Deficient Performance

F-2019-369

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-369, Collins appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment but vacated and remanded the restitution and fees due to errors in their assessment. One judge dissented. Joseph Willis Collins was found guilty by a jury for committing assault with a dangerous weapon. He faced this trial in Comanche County where he was sentenced to spend twenty-five years in prison and was ordered to pay restitution and court costs. Collins claimed that several things went wrong during his trial that justified overturning his conviction. First, Collins argued that when he asked police if he could go back downstairs, it meant he wanted to stop talking to them, and police should have immediately respected that request. He believed this request was an important part of his rights, which should not have been pushed aside during the questioning. However, the court decided that even though admitting his statements without considering his right not to speak was a mistake, it was not significant enough to change the outcome of the case because there was a lot of clear evidence proving he was guilty. Next, Collins argued that some embarrassing information from his cellphone should not have been used against him during the trial. He thought that this evidence made it hard for him to get a fair trial because it focused on his relationships in a negative way. However, the court did not find this evidence to be unfairly prejudicial, as it was used to help explain details relevant to the case. Collins also believed that his lawyer did not competently defend him, especially regarding the use of the testimony linked to the cellphone and the earlier statements made to police after he asked to stop being questioned. The court looked at all these claims and found that there were no significant mistakes made by Collins’s lawyer that affected the trial's outcome. The other issues Collins raised were about financial matters from his sentencing. Collins was ordered to pay $7,504 in restitution for the victim’s losses, but the court admitted this amount wasn't properly justified, so they decided it should be determined again. The court also acknowledged a mistake in charging Collins a $1,500 indigent defense fee instead of the maximum allowed of $1,000. There was also a dispute about the juror fees that Collins thought were incorrectly calculated, but since he did not raise this objection during the trial, the court decided not to change this part of the decision. In the end, the court upheld the conviction and the lengthy sentence Collins received. They ordered the lower court to redo the calculations for restitution and the indigent defense fee to comply with the law and ensure a fair process. The judgment of conviction and the twenty-five-year prison sentence were upheld, while the restitution and indigent fees were vacated and remanded for further action.

Continue ReadingF-2019-369

F-2019-224

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOSEPH EUGENE DEAN,** **Appellant,** **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. F-2019-224** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant, Joseph Eugene Dean, was tried and convicted by a jury in Muskogee County District Court, Case No. CF-2017-1030, of Endangering Others While Eluding or Attempting to Elude Police Officer, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies (Count 2), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 540(B). The jury recommended a sentence of twenty years imprisonment and a $2,500.00 fine. The Honorable Bret A. Smith, District Judge, presided at trial and sentenced Dean in accordance with the jury's verdict, including various costs and fees. The jury acquitted Appellant of Count 1 - Possession of a Stolen Vehicle. Dean appeals, raising the following proposition of error: **I. APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ART. II, §§ 7, AND 20, OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION.** After thorough consideration of the record, including transcripts and the parties' briefs, we find that no relief is warranted. **Proposition I:** Dean asserts that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request a cautionary eyewitness identification instruction (OUJI-CR (2d) 9-19). However, Dean fails to provide relevant authority or argument supporting his claim, thus forgoing appellate review of the issue as per Rule 3.5(C)(6) of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Moreover, we alternatively reject Dean's ineffectiveness claim on its merits. To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must demonstrate both that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). In this case, a cautionary eyewitness identification instruction was unwarranted as no serious question exist[ed] concerning the reliability of the [eyewitness's] identification[s] (Robinson v. State, 1995 OK CR 25, ¶ 56, 900 P.2d 389, 404). Counsel’s failure to request such instruction, therefore, was not ineffective since there was no merit to such a request (Logan v. State, 2013 OK CR 2, ¶ 11, 293 P.3d 969, 975). **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. **MANDATE** is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision, pursuant to Rule 3.15 of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. --- **APPEARANCES:** **AT TRIAL:** LARRY VICKERS 600 Emporia, Suite B Muskogee, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT **ON APPEAL:** DERECK J. HURT Oklahoma Indigent Defense System P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT SEAN WATERS Asst. District Attorney Muskogee District Attorney's Office 220 State Street Muskogee, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR KUEHN, V.P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR --- [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2019-224_1734779625.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2019-224

