were not very relevant to his defense and that excluding them did not significantly harm his case. A notable issue was a mistake in how the jury was informed about the potential punishment for sexual battery. The trial judge incorrectly stated that it could be punished by twenty years, which was incorrect. The State agreed that this was an error. Instead of sending Dixon back for a new trial, the court decided to lower his sentence for sexual battery to ten years because of this error. Dixon stated that his total sentences were too harsh, but after reviewing the circumstances, the court determined that the sentences were acceptable even after the changes made to one of them. Lastly, Dixon argued that there were too many errors in the case that made it unfair for him. The court did acknowledge the instructional error but believed there were no other significant errors affecting the outcome of the trial. In summary, the court modified Dixon's sentence for sexual battery and kept the other parts of his conviction intact. The final decision still upheld his guilty verdicts on all counts.
In OCCA case No. M-2019-664, the appellant appealed his conviction for illegal entry with unlawful intent, outraging public decency, and assault on a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for illegal entry but affirmed the convictions for outraging public decency and assault on a police officer. One judge dissented. James Brewer was accused of several misdemeanors after the police were called to his neighbor's house because he was trying to break in. The neighbor's children had reported the incident to their mother, who called the police. When officers arrived, they found Brewer in a neighboring home, naked on the floor, being restrained by his brother. He was not cooperative when the police tried to arrest him. During the trial, the court heard from police officers but did not hear directly from the neighbor or her children. The prosecution's case relied on the officers' testimonies about what they found and how they arrested Brewer. He represented himself during the trial with the help of standby counsel. Brewer raised several issues on appeal. First, he argued that he should have received credit for the time he spent in jail before the trial. The court explained that it is up to the trial judge to decide whether to give this credit and stated that there was insufficient information showing that he was unable to pay for a bond that would have let him out of jail before the trial. He also claimed the prosecutor made mistakes during the trial, like bringing up parts of his attitude that were not relevant and making comments during closing arguments. The court decided that the prosecutor's actions did not unfairly affect the trial. Brewer argued that there was not enough evidence for his conviction for illegal entry. The court agreed that the evidence was weak because the neighbor and her children did not testify and there was no direct proof linking him to tampering with the air conditioners. His other claims related to cross-examination and the wording of the charges against him were found to be insufficient to overturn the convictions for the other two charges. His conviction for the illegal entry was reversed, meaning the prosecution could not pursue it further, but the convictions for outraging public decency and assault on a police officer were upheld. One judge had a different opinion and dissented from the majority ruling.
In OCCA case No. F-2019-417, Henry Warren Kwe Kwe appealed his conviction for Conjoint Robbery, Shooting with Intent to Kill, Possession of a Sawed-Off Shotgun, and Leaving Scene of a Collision Involving Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Kwe Kwe's convictions on all counts except for the Victim Compensation Assessment for Count 4, which was vacated. Kwe Kwe dissented. Kwe Kwe was found guilty of several serious crimes stemming from an incident involving a robbery and a shooting. The trial revealed that he, along with accomplices, confronted the victim, demanding her money while one of them displayed a weapon. When the victim attempted to call for help, she was shot in the back with a shotgun. Following this, the robbers took her purse and fled. On appeal, Kwe Kwe raised numerous issues regarding his convictions. He argued that being convicted for both robbery and shooting violated laws against multiple punishments for a single act. However, the court found that the robbery and the shooting were distinct actions. The shooting was meant to prevent the victim from escaping and to eliminate her as a witness, rather than to take possession of her belongings. Kwe Kwe also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence against him, claiming he wasn't the shooter. However, the jury had enough circumstantial evidence to conclude he aided in the crime, as he orchestrated the robbery and knew one accomplice was armed. Also, he was found in possession of a sawed-off shotgun shortly after the incident. The court held that the evidence supported the conclusion he was culpable for aiding and abetting the shooter. Another argument from Kwe Kwe revolved around the legality of the sawed-off shotgun itself. He claimed the prosecution didn't prove the shotgun's barrel was less than 18 inches, which would classify it as sawn-off under the law. Nevertheless, the officer testified that the weapon was a modified sawed-off shotgun and that the jury could determine this after examining it. Moreover, Kwe Kwe claimed that the court’s language when discussing the victim's injuries went against the norms of a fair trial. However, the court found this testimony relevant, as it demonstrated the severity of the attack and the intent behind the actions taken by Kwe Kwe and his accomplices. Lastly, he argued that his legal counsel did not perform adequately by failing to raise certain legal defenses and objections during the trial. Yet, the court determined that any such failures did not adversely affect his rights or the outcome of the case. In summary, Kwe Kwe's convictions remained intact, and while some procedural missteps were noted, none were sufficient to reverse the verdict aside from the correction regarding the Victim Compensation Assessment linked to his charge. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision overall, while rectifying the single financial aspect.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-1263, Leatherwood appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree, Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Possession of a Firearm During Commission of a Felony, Maintaining a Place for Keeping/Selling Controlled Substances, and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. Travis Michael Leatherwood fatally shot Aaron Smith on Halloween night in 2017. They were once friends and worked together selling marijuana, but their friendship soured when Smith stole marijuana from Leatherwood. On the night of the shooting, Smith, upset by an exchange of insults with Leatherwood, went to confront him, unarmed. Leatherwood shot Smith with a rifle before he could say a word. Smith later died from the gunshot wound. After the shooting, police found a lot of evidence connecting Leatherwood to marijuana distribution at his home, including a rifle that he had used to shoot Smith and other drug-related items. Leatherwood argued in court that he acted in self-defense, but the jury did not agree. They concluded that he was the aggressor, especially since he called Smith a coward and provoked him. The jury found him guilty of first-degree murder, along with several drug-related charges. Leatherwood raised multiple issues on appeal, including claims that the state did not prove he acted outside of self-defense, that the court gave confusing jury instructions, allowed improper amendments to the charges, and that he had ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the court disagreed with all of his claims. In terms of self-defense, the court ruled that Leatherwood’s actions and words indicated he was not acting in self-defense but rather was the one who provoked the situation. He had armed himself before Smith arrived and shot him before any confrontation occurred. The court also discussed the jury instructions, concluding that the district court did not err by omitting instructions on a lesser charge of heat of passion manslaughter since there was no evidence to support that Smith's actions would provoke such a response from Leatherwood. As for the amendment of charges, the court determined that Leatherwood was sufficiently informed of the charges he faced and that he could defend against them adequately. The evidence showed that he had both the firearm and the controlled substances as part of his operations, fulfilling the requirements for his convictions. Leatherwood's claim that his lawyer was ineffective was also denied because the court found that the lawyer's strategies were reasonable given the overwhelming evidence against Leatherwood. The lawyer focused his arguments on the more serious murder charge rather than the drug offenses, which the jury could have easily decided against Leatherwood irrespective of those counts. Finally, the court ruled that Leatherwood's sentence was not excessive given the nature of the crime and his actions. The judge pointed out that the jury was aware of his age (20 at the time of the crime) and other circumstances, which did not make the sentence shockingly excessive. Ultimately, the court affirmed Leatherwood's convictions and ordered a separate hearing regarding the restitution amount, which needed to be calculated more accurately.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-308, Deondrea Deshawn Thompson appealed his conviction for multiple counts related to robbery and possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Thompson was found guilty by a jury for several crimes, including robbery with a firearm, attempted robbery, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to a total of thirty-five years for the robbery counts and seven years for the other counts, with the sentences to run consecutively. Thompson raised multiple issues on appeal, including claims that he did not receive a fair trial because crucial evidence was kept from him, racial discrimination occurred during jury selection, and that the trial court made several errors in admitting evidence. The court addressed these issues one by one. It found that the trial court did not err in keeping the name of a confidential informant from Thompson since it was not shown to be necessary for his defense. The court also found that the State's reasons for excluding certain jurors were race-neutral and did not indicate discriminatory intent. Regarding the trial court's questioning of jurors, the court concluded that it did not improperly influence the jury. As for evidence related to cell phone records collected without a warrant, the court determined that the police acted in good faith based on laws that existed at the time. Thompson argued that other testimony during the trial unfairly presented him as having committed other bad acts, but the court found no abuse of discretion in how the trial was handled. The court also concluded that the trial court's decision not to give certain jury instructions on eyewitness identification was within its discretion since the identification was firm enough in this case. Thompson's claim about having multiple cases tried together was also rejected, as the court noted that the robberies were similar in nature and occurred close together in time. Finally, the court ruled that his separate firearm possession conviction did not violate double jeopardy laws. In summary, the court affirmed Thompson's conviction, saying that none of the claimed errors were significant enough to harm his case.
