Deferred Sentence

F-2018-269

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2017-1055, a person appealed their conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (Oxycodone). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of the appellant from the Pontotoc County Drug Court Program. One judge dissented. The case started on February 18, 2014, when the appellant was charged with a drug-related crime. The appellant agreed to enter the Drug Court Program, where they could avoid prison if they completed the program successfully. If not, they could face up to ten years in prison. On April 19, 2017, the state sought to terminate the appellant from the program. They claimed the appellant had tested positive for THC, which is found in marijuana. A hearing was held, and the judge decided to terminate the appellant from Drug Court. As a result, the appellant was sentenced to ten years in prison but received credit for the time they had already spent in custody. The appellant argued three things on appeal. First, they believed the court made a mistake by kicking them out of Drug Court because there was not enough evidence of a rule violation. Second, the appellant stated that there was no written agreement outlining the rules of the Drug Court, and therefore, they should not have been terminated for breaking rules they did not know about. Lastly, the appellant claimed that since the state filed the termination application after the allowed time to participate in Drug Court had passed, the court should not have been able to terminate them. The court addressed each of these arguments. They found that the appellant never objected to the evidence showing the positive drug test, which made it hard for them to argue the judge made a mistake. The court also looked into whether the appellant had been informed about the rules and found that the evidence showed the appellant had been explained the terms and understood them. Lastly, regarding the timing of the termination, the court explained that while the timeframe for treatment had expired, the court still had the authority to terminate participation in the program before a final sentence was given. Ultimately, the appellate court agreed with the original trial court's decision to terminate the appellant from Drug Court and affirmed the ten-year sentence. One judge disagreed with the decision about the timing of the termination, believing that the court did not have the right to terminate after the set period.

Continue ReadingF-2018-269

F-2018-893

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The case presented involves D'Angelo Landon Burgess, who appealed the acceleration of his deferred sentence stemming from a guilty plea to Grand Larceny. The Oklahoma County District Court had originally awarded him a five-year deferred sentence in 2013. However, in 2017, the State sought to accelerate this sentence due to new offenses, including a high-speed chase and the resulting charges. The appeal centers around a claim of a lack of diligent prosecution by the State, which Burgess argued deprived him of his due process rights. However, the court determined that there was no plain error, meaning that the proceedings followed legal protocols adequately and Burgess had not demonstrated harm from the timing of the acceleration hearing. The court affirmed the district court's decision, stating that accelerations of deferred sentences do not require the same level of due process protections as full criminal proceedings. The decision also referenced a related case in which Burgess faced serious charges, including first-degree murder, which is currently under appeal. The court's opinion concluded with affirming the order of the district court to accelerate Burgess's deferred sentence. In conclusion, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the acceleration of Burgess's sentence, ruling there was no violation of due process and that the district court acted within its discretion.

Continue ReadingF-2018-893

F-2018-0851

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**In The Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Keye Yarnell Smith,** Appellant, **v.** **The State of Oklahoma,** Appellee. **No. F-2018-0851** **Filed August 15, 2019** **Summary Opinion** **Presiding Judge Lewis:** On December 23, 2014, Keye Yarnell Smith was charged in Tulsa County Case No. CF-2014-6405 with: - Count 1: Possession of Controlled Drug (felony) - Count 2: Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (misdemeanor) - Count 3: Obstructing an Officer (misdemeanor) Smith pled guilty to all counts on August 26, 2015. Sentencing was deferred until August 17, 2018, pending successful completion of the Tulsa County Drug Court program, which would result in a four-year deferred sentence for Count 1, with Counts 2 and 3 dismissed. If terminated from the program, he would face six years imprisonment for Count 1 and one year in the County Jail for Counts 2 and 3, with sentences running concurrently and credit for time served. On July 5, 2018, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Smith’s participation in Drug Court, citing violations of program rules. After a hearing, Special Judge April Seibert ordered Smith's termination from the program and sentenced him per the plea agreement. Smith appeals this decision, claiming the trial court abused its discretion in terminating him from Drug Court. On appeal, Smith argues the court lacked adequate information due to the absence of the Performance Contract and Rules of Drug Court in the record. However, evidence provided during the hearing demonstrated that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Oklahoma Statute Title 22 O.S. § 471.7(E) outlines that drug court judges must recognize relapses and provide progressive sanctions, rather than automatic termination, unless the offender's conduct warrants such action. The judge has broad authority over program removal decisions as outlined in § 471.7(G). This Court reviews the lower court’s decisions for abuse of discretion, which requires Smith to show that the court reached a clearly erroneous conclusion. No objections were raised by Smith regarding the allegations or the lack of understanding of the program's rules. **Decision:** The Court affirms the State’s Motion to Revoke Smith’s participation in Drug Court in Tulsa District Court Case No. CF-2014-6405. The mandate will be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision in accordance with Rule 3.15 of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. **Appearances:** - **Counsel for Appellant:** Stephanie Singer - **Counsel for Appellee:** Cindy Cunningham, Assistant District Attorney - **Attorney General:** Mike Hunter, Sher M. Johnson **Opinion By:** Presiding Judge Lewis **Concurred by:** Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn, Judge Lumpkin, Judge Hudson, Judge Rowland. [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-0851_1735123379.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-0851

