Defendant

F-2021-1220

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-1220, Aaron Struble appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the case for resentencing to fifty years imprisonment, as originally assessed by the jury. One judge dissented. Struble was found guilty by a jury, which sentenced him to fifty years in prison. However, the trial court changed this sentence to life in prison, stating that the fifty years exceeded the maximum allowed. This was incorrect, as the fifty-year sentence was valid. The court acknowledged that the jury did not exceed the legal limits, and that the trial court’s change to life imprisonment was a mistake. Therefore, the case was sent back for proper sentencing. Struble also claimed that the prosecutor’s questions aimed at making the victim seem more sympathetic affected his right to a fair trial. However, since there were no objections during the trial to these questions, the court only looked for plain error. They determined that no major error had occurred in this matter. In summary, the court upheld the jury's conviction but pointed out the wrongfulness of the life sentence imposed by the trial court, sending the case back for the jury's original sentence to take effect.

Continue ReadingF-2021-1220

F-2021-522

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-522, Trevor Leif Toppah appealed his conviction for Aggravated Assault and Battery, After Former Conviction of Three Felonies (Count 1), and Conspiracy to Commit Assault and Battery (Count 2). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court but modified the indigent defense fee. One judge dissented regarding the evidence for the conspiracy conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2021-522

RE-2020-398

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2020-398, Kenneth Joe Norton appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but ordered the trial court to modify the term executed on one charge to one year. One judge dissented. Norton was charged with two crimes, Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Larceny of Merchandise, and he pleaded no contest in both cases. He was sentenced to ten years in prison, but part of that sentence was suspended as long as he completed a program. Later, the State claimed he broke the terms of his suspended sentence by getting into more trouble, which led to a court hearing. Norton argued that the sentence that was given to him was too long. He believed that the old law allowed a shorter sentence. The court looked at his claims and noted that, since the law changed after he was convicted, he should only serve one year on the larceny charge. This part of his appeal was accepted. Norton also tried to argue that some of the evidence during his revocation hearing should not have been allowed because it was obtained without proper procedures. He claimed that he had not been warned about his rights when he made a statement that led to his arrest. The court explained that during a revocation hearing, the same protections as a criminal trial do not apply. Therefore, the evidence was allowed. Moreover, he claimed his lawyer did not do a good job because they did not raise certain points about his case. However, since one of his claims was accepted, the court decided that it did not matter if the lawyer made mistakes because his issue was already resolved. In conclusion, the court allowed some changes to the sentence but maintained that his revocation was valid. The court focused on the rules for reviewing revocation cases and kept Norton accountable for his actions that led to the revocation of his suspended sentences.

Continue ReadingRE-2020-398

M-2019-664

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2019-664, the appellant appealed his conviction for illegal entry with unlawful intent, outraging public decency, and assault on a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for illegal entry but affirmed the convictions for outraging public decency and assault on a police officer. One judge dissented. James Brewer was accused of several misdemeanors after the police were called to his neighbor's house because he was trying to break in. The neighbor's children had reported the incident to their mother, who called the police. When officers arrived, they found Brewer in a neighboring home, naked on the floor, being restrained by his brother. He was not cooperative when the police tried to arrest him. During the trial, the court heard from police officers but did not hear directly from the neighbor or her children. The prosecution's case relied on the officers' testimonies about what they found and how they arrested Brewer. He represented himself during the trial with the help of standby counsel. Brewer raised several issues on appeal. First, he argued that he should have received credit for the time he spent in jail before the trial. The court explained that it is up to the trial judge to decide whether to give this credit and stated that there was insufficient information showing that he was unable to pay for a bond that would have let him out of jail before the trial. He also claimed the prosecutor made mistakes during the trial, like bringing up parts of his attitude that were not relevant and making comments during closing arguments. The court decided that the prosecutor's actions did not unfairly affect the trial. Brewer argued that there was not enough evidence for his conviction for illegal entry. The court agreed that the evidence was weak because the neighbor and her children did not testify and there was no direct proof linking him to tampering with the air conditioners. His other claims related to cross-examination and the wording of the charges against him were found to be insufficient to overturn the convictions for the other two charges. His conviction for the illegal entry was reversed, meaning the prosecution could not pursue it further, but the convictions for outraging public decency and assault on a police officer were upheld. One judge had a different opinion and dissented from the majority ruling.

Continue ReadingM-2019-664

S-2020-79

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2020-79, Stricker appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Desecration of a Human Corpse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling of the District Court that dismissed the alternative charge of First Degree Felony Murder during the commission of a kidnapping. None dissented. On April 17, 2019, Stricker was charged with serious crimes including First Degree Murder in Kingfisher County. Later, he faced an amended charge stating he could be guilty of First Degree Premediated Murder or First Degree Felony Murder related to kidnapping. During a hearing, the judge decided to dismiss the kidnapping charge based on insufficient evidence, which led the State to appeal the decision. The State argued that the judge’s decision was incorrect because they believed there was enough evidence to show that a crime occurred and that Stricker was involved. They said that at a preliminary hearing, it's essential to prove that probably a crime was committed and that the person involved might have done it. The judge ruled that although Stricker was in a position to manage his victim, there wasn't enough proof to suggest he intended to kidnap her. The second argument from the State was about the timing of Stricker's motion to quash the charges. They claimed the judge should not have considered this motion because it was filed after he pleaded not guilty. However, the court found that the judge did have the authority to hear the motion, even though the prosecution thought otherwise. Ultimately, the court found no error in the District Court's decision to dismiss the charge of First Degree Felony Murder related to kidnapping and decided to uphold that dismissal.