**Case Summary: Shelley Jo Duncan's Appeal** **Court:** Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals **Judge:** Rowland, Judge **Case Number:** CF-2017-31 **Verdict:** Affirmed **Background:** Shelley Jo Duncan, a teacher, was charged with Lewd Acts with a Child. Her trial was conducted in Cleveland County after a change of venue due to pre-trial publicity. Duncan was sentenced to six years in prison in accordance with the jury's recommendation. **Issues Raised on Appeal:** 1. The denial of a motion to strike two jurors for cause. 2. Claims of improper commentary on her right to remain silent. 3. The credibility of the alleged victim and sufficiency of evidence for conviction. 4. Admission of other crimes evidence regarding past drug use. 5. Allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. 6. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. 7. Challenge to the excessive nature of her sentence. 8. Cumulative errors affecting the fairness of the trial. **Findings:** 1. **Jurors for Cause:** The court did not err in denying the motion to strike jurors S.M. and J.S. Duncan did not preserve her claim regarding J.S. since a peremptory challenge was successfully used to remove her from the jury. 2. **Right to Remain Silent:** Testimony regarding the investigation did not comment on Duncan’s post-arrest silence. Any potential error was cured by the court's action in sustaining objections. 3. **Credibility of Victim:** The court found the victim's testimony credible and sufficient, supporting the conviction based on the preponderance of evidence, even without corroboration. 4. **Other Crimes Evidence:** Duncan’s argument related to drug use was denied as she had introduced this evidence herself. Inviting error prevented relief. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Duncan could not demonstrate that her counsel's performance was deficient or that it prejudiced her case sufficiently to impact the outcome. 6. **Prosecutorial Misconduct:** Claims of improper comments were denied, as the prosecutor’s comments did not exceed the acceptable limits of argument during closing statements. 7. **Excessive Sentence:** The six-year sentence was within statutory limits and did not shock the conscience of the court, thus it was upheld. 8. **Cumulative Effect of Errors:** The court found no cumulative errors that would necessitate a new trial or modification of the sentence, as no individual error was identified. **Conclusion:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court. Duncan was denied relief on all issues raised in her appeal, with the court finding no significant errors affecting her right to a fair trial. **Access the full opinion:** [Download PDF of the Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1267_1734782177.pdf)
The document is a summary opinion issued by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma in the case of D'Angelo Keiyawn Threatt. The appellant, Threatt, was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to eight years in prison. The opinion addresses three propositions of error raised by Threatt on appeal: 1. **Admission of Prior Felony Conviction**: Threatt contended that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to name his specific prior felony conviction (forcible oral sodomy) despite his offer to stipulate that he had a felony conviction. He cited the case Old Chief v. United States to support his argument. The Court ruled that Threatt did not preserve this issue adequately for appeal due to the timing and nature of his objections and ultimately found that there was no plain error affecting his substantial rights. 2. **Prosecutorial Misconduct**: Threatt claimed that the prosecutor's closing argument included highly prejudicial statements that unfairly influenced the jury. The Court examined the statements and determined they were reasonable comments based on the evidence presented at trial. Thus, they did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct that would warrant relief. 3. **Cumulative Effect of Errors**: Threatt argued that the combined effect of the alleged errors warranted a new trial. The Court disagreed, noting that the individual errors did not affect the overall outcome of the trial and therefore did not justify relief. In conclusion, the Court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court of Oklahoma County, finding no reversible error in the trial proceedings. The opinion underscores the importance of proper procedural objections and the evaluation of trial conduct in the context of the entire trial. For more detailed information, a PDF of the full opinion can be downloaded from the provided link.
This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma regarding the appeal of Justin William Dunlap, who was convicted of First Degree Rape by Instrumentation of a Victim under the Age of Fourteen and sentenced to ten years in prison. Dunlap raised multiple propositions of error in his appeal, including claims of insufficient waiver of a jury trial, challenges to the credibility of the victim's testimony, allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, excessive sentencing, and inadequate defense representation, among others. The court considered each proposition in detail: 1. **Waiver of Jury Trial**: The court found that Dunlap's waiver was knowing and voluntary, supported by a written waiver signed by all necessary parties. 2. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: The court analyzed the testimony of the victim (D.H.) and found it sufficient to support the conviction, affirming that the evidence met the necessary legal standard. 3. **Prosecutorial Misconduct**: The court concluded there was no misconduct that affected the trial's fairness, finding that the prosecutor's comments did not misstate the evidence or improperly comment on Dunlap's failure to testify. 4. **Excessive Sentencing**: The court determined that the sentence was within statutory guidelines and did not shock the conscience given the serious nature of the crime. 5. **Right to Present a Defense**: The court upheld the trial court's decision to exclude certain evidence, finding no abuse of discretion in limiting what could be presented as a defense. 6. **Speedy Trial**: The court found no violation of Dunlap's right to a speedy trial, noting delays were justified and not solely attributable to the prosecution. 7. **Competency Evaluation**: The court ruled that since Dunlap did not request an evaluation and provided no evidence to support his claims, this argument was unmeritorious. 8. **Conflict of Interest**: The argument regarding conflicting interests between attorneys was found to lack merit as Dunlap did not demonstrate how this negatively impacted his defense. 9. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: The court scrutinized claims of ineffective assistance, applying the Strickland standard, and found that Dunlap did not demonstrate that any alleged deficiencies affected the trial's outcome. 