In OCCA case No. F-2017-1203, Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta appealed his conviction for child neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him, based on a prior ruling regarding Indian territory laws. One judge dissented, expressing concerns about the implications of the ruling and the handling of precedents.
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.
**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma Summary Opinion** **Appellant:** David Martinez **Appellee:** The State of Oklahoma **Case No.:** F-2018-647 **Filed:** December 5, 2019 **Presiding Judge:** Lewis **Summary:** David Martinez was convicted in a bench trial of lewd or indecent acts to a child under 16, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2015 § 1123(A)(2). The trial was held in the District Court of Beckham County under Judge Doug Haught, who sentenced Martinez to ten years in prison, with the majority of the sentence suspended after serving six years. Martinez raised several propositions of error in his appeal: 1. **Allegation of Lewd Molestation without Corroboration:** - Martinez claimed his due process rights were violated because M.C.'s testimony was unbelievable and lacked corroboration. The court upheld that the general rule allows conviction based on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix if it is clear and unambiguous. The court found M.C.'s testimony sufficient and denied this proposition. 2. **Right to a Certified Interpreter:** - Martinez, who does not speak English, argued he was denied a certified interpreter. The court noted that the presumption of regularity in legal proceedings applies, and without evidence that interpretation was inaccurate or that it affected the trial’s outcome, this claim was denied. 3. **Hearsay Evidence:** - The court reviewed evidence of text messages sent by the victim to her mother as hearsay. Since the trial was a bench trial, the court presumed only competent evidence was considered, and any objection raised post-trial was not preserved for appeal. This proposition was denied. 4. **Preliminary Hearing Evidence:** - Martinez contended that the prosecution failed to show all elements of the crime during the preliminary hearing. The court pointed out that the age element was established during trial and noted the waiver of any preliminary hearing errors not related to jurisdiction. This proposition was denied. **Decision:** The judgment and sentence were affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma. **Opinion by:** Lewis, P.J. **Concurrences by:** Kuehn, V.P.J.; Lumpkin, J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. *For the complete opinion, you can download the PDF [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-647_1735224408.pdf).*
In OCCA case No. F-2017-769, Tyrees Dotson appealed his conviction for Murder in the Second Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Dotson's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Tyrees Dotson was found guilty of Murder in the Second Degree after a trial in which he received a sentence of thirty years in prison. The judge ordered that this sentence would start after he completed another sentence he was already serving. During the trial, Dotson raised several issues. First, he argued that it was unfair for the court to allow the jury to hear a witness's earlier testimony instead of having the witness speak during the trial. Dotson thought this hurt his case. However, the court found that the state had tried hard to find the missing witness and was fair in allowing the earlier testimony. Dotson also claimed there were problems with other evidence presented during the trial. He believed that some photos of the victim were too much and could make the jury feel very emotional instead of making a fair decision. The court disagreed and said that the evidence was important to explain the situation. Another issue Dotson raised was that the state unfairly removed some black jurors from the jury. The court looked at this claim and found that the state's reasons for removing those jurors were based on valid, non-racial reasons. Dotson also said that his lawyer did not do a good job defending him, which made it unfair. The court found no evidence that his lawyer's actions harmed his case. Finally, Dotson felt that all the mistakes in the trial added up to make it unfair. However, since the court found no significant errors, they decided that there was also no cumulative error. Overall, the court concluded that Dotson's conviction and sentence were valid and went on to say that a small error in the paperwork needed fixing but did not affect the outcome of the case. Thus, his appeal was turned down.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-119, Arthur Tequon Hill, Jr. appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm, Kidnapping, and Gang Association. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. No one dissented. Arthur Tequon Hill, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for several serious crimes. The jury decided he should go to prison for 25 years for robbery, 20 years for kidnapping, and 5 years for gang association. The court said he must serve these sentences one after the other. Hill made several arguments in his appeal. First, he suggested that there wasn’t enough evidence to support his conviction and that the case should be dismissed. However, the court found that there was enough evidence for a reasonable person to believe he was guilty, so this argument was rejected. Second, Hill argued that the court should not have allowed the jury to hear about other robberies he was involved in just days before this crime. The court ruled that this evidence was permissible because it showed similarities