Dangerous Weapon

RE-2020-452

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2020-452, Katlin Maye Ford appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Katlin pled guilty to Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and received a ten-year sentence that was suspended. This means she did not have to go to prison right away but had to follow certain rules. One rule was that she needed to pay restitution, which is money that goes to the victim to help with their losses. In October 2018, the State of Oklahoma asked the court to end her suspended sentence because she had not paid the restitution. In November 2018, Katlin decided to represent herself in court, meaning she did not want a lawyer. She admitted that she had not paid the restitution as ordered. The court then allowed more time for her to get back on track with her payments. However, in June 2020, the court decided to take away three years of her suspended sentence because she still had not paid the restitution. Katlin thought this was unfair and appealed the decision, making some important claims: 1. She said she was not given proper legal help when she needed it. 2. She believed the court should have helped her get a lawyer for her hearing. 3. She argued that any failure to pay the restitution was not intentional. In examining her first claim, the court noted that people have the right to have a lawyer when their suspended sentences are being revoked. For someone to give up that right, they must do it knowingly, which means they understand what they are doing. The court found that there was no clear record showing that Katlin had enough information about self-representation or that she made her decision with full understanding of the consequences. Since the court did not make sure she understood everything about waiving her right to a lawyer, the appeal was successful. The original decision to revoke her suspended sentence was reversed, meaning Katlin would get another chance to address her restitution payments and have proper legal representation. Therefore, the court instructed for the case to go back to the lower court for further actions that are consistent with its opinion. One judge disagreed with the majority's decision.

Continue ReadingRE-2020-452

F-2017-1294

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2017-1294

F-2019-420

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-420, Donta Keith Davis appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon and assault with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate Davis's judgment and sentence, meaning he would no longer be convicted of the crimes he was charged with. The court also instructed for the case to be dismissed. One judge dissented from the majority opinion.

Continue ReadingF-2019-420

F-2018-900

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ANGEL MUNOZ,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-900** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAN - 9 2020** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Angel Munoz, appeals from the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2016-701 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, by the Honorable Glenn M. Jones, District Judge. On March 7, 2018, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to Count 1: Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon, with sentencing deferred for a period of five years under probation conditions until March 6, 2023. On June 26, 2018, the State filed an application to accelerate Appellant's deferred judgment and sentencing, alleging he violated probation by committing the new crime of Possession of a Firearm after a prior felony conviction, as charged in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2018-2625. An amended application was filed on August 21, 2018. At the hearing on this application, the State called Appellant's probation officer, Tammera Saavedra. During a home visit on April 13, 2018, Officer Saavedra found a nine-millimeter semiautomatic pistol and ammunition in plain view in a garage where Appellant claimed to be staying. Additionally, personal items belonging to Appellant were found near the firearm, leading to his arrest for possessing the firearm. Appellant's brother-in-law, Arturo Plascencia, testified that Appellant did not live in the garage, stating that he had never stayed there. Appellant corroborated this, but both testimonies were contradicted by evidence showing Appellant's possession and control of the area where the gun was found. After hearing the evidence, Judge Jones found that Appellant violated his probation. Consequently, he accepted the State's recommendation and sentenced Appellant to a term of ten years. Appellant raises two propositions of error on appeal: 1. **Proposition I**: The trial court abused its discretion by accelerating Appellant's sentence when the State failed to provide sufficient competent evidence of the alleged new offense. 2. **Proposition II**: The acceleration judgment should reflect Appellant's conviction for Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon, rather than Assault and Battery With a Deadly Weapon. **ANALYSIS** In **Proposition I**, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish his knowledge of the firearm's presence. The standard for reviewing such claims requires that the court finds whether a rational trier of fact could have concluded the essential elements of the probation violation were met by a preponderance of the evidence. Evidence presented indicated Appellant's admission to living in the garage at the time the firearm was discovered. Testimony from Officer Saavedra and physical evidence reinforced the conclusion that Appellant had dominion and control over the area where the firearm was located. Conflicting testimonies regarding Appellant's residence and possession were matters for the court to evaluate. Thus, Appellant failed to substantiate that Judge Jones acted irrationally in his ruling. In **Proposition II**, Appellant argues for a correction of the accelerating judgment to accurately reflect his offense. The State agrees that this matter warrants attention. Therefore, it should be remanded to the District Court for the necessary correction. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County accelerating Appellant's deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2016-701 is AFFIRMED. However, the case is REMANDED to the District Court for a correction in accordance with Appellant's request. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2020), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** **For the Appellant:** Kenneth C. Watson, Nancy Walker-Johnson Attorney at Law 119 N. Robinson, Suite 640 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **For the State:** Tiffany Noble, Mike Hunter, Diane L. Slayton Assistant District Attorneys 505 County Office Building Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-900_1735119586.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-900