10. **Cumulative Error**: The court dismissed this claim as there were no individual errors that would warrant a new trial. The court affirmed the judgment and sentence, upholding the findings of the lower court and denying Dunlap's requested evidentiary hearing related to ineffective assistance of counsel. Additionally, a concurring opinion emphasized the handling of extra-record materials submitted by Dunlap, noting the importance of adhering to established procedural rules and advocating for more careful consideration of supplementary materials going forward. In summary, the appeal was denied, and the conviction stands as affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-114, Andrew Huff appealed his conviction for four counts of Child Neglect and one count of Child Sexual Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Andrew Huff was convicted of neglecting his children and sexually abusing a minor. He was sentenced to a total of twenty-five years for the neglect charges and thirty years for the sexual abuse, with all sentences running concurrently. He raised several arguments against his conviction, claiming his rights were violated through various means. First, Huff stated that his video-recorded statements to an investigator should not have been allowed in court because he didn't properly waive his right to counsel. The court found no error in admitting the statement, stating that Huff’s questioning did not clearly indicate he wanted a lawyer at that moment. Next, Huff argued that hearsay evidence was incorrectly allowed, which hurt his chance of a fair trial. However, the court found that any hearsay used was not harmful to the case since other clear evidence proved the charges. Huff also claimed improper admission of other crimes evidence during his police interview, but again, the court concluded there was enough evidence for a verdict regardless of those statements. Regarding jury instructions, Huff felt the jury did not receive proper guidance on the laws for child sexual abuse, which the court acknowledged but deemed harmless since overwhelming evidence supported the verdict. Huff’s claim of insufficient evidence was denied as the court found that evidence presented allowed for rational conclusions supporting the guilty verdicts on both child neglect and sexual abuse. He also brought up issues regarding prosecutorial misconduct during the trial. The court examined these claims and determined any alleged misconduct was not severe enough to warrant a reversal of the conviction. Huff argued that his counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the introduction of certain evidence and not properly advising him during the trial. The court disagreed, stating that the counsel's performance, while being scrutinized, did not affect the overall outcome of the trial as there was sufficient evidence against him. Lastly, Huff believed that his sentence was excessive, but the court noted that the punishment was within legal limits and that the nature of the crimes warranted the sentence imposed. The overall decision confirmed that there were no reversible errors during the trial, and the affirmance upheld Andrew Huff’s conviction and sentences.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ANTHONY CURTIS CREEK,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. RE-2018-932** **SUMMARY OPINION** **Filed January 23, 2020** ROWLAND, JUDGE: Anthony Curtis Creek, Appellant, entered a guilty plea on March 16, 2015, in Garfield County District Court Case No. CF-2013-393, to Count 1 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, a misdemeanor, and Count 2 - Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a misdemeanor. He received a sentence of one year in the County Jail on Count 1, with 90 days to be served and the remainder suspended; Count 2 was sentenced to one year suspended, with penalties running consecutively. He was also fined $500.00. On January 20, 2017, the State applied for the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence on Count 2, alleging violations: (1) possession or consumption of alcohol; (2) DUI-A, a misdemeanor; and (3) Defective Equipment, a misdemeanor, in Oklahoma County Case No. CM-2016-2776. During the revocation hearing on June 2, 2017, Appellant admitted to the first allegation. The trial judge, Honorable Dennis Hladik, determined that the State proved the other allegations and revoked six months of Appellant's suspended sentence. Appellant appeals this decision, raising several propositions of error: 1. **Abuse of Discretion:** The trial court allegedly utilized a strict liability standard, resulting in a cruel and excessive sentence. 2. **Prosecutorial Misconduct:** Claiming that Appellant was deprived of a fundamentally fair proceeding due to misconduct. 3. **Plain Error:** The trial court's finding on the State's evidence and the standard of proof was erroneous. 4. **Equal Protection Violation:** Appellant asserts he was denied equal protection under the law. 5. **Cumulative Error:** The accumulation of errors deprived Appellant of due process. Upon review, the Court affirms the District Court's order revoking six months of Appellant's suspended sentence. 1. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence is within the substantial discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. The evidence supported Judge Hladik’s decision to revoke only part of the sentence after considering a stipulation and witness testimonies. 2. The Court agrees with Appellant's counsel that prosecutorial misconduct is more appropriate for post-conviction matters. The record does not support claims of misleading behavior by the prosecutors. 3. The standard of proof for such violations is a preponderance of the evidence, adequately satisfied in Appellant's case. Revocation is valid with any proven violation. 4. The trial court's exclusion of evidence does not equate to an equal protection violation. The ruling was consistent and reasonable. 5. As there were no individual errors identified, the argument for cumulative error also fails. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Garfield County District Court Case No. CF-2013-393 is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is ordered to be issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** **David J. Batton** Counsel for Defendant **Tallena Hart** Carter Jennings Assistant District Attorney Counsel for the State **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J:** **LEWIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **LUMPKIN, J: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-932_1734358983.pdf)
In the case of William G. Epperly v. The State of Oklahoma (Case No. F-2018-1144), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court of Oklahoma County. The court found that the evidence presented during Epperly's trial was admissible, and his claims of error, including issues related to hearsay, relevance, and jury instructions, did not warrant reversal of his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. ### Key Points from the Court's Decision: 1. **Admission of Excited Utterance Evidence**: The court found that statements made by Tiffany Epperly (Epperly's spouse) to two witnesses fell under the excited utterance exception to hearsay, as she was under emotional stress when she reported witnessing the alleged abuse. 2. **Text Messages and Witness Testimony**: The court ruled that reading text messages sent by Sutphen to Tiffany Epperly was not hearsay because they were used to challenge Tiffany's credibility rather than to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Additionally, the testimony about Tiffany's changing demeanor was deemed relevant to the case. 3. **Witness Reading from Police Report**: Former Officer Richardson's reading from his police report, which included Tiffany Epperly's statements, was allowed because it served to impeach her trial testimony, not as hearsay. 4. **Internet Search Evidence**: The court deemed the evidence concerning Epperly's internet search about Oklahoma sex laws to be relevant, as it could suggest a consciousness of guilt. 5. **Judgment and Sentence Corrections**: The court noted that the issues regarding credit for time served and the $100 fine were resolved with an amended judgment, making that claim moot. 6. **Jury Instruction on Sex Offender Registration**: The court did not find that the failure to instruct the jury about sex offender registration constituted an error warranting relief, consistent with prior rulings. 7. **Cumulative Error Doctrine**: The court concluded that no individual errors occurred that would justify reversal and therefore found no merit in the cumulative error claim. ### Conclusion: The court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court, concluding that all claims raised by Epperly were without merit. The decision illustrates the court's adherence to evidentiary rules and its support for the discretion exercised by the trial judge in admitting evidence. For more detailed information, the full opinion can be accessed [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1144_1734787047.pdf).