M-2018-335

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JULIUS LAMAR WRIGHT,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE 2018-0144** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JUL 11 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant Julius Lamar Wright entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2009-228, for Count 1 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute (Marijuana) and Count 2 - Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. On April 28, 2009, Appellant received a five-year deferred sentence on each count. On March 6, 2012, Appellant pled guilty to allegations in the application to accelerate his deferred sentences, resulting in a ten-year suspended sentence (first five years in custody) for Count 1, and one year in the Oklahoma County Jail for Count 2. These sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other and with CF-2011-1457. Appellant was charged with Domestic Abuse by Strangulation on December 9, 2015, in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2015-8860. He entered a no contest plea and was given a ten-year suspended sentence with probation conditions, which ran concurrently with the earlier cases and included credit for time served. The State's motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2009-228 due to the new charge and failure to pay restitution was dismissed on June 28, 2016, as part of the plea agreement in Case No. CF-2015-8860. On June 29, 2017, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in Cases CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860, alleging a new crime of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2017-2733. After a revocation hearing on January 31, 2018, Appellant's suspended sentences in both cases were revoked. Appellant appeals the revocation of his suspended sentences, raising two propositions of error: 1. The evidence presented during his revocation hearing should have been excluded as it was obtained through egregious police conduct violating his Fourth Amendment rights. 2. The trial court abused its discretion by revoking Appellant's sentences in full, constituting a violation of his due process rights and resulting in an excessive sentence. We affirm the District Court's decision to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in full. Appellant's first argument was not raised at the revocation hearing, leading us to review for plain error. To claim relief under the plain error doctrine, Appellant must prove: (1) an actual error occurred; (2) the error is clear and obvious; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights, impacting the outcome of the hearing. We find no plain error and conclude that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in finding Appellant violated the conditions of his suspended sentences. Regarding the second argument, the court has broad discretion in revoking suspended sentences, and this discretion will not be disturbed without showing an abuse thereof. Appellant has not demonstrated any such abuse. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860 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 filing of this decision. **REVOCATION APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS** **THOMAS HURLEY** **MARVA A. BANKS** Assistant Public Defender Oklahoma County Public Defender's Office 611 County Office Building 320 Robert S. Kerr Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for Defendant **KIRK MARTIN** Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma County 320 Robert S. Kerr Suite 505 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for the State **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur **[PDF VERSION AVAILABLE HERE](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/M-2018-335_1734421708.pdf)**

