Deadly Weapon

F-2021-49

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-49, the Appellant appealed his conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate intentional discharge of a weapon, assault and battery with a deadly weapon, and feloniously pointing a firearm. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate the discharge of a firearm and for pointing a firearm but reversed and remanded the conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented regarding the interpretation of the statutes involved.

Continue ReadingF-2021-49

F-2021-211

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-211, Michael Ray Dawkins appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon, felon in possession of a firearm, and maiming. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon and felon in possession of a firearm but reversed the conviction for maiming and instructed to dismiss it. A dissenting opinion was not noted. The case involved a jury trial where Dawkins was found guilty on all counts after shooting a woman named Krystal Traylor. He received a sentence of 45 years for the assault and battery, 25 years for the firearm possession, and another 45 years for the maiming, with some sentences running concurrently and others consecutively. Dawkins raised several claims on appeal, including that his constitutional right to an attorney of his choice was violated, that he faced double punishment for the same act, and that there were errors in admitting certain evidence during his trial. Upon review, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Dawkins's request for a new attorney, as he did not provide valid reasons for wanting to change lawyers. It was also determined that Dawkins’s convictions for assault and battery and maiming stemmed from a single act, which should not result in multiple punishments. Therefore, the court reversed the maiming conviction. Further, the court found that the identification of Dawkins by the victim was correctly admitted as evidence, dismissing the hearsay claim. Dawkins's assertions about prior bad acts being admitted were also rejected, as they were deemed relevant and essential for establishing motive and intent. The court noted that a limiting instruction had been provided to jurors, mitigating concerns over the impact of these past acts. Finally, regarding Dawkins's claim for a speedy trial violation, the court found that the delays were mainly attributable to him or his defense strategies, concluding that he was not prejudiced by the delay. Overall, most of Dawkins's claims were denied, leading to the affirmation of his main convictions and the reversal of the maiming charge.

Continue ReadingF-2021-211

F-2019-854

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-854, Joshua Lee Purdom appealed his conviction for several serious crimes, including assault and battery, kidnapping, and rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand the case with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented. Joshua Lee Purdom was found guilty by a jury of multiple crimes and received a lengthy sentence in the District Court of Hughes County. The court took into account that Purdom committed these crimes against a victim who had Indian heritage and that the crimes occurred on land considered part of an Indian Reservation. This brought up a question about whether the state had the right to convict him. Purdom argued that because the victim was an enrolled member of an Indian tribe and the crimes happened on Indian land, the state did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him; instead, this should be handled by federal courts. The case brought attention to a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that said parts of Oklahoma were still considered Indian Country for legal purposes. The OCCA agreed with Purdom and found that based on the facts established in a hearing, the state did not have the authority to prosecute him. The victim’s status as an Indian and the location of the crimes played a crucial role in the decision. Therefore, the court dismissed the case, emphasizing that only federal courts have jurisdiction over crimes against Indians in Indian Country under federal law. In summary, the court reversed Purdom’s convictions and ordered the case to be dismissed, which means he will not face charges from this case.

Continue ReadingF-2019-854

F-2018-957

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DUSTIN SCOTT PATTON,** Appellant, Case No. F-2018-957 **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Dustin Scott Patton was convicted in the District Court of Kay County, Case No. CF-2017-258, of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, violating 21 O.S.2011, § 652(C). A jury recommended a ten-year sentence, and Honorable David Bandy, District Judge, imposed the sentence as per the jury's verdict. Patton appeals with two propositions of error. 1. **The modified jury instruction improperly relieved the State of proving an essential element of the crime charged.** 2. **Appellant was deprived of a fair trial due to numerous pleas for sympathy for the victim during trial.** Upon thorough review of the record and arguments presented, we find no grounds for relief. Patton's judgment and sentence are **AFFIRMED**. **Proposition I:** Patton concedes he did not object to Instruction No. 24 at trial, necessitating plain error review. To establish plain error, Patton must show an actual error that is obvious and affects his substantial rights. Previous case law indicates that certain weapons, like knives, are per se deadly weapons. Instruction No. 24, which classified a knife as a deadly weapon, was not erroneous, and thus Proposition I is **denied**. **Proposition II:** For prosecutorial misconduct claims, relief is granted only if the misconduct renders the trial fundamentally unfair. Patton only objected to the display of the victim’s scars. The presentation of the victim’s injuries primarily served to illustrate the crime's severity and the use of force, which was pertinent to the charges against Patton. This evidence was not unduly prejudicial, and thus, Proposition II is also **denied**. **DECISION:** The District Court's Judgment and Sentence are **AFFIRMED**. *Issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.* **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J. --- For further details, you can download the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-957_1734873972.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-957

F-2018-1188

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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).