C-2019-329

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2019 329, Feeling appealed her conviction for Aggravated Assault and Battery and Assaulting a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to deny her appeal and affirm the lower court's decision. One judge dissented. [occa_caption]

Continue ReadingC-2019-329

F-2018-835

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ANTHONY BRUCE HENSON, SR.,** Appellant, **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. Case No. F-2018-835 Summary Opinion FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA JAN - 9 2020 **OPINION** *LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:* Anthony Bruce Henson, Sr., Appellant, was tried by jury and found guilty on Counts 1 through 6 for sexual abuse of a child under twelve (12) years, violating 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(F); and Count 7 for child abuse, violating 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(A), in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2017-3127. The jury sentenced the Appellant to life imprisonment and a $1,000.00 fine for each of Counts 1 through 6, and six (6) years imprisonment for Count 7. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively, though the court did not impose the fines. The State dismissed Count 8, charging child abuse, prior to trial. The jury deadlocked on Counts 9 and 10, also charging sexual abuse of a child under twelve, leading the State to dismiss those counts. Mr. Henson raises the following propositions of error on appeal: 1. The District Court erred in admitting bad act evidence of pornography, violating provisions of the Oklahoma Evidence Code and denying due process and a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment. 2. The jury instruction concerning the other crimes evidence was erroneous, as it did not limit its admission purpose. 3. The consecutive life sentences are excessive and should be modified. 4. Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel per the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. **Proposition One:** Appellant argues the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his possession of child pornography on a cell phone, which counsel did not object to at trial, waiving all but plain error. As established in *Simpson v. State*, Appellant must demonstrate that this plain error affected the trial's outcome. The Court finds no error in the admission of this evidence to show motive or intent for the charged crimes. **Proposition Two:** Appellant contends the trial court used an incorrect limiting instruction for the other crimes evidence of child pornography. The request for this instruction constituted a waiver of the standard error analysis. Although the court erred in using a modified instruction, it did not compromise the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings, thus, relief is unwarranted. **Proposition Three:** Appellant claims his six consecutive life sentences are excessive. The Court will not alter sentences within statutory limits unless they are so excessive that they shock the court’s conscience. The sentences here do not shock the conscience and are within legal limits. **Proposition Four:** The Appellant argues ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to inadmissible evidence and not requesting a proper limiting instruction. Following *Strickland v. Washington*, the Court finds no reasonable probability that the outcomes would have differed due to trial counsel's performance. **DECISION** The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES** **AT TRIAL** Richard Koller, Attorney for Appellant Barbara Woltz **ON APPEAL** Nicole Dawn Herron, Attorneys for Defendant Katie Koljack, Mike Hunter, Mark Morgan, Asst. District Attorneys Sheri M. Johnson, Asst. Attorney General **OPINION BY:** Lewis, P.J. Kuehn, V.P.J.: Concur Lumpkin, J.: Concur in Results Hudson, J.: Concur Rowland, J.: Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-835_1735212413.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-835