Continue ReadingS-2020-79

RE-2018-1233

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2018-1233, Joice appealed his conviction for obtaining cash or merchandise by bogus check/false pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the order revoking Joice's suspended sentence and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the State's application to revoke with prejudice. One judge dissented. Joice had originally entered a guilty plea in 2013 for writing a bogus check and received a twenty-year sentence, which was all suspended, meaning he would not serve time in prison if he followed the rules of his probation. However, in 2018, the State claimed he broke the rules of his probation and sought to revoke his suspended sentence. During the hearings, Joice argued that the original sentence was too long and that the State filed their application to revoke his probation too late. He also said his lawyer did not help him properly by not questioning the judge’s decision to revoke his sentence. The court agreed there were major issues with his original sentence and that the State was too late in trying to revoke it. They found that Joice did not get good legal help at his revocation hearing. Since the court recognized that the original sentence was illegal and the State's request to change it came too late, they decided to dismiss the application to revoke Joice’s probation. This means he won't have to serve time because the conditions under which his probation could be revoked were not met correctly.

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1233

J-2019-618

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

**State of Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Summary Opinion** **Case Title:** M.C.T. v. The State of Oklahoma **Case Number:** J-2019-618 **Filed:** February 6, 2020 **Judges:** Kuehn, Vice Presiding Judge; Lewis, Presiding Judge (specially concurring); Lumpkin, J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. **Background:** M.C.T. appeals the certification decision by Special Judge Scott Brockman in Cleveland County District Court Case No. CF-2019-470, where M.C.T. was certified for trial as an adult for crimes including Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Unlawful Use of a Computer. The case was expedited under the Accelerated Docket of the Court. **Legal Issues:** The core issue revolves around statutory interpretation regarding the certification of juveniles as adults under Oklahoma law, specifically focusing on 10A O.S.2018 § 2-5-204(H)(1). **Findings:** 1. **Statutory Interpretation:** The Court reviewed the statute, noting that once adjudicated as an adult, a youthful offender retains that status in subsequent criminal proceedings, as mandated by the law. M.C.T.'s prior stipulation to adult status in Oklahoma County was sufficient to affirm his status as an adult in Cleveland County. 2. **Precedent:** M.C.T. relied on D.J.B. v. Pritchett, but the Court distinguished this case based on its unique circumstances, emphasizing that M.C.T. had already been adjudicated as an adult prior to the Cleveland County proceeding. 3. **Judicial Efficiency:** Holding a certification hearing in Cleveland County after a prior adult conviction would be considered a waste of judicial resources, reinforcing the decision to affirm the district court's certification of M.C.T. as an adult. **Conclusion:** The Court affirmed the decision of the Cleveland County District Court to certify M.C.T. as an adult, highlighting that the statutory provisions were effectively applied in this case and that his prior plea as an adult eliminated the necessity for further certification hearings. **Decision:** The certification is AFFIRMED. The mandate is to be issued upon filing this decision. **Counsel:** - **For Appellant:** M. Karla Tankut, Jasmine Johnson (Indigent Defense System) - **For Appellee:** Kristi Johnson, Suanne Carlson (Assistant District Attorneys) **Special Concurrence:** Judge Lewis acknowledged the detailed writing of the opinion and expressed concern regarding the trial counsel's understanding of the consequences of simultaneous cases in different counties. Though counsel's actions were questionable, they did not alter the outcome, given M.C.T.'s unsuitability for youthful offender status. **Download PDF:** [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-618_1734430249.pdf)

Continue ReadingJ-2019-618

F-2018-691

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document you provided outlines a legal case involving Jose Santiago Hernandez, who had his suspended sentences revoked due to alleged perjury. Here’s a summary of the key points: 1. **Background**: Hernandez entered a guilty plea to charges of robbery with a firearm and conspiracy in January 2017, resulting in a ten-year sentence with the last five years suspended. 2. **Revocation**: The State filed an application to revoke his suspended sentences on the grounds that he committed perjury by providing false statements regarding his co-defendant's involvement in the robbery during court proceedings. 3. **Hearing**: A revocation hearing took place on December 19, 2018, where the judge found that Hernandez did not provide truthful testimony. The judge ruled in favor of the State's application to revoke his suspended sentences. 4. **Appeal**: Hernandez appealed the revocation, arguing that the State did not present sufficient evidence of perjury, violating his due process rights. 5. **Court's Decision**: The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that violations of suspended sentences need only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation and found no abuse of discretion by the trial court. 6. **Conclusion**: The revocation of Hernandez's suspended sentences was upheld. For any further inquiries or specific details about the case, feel free to ask!