Continue ReadingF-2018-1188

F-2019-16

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOHNNY W. WARD,** Appellant, v. **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2019-16** **FILED DEC 12 2019** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Appellant Johnny W. Ward was tried by jury and found guilty of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon (Count I) (21 O.S.2011, § 652) and Possession of a Firearm (Count II) (21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 1283), both counts After Former Conviction of A Felony, in the District Court of Muskogee County, Case No. CF-2017-1155. The jury recommended as punishment imprisonment for thirty (30) years in Count I and ten (10) years in Count II. The trial court sentenced accordingly, ordering the sentences to be served concurrently. It is from this judgment and sentence that Appellant appeals. Appellant must serve 85% of his sentence in Count I before becoming eligible for consideration for parole. 21 O.S.2011, § 13.1. **Appellant raises the following propositions of error in support of his appeal:** 1. The eyewitness identification of Appellant was based upon an overly suggestive, one-man show-up that violated Appellant's rights to due process and a fair trial. 2. The State's evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed the crimes of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony Conviction and his convictions must therefore be reversed with instructions to dismiss. 3. Appellant's sentence is excessive and should be modified. After thorough consideration of these propositions and the entire record, we have determined that under the law and the evidence no relief is warranted. **Proposition I:** Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress the in-court identification made by Ms. Davidson after an on-the-scene one person show-up. Appellant argues the pre-trial identification was unnecessarily suggestive and tainted the subsequent identification of Appellant at trial. A one man show-up is not necessarily unduly suggestive or improper. Young v. State, 2000 OK CR 17, ¶ 30, 12 P.3d 20, 34. Absent special elements of unfairness, prompt on-the-scene confrontations [between a victim and a suspect] do not entail due process violations.... Harrolle v. State, 1988 OK CR 223, ¶ 7, 763 P.2d 126, 128, quoting Russell v. United States, 408 F.2d 1280, 1284 (D.C.Cir.1969). The one person show-up in this case was not unduly suggestive or so improper as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress the identification. However, even if the show-up was unduly suggestive, the same would not automatically invalidate the subsequent in-court identification if that identification can be established as independently reliable under the totality of the circumstances. Young, 2000 OK CR 17, ¶ 31, 12 P.3d at 34. Under the circumstances of this case, we find the in-court identification reliable. As the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing into evidence the in-court identification of Appellant, this proposition of error is denied. **Proposition II:** Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. He argues the State failed to show he had anything to do with the alleged crimes. Appellant asserts that the State's evidence showed only that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, evidence showed that Appellant shot his victim in the knee and buttock as the victim begged for his life. Appellant then ran away from the scene, discarding the gun he used and a hoodie he was wearing. Reviewing Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Mitchell v. State, 2018 OK CR 24, ¶ 11, 424 P.3d 677, 682. Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is denied. **Proposition III:** Appellant argues that his sentence is excessive and should be modified. He asserts that while his sentence is technically within the range provided by law, it does not bear a direct relationship to the nature and circumstances of the offenses. However, Appellant's sentences were within the applicable statutory range (21 O.S.2011, §§ 652(A), 1284 and 51.1(C)). This Court will not modify a sentence within the statutory range unless, considering all the facts and circumstances, it shocks the conscience. Pullen v. State, 2016 OK CR 18, ¶ 16, 387 P.3d 922, 928. The evidence showed that despite having a prior robbery conviction, Appellant was in possession of a gun, which he used to shoot the victim multiple times as the victim begged for his life. Under these circumstances, the 30 year and 10 year sentences are not excessive. Therefore, modification of the sentences is not warranted and this proposition is denied. Accordingly, this appeal is denied. **DECISION** The JUDGMENT and SENTENCE 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 MUSKOGEE COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE THOMAS H. ALFORD, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** BRIAN WATTS 222 N. 4TH ST. MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** NICOLLETTE BRANDT OKLA. INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **ORVIL LOGE** DISTRICT ATTORNEY TIM KING ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY MUSKOGEE CO. COURTHOUSE MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **MIKE HUNTER** ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA CAROLINE E.J. HUNT ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21ST ST. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur --- [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2019-16_1734781599.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2019-16