C-2018-1174

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA **Case No. C-2018-1174** **OCT 31, 2019** **STEVEN JOSEPH BEATY, Petitioner, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent.** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Steven Joseph Beaty entered guilty pleas to the following charges in the District Court of Grady County, Case No. CF-2018-115: **Count I** - Felony Domestic Assault and Battery, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies (21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644 (C)); **Count II** - Misdemeanor Violation of Protective Order (22 O.S.Supp.2012, § 60.6); **Count III** - Obstructing An Officer (21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 540). The Honorable Kory Kirkland accepted the pleas on October 16, 2018. The sentences imposed included the following: **Count I** - ten (10) years imprisonment with the last seven (7) years suspended and a $500.00 fine; **Count II** - one year imprisonment and a $200.00 fine; **Count III** - one year imprisonment and a $100.00 fine, with all sentences served concurrently and additional requirements such as costs, victim compensation assessments, and referral to the Batterer's Intervention Program. On October 25, 2018, Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. After a hearing on November 13, 2018, Judge Kirkland denied the motion. Petitioner now appeals this denial and raises the following propositions of error: 1. The lack of a factual basis for the plea renders it involuntary due to not being served with the Protective Order. 2. The trial judge failed to consider Petitioner’s ability to pay the victim compensation fee. 3. Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel during both the plea hearing and at the plea withdrawal hearing. **Analysis:** After thorough review of the petitions, records, and transcripts, the court finds no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. A plea is evaluated based on whether it was voluntary and intelligent, requiring the Petitioner to show it was entered inadvertently or without consideration. In his first two propositions, Petitioner alleges he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea due to inadequate factual basis and failure to inquire about ability to pay the compensation fee. However, these claims were not raised in the motion to withdraw nor in the certiorari petition, waiving their consideration on appeal. In Proposition III, relating to ineffective assistance of counsel at the withdrawal hearing, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable probability that such deficiencies would have altered the outcome. The court affirms that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and not coerced. The claim about the court’s failure to record considerations for the victim compensation assessment is acknowledged; thus, that part of the assessment is vacated, and the case is remanded for a hearing to address this requirement properly. **Conclusion:** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is **DENIED**. The Judgment of the District Court is **AFFIRMED**. The current victim compensation assessments are **VACATED**, and the case is **REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT** to consider all necessary factors for assessment under 22 O.S.2011, § 142.18(A). **OPINION BY**: LUMPKIN, J. **CONCUR**: LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. **COUNSEL FOR DEFENSE AT THE PLEA HEARING**: Bill Smith, P.O. Box 926, Norman, OK 73070 **COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER ON APPEAL**: Danny Joseph, Oklahoma City, OK **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE**: Jason M. Hicks, District Attorney, Kara Bacon, Assistant District Attorney, Chickasha, OK. [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-1174_1734227971.pdf)

Continue ReadingC-2018-1174

S-2018-1173

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. F-2018-895, Ward appealed his conviction for possessing a firearm after felony convictions. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the arrest and evidence. One judge dissented. The ruling concluded that the evidence supported the conviction despite Ward's claims.

Continue ReadingS-2018-1173

F-2018-940

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the case of LeJeanna Sue Chronister v. State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed several appeals raised by the appellant following her conviction for Aggravated Manufacture of a Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine) and her subsequent sentencing to twenty years in prison. The appellant raised three primary propositions of error: 1. **Violation of Rights Regarding the 85% Rule**: The appellant contended that her sentence was unconstitutional because she was not informed that the 85% Rule (requiring her to serve 85% of her sentence before becoming eligible for parole) applied to her case. The court concluded that this argument did not hold merit in a non-jury trial setting, stating that the judge, not a jury, was responsible for sentencing and presumed to know the law. The court found no plain error as the sentence was within the statutory range and was the minimum allowed. 2. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: The appellant claimed her counsel was ineffective for not informing her about the 85% Rule, impacting her decision-making during her trial. The court applied the Strickland standard to evaluate the ineffectiveness claim, concluding that the appellant did not demonstrate how the alleged deficiency in counsel's performance prejudiced her case or altered the outcome. 3. **Cumulative Error**: The appellant argued that the combination of errors denied her a fair trial. The court determined that since none of the individual claims of error warranted relief, the cumulative error argument also lacked merit. Ultimately, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court of LeFlore County, stating that the appellant had not demonstrated any error that would necessitate modifying the sentence or overturning the conviction. The ruling emphasizes the distinction between non-jury trials and jury trials concerning informing defendants about parole-related laws and the importance of counsel's performance under the criteria established by the Strickland case.

Continue ReadingF-2018-940

F-2018-43

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-43, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction and falsely personating another to create liability. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. The appellant, Anthony Paul Ornder, was found guilty by a jury in the Washington County District Court of two counts of possession of a firearm after a prior felony conviction and one count of falsely impersonating another. The jury recommended a total sentence of forty years for each firearm count and forty-five years for the impersonation count, all to be served at the same time. Ornder raised several arguments on appeal. He claimed that the state did not have enough evidence to prove he possessed the firearm or to show that he gained any benefit from using a false identity. He also argued that his lawyer did not represent him properly, which hurt his chances of a good defense, and asked the court to reduce his sentence because it was too harsh. The court looked carefully at the whole case, including evidence, witness testimonies, and records. They found that there was enough evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that he was guilty. They explained that the law allows both direct and indirect evidence to support charges. The court determined that the claims about ineffective help from his lawyer were not strong enough because they were based on guesses without solid evidence. Lastly, regarding the length of the sentence, the court concluded that it did not seem overly severe given his past criminal record and the nature of his actions during the incident. They affirmed his judgment and sentence, meaning they agreed with the original decision without changes.