between the robberies and helped prove his identity in this case. Third, he claimed the court made a mistake by letting the jury separate after they finished hearing the case, which he said could lead to unfair influence. The State agreed this was an error but said it wasn't harmful. The court concluded the jurors followed instructions not to talk about the case while they were apart, so this did not harm Hill’s case. Lastly, Hill argued that evidence about his gang membership was presented in a way that was too unfair and made his trial less fair. The court disagreed and stated that the evidence was important to the case. They believed it helped confirm his involvement in the robbery. In the end, the court found no reasons to change Hill's conviction or punishment. The decision to affirm his sentencing was based on thorough review of all the points made in his appeal and the evidence presented during the trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-56, Garry Wayne Wilson appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Possession of a Firearm While Under Supervision of the Department of Corrections. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. No one dissented. Garry Wayne Wilson was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County. He faced two charges: killing someone and having a gun when he wasn’t supposed to. The jury decided he should spend his life in prison for the murder and ten years for the gun charge, with both sentences running one after the other. Wilson raised several problems about his trial that he believed made it unfair. He thought the court made mistakes, such as changing the charges against him in a way that hurt his defense, not telling the jury the right instructions, allowing too many pictures of the victim that were too much to see, and that the prosecutor did things wrong during the trial. He also believed his lawyer didn’t help him enough. The court looked closely at Wilson’s complaints. First, they found that the change in the charges was allowed because it didn’t really change what he was being accused of. It was fair to change it based on the evidence that came out during the trial. Next, regarding jury instructions, the judges said they were given correctly. Even though Wilson claimed he should have received specific instructions about being angry, the judges said that because Wilson denied shooting the victim, he didn’t qualify for those instructions. Also, the jury did get to hear about similar lesser charges, which gave them options. About the photos shown in court, the judges found they were important for showing what happened to the victim. Even if there were many pictures, they all served a purpose and were not too repetitive. Regarding the claims of the prosecutor acting inappropriately, the court said that, despite Wilson's worries, the issues did not make the trial unfair. The judges assessed all the prosecutor's actions as a whole to decide if they were serious problems. They concluded that they were not. Wilson also said his lawyer didn’t do a good job. However, the judges commented that legal representatives have a wide range of actions they can take, and it’s not easy to prove they didn’t do their job well. They didn’t find any significant mistakes made by the lawyer that harmed Wilson’s case. Lastly, Wilson argued that all these issues combined made his trial unfair. The judges disagreed and said that since they found none of his claims were valid, there were no combined errors that would change the outcome either. In summary, the court affirmed Wilson's conviction and sentence. They found no significant errors that would merit a new trial or a change in his punishment. The case concluded with the jury's decision being upheld.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-153, Crawley appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, Felony Eluding, Second Degree Burglary, and Possession of Burglary Tools. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the exclusion of key evidence violated Crawley's right to a fair trial, leading to the reversal of his convictions for Counts 1 and 2. A judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2016-519, Kevin Bernell Warrior appealed his conviction for first degree murder and possession of a firearm after a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to grant him a new trial due to newly discovered evidence that could change the outcome of the original trial. One judge dissented. Kevin Warrior was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. The evidence used to convict him was mostly circumstantial, meaning it did not come from direct witnesses at the crime scene. At trial, it was believed that the weapon used in the murder was not found, and the state suggested that Warrior had a motive and opportunity to commit the crime, alongside some statements he made that seemed incriminating. After his conviction, Warrior learned while in jail that another man, Mikel Ball, had confessed to committing the murder during a robbery. This information came to Warrior from a fellow inmate, Marquez Goff, who had talked to Ball. Goff also found out that police had taken a gun from Ball shortly after his arrest, and that this gun matched the bullet from the murder victim. Warrior's lawyers filed a request for a new trial, arguing that this evidence was important and could not have been found before the trial. The court agreed that the evidence was new, could change the outcome of the first trial, and was not something that Warrior could have discovered in time for his original case. Thus, the court decided that Warrior should get a new trial because this new information showed a reasonable chance that he might not have been guilty of the crime he was convicted of.