F-2018-562

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2018-562

F-2018-1083

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma regarding the case of Bryan Lee Guy, who was appealing his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. Below is a concise breakdown of the case and its outcome: ### Case Overview: - **Appellant**: Bryan Lee Guy - **Appellee**: The State of Oklahoma - **Court**: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma - **Original Jurisdiction**: District Court of Tulsa County - **Case Number**: F-2018-1083 - **Trial Judge**: Honorable Dawn Moody - **Sentence**: Thirty-seven years imprisonment (with a requirement to serve 85% before parole eligibility) ### Issues on Appeal: 1. **Instruction on Inconsistent Statements**: Guy argued that the jury was not properly instructed regarding the use of a victim's prior inconsistent statements. The court concluded this omission was not plain error and did not affect the trial's outcome. 2. **Conflicting Instructions**: Guy contended that jury instructions about the return of the verdict and lesser offenses were conflicting. The court found no plain error in these instructions, stating they did not misdirect the jury. 3. **Post-Imprisonment Supervision Instruction**: Guy challenged the inclusion of an instruction on mandatory post-imprisonment supervision, which the court acknowledged was given in error but did not constitute plain error affecting his rights. 4. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Guy claimed his attorney was ineffective on several grounds, including not reasserting a pretrial motion to dismiss and failing to take judicial notice of prior convictions. The court found no merit in these claims, concluding Guy could not show that these alleged deficiencies affected the trial outcome. ### Court's Decision: - The court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court. - Guy's request for an evidentiary hearing to further support his claim of ineffective assistance was denied. ### Conclusion: The appeal did not result in a reversal of the conviction or sentence, as the court found that the issues raised were either without merit or did not rise to the level of plain error that would impact the fairness of the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1083

F-2018-349

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-349, John Albert Broomhall appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence, but vacated the order of restitution and remanded the case for a restitution hearing. One judge dissented. Broomhall was found guilty by a jury, and he was sentenced to one year in jail and a fine of $5000. He raised several claims in his appeal. First, he argued that the State did not provide enough evidence to prove that he committed the crime, which involved using a baseball bat to hurt someone. The court found that the jury had enough evidence to believe he did commit the crime. Next, Broomhall claimed he acted in self-defense, but the court ruled that he did not meet the burden of proof needed to show that his actions were justified. He also accused the prosecutor of misconduct during the trial, but the court decided that nothing the prosecutor did affected the fairness of the trial. Broomhall argued that the jury was given incorrect instructions, but the court found the instructions were proper. He also believed that the trial court made a mistake in how it ordered restitution for the victim's losses. The court agreed that the restitution order was not done correctly and needed to be revisited. Broomhall claimed he had ineffective assistance from his attorney, but the court found no basis for this claim, stating that the actions of his counsel did not harm his case. Lastly, Broomhall contended that there were numerous errors that, together, made his trial unfair; however, the court concluded that the only issue needing correction was the restitution order. In summary, while the court upheld Broomhall's conviction, it sent the restitution issue back for further consideration.