F-2018-760

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case Summary: Monte Dean Perry v. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No.: F-2018-760** **Judgment Date: December 5, 2019** **Overview:** Monte Dean Perry was convicted by a jury on charges of assault and battery with a deadly weapon and endeavoring to perform an act of violence. The court sentenced him to 30 years for the first count and 5 years for the second, with both sentences to run concurrently. **Legal Issue:** Perry appealed the conviction, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to prove he assaulted the victim with a knife, arguing that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. **Court's Review Standard:** The appellate court evaluated the evidence under the standard that favors the prosecution, determining if any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as per *Spuehler v. State*. **Decision:** The court upheld the jury's conviction, finding that the evidence was indeed sufficient to support the verdict. Perry's proposition of error was denied, and the judgment and sentence were affirmed. **Additional Notes:** - Perry must serve 85% of his sentence for Count 1 before being eligible for parole consideration. - The opinion was delivered by Presiding Judge Lewis, with concurrence from Judges Kuehn, Lumpkin, Hudson, and Rowland. For full text or additional details, refer to the official opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-760_1735216916.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-760

F-2017-528

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-528, Darrien Hasmii Clark appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree and several other charges, including Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. Darrien Clark was found guilty by a jury of murdering a convenience store clerk after he shot the clerk multiple times during a robbery. The jury also convicted him on other charges involving a separate shooting incident. Clark was sentenced to life in prison without the chance of parole for the murder, and he received additional sentences for the other crimes, which will be served consecutively. During the trial, Clark's defense raised several issues. He argued that his murder case and the other cases should not have been tried together, but the court ruled that the similar nature of the crimes justified this decision. The evidence showed that both incidents involved the same weapon and occurred in a close time frame, which the court found relevant for judicial efficiency. Clark also tried to present evidence to suggest that someone else committed the murder, arguing that another man who was initially arrested should be considered a suspect. However, the court found that there wasn’t enough reliable evidence to support this claim. In addition, Clark claimed that the prosecution improperly introduced victim impact evidence during the trial. The court determined that the evidence was relevant to the case and did not constitute a plain error. Another argument made by Clark was that he acted in self-defense during the shooting of another man. The jury was instructed about self-defense laws, and the evidence presented suggested that Clark was the aggressor in that situation. The court concluded that any rational jury could determine that he did not act in self-defense. Lastly, Clark argued that the combination of errors throughout the trial denied him a fair trial. However, since the court found no significant errors, they denied this claim as well. The court ultimately decided to uphold the convictions and sentences issued by the lower court.

Continue ReadingF-2017-528

F-2018-77

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-77, Jose M. Diaz appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Diaz's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Diaz was tried by a jury in Tulsa County. The jury found him guilty of the crime and recommended he spend thirty years in prison. The trial was overseen by a district judge, who followed the jury's recommendation for sentencing. Three main points were raised by Diaz in his appeal. First, he argued that the court made a mistake by allowing certain testimony from victims' family members, which he believed unfairly impacted the jury's feelings about the case. Second, he claimed that the prosecutors made improper statements during their closing arguments that harmed his right to a fair trial. Lastly, he argued that the issues combined created a situation where he could not receive a fair trial. The court looked carefully at all the evidence from the trial and the records of the case. For the first point about the victim's family's testimony, the court decided that it was relevant to the case. It helped the jury understand the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the victim, which connected to the nature of the crime. The court found no mistake in allowing that testimony. In the second point about the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments, Diaz did not object to some of the comments during the first closing statement, which limited his ability to challenge them later. The court noted that most of what the prosecutor said was based on evidence presented during the trial. Although one comment about the victim not being able to have children was deemed inappropriate, the overall context did not make the trial unfair. For the last point on cumulative error, the court stated that there were no significant mistakes to consider together that would change the outcome of the trial. Ultimately, the court decided that Diaz received a fair trial and did not find any major errors in the way the trial was conducted. As a result, they upheld the original judgment and sentence given to him.