Continue ReadingM-2018-335

J-2019-162

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **B.M.M., Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **Case No. J-2019-162** **FILED JUN 20 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** On August 12, 2016, a Youthful Offender Information was filed in Tulsa County District Court Case No. YO-2016-28, charging Appellant with multiple offenses including Robbery with a Firearm and Possession of a Stolen Vehicle. Appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas on November 28, 2016, receiving a ten-year sentence as a Youthful Offender, with sentences running concurrently. Following completion of the Youthful Offender Program, Appellant was paroled in February 2019. During a March 2019 hearing, mandated by 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-209, Judge Priddy transitioned Appellant to a seven-year deferred sentence under the Department of Corrections, a decision Appellant now appeals. This matter was decided on the Accelerated Docket with oral arguments heard on May 30, 2019. The district court’s bridging of Appellant to the supervision of the Department of Corrections is **AFFIRMED**. **Propositions of Error:** **1. No State Motion to Bridge:** Appellant contends the district court erred by bridging him to an adult sentence without a state motion. The court correctly followed 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-209, allowing placement on probation without a state motion. Appellant did not demonstrate an abuse of discretion based on performance in the program. **2. Knowingly Entered Pleas:** Appellant asserts his guilty pleas were not entered knowingly but does not seek to withdraw them. As such, this claim seeks advisory relief, which the Court denies. **3. Abuse of Discretion on Bridging Decision:** Appellant reasserts that the decision to bridge him was an abuse of discretion. Following the statutory guidelines, the Court finds no abuse of discretion has occurred. **Conclusion:** The Judgment and Sentence is **AFFIRMED**. MANDATE will issue upon filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE TRACY PRIDDY, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL:** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:** Kayla Cannon, Assistant Public Defender **COUNSEL FOR STATE:** Kevin Keller, Assistant District Attorney **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR IN RESULTS **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** CONCUR IN RESULTS **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR [Download PDF for full opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-162_1734446225.pdf)

Continue ReadingJ-2019-162

F 2018-0398

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **STEVE GRAYSON FALEN, Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **No. F 2018-0398** **May 23, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Steele Grayson Falen, was charged on March 14, 2013, in Beckham County District Court Case No. CF-2013-106 with various offenses including Count 1 - Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute (felony), Count 2 - Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (misdemeanor), and Count 3 - Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (misdemeanor). Following a guilty plea on January 23, 2014, he received a ten-year deferred sentence for Count 1 and one year for Counts 2 and 3, all to run concurrently, with credit for six months served in treatment. Later, on November 12, 2014, Appellant faced additional charges in Case No. CF-2014-446 involving burglary-related offenses. Consequently, the State sought to accelerate his deferred sentences linked to the new charges. Under a plea agreement, Appellant joined the Beckham County Drug Court Program on June 23, 2015, where he would face a significant sentence if he failed to complete the program successfully. The State filed to terminate Appellant from the Drug Court on February 21, 2018, citing early exit from treatment and subsequent arrest. After a revocation hearing on April 6, 2018, he was sentenced to 20 years for Count 1 and associated consequences for Counts 2 and 3 from both cases with sentences ordered to run concurrently. Appellant now appeals the termination from Drug Court, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion. However, findings indicate no abuse of discretion occurred as the Drug Court Act emphasizes the judge’s authority to revoke participation when conduct warrants termination. **DECISION** The termination of Appellant from the Beckham County Drug Court Program in both Case Nos. CF-2013-106 and CF-2014-446 is **AFFIRMED**. **APPEARANCES** *Counsel for Defendant:* J. Cade Harris, Appellate Defense Counsel Nicollette Brandt, Counsel *Counsel for the State:* Gina R. Webb, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Attorney General Theodore M. Peeper, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. *KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur in Results* *LUMPKIN, J.: Concur* *HUDSON, J.: Concur* *ROWLAND, J.: Concur*

Continue ReadingF 2018-0398

F-2018-272

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-272, Lavonte Antonio Johnson appealed his conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of his deferred sentence to 27 years in prison. One judge dissented. Lavonte Johnson entered a guilty plea in 2014, which was followed by a five-year deferred sentence. However, in 2018, the state sought to accelerate this sentence, claiming Johnson had violated probation by possessing a firearm and committing bail jumping. During a traffic stop, police found Johnson could not provide a driver's license and that he had a gun with him. Johnson argued that the police had to give him a Miranda warning before asking about the gun, as he believed it was a custodial interrogation. The court found that because this was a routine traffic stop, the police were not required to issue a Miranda warning. Johnson's statements about the gun were deemed admissible. The court reviewed the decision to accelerate Johnson's sentence and found no abuse of discretion. Therefore, Johnson’s appeal was denied, and the original sentence was upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2018-272