Continue ReadingF-2018-691

F-2018-1160

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **RASHAUN HAASTROP,** **Appellant,** **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-1160** **FILED DEC - 5 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** *KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:* Appellant, Rashaun Haastrop, was charged in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2018-55, with First Degree Burglary, After Conviction of Two Felonies. He was convicted of the lesser related offense of Attempted First Degree Burglary, After Conviction of Two Felonies. On November 13, 2018, the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, sentenced him to twenty years imprisonment in accordance with the jury's recommendation. This appeal followed. Appellant raises one proposition of error in support of his appeal: **PROPOSITION:** The State introduced insufficient evidence to prove that Mr. Haastrop had prior convictions out of Illinois and therefore his sentence must be modified. After thorough consideration of this proposition, the briefs of the parties, and the record on appeal, we affirm. Appellant's sole complaint on appeal is that the State failed to sufficiently prove that he was the person named in two Illinois documents reflecting felony convictions for Rashaun Haastrup, or that those convictions were valid and final, i.e., that the defendant in those proceedings had the assistance of counsel and that the convictions had not been appealed. The two latter challenges were not raised below, so we review them only for plain error, as established in *Mathis v. State*, 2012 OK CR 1, ¶ 30, 271 P.3d 67, 78. Plain errors are those errors which are obvious in the record and affect the substantial rights of the defendant; that is, the error affects the outcome of the proceeding, as seen in *Daniels v. State*, 2016 OK CR 2, ¶ 3, 369 P.3d 381, 383. The State offered two certified documents reflecting convictions in Illinois for a Rashaun Haastrup. The chronological entries on these documents show that in each case, (1) Mr. Haastrup was represented by counsel, (2) his rights to appeal were explained to him, but (3) no appeals were taken. The documents were generated several years after the convictions were entered, and neither reveal any activity after formal sentencing. See *Bickerstaff v. State*, 1983 OK CR 116, ¶ 8, 669 P.2d 778, 780. On this record, the trial court's conclusion that the convictions were valid and final was not plainly erroneous. As for whether Appellant (Rashaun Haastrop) and the person named in the documents (Rashaun Haastrup) are the same person, the jury received testimony from a police officer who interviewed Appellant after his arrest. The officer testified that Appellant admitted serving time in Illinois for two different crimes, specifically a drug offense and a theft offense; the State's documents reflected convictions for a drug crime and a theft crime. With identifying information provided by Appellant, the officer retrieved the Illinois documents. Given the unusualness of both names, their similarity, and Appellant's own admissions, a rational juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the convictions were, in fact, Appellant's, as established by *Jackson v. Virginia*, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) and *Garcia v. State*, 1987 OK CR 49, ¶ 30, 734 P.2d 820, 825. As there is no error, his sole proposition is denied. **DECISION** 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** **BENJAMIN MUNDA** **ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER** **BONNIE BLUMERT** **ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER** **OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **320 ROBERT S. KERR AVE.** **SUITE 611** **OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73101** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL** **DANIEL GRIDLEY** **MIKE HUNTER** **DANIEL POND** **ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA.** **ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS** **TESSA L. HENRY** **ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL** **320 ROBERT S. KERR AVENUE** **SUITE 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** [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1160_1734786705.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-1160

F-2018-994

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **KATESHA CHRISTINE CHILDERS,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-994** **Filed: November 21, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, JUDGE:** Appellant Katesha Christine Childers appeals her Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2017-3783, for First Degree Murder (Count 1) and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon (Count 2). The Honorable Kelly Greenough presided at her jury trial and sentenced her to life imprisonment on Count 1 and one year on Count 2, to run concurrently with credit for time served. Childers raises several issues including: 1. Sufficiency of evidence for her first-degree murder conviction. 2. The trial court's failure to instruct on first degree heat-of-passion manslaughter. 3. Ineffective assistance of counsel for not requesting the above instruction. 4. Admission of lay witness testimony regarding her confession. 5. Admission of hearsay evidence violating her right to a fair trial. 6. Prosecutorial misconduct affecting her trial. 7. Cumulative error necessitating relief. **1. Sufficiency of Evidence for Conviction:** Childers argues insufficient evidence of malice aforethought. The court reviews evidence in the light most favorable to the state, concluding that a rational jury could find her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence of a verbal altercation, her pursuit of the victim, and her admissions of guilt supported the jury's decision. Thus, this claim is denied. **2. Failure to Instruct on Heat-of-Passion Manslaughter:** Childers contends that the trial court erred by not issuing a heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction. Since no objection was raised at trial, review is for plain error. The court finds no evidence supporting such an instruction as Childers was the pursuer in the confrontation. Therefore, this claim is also denied. **3. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Childers claims ineffective assistance because her counsel did not request the heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction. However, as she was not entitled to the instruction based on evidence, this claim fails. **4. Admission of Confession Testimony:** Childers asserts that her statements to lay witnesses were inadmissible due to lack of corroboration. The court adjudicates that there was substantial independent evidence corroborating her statements, thus denying this claim. **5. Admission of Hearsay Evidence:** Childers challenges various hearsay testimonies. Some were admitted without objection, so they are reviewed for plain error. The court finds that the admittance of testimony regarding the victim's fear of Childers is permissible under state-of-mind exceptions to hearsay. Consequently, this claim is denied. **6. Prosecutorial Misconduct:** Childers argues several instances of prosecutorial misconduct, including mention of her status as a convicted felon. Objections were made, and the trial court acted appropriately to mitigate potential prejudice against her. Based on the totality of circumstances, relief is not warranted, leading to a denial of this claim. **7. Cumulative Error:** Finally, Childers contends cumulative errors merit relief. As no individual errors warrant relief, this claim is denied. **CONCLUSION:** The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is AFFIRMED. **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **Download PDF:** [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-994_1734870881.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-994