Continue ReadingF-2018-77

C-2018-1235

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AUGUST 29, 2019** **CASE NO. C-2018-1235** **ROY DEAN HARJO,** *Petitioner,* **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** *Respondent.* **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Roy Dean Harjo entered a blind plea to Counts I, Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, and Counts II-V, Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, after previous convictions for two or more felonies, in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Case No. CF-2017-665. Following a sentencing hearing, the Honorable John Canavan sentenced Harjo to life on each Count I-V, concurrent for Counts II-V but consecutive to Count I, requiring Harjo to serve 85% before parole eligibility. Harjo filed a motion to withdraw his pleas, which was denied after a hearing on November 28, 2018. Harjo then filed a timely Petition for Writ of Certiorari, asserting four propositions of error: I. Harjo should be allowed to withdraw his pleas for Counts II-V due to lack of factual basis. II. His plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was uninformed about sentencing ranges, violating his rights under the Constitution. III. His plea was not knowing and voluntary due to misinformation regarding sentencing. IV. He was denied effective assistance of counsel. **Decision:** After comprehensive review, we find the evidence does not warrant relief. Proposition I cannot be considered as it was not presented in the motion to withdraw or the certiorari petition. In Propositions II and III, we find the pleas were knowing and voluntary. Harjo's assertion that he believed he would receive a thirty-year maximum sentence is contradicted by the record, which shows he understood the plea form stating potential life sentences. Therefore, his claims regarding plea counsel’s advice lack merit. In Proposition IV, we determine that there was no ineffective assistance from either plea or conflict counsel. Harjo's claim regarding the factual basis for his plea is unsupported, as ample facts exist to justify the plea. Any assertion that conflict counsel was ineffective for not challenging plea counsel also fails, as no substantial claims could have been made given the determination of a solid factual basis. **Conclusion:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is therefore **DENIED**. Upon filing this decision, the **MANDATE is ORDERED issued.** **This decision is concurred by all Justices.** --- *To view the complete decision, click [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-1235_1734229271.pdf).*

Continue ReadingC-2018-1235

F-2017-1118

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-0397, Wesley Scot Kilpatrick appealed his conviction for robbery in the second degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Wesley Scot Kilpatrick had pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree, and a more serious charge of burglary in the first degree was dropped. He received a seven-year suspended sentence, which means he would not go to prison right away if he followed certain rules. He also had to pay a fine and court costs. Later, the state said Kilpatrick did not follow the rules of his suspended sentence. They claimed he failed to pay his costs and restitution, got into trouble with the police, and committed another crime. Because of this, a court hearing was held to decide if his suspended sentence should be revoked. At the hearing, the judge decided to revoke his sentence completely, meaning Kilpatrick would have to serve the full seven years in prison. Kilpatrick disagreed with this decision and appealed, arguing that the judge made a mistake in revoking his sentence. However, the court found that the judge did not make an error. They believed the judge had the right to make that decision based on the facts presented. The court defined an abuse of discretion as a decision that is clearly wrong and not based on logic or evidence. Since Kilpatrick did not show that the judge was wrong, the court affirmed the decision to revoke his suspended sentence. In the end, Kilpatrick would have to serve the full time in prison for his robbery conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1118

F-2017-1042

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1042, Vincent Ray Perosi appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. The case began when Perosi, who had recently divorced, was ordered to leave the house he had been living in by January 1, 2016. After that date, his ex-wife, Pamela Perosi, returned to the house with two friends to change the locks because he had not moved out. This led to a confrontation. Perosi shot and killed Pamela and another friend, Buddy Weber, while wounding Karen Priest, who was also present. Perosi claimed he shot in self-defense, saying he was scared of Weber. However, evidence showed that he had a history of threats against his ex-wife and evidence contradicted his version of events. The court ruled that he did not qualify for immunity under the Stand Your Ground law and denied his request for related jury instructions. In reviewing the evidence, the court found sufficient proof to support the convictions, rejecting Perosi's claims of self-defense and that shooting Pamela was accidental. Further, his videotaped confession was admitted as evidence, despite defense claims it was coerced; the court found it was voluntary. In addition, the court allowed testimony about Perosi's bad character and a victim impact statement from Pamela’s family. Ultimately, the court upheld the trial’s decisions and affirmed the conviction, denying any errors raised in the appeal.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1042