Continue ReadingF-2018-349

C-2019-132

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. C-2019-132** **Filed: October 31, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **JAMES ROBERT BROWN,** **Petitioner,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** --- *SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI* **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Petitioner James Robert Brown was charged with Domestic Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon in Garfield County District Court, Case No. CF-2018-496, following prior felony convictions. On December 17, 2018, he entered a negotiated guilty plea before Judge Paul K. Woodward, who sentenced him to six years in prison, including credit for time served and ordered various fees and costs. Subsequently, Brown attempted to withdraw his guilty plea through a pro se motion filed on January 9, 2019. After a hearing on February 7, 2019, where Brown and his plea counsel testified, Judge Woodward denied the motion. Brown now seeks a writ of certiorari alleging: 1. He did not have access to discovery materials prior to his plea, thus could not knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty. 2. He received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon reviewing the record, transcripts, and the petition, we find that no relief is warranted. **Certiorari Review Standard:** Review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently before a competent court. Brown's letter, which was delayed in reaching the judge, was deemed timely. The denial of a motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed for abuse of discretion, defined as an arbitrary action without proper consideration of relevant facts and law. The burden lies with the petitioner to demonstrate a defect in the plea process. **Proposition I:** Brown asserts he was unaware of the State's case when pleading. The record contradicts this claim, showing he chose to proceed with the plea despite not having the requested discovery. Brown was informed of the charge involving a knife in the assault. His desire for additional information does not undermine the voluntary nature of his plea. The trial court's conclusion that Brown's plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered is well-supported. Proposition I is denied. **Proposition II:** To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Brown must show both deficient performance and resultant prejudice. Brown claims his attorney's failure to provide discovery information led him to plead guilty. However, since we found the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, he cannot demonstrate Strickland prejudice—the necessary negative impact on his defense. Therefore, Proposition II is also denied. **DECISION:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED, and the Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall be issued upon this decision's filing. --- **APPEARANCES:** - **Counsel for Petitioner:** Timothy R. Beebe, Norman, OK - **Counsel for Defendant (Plea):** Mark P. Hoover, Enid, OK - **Counsel for Defendant (Motion to Withdraw):** Benjamin Barker, Enid, OK - **Counsel for the State:** Irene N. Asai, Assistant District Attorney, Garfield County Courthouse, Enid, OK **Opinion by:** Hudson, J. **Concurred by:** Lewis, P.J.; Kuehn, V.P.J.; Lumpkin, J.; Rowland, J. *For the complete opinion in PDF format, click [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2019-132_1734231422.pdf).*

Continue ReadingC-2019-132

F-2018-664

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **KEYUNA CRYSTAL MOSLEY,** Appellant, vs. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. F-2018-664** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 19 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Keyuna Crystal Mosley was tried by jury and convicted of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 801, after being previously convicted of two or more felonies, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2017-1853. Following the jury's recommendation, the Honorable Ray C. Elliott sentenced Appellant to twenty (20) years imprisonment, requiring her to serve 85% of her sentence before becoming eligible for parole consideration per 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1. Appellant appeals this conviction and sentence. **Proposition of Error:** Appellant raises one proposition of error: that the State’s evidence was insufficient to prove her guilt of conjointly committing robbery with a dangerous weapon beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus due process mandates her case be reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss. **Decision:** After thorough consideration of the complete record, including original records, transcripts, exhibits, and briefs, we find the law and evidence do not necessitate relief. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed robbery with a dangerous weapon (Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, ¶ 15, 90 P.3d 556, 559). To establish robbery with a dangerous weapon, the State must demonstrate that the wrongful taking and carrying away of personal property from another's person or immediate presence occurred by force or fear, specifically involving a knife (21 O.S.2011, § 801; OUJI-CR 2d 4-144). The term “principal” in a crime includes anyone who either directly and actively commits the acts constituting the offense or knowingly and with intent aids and abets in its commission (Hackney v. State, 1994 OK CR 29, ¶ 9, 874 P.2d 810, 814; OUJI-CR 2d 2-5, 2-6). Appellant contends the State failed to prove that she acted conjointly with her boyfriend in committing the robbery. She argues that the victim Seale's testimony was incredible and contradicted by her own statement, and that the State should have corroborated Seale's testimony with additional evidence such as forensic evidence, text records, or records of their online communications. This assertion is incorrect. While the State could have provided such corroborative evidence, it was not required to do so. Seale was both an eyewitness and the victim, and the jury determines the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimony (Mason v. State, 2018 OK CR 37, ¶ 13, 433 P.3d 1264, 1269). The jury is entitled to make reasonable inferences supporting their verdict. Even in cases of sharply conflicting evidence, we will not disturb a properly supported verdict (Robinson v. State, 2011 OK CR 15, ¶ 17, 255 P.3d 425, 432). The evidence established that Appellant lured victim Seale to the crime scene, called her accomplice, and directly took and carried away Seale’s property while her accomplice threatened the victim with a knife. We will not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the jury (White v. State, 2019 OK CR 2, ¶ 9, 437 P.3d 1061, 1065). Thus, this proposition is denied. **Conclusion:** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Oklahoma County is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE **ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL** TIMOTHY M. WILSON ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE. 611 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL** ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE 611 COUNTY OFFICE BLDG. 320 ROBERT S. KERR AVE. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** DAN POND KATHERINE BRANDON ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA. ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS TESSA L. HENRY 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE. 505 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR **[Download PDF Version Here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-664_1735223763.pdf)**