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-385, Jeffrey Eugene Rowan appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse by a Person Responsible for a Child's Health, Safety, or Welfare. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Rowan's motion for a new trial and dismissed the appeal because the case would be retried. One judge dissented. Rowan was convicted in the District Court of Pittsburg County and sentenced to thirty-five years in prison. His conviction was based on various testimonies, including his own admission to investigators about inappropriate behavior with his stepdaughter and medical testimony suggesting signs of abuse. However, after the conviction, new evidence came to light regarding the medical witness that may have affected the credibility of the case against Rowan. The new evidence showed that the physician assistant who examined the child had her medical license suspended due to drug abuse and misconduct. This detail raised concerns about the reliability of her testimony, which was crucial to the prosecution's case. The court found that this new evidence could change the outcome of the original trial and therefore ordered a new trial. Rowan's original appeal was deemed moot because the case would be retried, and there was no need to evaluate the specific claims raised in that appeal. As a result, the motion for a new trial was granted, and the case was sent back to the lower court for another trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-525, Sparks appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder, Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Drug, and Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Counts 2 and 3 but reversed and remanded Count 1, with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented regarding Count 1. The case involved Nathan David Sparks, who was tried and found guilty in Osage County. The jury decided that he should spend ten years in prison for Second Degree Murder, along with a fine for delivering a controlled substance and a year in county jail for improperly handling a dead body. The trial judge followed the jury's recommendations. The appeal focused on several issues, including whether there was enough evidence to support a conviction for Second Degree Murder. During the trial, the prosecution argued that Sparks gave methamphetamine to a woman who later died from it, claiming they had a close relationship and that he knew about her health issues. Sparks argued that the evidence did not strongly support the idea that his actions were extremely dangerous. The court reviewed prior cases and determined that not every case of delivering drugs resulting in death is automatically Second Degree Murder. They explained that for a murder charge to stick, the actions must show a clear disregard for life. They found that in Sparks' case, while he knew the victim had health problems, there wasn't enough evidence to prove his actions were dangerously reckless enough to warrant a murder conviction. Each of Sparks' other issues was also reviewed. They found some testimony was not directly related to the case, but since the evidence for Counts 2 and 3 was strong, it did not change the outcome. They determined that there was no misconduct during the trial and that Sparks had adequate legal representation. In summary, the court upheld Sparks' convictions for the drug delivery and body removal but did not find strong enough evidence for the murder charge, leading to its dismissal. One judge disagreed, believing the evidence was sufficient to uphold the murder charge due to Sparks' knowledge of the victim's health issues.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-1095, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from life imprisonment to forty-five years due to prosecutorial misconduct and the admission of excessive photographic evidence. One judge dissented, arguing that the initial conviction and sentence should have been upheld.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-640, Don Edward Seely appealed his conviction for Burglary in the First Degree and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to a term of twenty years on each count. One judge dissented. Don Edward Seely was found guilty by a jury. He committed serious crimes, and the jury thought he deserved a long sentence. The judge gave him 21 years for each crime, which would mean he would spend a lot of time in prison. However, there was a problem with how the jury was told to decide the punishment. The judge had made a mistake in telling the jury how long they could send someone to prison for these crimes. Because of this mistake, the court shortened his sentences to 20 years for each crime. Seely argued that the sentences were too long and that he didn't get good help from his lawyer. He also thought the judge should have talked to the jury about some of their questions. While looking through Seely's claims, the court found that most of his arguments were not strong enough to change what happened. They decided that since Seely had previously committed crimes, a total sentence of 40 years (two 20-year sentences) was not surprising or unfair. Seely was not able to prove that his lawyer had made mistakes that would change the outcome of the trial. The court said that even if his lawyer had tried harder, it would not have helped Seely very much. The court also talked about some other things Seely wanted to do, like ask for new trials or present new evidence. However, they decided that redoing the trial was not necessary, especially since they already changed the sentences. Overall, the court agreed with the jury's decision about Seely's guilt but adjusted the punishment because of the earlier error.