F-2017-849

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-849, Samuel Cosby appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Samuel Cosby was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County and sentenced to life imprisonment. He raised several arguments to claim that errors during the trial affected his right to a fair trial. First, Mr. Cosby argued that the trial court made a mistake by not having a pretrial hearing to check if the expert testimony about firearms was reliable. The court found no error in allowing the expert testimony because it is generally accepted in trials. Second, he claimed the firearms expert's analysis was flawed and unfair. However, the court decided that there was no plain error since the expert's opinion was based on accepted methods. Third, he argued that a phone call he made from jail should not have been used as evidence. While he objected in court, the judges felt the phone call was relevant because it showed he was aware of the situation. Fourth, Mr. Cosby said there were mistakes in how evidence was handled, particularly about the victim's injuries. The court ruled that the evidence was necessary for proving the case. Fifth, he felt the jury instructions were wrong because his request for an explanation about inconsistent statements was denied. The court explained that the victim's testimony was not inconsistent enough to require such an instruction. Lastly, Mr. Cosby claimed he did not receive effective help from his lawyer. The court found that since these errors did not actually happen, this claim was also not valid. The overall decision was that the judgment and sentence against Mr. Cosby were correct, and his appeals did not show any significant errors that affected the fairness of his trial.

Continue ReadingF-2017-849

F-2017-241

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-241, Joseph Tunley, Jr. appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and send the case back for a new trial. The court found that Tunley's original waiver of his right to a jury trial was not shown to be knowing, intelligent, or competent, which is required by law. The dissenting opinion was not specified, but it indicates that there may have been differing views on the matter.

Continue ReadingF-2017-241

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

F-2015-1007

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-1007, Johnny Lee Ingram appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case began when Ingram was tried for two crimes: one for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and the other for Possession of a Firearm after prior convictions. The jury found him guilty of the first charge and not guilty of the second. He was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison based on the jury's recommendation. Ingram raised several points during his appeal. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes, such as not properly answering the jury's questions about the law, which led to confusion. The court agreed that the trial court's responses to the jury were not clear and this could have impacted the jury's decision. During the jury's deliberation, they asked about the meaning of certain instructions related to the case. The trial judge referred them to another instruction without clearly addressing their concerns. This left the jury confused about what constituted criminal intent and whether Ingram could be guilty based on his presence at the scene but not guilty of the other charge. The court emphasized that when jurors express confusion, it is crucial for judges to clearly resolve that confusion. Since the jury found Ingram guilty despite being confused, and considering that the instructions did not help clarify the legal standards, the appellate court concluded that Ingram was not given a fair trial. Thus, they overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial to ensure that the jury could properly consider the evidence laid out, without the confusion created by the previous instructions.

Continue ReadingF-2015-1007

F-2016-82

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-82, Angel Marie Proctor appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder, Kidnapping, and Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the kidnapping conviction with instructions to dismiss, while affirming the other convictions. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2016-82

F-2014-1019

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-1019, Charles Leonard Bennett, III appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the district court. One judge dissented. Bennett was found guilty after a trial where the judge, not a jury, listened to the case. He received a sentence of fifteen years in prison. Bennett raised several issues on appeal. He first argued that the evidence did not prove he did not act in self-defense. The court found enough evidence that a reasonable person could decide he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This means they believed the victim and the facts presented at the trial supported the conviction. Bennett also wanted to argue other issues that could lead to a new trial. However, he decided to withdraw those arguments and only focus on the issues that might lead to his case being dismissed or his sentence being changed. He signed a document saying he knew what he was doing by waiving those rights. Another issue was about restitution, which is when a person convicted of a crime has to pay the victim for their losses. Bennett contested the court's order for him to pay restitution because the required paperwork showing the victim's losses was not properly presented during the trial. Since no proof of the victim's financial losses was provided, the court agreed that the restitution order was arbitrary and sent the case back to the district court to properly determine the victim's losses. Overall, while Bennett's conviction was upheld, the court required a re-evaluation of the restitution owed to the victim. The case was sent back to the district court for this purpose, but other than that, the court found no significant errors that would change the outcome of the case.