Continue ReadingF-2018-664

F-2018-221

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-221, Kenneth Merle Hammick, II appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, burglary in the first degree, and larceny of an automobile. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Kenneth Hammick was convicted of serious crimes. The evidence showed that he broke into a house in Claremore, Oklahoma, on May 10, 2015. He threatened the people inside with a gun and stole a car from one of the victims to escape. He later tried to steal another car but took a pistol instead. The police found him hiding in some bushes the next day. During police questioning, Hammick made statements that suggested he was guilty, even though he initially denied doing anything wrong. After a while, he asked to speak to the police again and confessed to the robbery, even showing them where he had hidden the gun. Hammick's first argument was that the court should not have allowed his confession to be used against him because he had already asked for a lawyer. The court decided that since he started talking to the police again, his confession was valid, and he understood what he was doing. Next, Hammick claimed that the way the police identified him was unfair. He said that because he had a neck tattoo, he was easily recognizable in a photo lineup shown to the victims. However, the court found that the victims had a good opportunity to see him during the crime and provided reliable identifications. Lastly, Hammick argued that the court should not have allowed evidence of another crime he committed after the robbery. This was a theft of a gun. The court decided that this evidence was important to provide a complete picture of Hammick's actions and did not unfairly prejudice the jury against him. In the end, the court upheld Hammick's conviction and did not find any reason to change the original decision.

Continue ReadingF-2018-221

F-2018-92

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. J 2019-0283, D. J., III appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the order granting the imposition of an adult sentence. One judge dissented. D. J., III, who was born on November 1, 2000, faced serious charges after taking part in a hazing incident at school. The state wanted to try him as an adult, which is a significant step for a young person. This happened after a court decided that D. J. could not be helped enough through the juvenile system and that the public needed more protection. The court had a hearing on April 5, 2019, where the judge reviewed evidence and decided that D. J. should face adult charges. The main arguments in the case included whether the earlier ruling was correct and if it used the right laws to make its decision. D. J. argued that the state did not show strong enough evidence to justify moving him to adult court. When D. J. appealed, he claimed two main problems with how the trial was handled. First, he believed the state did not provide clear evidence for why he should be seen as an adult rather than a juvenile. Next, he said that the judge applied the wrong law when making the decision. However, the court found that the judge's decision was reasonable and based on the facts presented during the hearing. The court stated that judges have the right to decide which witnesses to believe and how to weigh their testimonies. The judges on the court agreed that even though there was a mistake in mentioning the wrong law, this did not harm D. J.'s case because both laws were similar. The important aspects of the case were clear, and ultimately, D. J. was seen as not being able to complete rehabilitation in the juvenile system. In the dissenting opinion, the judge expressed concern that the law limits how long juveniles can be kept under the juvenile system, and this may not allow for fair treatment when they are close to being adults. The dissenting judge felt that D. J. still had the potential for rehabilitation and disagreed with moving him to adult court. In summary, the court decided to uphold the decision to treat D. J. as an adult following the state's appeal, while one judge thought this decision should be reconsidered, suggesting changes to juvenile sentencing laws to allow more flexibility for young offenders.