In the case of Anthony Phillip Miller, Jr. v. The State of Oklahoma (Case No. F-2019-54), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Miller's conviction and sentence for child sexual abuse. The trial, held in the District Court of Tulsa County, resulted in a jury finding Miller guilty and sentencing him to twenty-five years imprisonment, with an additional ten years of post-imprisonment supervision. Miller raised several issues on appeal: 1. **Prosecutorial Misconduct**: Miller argued that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments deprived him of a fair trial. He claimed that these comments undermined his constitutional rights, including his right to a jury trial and his right to remain silent. Although the Court acknowledged that some comments were improper, they ruled that the overall evidence against Miller, which included a confession, rendered any prosecutorial error harmless. 2. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Miller contended he was denied effective legal representation because defense counsel indicated in opening statements that he would testify but ultimately did not. However, the Court found that this was a strategic decision made after consulting with Miller and did not demonstrate ineffective assistance. 3. **Cumulative Error**: Miller claimed that, although no single error warranted reversal, the cumulative effect of errors did. The Court found that there were no combined errors affecting the trial's outcome. Ultimately, the Court upheld Miller's conviction, stating that the errors did not undermine the integrity of the trial, and affirmed the sentence imposed by the District Court. The mandate was ordered to be issued following the decision.
In this case summary, Alfonzo Lamonse Vineyard was convicted of multiple charges in the District Court of Tulsa County, including Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, First Degree Burglary, Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony, and several counts of Obstructing an Officer, among others. The jury found Vineyard guilty on all counts except one (Assault and Battery), and the court subsequently sentenced him to life imprisonment on the more serious counts, with concurrent and consecutive terms for other counts. Vineyard's appeal raised five main issues: 1. **Waiver of Right to Counsel**: The court found that Vineyard’s waiver of his right to counsel was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. He was adequately informed of the risks associated with self-representation. 2. **Right to Confrontation**: Vineyard argued that his right to confront witnesses was violated when the court allowed the reading of the victim's preliminary hearing testimony, as she did not appear at trial. The court found that the state had made sufficient efforts to locate the victim and that her unavailability was justified, thus upholding the admission of her prior testimony. 3. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Vineyard contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. The court determined that the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 4. **Lesser Included Offense Instruction**: Vineyard argued that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of Pointing a Firearm. While the court acknowledged that the lack of instruction was error, it did not affect the trial's outcome, and therefore did not warrant reversal. 5. **Cumulative Error**: Lastly, Vineyard claimed that the cumulative effect of errors warranted a new trial. The court found no individual errors that affected the trial's fairness, thus rejecting this claim. Ultimately, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence, concluding that none of the raised issues warranted relief. The decision highlighted the adherence to established legal standards regarding self-representation, confrontation rights, evidentiary sufficiency, jury instructions, and cumulative error analysis. [Download the full opinion here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1188_1734784723.pdf).