Continue ReadingF-2018-43

F-2018-284

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-284, Carl Wayne Gundrum, Jr. appealed his conviction for first-degree rape and lewd acts with a child under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Gundrum was found guilty by a jury in Cleveland County and received a 30-year sentence for the rape and a 20-year sentence for the lewd acts. Both sentences are to be served consecutively, meaning he must serve them one after the other. Before the appeal, he argued several things regarding his trial. First, he claimed that his right to a speedy trial was violated because there was a delay of about 21 months from his arrest to the trial. The court looked at four things to decide if his right was violated: how long the delay was, why it happened, whether he asked for a speedy trial, and whether he was hurt by the delay. The court found that the delay was not enough to violate his speedy trial rights. Second, Gundrum argued that the court made a mistake by allowing evidence of another child molestation case to be shown in his trial. His lawyer objected to this evidence being used, and the court said that it was appropriately admitted, so they found no error here. Third, Gundrum claimed there was bad behavior from the prosecutors that made his trial unfair. Many of these actions were not objected to during the trial, so the court only looked at the ones that were considered plain errors. They decided that the prosecutor's actions did not change the outcome of the trial significantly enough to cause an unfair result. Fourth, he argued that his lawyer did not do a good job by not objecting to the prosecutor's misconduct. The court reviewed this situation and found that Gundrum could not prove that he was harmed by this lack of action, so his claim did not work out. Finally, Gundrum sought relief by stating that all these errors together made his trial unfair. However, since the court found no individual errors, they concluded that there could not be an accumulation of errors either. In the end, the court affirmed Gundrum's conviction and stated that he must serve a significant portion of his sentences before he could be considered for parole.

Continue ReadingF-2018-284

C-2018-834

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** FILED JUN 27 2019 **Case No. C-2018-834** **TAMMERA RACHELLE BAKER,** Petitioner, vs. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Respondent. --- **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Tammera Rachelle Baker, Petitioner, entered a blind plea of guilty to first degree manslaughter, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 711, in the District Court of Delaware County, Case No. CF-2017-157. The Honorable Robert G. Haney, District Judge, found Petitioner guilty. The Honorable Barry V. Denny, Associate District Judge, later sentenced Appellant to thirty (30) years imprisonment, with ten (10) years suspended, and a $1,000.00 fine. Petitioner filed an application to withdraw the plea, which was denied. She now seeks a writ of certiorari in the following propositions of error: 1. The plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered into as Petitioner believed the court would not impose more than ten years and relied on misinformation from her attorney regarding witness testimony. 2. Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel during her plea proceedings. 3. The sentence imposed post-plea is shockingly excessive due to improper victim impact statements. Certiorari review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently before a competent jurisdiction, whether the sentence is excessive, whether counsel was constitutionally effective, and whether the State has the power to prosecute. The Court will not review issues not raised in the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. The trial court's ruling on a motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed for an abuse of discretion unless it involves statutory or constitutional interpretation, which is reviewed de novo. **Proposition One**: Petitioner argues her plea was involuntary due to reliance on her attorney's misinformation regarding sentencing expectations. The record refutes this argument, indicating that the plea was voluntary; therefore, no relief is warranted. **Proposition Two**: Petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel and requests an evidentiary hearing. Claims are assessed under the Strickland v. Washington test. Petitioner has not shown clear evidence to support a finding of ineffective assistance, thus this proposition and the request for a hearing are denied. **Proposition Three**: Petitioner claims her sentence is excessive. The Court will only disturb a sentence within statutory limits if it shocks the conscience. The facts of this case do not meet that threshold, so no relief is warranted. **DECISION**: The petition for the writ of certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES:** **TRIAL** Lee Griffin, Attorney for Appellant Kathy Baker, Attorney for Withdrawal **APPEAL** Katrina Conrad-Legler, Attorney for Appellant Nicholas P. Lelecas, Assistant District Attorney for the State **OPINION BY**: LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur --- For full ruling, [click here to download the PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-834_1734180202.pdf).