Continue ReadingF-2018-92

F-2018-248

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-248, Mosi Abasi Dennis appealed his conviction for first degree murder and conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the verdict. One member dissented. Mosi Abasi Dennis was found guilty by a jury of first degree murder and conspiracy related to a robbery. The jury sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murder and ten years for conspiracy, with both sentences to be served one after the other. Dennis was involved in a plan to rob Antonio Walker. He and others went to Walker's house under the false pretense of purchasing drugs. When they arrived, Dennis refused to abandon the plan, even when it became clear that others were present in the house. Things escalated, and during the robbery attempt, Dennis shot Walker's father, Kenneth, who had entered the room to see what was happening. On appeal, Dennis raised several arguments. First, he claimed that there was unfair treatment in jury selection because a minority juror was removed while a white juror, who had similar issues, was allowed to stay. The court found no evidence of racial bias and held that the reasons given for removing the juror were fair. Second, Dennis argued that the prosecution made unfair comments during closing arguments, asking jurors to sympathize with a co-conspirator. The court ruled that this did not unfairly influence the jury as the statements were part of explaining the witness's behavior. Third, he contested the admission of graphic photographs of the victim, believing they were too prejudicial. The court decided that the images were relevant to the case and helped explain the events that unfolded during the crime. Dennis also claimed that the evidence presented was not enough to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the court disagreed, stating that the evidence adequately demonstrated that Dennis shot the victim during the robbery. Furthermore, Dennis believed he should have been given instructions for a lesser offense of second-degree murder, but the court found that there was no solid evidence supporting such a charge. Finally, Dennis argued that the combination of errors during the trial warranted a reversal of the conviction. The court concluded there were no significant errors that would have affected the trial's outcome. The court ultimately upheld the conviction and sentencing, stating that there were no legal errors that warranted overturning the jury’s decision.

Continue ReadingF-2018-248

F-2017-802

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-802, Jestin Tafolla appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and Carrying a Weapon Unlawfully. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Tafolla was sentenced to life imprisonment for the assault and thirty days in jail for the misdemeanor charge, with the sentences served at the same time. His appeal raised several issues, mainly about whether his trial was fair. He claimed that evidence of his gang affiliation unfairly influenced the jury, that introducing certain statements violated his rights, and that errors occurred during the trial process. The court discussed the details of the case where Tafolla assaulted a man following a traffic dispute. Detectives witnessed Tafolla hitting the victim and confiscated brass knuckles he discarded. Witness statements indicated that racial slurs were part of the altercation. The court found that the evidence of Tafolla's gang membership was relevant to understand the incident and the motivations behind it. It ruled that the testimony related to his affiliation did not violate his rights and was permissible to show motive and intent. They also addressed Tafolla's complaints about the admission of the victim's statements, concluding that these did not prevent a fair trial. The admission of prior convictions for cross-examination purposes was also deemed appropriate as it was relevant to the prosecution's case. In issues raised about the prosecutor's conduct and jury instructions, the court determined that no significant errors impacted the trial. The arguments made by the prosecution were within the acceptable realm of discussing the evidence. Overall, the court found no individual errors that would require a new trial and concluded that the accumulation of complaints did not undermine the fairness of the proceedings. Thus, the original judgment was upheld, and Tafolla’s appeal was denied.

Continue ReadingF-2017-802

RE-2018-89

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In the case of Brandon Christopher Looney v. The State of Oklahoma, the Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the trial court's decision to revoke Looney's twenty-year suspended sentence based on multiple violations of probation. Looney had pled nolo contendere to assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, leading to a suspended sentence on the condition he comply with certain probation rules. The court reviewed allegations against Looney, including failing to report to his probation officer, changing his residence without notification, associating with convicted felons, failing a drug test, possessing weapons, and being charged with multiple offenses related to drug and firearm possession. At the revocation hearing, evidence was presented detailing these violations, including a deputy witnessing drug use and discovering firearms and drugs in the residence where Looney was staying. Looney argued that the judge erred in denying his demurrer regarding weapon-related allegations since the firearms were not found in his specific bedroom and there was no evidence he was aware of their presence. However, the court explained that as a convicted felon on probation, his residency rules prohibited him from firearms, regardless of awareness. The burden of proof for probation violations is a preponderance of evidence, and the trial judge's discretion to revoke the sentence was upheld. Looney also claimed that the judge did not consider lesser sentencing options and that the revocation was excessive. The court found no evidence that the judge neglected to consider alternatives and noted that Looney had repeatedly ignored probation requirements immediately after being placed on probation. Ultimately, the court denied all of Looney's propositions of error, concluding there were no abuses of discretion or violations of due process. Therefore, the order to revoke his suspended sentence was affirmed.