Continue ReadingF-2014-1019

C 2014-920

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2014-920, John Edward Oxford appealed his conviction for several serious crimes including robbery, burglary, and conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but also ordered a hearing to review the amount of restitution he was ordered to pay. Oxford was charged with multiple counts and, on July 10, 2014, he entered a blind plea, which means he pleaded guilty without negotiating a deal, to all the charges. The court sentenced him to a total of over 70 years in prison and ordered him to pay about $67,539 in restitution to the victims. After his sentencing, Oxford tried to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he did not understand the charges and was not fully informed about his rights. The trial court held a hearing on this and ultimately denied his request. Oxford then appealed this decision, arguing several points. First, he believed he should not have been sentenced for certain counts because it violated laws against double punishment. However, the court noted that his arguments about double jeopardy were not raised in the earlier stages and thus were not considered. Second, he argued there wasn't enough evidence to support the restitution amount, but again the court found this issue had not been raised before and rejected it. Oxford also claimed he did not receive effective legal help during his plea and the hearing to withdraw it. The court agreed that there were problems with how his attorney handled the restitution order, focusing mainly on the lack of detailed documentation justifying the restitution amount. This lack of evidence meant the restitution order was not valid. While the court found that Oxford's guilty plea was made voluntarily, it did acknowledge inadequate support for the restitution order. Therefore, it denied his appeal regarding the guilty plea but vacated the restitution order, sending the case back to the lower court for a proper review of how much compensation was truly owed to the victims. One judge dissented, noting that the case should have been looked at more closely regarding the earlier claims. So, in summary, the appeal was mainly denied except for the part about restitution, which was sent back to the lower court for further review.

Continue ReadingC 2014-920

F-2010-267

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-267, James Lyman Mahaffey appealed his conviction for Assault & Battery with a Deadly Weapon, Kidnapping, and Possession of Firearm After Conviction. In a published decision, the court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences to be served concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Mahaffey was accused and found guilty of serious crimes against his wife, including assault and kidnapping. The trial took place in the District Court of Grady County. After the jury convicted him, the judge sentenced him to life in prison for the assault, 10 years for the kidnapping, and 6 years for possession of a firearm, all lined up to be served one after the other, or consecutively. Mahaffey asked to represent himself during the trial, which means he wanted to defend himself without a lawyer. He argued that the court should not have allowed him to do this because he didn't clearly understand the risks involved in self-representation. However, the court decided that he was competent to represent himself and had made an informed decision. They had warned him that representing himself could be risky and could lead to mistakes that might change the outcome of the trial. During the trial, Mahaffey raised some claims against the prosecutor's behavior. He argued that the prosecutor acted unfairly by making comments that may have influenced the jury. For instance, Mahaffey claimed the prosecutor misrepresented the meaning of a life sentence and made other comments that distracted from the trial's fairness. However, the court concluded that while there were some mistakes made by the prosecutor, they were not serious enough to change the outcome of the case concerning his guilt. Despite this, the court found that the conduct during sentencing raised concerns about the fairness of the sentencing itself. The jury specifically asked about how the sentences would be served, indicating they were worried about the total time Mahaffey would spend in prison. Because of this, although Mahaffey’s convictions were upheld, the court changed the sentences to allow them to be served concurrently, meaning all the prison time would be served at the same time rather than one after the other. Ultimately, the court's decision meant Mahaffey would still have to serve his time, but the way his sentences were structured was altered to be less severe. The case was sent back to the lower court to fix the official documents to reflect that change in sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2010-267

C-2010-431

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-322, Kinter appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate his conviction and grant him a new trial. One judge dissented. Silvon Dane Kinter was charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon in 2009. He had trouble paying his lawyer, and she withdrew from the case. Kinter asked for a public defender but was denied. Kinter then pleaded guilty to the charges because he felt pressured and did not want to represent himself at trial. After pleading guilty, Kinter quickly sought to withdraw his plea, claiming he was not given fair legal help. He argued that his rights were violated because he was not allowed to have a lawyer he could trust and that he was forced to plead guilty under pressure. The court found that Kinter did not get a chance for a proper assessment of his financial situation and that the denial of counsel affected his decision to plead guilty. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with Kinter, stating that he was denied a fair right to legal representation. They ruled in his favor, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea and giving him a chance for a new trial. The case highlights the importance of having a lawyer who can represent a defendant without any problems and ensures they understand their rights fully.

Continue ReadingC-2010-431

C-2010-322

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-322, Silvon Dane Kinter appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Kinter's request to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his conviction. One judge dissented. Kinter was charged in 2009 and could not afford his attorney, who then moved to withdraw. Kinter wanted to switch to a public defender but was denied. He eventually pleaded guilty to the charges after being pressured by the court, not fully understanding his situation. The court later recognized that he was indigent but did so after Kinter had already entered his guilty plea. The appeals court found that Kinter’s rights were violated when he wasn't properly provided with conflict-free counsel or a chance to adequately present his case, leading to an involuntary plea. Thus, they instructed for further proceedings based on their opinion.