M-2017-511

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case: William Robert Burk vs. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No: M-2017-511** #### OPINION BY: Kuehn, VPJ **Background:** William Robert Burk was convicted of Obstruction of Public Officer in the District Court of Payne County, sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined $500. The case arose from an incident on December 13, 2015, where Burk was stopped for driving with an improper license tag. He refused to provide a driver's license, proof of insurance, or identify himself. Police officers were forced to break into his vehicle after he locked himself inside, leading to his arrest. **Proposition I: Self-Representation** Burk contends the trial court erred by allowing him to represent himself without ensuring he made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. The court finds that Burk effectively waived his right to counsel through his actions over time, including repeatedly refusing to secure legal representation. The court cites multiple precedents establishing that a defendant may waive the right to counsel by conduct, and emphasizes the need for a clear understanding of the risks involved in self-representation. While acknowledging Burk's claims of financial capacity to hire an attorney, he nevertheless insisted he would not apply for court-appointed counsel. The court concludes Burk’s behavior—self-characterization of being forced to represent himself and refusal to accept assistance—constituted an implied waiver of his right to counsel, allowing the trial to proceed without an attorney. **Proposition II: Sufficiency of Evidence** In his second claim, Burk argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. However, the court finds that Burk's refusal to provide identification and engage with police clearly obstructed their duties. Citing relevant statutes and case law, the court asserts that any rational jury could find him guilty of obstructing a public officer based on his actions during the encounter. **Conclusion:** The court affirms the judgment and sentence from the District Court of Payne County, asserting that Burk had sufficient warnings about self-representation risks and willingly chose to proceed without counsel. ### Dissenting Opinion - Judge Lumpkin Judge Lumpkin argues against affirming the conviction, citing concerns about Burk's mental state and the trial court's failure to ensure he was adequately informed of the consequences of self-representation. He emphasizes that Burk was not given proper Fairtta warnings about the implications of his decision and suggests that mental health issues should have prompted the court to reevaluate Burk's right to counsel. ### Concurring Opinion - Judge Hudson Judge Hudson agrees with the outcome but asserts that the basis for the decision hinges not on waiver by conduct but rather on forfeiture of counsel due to Burk's dilatory misconduct. He highlights the necessity for courts to maintain order and efficiently administer justice, especially when faced with obstructionist behavior from defendants. **Decision: The Judgment is AFFIRMED.** For further details and full opinions, you may refer to [this PDF link](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/M-2017-511_1734779027.pdf).

Continue ReadingM-2017-511

F-2018-563

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **OCT 17 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** --- **BOBBY DALE STOCKTON,** **Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-563** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant Bobby Dale Stockton appeals from the District Court of LeFlore County's order terminating him from Drug Court and sentencing him to seven years in prison, as per the Drug Court contract in Case No. CF-2016-380. On February 14, 2017, Appellant pled guilty to Count 1: Unlawful Possession of CDS - Methamphetamine after a former felony conviction, and Count 3: Resisting an Officer. He agreed to enter Drug Court with a conviction and sentencing of seven years on Count 1 and one year on Count 3, both running concurrently. Successful completion of Drug Court would lead to suspended sentences; failure would result in imprisonment. The State filed an application for termination on June 26, 2017, alleging Appellant's non-compliance—failing to report for intake, missing a urinalysis, and being absent without leave. During a hearing on September 26, 2017, evidence showed Appellant had not participated in the program. He explained his absence was due to caring for his ill mother. Although acknowledging he had not complied, he expressed a willingness to accept a strict ninety-day monitoring. However, Judge Fry found a violation of the Drug Court contract for non-appearance and initiated a no tolerance policy. Subsequently, on September 29, 2017, Appellant failed to attend Drug Court, resulting in an arrest warrant and bail revocation. The State filed a second termination application on April 30, 2018, citing similar violations. At the hearing on May 22, 2018, Appellant admitted to a third heart attack and acknowledged non-compliance without providing documentation on medical issues. Judge Fry noted past assurances of compliance had not been honored and ultimately terminated Appellant from the program, imposing the seven-year prison sentence. **PROPOSITION OF ERROR:** I. The trial court abused its discretion in terminating Mr. Stockton from Drug Court before he had the opportunity to work the program. **ANALYSIS:** Appellant contends hospitalization justified his failures to report. He further claims that, if drug issues were believed to have driven his failures, proper disciplinary measures should have been applied. The discretion to revoke or terminate participation in Drug Court rests with the trial court, and its decision will only be reversed upon a showing of abuse. Under Oklahoma law, judges may impose progressively increasing sanctions for relapses but can revoke participation if necessary. Appellant was given two opportunities to comply with the Program's requirements, both of which he failed. His second failure followed a promise to comply, and although medical conditions were noted, no evidence was presented to substantiate his claims. Therefore, termination was not an abuse of discretion. **DECISION:** The order of the District Court of LeFlore County, terminating Appellant from Drug Court and imposing a seven-year prison sentence, is AFFIRMED. **MANDATE:** Issued forthwith. --- **APPEARANCES:** **Matthew H. McBee** Counsel for Appellant P.O. Box 1303 Poteau, OK 74953 **Joe Watkins & Keeley L. Miller** Counsel for State Assistant District Attorney 100 S. Broadway St., Room 300 Poteau, OK 74953 Assistant Attorney General 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 **OPINION BY:** ROWLAND, J. LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur

Continue ReadingF-2018-563

F-2018-690

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DANIEL ROSS DAGE,** **Appellant,** **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-690** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Daniel Ross Dage was convicted of Possession of Juvenile Pornography in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2, in the District Court of Comanche County, under the Honorable Gerald Neuwirth. He was sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment, with eight (8) years suspended, and a fine of $5,000.00. Additionally, he is subject to sex offender registration and two years of post-imprisonment supervision during his suspended sentence. Dage appeals his conviction and sentence, raising three propositions of error. I. The record does not sufficiently demonstrate that Appellant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. II. The State's evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Dage knowingly possessed videos of juvenile pornography. III. A sentence of 20 years is excessive under the circumstances, violating the United States and Oklahoma constitutions. After thorough review of the record, including transcripts and briefs, we find that the case must be reversed and remanded for a jury trial. Proposition I is granted. The State concedes this issue. While defendants can waive their constitutional right to a jury trial, such a waiver must be competent, knowing, intelligent, and on the record, as established in *Hinsley v. State*, 2012 OK CR 11; *Valega v. City of Oklahoma City*, 1988 OK CR 101. Record evidence must show that both the State and the court consented to the waiver. The requirements for a valid waiver include an advisement of rights and a court minute reflecting the waiver, with signatures from the defendant and counsel. The record does not provide evidence of a waiver or party consent; there are no advisements regarding jury trial rights, nor discussions recorded in the trial transcript concerning the waiver. Thus, we conclude that the record fails to show Appellant validly waived his right to a jury trial. Proposition II, concerning the sufficiency of evidence, is briefly addressed. The State needed to demonstrate Dage knowingly possessed child pornography according to 21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2. Although Dage argues against the sufficiency of evidence, we find that the evidence reasonably infers Dage was aware of the prohibited nature of the material, and no other individual had reasonable access to the USB drives. Therefore, this proposition is denied. Given our decision regarding Proposition I, Proposition III concerning sentencing is rendered moot. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Comanche County is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for a jury trial. 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 delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE GERALD NEUWIRTH, DISTRICT JUDGE** **ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL** LARRY CORRALES P.O. BOX 2095 LAWTON, OK 73502 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL** NANCY WALKER-JOHNSON P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** CHRISTINE GALBRAITH ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMANCHE CO. COURTHOUSE 315 SW 5TH ST., RM 502 LAWTON, OK 73501-4360 **MIKE HUNTER** ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA. DIANE L. SLAYTON ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 NE 21 ST STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-690_1735220870.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-690

F-2018-36

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-36, Robert Eugene Brewer appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child Under 12. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Brewer's conviction. One judge dissented. Brewer was tried in Tulsa County for sexually abusing a child under the age of 12. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to seven years in prison. He was also ordered to serve three years of supervision after his prison term. Brewer appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court made a mistake by allowing evidence related to other crimes that he believed had not been proven. The court reviewed the evidence and arguments presented. The main issue was whether the trial court had the right to let in evidence that showed Brewer had a pattern of behavior related to sexual abuse. This type of evidence is sometimes called propensity evidence. Brewer argued that the trial court should have held a special hearing before allowing this evidence and should have required witnesses to testify in person. However, the court found that the trial judge had done a thorough job. The judge had held multiple hearings and considered the evidence carefully. The judge did not make a mistake by allowing the evidence because they had enough information to decide it was relevant and necessary for the case. Even though Brewer did not object to the evidence when it was presented during the trial, the court considered whether there was a serious mistake that affected the fairness of the trial. After reviewing everything, the court concluded that the trial judge acted correctly. In summary, the court believed that the evidence presented was acceptable and did not harm Brewer's case. Therefore, Brewer’s conviction was upheld, but the court also instructed the district court to make some corrections to its legal documents regarding the correct law that applied to Brewer's actions at the time of the crime. The decision was to keep Brewer's sentence in place while correcting the legal documentation properly.