Continue ReadingRE-2018-89

RE-2018-231

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

This summary opinion addresses the appeal of Latarsha Grant concerning the revocation of her suspended sentences in two criminal cases. Below is a concise breakdown of the key points from the opinion: ### Background - Latarsha Grant was convicted in 2007 for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (Case No. CF-2007-359) and sentenced to ten years with the sentence suspended. - In 2011, she was involved in new criminal activities leading to further actions against her suspended sentence. - By 2012, she had entered a guilty plea in a new case regarding drug distribution (Case No. CF-2011-269) with a concurrent ten-year suspended sentence after completing a rehabilitation program. - In 2017, a motion to revoke her suspended sentences was filed due to allegations of her involvement in a robbery, leading to the revocation hearing in 2018. ### Procedural History - The trial court, after hearing evidence, revoked her suspended sentences due to her involvement in the new crimes and appeared to find sufficient evidence against her. ### Appellate Claims Grant raised seven propositions of error, which the court proceeded to analyze: 1. **Competent Evidence**: The court found sufficient evidence that Grant had violated the terms of her suspended sentences. The evidence established her involvement in planning the robbery and her presence during the crime. 2. **Right to Confront Witnesses**: The court concluded that the hearsay issues raised were not applicable, as revocation procedures allow for such evidence. Furthermore, all relevant witnesses were available for cross-examination. 3. **Jurisdiction Concerns**: Grant's arguments relating to the trial court's jurisdiction or abuse of discretion regarding specific offenses were deemed misdirected, as they pertain to her original plea which she could challenge separately. 4. **Excessive Sentencing**: Grant claimed her overall sentence was excessive, but this is tied to the context of her behavior and criminal activities, which justified the trial court's decisions. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Similar to the above, claims surrounding the inadequacy of her representation in court were not appropriately addressed in this revocation context and would need separate proceedings. 6. **Nunc Pro Tunc Orders**: Grant sought to correct inaccuracies related to her plea and sentencing, which would also need to be handled through a different legal mechanism than this appeal. ### Conclusion The appellate court affirmed the decision of the District Court to revoke the suspended sentences, stating that the evidence supported the trial court's findings. The court dismissed all of Grant's claims based on their analysis of procedural and evidential standards, emphasizing the limitations of their review scope in revocation appeals. ### Decision Issued The order to revoke the concurrent suspended sentences was **AFFIRMED**. The court ordered the issuance of the mandate. ### Document Access A link to the full opinion is provided for those seeking detailed legal reasoning: [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-231_1734701780.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-231

RE-2018-644

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DUSTIN ARDELL CRUCE,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-644** **FILED APR 25 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** ROWLAND, JUDGE: This appeal arises from the revocation of Dustin Ardell Cruce’s suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2016-143, adjudicated by the Honorable Lawrence W. Parish. On February 22, 2017, Cruce entered a guilty plea to multiple charges, including Assault With a Dangerous Weapon and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, resulting in a total sentence of ten years for the most serious counts, suspended in part. On October 31, 2017, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence, citing Cruce's failure to pay ordered reimbursement fees and alleged new criminal activity. However, the State subsequently abandoned the new crime allegation as part of a plea agreement in a separate case, leaving only the failure to pay as the basis for revocation. At the revocation hearing on May 2, 2018, the trial court determined that Cruce had indeed violated his probation by failing to fulfill financial obligations. Despite Cruce's claims regarding his employment status and efforts to comply, he provided no evidence of bona fide attempts to make the required payments. The standard for revocation allows the State to meet its burden by a preponderance of the evidence, and one proven violation is sufficient to justify a full revocation of a suspended sentence. Judge Parish opted to revoke only half of Cruce's remaining suspended sentence, demonstrating leniency. Cruce’s appeal asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing revocation. However, as established in previous case law, including *Sparks v. State* and *Livingston v. State*, the court has broad discretion in these matters. The trial court was within its rights to revoke the suspension based on the stipulated violation of payment obligations. The decision of Judge Parish is affirmed, as Cruce has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2016-143 is AFFIRMED. **Legal Representation:** Counsel for Appellant: CURT ALLEN Counsel for Appellee: EMILY MUELLER, ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY **OPINION BY:** ROWLAND, J. **Concur:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J. (Concur in Results); LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.