In OCCA case No. F 2005-41, James Nye appealed his conviction for Manufacture or Attempted Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence. One judge dissented. James Nye was found guilty by a jury in a district court in Grady County. The jury decided he should go to prison for sixty years for his crime. After the trial, Nye believed there were problems that made his trial unfair, so he appealed the decision. He raised six main reasons for his appeal: 1. He said there wasn't enough good evidence to prove he did the crime based on what his co-defendant said. 2. He thought the court made mistakes by allowing too much evidence that helped the co-defendant's story without being necessary. 3. He claimed that the people working for the state did things that were unfair and made the jury give him a harsher sentence. 4. He felt that some evidence presented was not related to the case and led to a higher sentence than it should have been. 5. He argued that the sentence he got was too harsh. 6. Finally, he believed that all these problems combined made the trial not fair. After looking at the evidence and the reasons presented by Nye, the court agreed that his conviction should not be changed because there was enough evidence to support the decision. However, they also found that there were issues in the trial that affected his sentence. The court recognized that while some mistakes were made, they ultimately did not affect the conviction itself. The court highlighted that the prosecutor said things that should not have been said and presented evidence that was prejudicial. The judge noted that bringing up Nye’s past in court and how long he spent in jail might have made the jury unfairly biased against him. Because of these mistakes and the belief that the original sentence was excessive, the court changed the sentence from sixty years to a new sentence of twenty years. The judges felt that this new sentence was a fairer punishment for the crime Nye committed. One judge disagreed with the amount the sentence was lowered to, suggesting it should be reduced to thirty-five years instead. In summary, James Nye's conviction is upheld, but he will now serve twenty years in prison instead of sixty because of errors made in the trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-129, Denise Sue Watie appealed her conviction for sexually abusing a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Denise Sue Watie was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for sexually abusing her son. The jury suggested that she should serve eight years in prison. She was sentenced accordingly on January 24, 2005. After her conviction, she decided to appeal the decision, stating several reasons why she believed the trial was unfair. First, Watie claimed the court made an error by allowing certain evidence that she thought was unnecessary and repetitive. However, the court found that the admission of a videotaped interview of the complainant was acceptable under the law. Since the court followed the correct procedures, this part of her appeal was denied. Next, Watie argued that her confession to the police should not have been allowed because it was taken without informing her of her rights. The court examined how the police interviewed her. They noted that she was not arrested and could leave at any time. Because of this, the court concluded that the interview was not a custodial interrogation and did not require the police to read her the Miranda rights. Thus, Watie's statements were considered voluntary, and these claims were also denied. Watie also contended that the jury should have been instructed about the requirement that she would serve at least 85% of her sentence in prison. The court agreed that this information was important and should have been provided to the jury upon Watie’s request. Due to this oversight, her sentence was modified from eight years to six years. Lastly, Watie claimed that her sentence was too harsh. Since the court found that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule, they reduced her sentence but did not fully agree with her position on its harshness. The decision to modify the sentence made her final argument about the severity of the punishment unnecessary. In conclusion, the judgment of the district court was affirmed, but her sentence was reduced to six years. The appeal brought attention to important legal procedures, but ultimately, the court decided that the original conviction stood, with a slight change to the length of time she would serve in prison.