C-2018-648

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2018-648, Denisa Dawn Duvall appealed her conviction for domestic assault and battery in the presence of a minor. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her request for a new hearing to withdraw her plea. One judge dissented. Duvall was charged with a misdemeanor and decided to enter a plea of no contest. The court accepted her plea and gave her a deferred sentence, which included supervision and counseling. Later, Duvall filed a request to withdraw her plea, saying she wanted an attorney to help her. However, when the court held a hearing, it was unclear if she was offered a lawyer or if she had decided to represent herself. Duvall claimed that she didn’t understand the charges or the meaning of her plea when she first entered it. The court didn’t allow her a lawyer during the hearing to withdraw her plea, which is against her rights under the Constitution. The court recognized that Duvall should have had legal help during that critical moment. The State agreed that Duvall didn’t receive a fair process because she was not represented by counsel. The court decided that they needed to redo the hearing where Duvall could have a lawyer present, and she should be allowed to explain why she wants to withdraw her plea. The court ordered that Duvall be given a new chance to file a motion for withdrawing her plea with her new lawyer and scheduled an evidentiary hearing on that motion. If her request to withdraw her plea is denied again, her lawyer must help her with an appeal. The decision from the court resulted in Duvall getting a new hearing, where she can properly address her plea's withdrawal with the support of an attorney.

Continue ReadingC-2018-648

F-2017-1166

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1166, the appellant appealed his conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of the appellant's deferred sentence. One judge dissented. The appellant, Kenneth Allen Day, was charged with two crimes: unauthorized use of a vehicle and concealing stolen property. He pleaded guilty to the first charge, and the second was dismissed. His sentence was postponed until 2021, with conditions he needed to follow during probation. However, the State later claimed he had not followed these conditions, including not reporting as he was supposed to and being involved in new criminal activity. During a hearing, it was found that he had indeed violated his probation rules. As a result, the court decided to move up the date for his sentencing, leading to a five-year prison term and a fine. The appellant argued that the court had made a mistake in this decision. However, the court found that the trial court acted within its rights and did not abuse its discretion. Thus, they confirmed the earlier decision about the appellant's sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1166

F-2017-1053

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1053, Greenwood appealed her conviction for drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her termination from the Drug Court program but required the lower court to remove a $500 fine that had been improperly assessed. One judge dissented. The case began when Greenwood, on October 13, 2015, agreed to participate in the Drug Court program after pleading no contest to a charge of possessing methamphetamine and guilty to having drug paraphernalia. If she successfully completed the program, her sentence would be deferred, meaning she wouldn't have to serve time unless she failed to meet the program requirements. However, on August 31, 2017, the State asked to terminate Greenwood from the Drug Court program. The judge held a hearing where they discussed her progress. The judge decided to end her participation because Greenwood had not been following the rules of the program. As a result, she was sentenced according to her plea agreement, but the judge also added a $500 fine. Greenwood did not agree with this fine and argued that it was illegal because it wasn't part of her original plea deal. She also claimed it wasn't fair to terminate her from the program since she felt that the court hadn't tried hard enough to help her comply with the program's requirements through smaller penalties before jumping to termination. The court looked at her arguments. They found that the fine was indeed not allowed because of the rules surrounding Drug Courts, which require that once admitted, a judge can't change the conditions of someone's plea agreement. Since Greenwood's agreement stated she wouldn't have a fine, the court ordered the lower court to remove that $500 fine. As for her termination from the Drug Court, the judges looked at the evidence that showed she had repeatedly not followed the rules. There was testimony showing she missed meetings, didn’t show up for drug testing, and was not engaging with the services offered to her. The court found that while Greenwood believed she wasn't given enough help, it was ultimately her responsibility to follow the rules. In the end, the court decided to keep the termination of Greenwood from the Drug Court but mandated that the fine be taken away. The ruling confirmed that the Drug Court successfully supported the justice system while also highlighting the importance of personal responsibility in such programs.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1053

S-2013-315

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-315, David Johns appealed his conviction for larceny. In a published decision, the court decided that a trial court cannot modify the terms and conditions of a negotiated deferred judgment without the consent of the State. The case involved Johns, who had entered a guilty plea and was placed on deferred judgment for five years. He filed a motion to change the terms of his deferred judgment, and the trial court agreed to shorten it and dismiss the case, which the State appealed. The court explained that under current laws, the trial court does not have the authority to shorten the deferment period once a plea agreement is in place. This ruling was made to prevent issues that could discourage prosecutors from agreeing to deferred judgments in the future. The court emphasized that any changes to the terms of a deferred judgment must follow statutory guidelines, and the trial court may only act when the conditions are met at the end of the deferment period. It upheld the idea that modifying an agreement without proper authority is not allowed. Therefore, the original decision to cut Johns' probation short was not supported by the law. The court's answer to the reserved question of law confirmed that the trial court was not authorized to cut short the period of deferment after the terms of the plea agreement had been established. #n dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2013-315