Continue ReadingRE-2018-644

RE-2018-128

In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, Milton Roger Hornsby appealed the revocation of his suspended sentence from the McIntosh County District Court, overseen by Judge James D. Bland. This appeal arose from convictions in two cases, CF-2012-45 and CF-2012-60, covering multiple charges including possession of a firearm after conviction and assault with a dangerous weapon. Hornsby initially received a twenty-year suspended sentence for one charge and six-month suspended sentences for others, all to be served concurrently. The State's motion to revoke the suspended sentences, filed on September 19, 2016, was due to an alleged new crime involving assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Following a hearing on December 29, 2016, Judge Bland revoked ten years of Hornsby's suspended sentences. Hornsby raised several legal arguments on appeal: 1. **Burden of Proof**: He argued that Judge Bland imposed a lower burden of proof than required. However, the court affirmed that Judge Bland properly articulated the standard during the hearing, which was that the State needed to show it was more likely than not that Hornsby violated his probation. 2. **Suppressed Evidence**: Hornsby contended that evidence pertaining to the use of a knife, previously suppressed in a related case, was improperly considered at the revocation hearing. The court noted that Hornsby did not object during the hearing and thus waived his right to raise this issue on appeal apart from claiming plain error, which he failed to establish. 3. **Intent to Harm**: Hornsby claimed there was insufficient evidence to prove he intended to inflict bodily harm. The court stated that the evidence presented was sufficient to suggest that it was more likely than not that Hornsby had such intent. 4. **Cumulative Errors**: Lastly, Hornsby argued that the accumulation of errors deprived him of a fair hearing. The court found no merit in this argument, as each proposition raised was without merit. The Court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in Judge Bland's decision to revoke the suspended sentence, affirming the revocation. The mandate was ordered to issue following the filing of the decision.

Continue ReadingRE-2018-128

F-2017-724

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-724, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, burglary, domestic abuse, and violation of a protective order. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for most counts but dismissed one count due to double punishment concerns. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2017-724

F-2016-1094

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-1094, Robert Lawrence Long appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder and Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Long's convictions but vacate the court costs imposed on the possession charge. No one dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2016-1094

C-2016-1000

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-1000, Bryan Keith Fletcher appealed his conviction for multiple charges including kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon, rape, and child abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant part of his appeal regarding one misdemeanor charge while denying all other claims. The court modified the sentence for the misdemeanor related to threatening violence to six months in jail but affirmed the sentences for all other counts, which resulted in a significant time in prison. The petitioner argued several points, including that he did not receive effective legal help, that he was not competent when he entered his plea, and that his plea was not voluntary. However, the court reviewed these claims and found that they did not hold up under scrutiny. The judges opined that the actions taken during the plea process were appropriate and upheld the ruling on the grounds that there was no evidence of ineffective assistance or invalid plea. One judge disagreed with some aspects of the decision.

Continue ReadingC-2016-1000

RE-2015-767

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-767, the appellant appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence but ordered the lower court to give her credit for time served in jail. The court also agreed that imposing nine months of supervision after her imprisonment was not appropriate. No judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2015-767

F-2015-561

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-561, Walter LaCurtis Jones appealed his conviction for three crimes: Feloniously Pointing a Firearm, Possession of a Firearm After Former Felony Conviction, and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences for the first two counts but reversed and dismissed the conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. One judge dissented. Walter Jones was found guilty after a trial without a jury. He received seven years in prison for each of the first two counts, which would be served at the same time, and one year in county jail for the third count. The judge also ordered that he would have one year of supervision after his prison time. Jones raised several arguments in his appeal. He argued that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, claiming he did not use a dangerous weapon and had no intention to hurt anyone. The court agreed with him on this point and reversed that conviction. For the charge of Feloniously Pointing a Firearm, Jones argued that the gun he pointed at someone was not a real firearm because it was missing a part and could not shoot. However, the court found there was enough evidence to support that he pointed a gun designed to shoot, therefore, they upheld that conviction. In the case of Possession of a Firearm After Former Felony Conviction, Jones contended that the gun could not fire, so he should not have been found guilty. The court decided that it was unnecessary for the gun to be able to fire to prove he had possession of it as a felon, thereby upholding this conviction as well. Lastly, Jones claimed he was facing double punishment for the same crime, which the court did not accept because the two charges involved different actions and did not violate any laws regarding double punishment or double jeopardy. Thus, the court confirmed his sentences for the first two counts while reversing the count for Assault and Battery.