Continue ReadingC-2018-834

F-2017-1099

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1099, Willie Donnell Jackson appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree-Victim Unconscious. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Jackson's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Willie Donnell Jackson was found guilty by a jury for a serious crime involving a victim who was unconscious. The jury suggested that he spend life in prison without the chance to get out, but the trial judge decided to give him a chance for parole after a long time instead. Jackson didn't agree with this decision and said there were errors made during the trial that affected his rights. Jackson raised five main arguments on appeal. First, he said that the prosecutor acted improperly during the trial, which made it unfair. He claimed this had a cumulative effect and harmed his chance for a fair trial. Second, he thought the judge didn't give the jury the right instructions, which was another error. The third point was about his lawyers not helping him enough, meaning that he didn't get the proper support he needed during the trial. Fourth, Jackson believed that the prosecutor's actions led to a sentence that was too harsh compared to what happened. Finally, his last argument was that all the mistakes added up to deny him a fair trial and the legal protections he should have received. After looking at everything presented during the appeal, the judges decided there were no significant errors that would change the outcome of the trial. They did not agree with Jackson's claims, concluding that his trial was fair. As a result, they upheld the original decision and affirmed his sentence, meaning Jackson must serve a long time in prison. The judges, in concise language, rejected all of Jackson's claims, confirming that he did not prove that any errors affected the fairness of his trial or the severity of his sentence, leading to the final ruling.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1099

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-2018-158

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-158, Nathan Simmons appealed his conviction for accessory to first degree murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Nathan Simmons was found guilty after a jury trial held in Tulsa County. He was charged with being an accessory to first degree murder, which means he helped someone commit that crime, and for robbery with a dangerous weapon, which means he was involved in taking something with a weapon. The jury gave him a tough sentence: 36 years for being an accessory, 10 years for the first robbery, and 17 years for the second robbery. All the sentences were to be served one after the other. Simmons had two main arguments for his appeal. First, he said that the prosecutor made a mistake during the closing argument that took away his chance for a fair trial. He believed the prosecutor suggested that he would not serve the full amount of time for his first conviction and this made the jury decide to give him longer sentences. However, the court found that there was no significant error in what the prosecutor said during the trial that would change the outcome. Second, Simmons claimed that his lawyer did not do a good job because they did not object to what the prosecutor said. The court reviewed this claim carefully. Using a standard that looks at whether the lawyer's actions were truly wrong and if they affected the trial’s outcome, the court decided that Simmons did not have a strong case. Ultimately, the court kept the original sentence and decision made by the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2018-158

C-2018-685

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ORIE DANIEL HILL,** **Petitioner,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-685** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: **Background:** Orie Daniel Hill, Petitioner, entered a blind plea of nolo contendere to multiple charges including: first-degree rape (victim under age fourteen), rape by instrumentation, lewd or indecent acts to a child under sixteen, and child sexual abuse. The trial court sentenced him to thirty years imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently and mandated three years of post-imprisonment supervision. Hill later filed a motion to withdraw his plea, claiming it was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. **Issues Raised:** 1. The trial court abused its discretion in denying Hill's motion to withdraw his plea; 2. Hill was denied effective assistance of counsel. **Facts:** The case involved allegations against Hill related to inappropriate sexual behavior towards an 8-year-old girl, A.H. The investigation included statements from the victim and forensic evidence, including DNA linking Hill to the offenses. **Analysis:** The court's review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently, whether the sentence was excessive, and whether counsel was effective. The burden is on Hill to demonstrate that his counsel was ineffective or that he did not fully understand the plea agreement. 1. **Proposition One:** The court concluded that Hill knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his plea. He was informed of his rights and the potential consequences. Despite Hill's claim of feeling pressure and receiving poor legal advice, the court found no evidence supporting these assertions. 2. **Proposition Two:** Hill’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel did not meet the standard established in Strickland v. Washington, which requires showing both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. The court ruled that counsel’s advice was sound and appropriately reflected the realities of the situation, including the potential for harsher sentences if the case went to trial. **Conclusion:** The petition for a writ of certiorari is DENIED, and the judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. **MANDATE:** Ordered issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES:** - **For Appellant:** David R. Slane; Nicollette Brandt - **For the State:** Chris Anderson, Assistant District Attorney **OPINION BY:** Lewis, P.J. **Concur:** Kuehn, V.P.J.; Lumpkin, J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-685_1734175737.pdf)