S-2012-719

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-719, Robert Brooke appealed his conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Transporting an Open Bottle or Container of Liquor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's order deferring judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Robert Brooke was charged with DUI and another alcohol-related offense. He entered a guilty plea but had a disagreement about whether he must serve time in jail or undergo inpatient treatment. The lower court decided to defer his sentencing for five years and found that the law requiring jail time or inpatient treatment was not enforceable in this situation. The state argued that the law clearly required jail time or inpatient treatment since it was Brooke's second DUI-related charge. However, the court explained that since a plea deal did not count as a conviction, the conditions related to jail or treatment did not apply. Instead, they found that Brooke should follow the recommendations given from his alcohol assessment, which included certain programs, rather than being required to serve time. The court looked closely at the wording of the law and decided that the terms about jail time only apply when there is a conviction. Since they did not convict Brooke but only deferred his sentencing, those specific requirements did not apply to him. The court also mentioned that while the law could be seen as constitutional, it did not matter in this case since they determined it was not applicable. Thus, they upheld the lower court's decision, allowing Brooke to complete the programs without being sentenced to time in jail. The final judgment was to affirm the decision of the District Court, allowing Brooke to follow through with the treatment required instead of serving jail time.

Continue ReadingS-2012-719

RE 2012-0848

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0848, Andrell Jackson appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence for one of the cases but vacated the revocation for the other case and sent it back for further proceedings. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE 2012-0848

M 2011-0871

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2011-0870 and M 2011-0871, Sherry Kay Taylor appealed her conviction for misdemeanors related to driving under the influence and other offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing her to have a lawyer during her hearings. One judge dissented. Sherry was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol, driving without a license, and improper backing in a case from December 21, 2010. She initially pleaded no contest to driving under the influence and received a six-month deferred sentence. Later, she was charged again for driving under the influence of both drugs and alcohol. In September 2011, Sherry went to a hearing where she was supposed to represent herself because her request for a lawyer was denied. The judge believed she had enough time to find a lawyer but Sherry argued that she didn't understand how to represent herself and didn't want to waive her right to have an attorney. The court looked into whether Sherry had been properly informed about her right to a lawyer and whether she had given up that right knowingly. It was found that there was no clear record showing that she had chosen to represent herself or that she understood the risks involved. Ultimately, the court decided that denying her the help of a lawyer was a mistake and ordered that she should have a new trial and a new hearing to review her sentence in a fair manner.

Continue ReadingM 2011-0871

M 2011-0870

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2011-0870 and case No. M 2011-0871, Sherry Kay Taylor appealed her conviction for driving under the influence and other related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and ordered a new trial. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingM 2011-0870

F 2010-1191

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2010-1191, Mark A. Sanders appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and carrying a weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for further proceedings. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF 2010-1191

S-2011-0467

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-0467, a person appealed his conviction for possessing a firearm after a previous conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling which found that the application of a new law to this case was unconstitutional. One judge dissented. To explain further, the person involved, known as the appellee, was charged after a new law was enacted that changed the rules about possessing firearms for people with past convictions. Originally, under the law at the time the appellee completed his past sentence, he was allowed to possess a firearm. However, the law changed in 2010 to make it more difficult for people with certain convictions to have firearms, requiring them to wait ten years instead of just having their rights restored after finishing their sentence. The appeal began after a magistrate found that using the new law against the appellee was unfair because it changed the rules after he had already completed his legal obligations. The court needed to determine if this application of the law was considered an ex post facto law, which is illegal under the Constitution because it punishes someone for actions that were not against the law when they were done. The appellee had completed his deferred sentence successfully and had regained the right to possess a firearm. The court recognized that the law should not punish people for actions that were legal at the time they were done, and applying the new law to the appellee would violate this principle. Therefore, the decision from the lower court was upheld, meaning the appellee would not face penalties from the new law. The ruling confirmed that once someone has completed their deferred sentence, they should not have to follow new rules that were created after the fact regarding possession of firearms.