This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of Keith Lorenzo Sumpter, who was convicted of Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. Sumpter was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison and appealed his conviction on multiple grounds, asserting errors related to hearsay, the admission of previous testimony, prosecutorial misconduct, and the accumulation of errors leading to an unfair trial. The court addressed each of Sumpter's assertions: 1. **Hearsay and Affidavit**: The court ruled that the trial court did not err in excluding an affidavit by the victim's mother, LaLethia Frederick, which was deemed to be self-serving hearsay without sufficient corroborating evidence to establish its trustworthiness. 2. **Cross-Examination Issues**: The court found that there was no error in admitting Frederick's Preliminary Hearing testimony since defense counsel had ample opportunity to cross-examine her about the lewd conduct allegations. 3. **Reliability of Testimony**: The court determined that the Preliminary Hearing testimony was reliable as it was given under oath and was subject to thorough cross-examination, thereby satisfying legal standards for admissibility. 4. **Federal Due Process**: Sumpter's argument that federal due process mandated the admission of the affidavit was dismissed, as the affidavit did not meet the criteria for reliability or critical importance to his defense. 5. **Prosecutorial Misconduct**: Allegations regarding improper commentary by the prosecutor during closing arguments were evaluated and deemed insufficient to constitute grounds for a fair trial violation. 6. **Cumulative Errors**: The court concluded that because none of Sumpter's claims of error were sustained, the cumulative error argument lacked merit. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the lower court. This summary opinion highlights various legal principles regarding hearsay evidences, the confrontation rights of defendants, and the latitude allowed for prosecutorial arguments, culminating in the decision that Sumpter's trial was conducted fairly despite his claims.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1147, Michael Andrew Nordbye appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree (Child Abuse). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the conviction, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict. One judge dissented. Michael Andrew Nordbye was found guilty of killing a four-year-old girl named J.H. The jury sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole, and he was also fined $1,000. The case involved disturbing evidence of injuries on J.H.'s body, including bruises and cigarette burns, which suggested she had been abused before her tragic death. On November 15, 2015, J.H. was brought to the hospital but was unresponsive and cold. Doctors tried to save her, but she was declared dead shortly after arriving. The medical examiner determined that J.H. had blunt force injuries and several cigarette burns. They believed these injuries were inflicted shortly before her death. Evidence showed that Nordbye was with J.H. during the hours leading up to her death but his account of the events was inconsistent. During the trial, it was revealed that he had taken her to various places and returned home, where J.H. was later found unresponsive. Witnesses testified about the day of J.H.'s death, including retrospective video surveillance and testimonies that placed Nordbye with J.H. in different locations. The jury was presented with medical evidence indicating the cause of death was homicide due to blunt force trauma, compounded by a possible drug overdose. Despite Nordbye's claims, the jury found him guilty based on the compelling evidence that linked him to the injuries and the timeline leading up to J.H.'s death. Several claims made by Nordbye about improper legal proceedings were dismissed by the court, including issues concerning jury instructions and witness testimonies that were not allowed. The court ultimately found that the trial had been conducted fairly and that the evidence sufficiently demonstrated that Nordbye was guilty of the charges.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1261, Carlos Santana Gunter appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, assault, and battery with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Carlos Santana Gunter was found guilty by a jury in Canadian County for robbery and two counts of assault and battery. He received a sentence of thirty years for each count. The judge ruled that Gunter must serve at least 85% of the robbery sentence before being eligible for parole, and the assault sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the robbery sentence. Gunter raised several arguments on appeal. First, he claimed that asking the victims about the effects of their injuries during the trial was improper and prejudiced his case. The court found that this testimony was relevant to establish elements of the crimes and did not affect the outcome significantly. Second, Gunter argued that his right to remain silent was violated when a police officer mentioned that he asked for an attorney during questioning. The court agreed this was an error but concluded that the evidence against Gunter was so strong that it did not impact the fairness of the trial. Third, Gunter challenged the use of his previous felony convictions to enhance his sentence, saying he didn’t have a lawyer during those earlier convictions. The court noted that Gunter had acknowledged those convictions during the trial and failed to show any actual error regarding legal representation. Fourth, he alleged prosecutorial misconduct, claiming the prosecutor made unfair comments that influenced the jury. The court found these comments did not render the trial unfair. Fifth, Gunter argued he did not receive effective legal counsel during the trial. However, the court decided that because his other claims did not merit relief, he could not prove ineffective assistance of counsel. Lastly, Gunter asserted that the combined errors in his case deprived him of a fair trial. The court ruled that even when considering all claimed errors together, they did not affect the outcome. In the end, the court affirmed Gunter's conviction and sentence, concluding that the evidence against him was compelling, and the trial was fair despite the issues raised.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **KATESHA CHRISTINE CHILDERS,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-994** **Filed: November 21, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, JUDGE:** Appellant Katesha Christine Childers appeals her Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2017-3783, for First Degree Murder (Count 1) and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon (Count 2). The Honorable Kelly Greenough presided at her jury trial and sentenced her to life imprisonment on Count 1 and one year on Count 2, to run concurrently with credit for time served. Childers raises several issues including: 1. Sufficiency of evidence for her first-degree murder conviction. 2. The trial court's failure to instruct on first degree heat-of-passion manslaughter. 3. Ineffective assistance of counsel for not requesting the above instruction. 4. Admission of lay witness testimony regarding her confession. 5. Admission of hearsay evidence violating her right to a fair trial. 6. Prosecutorial misconduct affecting her trial. 