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-773, Alfonzo Daniel appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts with a Child under Sixteen and Making Indecent Proposals to a Child under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Mr. Daniel was charged with serious crimes in Oklahoma. He went to trial, where the jury found him guilty of two counts. He was given twenty years for each count, and the sentences were to be served one after the other, making it a total of forty years. Mr. Daniel thought the trial was unfair for many reasons and decided to appeal. He raised several complaints about what happened during the trial. He argued that a videotaped interview of him should not have been allowed because it was wrongly obtained. He also claimed the judge didn’t watch the whole tape before deciding it was involuntary. He felt that certain information, known as hearsay, was also improperly shared during the trial, and that some testimonies were included which didn’t really connect to his case. Mr. Daniel believed he couldn't properly defend himself because his questioning of the witness was limited and some rules given to the jury were unfair. After looking through all the records and arguments, the court agreed that the admission of the videotaped interview was a significant mistake. The court stated that this mistake was not minor and could have affected the jury’s decision. Therefore, they decided to send the case back for a new trial, where these mistakes could be corrected. The other points Mr. Daniel raised were not examined further since the first mistake was enough to warrant a new trial. The judge who disagreed believed that the errors made were not significant enough to change the outcome of the trial and felt the conviction should stand.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-577, Marion Lewis appealed his conviction for multiple counts of serious crimes, including First Degree Rape and Forcible Oral Sodomy, following a jury trial in Oklahoma County. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Marion Lewis was found guilty of several serious charges after a trial where he represented himself. He went to trial and was sentenced to life without the chance for parole for most counts and twenty years for another. He believed the court did not properly warn him about the risks of representing himself and raised concerns about his mental ability to stand trial. He also argued that the trial court did not allow him enough time to prepare his defense, which he felt hurt his case. The court found that the trial judge did not give Lewis enough time after he was allowed to represent himself just a few days before the trial started. This lack of time made it hard for him to gather witnesses and evidence that he thought were important for his defense. The court decided the denial of his request for more time was unfair and violated his rights. In the end, the court reversed Lewis's convictions and ordered a new trial, agreeing that the trial process had not been fair. However, one judge disagreed, believing that the trial court acted correctly in denying the request for more time, stating that Lewis had not shown he would have been able to present a strong defense even if he had been given more time.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-802, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes against minors. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one. One member of the court dissented regarding the sentences. The appellant was found guilty of many crimes, including possession of obscene material involving minors and various forms of sexual assault and exploitation. The jury decided on significant punishments, including life imprisonment for some counts and substantial fines. The sentences were ordered to run one after the other, meaning the appellant would serve a long time in prison without the chance to have some time overlap. The appellant raised several issues during the appeal. He argued that his trial was unfair for various reasons, such as hearsay evidence being allowed and prejudicial comments from the prosecutor. He also claimed that he was charged with crimes that were not consistent with the law at the time of the offenses, notably regarding the sexual exploitation charge. The court evaluated each point raised by the appellant. They found that while there were errors in how the trial was handled, not all of them affected the final outcome significantly. Some errors were considered harmless or did not warrant a change in the verdict. The court agreed that some charges were problematic, particularly that of sexual exploitation, which the court decided to reverse and dismiss. The court concluded that the appellant's conviction for the possession charge should reflect a different statute and that some sentences exceeded legal limits. The court modified these sentences appropriately and affirmed most of the other convictions. One judge did not agree with the decision to have all sentences run consecutively and believed they should run together instead, which would allow for a potentially shorter total time in prison. This disagreement highlights the differing opinions within the court regarding the severity and application of sentences. In summary, the case involved serious crimes with significant legal discussion around the fairness of the trial and the appropriateness of the resulting sentences.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-1401, Toni Lisa Dixon appealed her conviction for Driving while Under the Influence of Alcohol, second offense; resisting an officer; and failure to stop at a stop sign. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify her DUI conviction to a first offense and ordered a resentencing on that charge. The conviction for resisting an officer was affirmed, but the fine was reduced to $500. The conviction for failure to stop at a stop sign was also affirmed. One judge dissented.