Continue ReadingS-2011-0467

F-2010-572

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-572, Earsley appealed her conviction for uttering two or more bogus checks exceeding $500.00. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that accelerated her deferred sentence. The decision was based on the finding that the lower court did not consider Earsley's ability to pay restitution and court costs, which Earsley argued was a necessary factor in determining whether her failure to pay was willful. One member of the court dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2010-572

RE-2010-431

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-431, Edwards appealed her conviction for QUERKing a Forged Instrument. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that while Edwards' five-year suspended sentences were properly revoked, the District Court mistakenly ordered the sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently. The court agreed with the State's request to remand the matter for re-sentencing to align with the original judgment. No dissenting opinion was filed.

Continue ReadingRE-2010-431

C-2009-1033

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-1033, the petitioner appealed his conviction for two counts of permitting child abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for the writ of certiorari, allowing the petitioner to withdraw his plea of no contest. One judge dissented. The petitioner, Huyen Cleveland Tran, was charged in 2004, with permitting child abuse in Oklahoma County. In May 2007, the petitioner entered a no contest plea and received a deferred sentence, which means she wouldn’t have to go to prison right away if she followed certain rules. However, in 2009, the State asked the court to speed up her sentence, and the court decided she should serve five years in prison. Tran then wanted to take back her plea of no contest because she believed she didn’t fully understand it and thought she had a valid defense. She raised several issues in her appeal, including that she did not have effective legal help because her attorney represented both her and her husband, who was also charged. This was seen as a conflict of interest. The court agreed with Tran that her attorney had a conflict because he could not fully defend her without hurting her husband’s case. Since this conflict affected her legal representation, the court granted her request to withdraw her plea. The ruling means that Tran can now have a new chance to argue her case without the problems that came from the conflict of interest with her previous lawyer. One judge felt that rather than allowing Tran to withdraw her plea completely, the case should be sent back for a proper hearing with a new lawyer who does not have a conflict of interest.

Continue ReadingC-2009-1033

S-2009-944

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-944, the defendant appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling that the amendments to the Sex Offender Registration Act did not apply to the defendant. A dissenting opinion was not stated. The case involved the defendant, who was previously charged under the Sex Offender Registration Act. The key question was whether later amendments to the law should apply to him or not, given that he had entered a plea in 1999 and had complied with the previous legal conditions. The magistrate in the lower court determined that the law changes would be unfair to apply retroactively in the defendant's case. The court explained that new laws usually apply to future actions unless they are explicitly stated to have retroactive effects. They found no clear indication in the legislature's changes to imply that the new requirements should apply to those who had already been sentenced under the old rules. The court confirmed that since the amendments would change the defendant's obligations significantly, these substantive changes should not apply to him. As a result, the decision maintained that the lower court's refusal to move forward on the charge against the defendant could stand, with the matter being sent back to the District Court for any further actions needed, while affirming that the defendant was correct in his assertion that the recent amendments did not apply to him.