Continue ReadingC-2010-322

F-2009-399

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-399, Jeffery Robert Johnson appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Johnson's conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Johnson was convicted of stabbing his roommate, Maurice Sartor, after a dispute over money. Johnson claimed he was acting to defend his girlfriend, Malinda Brookey, who was being threatened by Sartor. During the trial, there was a disagreement over how the events happened, especially regarding whether Sartor was the aggressor. The key issue in Johnson's appeal was about a mistake in the jury instructions. The trial court gave the jury a modified instruction about the defense of property that led to confusion. This instruction suggested that Sartor had the right to use force to get his property back, which Johnson argued was not true since he believed he was defending his girlfriend from Sartor's aggression. Johnson's lawyer objected to the instruction at the time of the trial, which meant they could raise this issue in the appeal. The higher court found that this error in the jury instructions was significant enough that it likely affected the fairness of the trial. Because of this, they reversed Johnson's conviction and ordered a new trial while not addressing Johnson's other claims or his request for a new trial based on new evidence. This decision means Johnson will get another chance to present his case in front of a new jury, with the hope that the instructions will be clearer and fairer this time. The dissenting judge disagreed with the majority's decision, believing the original instructions were appropriate and did not compromise Johnson's defense.

Continue ReadingF-2009-399

F-2010-223

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-223, Travis Ray Tiger appealed his conviction for two counts of Assault and Battery With a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences but vacated the restitution order, ordering the trial court to determine a proper amount of restitution. One judge dissented. Travis Ray Tiger was found guilty in a non-jury trial for attacking two victims with a utility knife, inflicting serious injuries. The trial judge sentenced him to 32 years in prison for each count, with additional fees and a large restitution amount. Tiger argued that he acted in self-defense, but the court found that he was the aggressor and had provoked the fight. The evidence presented showed he used deadly force against unarmed victims, which did not justify his actions. Regarding his sentences, Tiger claimed they were too harsh. However, the court ruled that the sentences were within the law's limits and appropriate for the crimes committed. Tiger also challenged the restitution amount, asserting that the trial court did not follow proper procedures. While some evidence of the victims' medical expenses was presented, the court noted that there were gaps in the financial details regarding compensation received from other sources. Therefore, the court vacated the restitution order for a new determination of the amount owed to the victims. In summary, while Travis Ray Tiger's assault conviction was upheld, the court found issues with the restitution process that needed to be resolved, leading to the order for a new hearing on the restitution amount.

Continue ReadingF-2010-223

J 2010-0788

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2010-0788, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With A Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that imposed an adult sentence and remand the case for sentencing as a Youthful Offender if the appellant is convicted. One judge dissented. The appellant, who was born on March 12, 1994, faced charges in the District Court of Muskogee County where he was labeled a Youthful Offender. A motion was filed by the State for an adult sentence, while the appellant sought to be treated as a juvenile. The court held a hearing, and the judge denied the appellant's request to be treated as a juvenile. The same judge also granted the State's request for an adult sentence. The appellant raised three main arguments on appeal. First, he claimed the written order for the adult sentence did not match what the judge said during the hearing. Second, he argued that the trial court did not show clear and convincing evidence to justify an adult sentence. Third, he said it was wrong for the court to deny his request to be treated as a juvenile. According to the law, to punish someone as an adult, the court must find strong evidence that the individual could not adequately be rehabilitated or that the public would be at risk. The court found that the trial judge did not make the necessary findings to support an adult sentence and actually believed the appellant could complete rehabilitation and that public safety would not be compromised. Therefore, the court agreed with the appellant that the decision to treat him as an adult was wrong, thus reversing that part of the judgment. However, regarding the second argument about treating him as a juvenile, the court disagreed. The judges felt the trial judge had enough reasons to treat the appellant as a Youthful Offender instead of a juvenile. In conclusion, while the order for an adult sentence was reversed, the court confirmed that the decision to treat the appellant as a Youthful Offender was appropriate. The case was sent back to the lower court to proceed with sentencing as a Youthful Offender if he is found guilty.

Continue ReadingJ 2010-0788