Continue ReadingF-2018-36

F-2018-542

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-542, Charles Henry Tarver, Jr. appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that relief was required, and the case was remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Charles Henry Tarver, Jr. was tried by a jury and convicted of having illegal drugs with the intent to sell them and for having drug paraphernalia. He was given a long prison sentence and a fine. Tarver appealed this decision because he believed that the evidence used against him was obtained illegally when a police officer stopped him for a minor traffic violation. The events leading to Tarver's arrest happened on May 23, 2016. A deputy police officer stopped Tarver because the light on his truck’s license plate wasn’t working. During this stop, the officer noticed that Tarver was very anxious and had trouble staying still. Instead of quickly giving him a ticket and letting him go, the officer waited for backup and a dog trained to detect drugs. While waiting, the officer searched Tarver's truck, finding illegal drugs. Tarver argued that this search was not allowed under the law because it happened without enough reason to keep him there longer than necessary for the traffic stop. Initially, the judge at Tarver’s trial ruled that the stop was legal, but he did not consider whether the stop went on too long without proper reasons. This was an important mistake because the law says that once the reason for a stop is handled, the police cannot keep someone for longer without having a good reason to think that person is doing something illegal. The appeals court reviewed the case and found that the trial judge had incorrectly placed the burden of proving that the police action was legal on Tarver instead of where it should have been on the state. The appeals court agreed that the stop was carried out longer than necessary, and the police officer did not have enough solid reasons to justify keeping Tarver there longer than the original traffic issue. The court decided to reverse Tarver's convictions and told the district court to dismiss the charges against him because the search that found the drugs was not properly justified. One judge disagreed with this outcome, arguing that the police acted reasonably based on their experiences and knowledge about Tarver. This dissenting opinion held that the evidence might still be good enough to uphold the conviction. In the end, the decision meant that Tarver would not have to serve time for these charges, as the evidence against him was deemed to have been collected improperly.

Continue ReadingF-2018-542

F-2017-1019

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1019, Johnson appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Johnson's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Johnson was found guilty of abusing a child and was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. He also had to pay a fine and would be supervised after serving his time. Johnson argued that the evidence against him wasn't enough, that the jury didn't get proper instructions, that his lawyer didn't help him much, and that he didn’t know he would be on a list of sex offenders if convicted. The court looked closely at all these claims and found no significant problems. First, the court said there was enough evidence for the jury to decide Johnson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Johnson claimed the actions happened because of a dream, but the jury believed otherwise. The court said that it would not change the jury's decision as they followed the law. Second, the court noted that the jury had received instructions about what would happen after Johnson was imprisoned. So, this point did not hold. Third, Johnson's claim about his lawyer not performing well was also denied. For this claim to work, Johnson would need to show that his lawyer made a serious mistake that hurt his defense. However, Johnson only gave statements about his own state of mind without clear evidence to support his claim. The court found that his lawyer did not make mistakes that harmed Johnson's case. Next, the court looked at the claim about sex offender registration. Johnson said the jury should have been told more about this, but he never asked for this instruction during the trial. The court decided there was no clear error because they had already ruled on this issue in past cases. Finally, the court dismissed Johnson's claim about the combined effects of the errors. Since they found no significant errors, they concluded that his right to a fair trial had not been violated. In the end, the court upheld Johnson's conviction and sentencing, affirming the judgment made by the lower court.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1019

F-2018-241

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-241, Mario Darrington appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Marijuana and Methamphetamine) and related drug charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Darrington was arrested after police executed a search warrant at a home in Tulsa. Officers found a large quantity of marijuana and methamphetamine in the house. Darrington was linked to this evidence through various items found at the scene, including drugs located in a suit pocket with his name on prescription bottles and documents. He was charged with trafficking and other felonies due to having a prior criminal record. During his trial, Darrington requested that evidence obtained from the search be suppressed, arguing that the search warrant was not valid. He believed that the warrant did not show enough information to justify the search. The court reviewed his claim and determined that the affidavit supporting the search warrant provided sufficient evidence for a judge to find probable cause. The police officer had personal observations and corroborated information that indicated illegal drug activity was happening at the residence. The court also found that the timing of the information was relevant and not too old to be dismissed. Additionally, Darrington sought to know the name of an unnamed informant who provided information to the police for the search. The court ruled that this informant was not a material witness, meaning their identity did not significantly affect Darrington's case. As a result, the court affirmed Darrington's conviction and upheld the district court's decisions regarding the suppression of the search evidence and the request for the informant's identity.