Continue ReadingS-2009-944

C-2010-77

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-77, Markeese Kreashawmn Ward appealed his conviction for Trafficking CDS and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his petition for a writ of certiorari and affirmed the trial court's order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Markeese Kreashawmn Ward was in court for committing serious crimes. On December 19, 2007, he said he was guilty to two charges: Trafficking in Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS) and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. Because he was a young adult, the judge decided he could join a special program called the Delayed Sentencing Program for Young Adults. This program was supposed to give him a second chance, and his sentencing was scheduled for a year later, on December 19, 2008. When that day came, the judge decided that Markeese had not done well in the program, so he was punished with five months in jail. After his jail time, he was supposed to go into another program designed to help him. Later, on November 13, 2009, the judge sentenced him to 45 years in prison for Trafficking and 5 years for unauthorized vehicle use, with both sentences running at the same time. Markeese didn't like the sentences he received and wanted to change his mind about pleading guilty. He filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, but the court held a hearing and decided not to allow him to withdraw his plea. Markeese believed there were two main reasons why he should be allowed to change his plea: 1. He claimed that some conditions added by the judge to his plea agreement were unfair because he didn’t agree to them. He thought this broke the rules about how judges and other branches of government should work separately. 2. He argued that the judge didn’t sentence him within the year required by law, making the sentence illegal. As the court reviewed these claims, they decided that the judge had done everything by the rules. First, they found that the judge's notes did not change the original agreement Markeese had made when he pleaded guilty, and he could have refused to accept the new conditions if he wanted. Therefore, his plea was still valid. For the second point, the court noted that even though Markeese thought the judge’s actions were a delay in sentencing, they were not. Instead, the judge was just giving him another chance to succeed in the program. The court pointed out that the judge was following the law properly by looking at Markeese's progress and determining if he deserved to have his sentence delayed further. Eventually, the court realized that the judge’s actions had led to a misunderstanding. To account for it properly, the court determined that Markeese had already been treated as if he had been given a part of his sentence when he was sanctioned to jail time and sent to the aftercare program. However, since Markeese had also been sentenced again later, it was like giving him two different sentences for the same crime, which is not allowed. In summary, the court decided to keep the original decision to deny Markeese's request to withdraw his plea but corrected what would happen next. They asked that his official record reflect that the sentence imposed during the sanction in December 2008 was what he needed to serve, and they mentioned that he should be released from custody. The result was that Markeese's case was somewhat settled, and his future would look different than it may have before, with the court noting a mistake that needed fixing without adding more time to his punishment.

Continue ReadingC-2010-77

C-2008-593

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2008-593, Alan Daniels appealed his conviction for Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. On July 14, 2005, Daniels pled guilty to growing a small marijuana plant. The judge deferred sentencing for five years, making him serve ten days in jail and pay a $1,000 fine. Later, the State found that he violated the terms of his plea deal, and on February 14, 2006, the judge sentenced him to life in prison. Over the next two years, Daniels tried to withdraw his guilty plea and appeal the decision. Daniels' plea was reviewed on June 12, 2008, but the district court upheld the plea and denied his request. Daniels then appealed to a higher court, asking to withdraw his plea and have a new trial, or to change his sentence. The issues raised included whether the evidence showed he violated probation, if his plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, and if his sentence was too harsh. The court found that the evidence was enough to prove that Daniels broke the rules set during his probation. The court also found that Daniels's guilty plea was made knowingly. However, the court believed that a life sentence for growing a small marijuana plant was too extreme. They decided to change his sentence to five years in prison instead.

Continue ReadingC-2008-593

C-2006-286

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-286, Michelle Emma Hill appealed her conviction for Incitement to Riot. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her the opportunity to withdraw her plea and proceed to trial. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2006-286

RE 2005-0315

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2005-0315, #Matthews appealed his conviction for #Burglary. In a (published) decision, the court decided #to vacate the two-year sentence imposed in CF-1999-365, affirm the acceleration of the deferred sentence in CF-2003-14, and affirm the termination from Drug Court. #None dissented. Kevin Paul Matthews got into trouble with the law a while back. He pled no contest to a charge for running a roadblock and was given a sentence where he didn’t have to spend much time in prison right away. Instead, he was supposed to follow certain rules and help the community. However, he later messed up by not completing his required community service. Then, he got into even more trouble and pleaded guilty to burglary, agreeing to join a special program called Drug Court instead of going straight to prison. This program was meant to help him get better. But after some time, the State said he wasn’t following the rules and asked the judge to send him to prison instead. The judge agreed and decided Matthews needed to go to prison for more time, ruling that any previous time he served didn’t count towards his new sentence. Matthews felt that the judge made mistakes and that he shouldn't have been punished as harshly as he was. Matthews brought his case to a higher court, saying the judge didn't have the right to put him back in prison for the earlier offense because too much time had passed. He also said the judge shouldn’t have made him wait so long without setting an end date to his drug treatment program. Ultimately, the higher court agreed that the judge had made an error in punishing Matthews without accounting for the time he had already served. However, they kept the part where Matthews had to go to prison for his burglary charge because he had failed to follow the rules of the Drug Court. They decided to send the case back to the lower court for more review about what should happen next. So, in the end, Matthews got relief on some of his issues, but not all, showing that while he had some rights, he still needed to take responsibility for his actions.

Continue ReadingRE 2005-0315