Continue ReadingF-2015-561

J-2014-326

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2014-326, J.L. appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Carrying a Dangerous Weapon on School Property. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm J.L.’s adjudication of delinquency. One judge dissented. The case began when a petition was filed against J.L. on August 16, 2013, highlighting the two charges. The lower court found J.L. delinquent on April 8, 2014. J.L. argued that the evidence was not enough to show that he intended to harm someone. He also claimed that there wasn’t proof that the knife he had was indeed a dangerous weapon against school rules and that the judge acted like a prosecutor instead of remaining neutral. The court looked at the evidence closely. They needed to see if any reasonable person could find J.L. guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite some conflicting testimony about the events, the evidence presented was enough to support the conclusion that J.L. committed an assault with a dangerous weapon. Regarding J.L.'s second point about the knife, the court determined that photographs provided were adequate to prove that it was a prohibited weapon on school grounds. In the third argument, J.L. said the judge did not stay neutral when he handled the knife in court. The judge asked someone to bring in the knife and then had J.L. confirm that the knife shown was similar to his. Since J.L. didn’t object to this during the trial, he could not complain about it later unless he could prove it was a serious mistake. The court explained that J.L. had to show that there was a real error that changed the outcome of the case. Since he couldn’t show this, the court decided not to take action on his claims. Ultimately, the court upheld the lower court's decision that J.L. was delinquent for the charges against him. The opinion concluded with directions for the lower court to adjust one of the charges to a lesser offense.

Continue ReadingJ-2014-326

F-2013-619

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-619, Carty appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the restitution order. One judge dissented. Carty was found guilty of using a dangerous weapon during a robbery. He was sentenced to ten years in prison and had to pay $625 in restitution to the victim. Carty thought that the trial court made a mistake when it decided how much he should pay as restitution. He argued that the court did not follow the correct rules when ordering the restitution. The court explained that when a victim suffers financial loss because of a crime, the trial court can order the defendant to pay restitution. However, this amount must be proven with reasonable certainty. This means that the victim needs to provide clear evidence of their financial loss, like how much they spent on medical bills or other costs resulting from the crime. The judges reviewed the records from Carty’s trial. They found that there was no evidence showing how the victim calculated their financial loss, and the victim did not share their losses during the sentencing. Because there was not enough proof provided to establish the victim's economic loss, the court agreed that the trial court made a mistake in deciding the restitution amount. The court ultimately upheld Carty's conviction but ordered that the restitution amount be looked at again to ensure it was determined correctly based on the victim’s actual losses.

Continue ReadingF-2013-619

RE-2012-0835

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2012-835, Lon Adam Smith appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, domestic abuse, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the sentences and send them back to the district court for changes. One judge dissented. The case involved three separate convictions against Lon Adam Smith, who had initially entered pleas of no contest to the charges. His sentences were suspended as long as he successfully completed certain rehabilitation programs. However, after some time, the state claimed Smith had not followed through with these programs, which led to a hearing where Smith admitted to the violations. During the revocation hearing, the judge revoked Smith's suspended sentences and imposed longer terms of imprisonment, which raised concerns about whether these new sentences were valid given the original ones. The main issue was that the original sentences had been improperly processed. The judge had not followed the correct procedures for delaying the imposition of sentences as required by law. The court found that Smith's original sentences were improperly extended due to the judge's actions at the revocation hearing. It was determined that since Smith's initial sentences were set on a specific date, any new sentences imposed could not exceed the original terms. Therefore, the court ruled that the revocation sentences needed to start from the date of the original sentences. In the end, the court reversed the judge's decision, which meant that Smith's sentences had to be adjusted to reflect the proper starting dates and terms. The court ordered the district court to amend the sentences accordingly. This decision helps ensure fairness in the legal process and clarifies how long someone can be sentenced for violations of probation.

Continue ReadingRE-2012-0835