Continue ReadingC-2018-685

F-2018-289

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-289, Anthony Douglass Crisel, Jr., appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Anthony Douglass Crisel, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for engaging in inappropriate conduct with a child. The jury decided that he should spend six years in prison, and he has to serve 85% of that time before he can ask for parole. Crisel claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly during the trial, which he believed went against his rights. He said his attorney made mistakes in three important areas: not opposing a witness’s testimony, not bringing in a witness who was related to the victim, and not challenging the qualifications of an expert witness who testified against him. The court looked closely at these claims and the complete record of what happened during the trial. They explained that to show his lawyer was ineffective, Crisel needed to prove that his lawyer didn’t do their job well and that this affected the outcome of the case. The judges noted that there is a strong assumption that a lawyer’s actions are based on good judgment. For the first claim, Crisel argued his lawyer should have stopped a witness from talking about some old accusations against him. However, the court found that the information the witness shared was already given to the jury through other evidence. Therefore, the lawyer's choice to not object was a reasonable decision. For the second claim, Crisel wanted his brother to testify but did not show how having his brother's testimony would have helped him win the case. The court stated that the lawyer's decision to not call the brother was likely a strategic choice and they won’t question that. Lastly, regarding the expert witness, the court found that the lawyer did question the qualifications of this expert, and since many lawyers might handle this differently, having a different strategy does not necessarily mean the lawyer did a bad job. After reviewing everything, the court concluded that Crisel’s lawyer did not act ineffectively. The judges affirmed the decision of the lower court, and the request for more evidence or hearing on this issue was denied.

Continue ReadingF-2018-289

J-2019-113

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** --- **A.W.,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **The State of Oklahoma,** **Appellee.** **No. J-2019-112** --- **I.F.,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **The State of Oklahoma,** **Appellee.** **No. J-2019-113** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** The Appellants, A.W. and I.F., appeal from an order by Honorable Patrick Pickerill, Associate District Judge, adjudicating them delinquent for participating in a conspiracy to perform an act of violence in Case Nos. JDL-2018-3 and JDL-2018-4 in Pawnee County. The appeals were consolidated for oral argument, with both Appellants asserting three propositions of error. ### FACTS The Appellants were charged as juveniles under 21 O.S.2011, § 1378(A) for planning a school shooting at Pawnee High School on August 7, 2018. A bench trial took place on February 4, 2019. The State's key witnesses included: 1. **D.C.**: A classmate who testified about A.W.'s possession of firearms and I.F. discussing threats made to a girl over social media. 2. **Wesley Clymer**: Chief of Police who reported the threats received through a tip. 3. **Chad Colclazier**: Deputy who testified about interviews with the Appellants and evidence collected, including social media communications and pictures of firearms. 4. **Jimmy Meeks**: Another Deputy who recounted the search of A.W.'s home, where firearms were seized. Judge Pickerill found that Appellants had communicated about a school shooting, and their actions constituted an overt act necessary to establish a conspiracy. Thus, both were adjudicated delinquent. ### PROPOSITIONS OF ERROR 1. **Proposition I**: **Sufficiency of Evidence** Appellants argued the evidence was insufficient for a conviction. The appellate court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the trial court's findings beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. **Proposition II**: **Hearsay Statements** Appellants claimed the court erred by allowing purported hearsay statements from one to be used against the other in their joint trial. The argument was unsuccessful as the trial was a bench trial, and there was sufficient evidence independent of the hearsay claims. 3. **Proposition III**: **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel** The Appellants asserted their counsel failed to utilize evidence suggesting the incident was a joke rather than a threat. The court noted that no strong evidence was presented to demonstrate that a different defense would have altered the trial's outcome. ### DECISION This Court affirms the orders of the District Court, finding adequate support for the adjudicated delinquency of both Appellants. ### APPEARANCES - **Counsel for Appellant A.W.** Royce A. Hobbs Attorney at Law 801 S. Main St., P.O. Box 1455 Edmond, OK 73013 - **Counsel for Appellant I.F.** Cheryl A. Ramsey Attorney at Law 801 S. Main St., P.O. Box 1206 Edmond, OK 73013 - **Counsel for the State** Jeff Mixon Assistant District Attorney Pawnee County Courthouse, Room 301 Pawnee, OK 74058 **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** *Concur: LEWIS, P. J., KUEHN, V. P. J., HUDSON, J., ROWLAND, J.* --- **Click Here To Download PDF** [PDF Link](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-113_1734446783.pdf)