7. Cumulative error necessitating relief. **1. Sufficiency of Evidence for Conviction:** Childers argues insufficient evidence of malice aforethought. The court reviews evidence in the light most favorable to the state, concluding that a rational jury could find her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence of a verbal altercation, her pursuit of the victim, and her admissions of guilt supported the jury's decision. Thus, this claim is denied. **2. Failure to Instruct on Heat-of-Passion Manslaughter:** Childers contends that the trial court erred by not issuing a heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction. Since no objection was raised at trial, review is for plain error. The court finds no evidence supporting such an instruction as Childers was the pursuer in the confrontation. Therefore, this claim is also denied. **3. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Childers claims ineffective assistance because her counsel did not request the heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction. However, as she was not entitled to the instruction based on evidence, this claim fails. **4. Admission of Confession Testimony:** Childers asserts that her statements to lay witnesses were inadmissible due to lack of corroboration. The court adjudicates that there was substantial independent evidence corroborating her statements, thus denying this claim. **5. Admission of Hearsay Evidence:** Childers challenges various hearsay testimonies. Some were admitted without objection, so they are reviewed for plain error. The court finds that the admittance of testimony regarding the victim's fear of Childers is permissible under state-of-mind exceptions to hearsay. Consequently, this claim is denied. **6. Prosecutorial Misconduct:** Childers argues several instances of prosecutorial misconduct, including mention of her status as a convicted felon. Objections were made, and the trial court acted appropriately to mitigate potential prejudice against her. Based on the totality of circumstances, relief is not warranted, leading to a denial of this claim. **7. Cumulative Error:** Finally, Childers contends cumulative errors merit relief. As no individual errors warrant relief, this claim is denied. **CONCLUSION:** The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is AFFIRMED. **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **Download PDF:** [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-994_1734870881.pdf)
The decision from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirms the conviction of Kenneth Oliver Ross for multiple offenses, including lewd molestation and human trafficking of a minor. The court meticulously addressed each of the twelve propositions of error raised by the appellant in their appeal. 1. **Double Punishment**: The court found no double jeopardy in the separate counts of lewd molestation, as they described distinct acts of abuse. 2. **Charge Appropriateness**: The court ruled that human trafficking was properly charged, as the prosecutor had discretion in choosing the relevant statutes. 3. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Both propositions regarding the sufficiency of evidence for human trafficking were denied, with the court stating that isolated incidents could constitute the crime. 4. **Jury Instructions**: The court upheld the jury instructions given, finding no error in how the law was communicated to the jury. 5. **Ex Post Facto Claims**: The court found no ex post facto violation, indicating that ignorance of the victim's age was not a defense to the charges. 6. **Lesser Included Offenses**: The court ruled that the lack of request for certain lesser-included offense instructions meant review would be under plain error, which the court did not find. 7. **Statutory Clarity**: Propositions regarding the constitutionality and vagueness of the human trafficking statute were denied, with the court upholding the statute's clarity and application. 8. **Sentence Severity**: The court concluded that the 50-year sentence for human trafficking was not shockingly excessive based on the evidence presented. 9. **Cumulative Error**: The final proposition regarding cumulative error was also denied as no individual errors were found. Overall, the appellate court found no merit in any of the propositions and affirmed the original sentence handed down by the district court. The case illustrates the court's rigorous examination of statutory interpretation, jury instructions, evidentiary sufficiency, and statutory vagueness concerns in criminal appeals.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-198, Ann Sykes appealed her conviction for Abuse by Caretaker (Neglect) and Abuse by Caretaker (Financial Exploitation). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Ann Sykes was found guilty of two types of abuse against her son, who is a vulnerable adult. The first conviction was for not providing him with basic needs like food and shelter. The second conviction was for mishandling his money. The court sentenced her to eight years in prison but suspended three years, meaning she would only serve five years in custody. Appellant raised several problems with the trial process. She claimed that hearsay evidence, which is when someone repeats what another person said outside of court, was used against her unfairly. However, the court found that much of the evidence was not considered hearsay because it was not meant to prove the truth of the statements, and any hearsay that was improperly admitted didn't impact the trial's outcome. Sykes also argued that witnesses were allowed to testify without personal knowledge of the information they shared. The court disagreed, stating that witnesses had information based on their own experiences or observations. Another point of appeal was about whether the trial court made mistakes by letting certain opinions into evidence. A social worker testified about how not getting enough nutrition could affect someone's mental state. The court decided that the social worker was qualified to give that information based on her experience. Sykes claimed her two convictions meant she was being punished twice for the same actions, which is called double punishment. The court found that the actions leading to the two charges were different enough to allow both charges to stand without violating the law. She also believed that the charges against her were not clearly stated in the official documents, but the court noted that she didn’t raise this issue during the trial, so it wasn’t considered on appeal. Another argument was that she was denied a right to have a lawyer appointed to help her during the trial. The court found that although there was a lack of a hearing on this, Sykes did have a lawyer who represented her during the trial. Sykes claimed her lawyer did not do a good enough job. The court noted that for a claim like this, Sykes needed to show both that her lawyer did not perform well and that this affected the trial's outcome. The court did not find evidence that the lawyer's actions changed the trial's result. Lastly, Sykes claimed that even with the errors made during her trial, they did not add up to deny her a fair trial overall. The court agreed, concluding that the errors did not require the reversal of her conviction. Overall, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence, meaning Sykes will continue to serve the time given by the lower court. The application to further review her claims about lawyer effectiveness was denied as well.