Continue ReadingF-2018-241

M-2018-259

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2018-259, Apollo Gabriel Gonzalez appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. On July 12, 2016, Gonzalez was charged with domestic abuse in two separate cases that were later combined for a jury trial. The jury found him guilty of both charges, and the judge sentenced him to pay fines. Gonzalez argued that he did not get a fair trial. He said his lawyer did not use important evidence that could have helped him. He claimed this evidence would show that the person he was accused of hurting was actually the aggressor and that he acted in self-defense. However, the court noted that Gonzalez did not provide actual evidence to support his claims about his lawyer's performance. The court explained that to win an appeal on these grounds, Gonzalez needed to show that his lawyer made serious mistakes and that those mistakes affected the outcome of his trial. The judges ruled that even if his lawyer had made mistakes, Gonzalez could not show that the result of the trial would have been different. In his second argument, Gonzalez claimed that having both of his cases tried together was unfair. He referenced a previous decision where combining cases had led to issues. However, the court pointed out that in his case, the jury could decide each case separately, unlike the situation in the previous decision he cited. In the end, the court found no errors that would require reversing the conviction or changing the result. The judges upheld the earlier decisions, and Gonzalez's appeal was denied.

Continue ReadingM-2018-259

F-2018-418

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-418, Ebrima Tamba appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Ebrima Tamba was sentenced to twenty years in prison for his involvement in trafficking illegal drugs, specifically marijuana. Tamba felt that this sentence was too harsh. He argued that it was unfair because it was longer than the minimum penalty for the crime and that he had less marijuana than what the law required for a more serious charge. He also mentioned that since his arrest, the laws in Oklahoma changed, allowing people with a medical marijuana license to use marijuana legally. However, the court explained that even if laws changed after Tamba's crime, the new laws did not apply to his case. They noted that he was given a sentence that followed the laws in place when he committed the crime, and his sentence was within the legal limits. Tamba also claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly during the trial. He believed his attorney should have challenged how police stopped him and questioned whether the evidence used against him was acceptable. However, the court found that Tamba did not prove that his lawyer's actions negatively affected the outcome of his trial. In conclusion, the court decided that Tamba's twenty-year sentence was appropriate and that his lawyer provided adequate help during his trial. Therefore, his appeal did not lead to any changes in his case.

Continue ReadingF-2018-418

F-2017-444

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-444, Haskin appealed his conviction for child neglect and child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. No one dissented. Haskin was found guilty of neglecting children and sexually abusing them. The jury gave him several long prison sentences, including ten years for each count of neglect and many decades for sexual abuse. The judge ordered these sentences to be served one after the other. Haskin raised seven main arguments against his conviction during his appeal. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes that affected his rights. For example, he said that evidence was unfairly used against him, and that the trial did not follow the rules properly. He argued that a police investigator should not have gone back to his property without a warrant, and that his rights were violated in other ways as well. However, the court found that the police acted reasonably and that Haskin's claims of error did not hold up because he did not provide enough details to support them. The court carefully reviewed everything and decided there was no need to change the outcome of the trial. They ruled that Haskin's conviction and the long sentences would stand. The decision means he will serve a considerable time in prison for his actions.

Continue ReadingF-2017-444

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

F-2017-1270

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1270, Bryan James Abner appealed his conviction for several offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the decision to terminate him from drug court and sentence him according to the plea agreement. One judge dissented. Bryan James Abner was involved in multiple criminal cases related to theft, guns, drugs, and burglary. He was given the chance to join a Drug Court program to help him with his drug addiction instead of going straight to prison. However, if he did not follow the rules of the program, he would be sentenced for his crimes. Abner did well in the Drug Court for the first six months, but then he started to have problems. He tested positive for methamphetamine several times, had legal troubles, and missed appointments. The State's attorney asked to terminate him from the Drug Court because of these issues. During the hearing, witnesses testified about Abner's behavior. One officer found drugs on him, and a supervisor explained that Abner had many chances to improve but did not make enough progress. Abner's counselor testified that he had learned from some difficult experiences, including the death of his son, and asked for another chance in the program. The judge decided against Abner, saying that despite what the counselor said, Abner's problems continued. She noted that he had broken the rules of the Drug Court many times and had not responded to the chances he had been given. In summary, the court ruled that Abner needed to be removed from the Drug Court program for not following the rules, and he was sentenced based on his plea agreement. The court found that the evidence supported this decision, and there was no abuse of discretion by the judge.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1270

S-2018-6

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** Court Case No: S-2018-51 and S-2018-6 **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellant, **V.** **SHELLEY MARIE BRADLEY,** Appellee. **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellant, **V.** **DYLAN THOMAS BRODIE,** Appellee. **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** 1. The State of Oklahoma, Appellant, appeals from an order affirming the ruling of the magistrate, sustaining the defendants' demurrers to evidence on Counts 1 and 2, and denying the State's request to amend the Informations, in Case Nos. CF-2017-445 and CF-2017-446 in the District Court of Wagoner County. **STATEMENT OF THE CASE** 2. Appellees, Shelley Marie Bradley and Dylan Thomas Brodie, were charged with intimidation of a witness and conspiracy to commit a felony. The magistrate sustained the demurrers to the evidence and denied amendments to include additional charges. 3. The matter was assigned to Judge Mark L. Dobbins as the reviewing judge, who affirmed the magistrate's ruling. 4. The State appealed; on August 9, 2018, this Court held oral arguments, after which the ruling was reversed. **SUMMARY OF FACTS** 5. The Appellees are related to Jacob Ode, charged with several offenses following a police pursuit. Hawkins, a relative of the Appellees, was a passenger and initially provided a statement implicating Ode. 6. Later, Hawkins was approached by the Appellees and persuaded to change her statement to indicate Ode was not the driver during the pursuit. 7. The magistrate found no evidence demonstrating that Hawkins was threatened or coerced into altering her testimony. **ANALYSIS** ### I. Intimidation of Witness 8. The State argued sufficient evidence existed for the charge of witness intimidation. However, the records demonstrated no evidence of Hawkins being prevented from testifying or coerced through force or fear. 9. The judges did not err in finding there wasn’t enough evidence to support the claim of intimidation. ### II. Conspiracy to Commit Intimidation 10. The State similarly could not provide sufficient evidence to show any conspiracy between the Appellees to intimidate Hawkins, as no threats or coercion were substantiated. ### III. Conspiracy to Commit Perjury by Subornation 11. The State argued it presented sufficient evidence to show a conspiracy to commit perjury by subornation. The appellate judges found sufficient cause to remand for the trial on this charge. ### IV. False Preparation of Exhibits 12. The evidence presented indicated that Hawkins’ second statement was prepared under the Appellees' guidance with the intent to be submitted as evidence. 13. The failure to include this evidence as a charge of False Preparation of Exhibits was deemed an error by the appellate judges. **DECISION** 14. The order of the District Court sustaining the magistrate's decisions is REVERSED. The case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to proceed to trial for the charges of Conspiracy to Commit Perjury by Subornation and False Preparation of Exhibits. **APPEARANCES** - **For the State:** Douglas G. Dry, Assistant District Attorney - **For the Appellees:** Michon Hastings Hughes & Clinton C. Hastings, Attorneys at Law **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** - LUMPKIN, P.J., LEWIS, V.P.J., HUDSON, J., and KUEHN, J., concur. --- **[Download PDF of Full Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2018-6_1734333945.pdf)**

Continue ReadingS-2018-6

S-2015-771

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-771, the defendant appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower courts' rulings. One judge dissented. Carl Edward Prince, also known as Carl Edward Harper, was arrested for having marijuana and other related charges. He was charged with three main offenses regarding drug possession and use of a police radio. During the early stages of the trial, a magistrate judge decided there wasn't enough evidence for one of the charges, which was about maintaining a place used for selling drugs. The prosecution believed that this decision was wrong and appealed it. The appeal against the magistrate's decision went to another judge who agreed with the first judge, stating that the evidence given by the prosecution was not strong enough to prove that Prince had maintained a location where marijuana was kept with the intent to distribute it. Because of this, they could not prove that there was a pattern or habit of drug use or sales at the location. The case was taken to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The main issues raised by the prosecution were about whether the requirement for a pattern of activity (habitualness) should be considered a fact that needed to be proven and whether there was enough evidence to bring the case to a jury. The Appeals Court decided that the past decisions regarding drug cases required proof of more than just a single event of drug possession. They reasoned that a location must show a pattern of illegal drug activity or use before a person can be convicted under this law. The court looked carefully at what evidence was presented while considering the arguments from both sides. They concluded that there were no clear mistakes made by the lower courts. The evidence didn’t meet the standard needed to prove that Prince’s home was used primarily for drug activity. They upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which means that Prince was not found guilty of that charge. One judge disagreed with this final decision, feeling that the lower courts made a mistake in throwing out the charge about maintaining a place for drugs. This dissenting opinion argued that the law should allow for flexibility and not just rely on showing repeated actions or habits to prove the case. The dissenting judge expressed that the current interpretation of the law was too strict and made it difficult to prosecute based on the evidence presented. In summary, the Appeal Court confirmed that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge Prince with maintaining a place for drug distribution, leading to the upholding of his preliminary ruling.

Continue ReadingS-2015-771

M-2017-739

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2017-739, Jeremy L. Garza appealed his conviction for Driving under the Influence of Intoxicating Substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Garza to represent himself during the acceleration proceedings without him properly waiving his right to counsel. One judge dissented. Garza had initially entered a guilty plea to a DUI charge and was given eighteen months of probation. However, the State later accused him of not following the rules of his probation, such as failing to report and not paying fines. When Garza addressed the court without a lawyer during these acceleration proceedings, the court did not properly document that he understood his right to have a lawyer or that he chose to give up that right. The court's opinion stressed that anyone facing charges has the right to a lawyer and can only waive this right if they do so knowingly and intelligently. This means they need to understand the consequences of representing themselves. Since the court did not show that Garza waived his right to counsel properly, the decision to sentence him was reversed. The matter was sent back to the lower court, instructing them to vacate the judgment and hold further proceedings that follow this ruling.

Continue ReadingM-2017-739