The document outlines a legal case involving Leslie Anne Gregersen who was convicted of Conspiracy Against the State in the District Court of Bryan County, Oklahoma. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed her conviction and sentence on October 31, 2019. The case revolved around several allegations made by Gregersen pointing to various errors during the trial, including insufficient evidence for conspiracy, improper admission of evidence from other crimes, ineffective assistance of counsel, improper jury instructions, excessive sentencing, and cumulative errors. Key findings from the case: 1. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of conspiracy, affirming that a rational trier of fact could have concluded that Gregersen was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. **Admission of Evidence**: The testimony regarding other crimes was deemed proper as res gestae evidence, necessary to provide context and understanding of the events surrounding the charged crime. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: The court ruled that Gregersen failed to demonstrate that her counsel's performance was deficient or that it prejudiced her defense. 4. **Jury Instructions and Responsibilities**: The trial court's handling of jury questions regarding sentencing did not mislead the jury about their responsibilities, and any potential errors did not affect the fairness of the proceedings. 5. **Excessive Sentence**: The court concluded that Gregersen's four-year sentence was not shockingly disproportionate to her crime. 6. **Plea Bargaining Deadline**: The court found no error regarding the deadline set for plea bargaining, noting that Gregersen had rejected a plea offer prior to the deadline and had not shown how she was prejudiced. 7. **Cumulative Error**: Since the court did not find merit in any of the individual claims of error, the cumulative error claim was also denied. Overall, all propositions of error were denied, and the judgment and sentence were affirmed.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-360, McNeary appealed his conviction for lewd acts with a child under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. No one dissented. Goldy Romeo McNeary was found guilty by a jury for two counts of committing lewd acts with a child under 16 years old. The jury sentenced him to ten years in prison for each count, and these sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. The court also decided that McNeary must serve 85% of his sentence before he could be considered for parole. McNeary appealed his conviction, arguing several points. First, he claimed that the trial court wrongfully allowed evidence of other bad acts, which he said made his trial unfair. Second, he said that this evidence was more harmful than helpful, violating his right to a fair trial. Third, he argued that the trial court did not give the jury proper instructions about how to use this evidence. Fourth, he felt that the trial court was wrong to not allow him to present evidence about Speck Homes, where the acts took place. Lastly, he believed that when considering all the errors together, they warranted a new trial. For the first two points, the court looked at whether the admission of the other crimes evidence was an obvious mistake and if it affected McNeary’s rights. They concluded that even if there was a mistake, it did not change the outcome since there was clear evidence of his guilt. Thus, the evidence did not rise to the level of a serious error. For the third point, the judge had promised to give instructions about the other crimes evidence but failed to do so at the right time. However, since the judge provided some instructions later, the court found no harm was done to McNeary from this. On the fourth point about Speck Homes, the court reasoned that the evidence was not allowed mainly because it was not relevant and also tried to avoid bad effects such as confusion. The trial judge made a choice based on their understanding of the law, and the appellate court did not find it to be a mistake. Lastly, the court examined McNeary's claim that all the errors combined were enough to grant him a new trial. They determined that no significant individual errors had occurred that would justify this request. In conclusion, the court upheld the judgment and sentencing, affirming McNeary’s conviction without any dissent from the other judges involved.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1307, James Rex Clark appealed his conviction for four counts of Child Abuse by Injury and one count of First Degree Child Abuse Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. James Rex Clark and his wife were charged after the tragic disappearance of a boy named Colton, who was living with them. They had adopted Colton and his older brother T.J.S. after the boys were removed from their biological parents due to drug and alcohol issues. In 2006, Colton was reported missing, and a massive search took place; however, no trace of him was ever found. T.J.S. later revealed that he had been abused by the Appellants and expressed fears about his brother's fate. After years had passed, T.J.S. reached out to authorities to provide information about the abusive environment he and Colton had experienced while living with their uncle and aunt. As a result of T.J.S.’s testimony and an investigation that followed, both James and his wife were charged with the serious crimes. During the trial, T.J.S. described the harsh treatment he and Colton endured, which included physical abuse and isolation from others. He explained that after Colton had an argument with James, he was taken to a bedroom, and T.J.S. later found him unresponsive on the couch. James tried to argue that he did not receive a fair trial. He claimed that parts of the trial were not properly recorded and that he was not given a fair chance to defend himself. He contended that evidence against him was presented in a way that was not appropriate and that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial. However, the court explained that there was no evidence that the issues James raised affected the outcome of the trial. They found that the testimony about Colton’s character and life was important and properly admitted to show that he would not have run away. They also considered that the defense did not provide sufficient reasons for their claims of error. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction, affirming that the evidence showed James was guilty of the serious charges. T.J.S.'s accounts of the abuse were significant in proving what James and his wife had done. The judges concluded that despite the many claims made by James, they did not find the errors alleged by him to be valid or sufficient to overturn the jury's decision. The court’s ruling confirmed that James would face life imprisonment as recommended by the jury based on the severity of the crimes committed against Colton. This case highlighted serious issues regarding child welfare and the responsibilities of adults toward children in their care.