Continue ReadingJ-2019-113

F-2017-1285

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1285, Isaac Avila appealed his conviction for multiple counts of kidnapping, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Isaac Avila was found guilty by a jury for kidnapping his estranged wife and his own children, along with possessing a firearm during these events and resisting an officer. The jury gave him various sentences, including a total of 50 years in prison for the kidnappings and other convictions. Avila argued that his convictions for kidnapping his children were not valid since he believed he had the right to be with them as their parent. He also claimed there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him for these crimes. The court examined the law and the evidence. They found that, while parents do have rights, Avila acted in a way that was not allowed by law when he took his children. The court also decided that the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions, meaning it was strong enough for a reasonable person to believe he was guilty. Avila further argued that the jury should have been told about the defense of consent, which is when someone allows an action to happen, and that his lawyer didn’t do a good job helping him. However, the court ruled that the trial instructions were adequate and that his lawyer's performance did not harm his case. Lastly, Avila thought his sentences were too harsh. The court agreed that, while they were serious, they were reasonable given the facts of the case. Overall, the court upheld Avila's convictions and sentences, deciding that he had received a fair trial and that the evidence against him was strong enough to support the jury's decisions.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1285

F-2017-1038

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1038, Zachary Craig Anderson appealed his conviction for Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Zachary Craig Anderson was found guilty after a trial for neglecting a child, which is against the law. The judge gave him a sentence of 20 years in prison but also gave him credit for the time he had already served. Anderson did not agree with his conviction and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to review the decision made in his original trial. Anderson claimed that his lawyer did not help him effectively by not challenging the statements he made to the police. He argued that his lawyer should have questioned whether those statements could be used against him in court because he was not read his rights, which are important for protecting people when they are being questioned by police. These rights are known as Miranda rights, and they are designed to help ensure that people are not forced to speak without understanding their rights. In the appeal, the court looked at whether Anderson's lawyer did a good job or not. To win this argument, Anderson had to show that his lawyer's performance was poor and that this hurt his chances of a fair trial. The court found that Anderson did not show evidence that his lawyer was ineffective. They said that Anderson actually voluntarily talked to the police and did not feel pressured or threatened. Since he cooperated, the court thought there was no reason for the lawyer to challenge his statements to the police. After looking at all the evidence and arguments, the court decided to keep Anderson's conviction and sentence as they were. They also denied his request for a hearing to discuss the effectiveness of his lawyer's help during the trial. In summary, Anderson's appeal did not lead to any changes in his conviction. The court agreed that the statements he made to the police were allowed and that his lawyer’s actions were reasonable in the situation.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1038

RE-2016-929

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2016-1019, the appellant appealed his conviction for home repair fraud and robbery by force of fear. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but required the district court to modify its orders to reflect that the sentences should run concurrently. One judge dissented. Jerry Lynn Clemons pleaded guilty to home repair fraud and robbery in Muskogee County. He was given suspended sentences, meaning he wouldn't go to jail if he followed certain rules, which included reporting to a probation officer and paying fines. However, the state said Clemons didn't follow these rules by not reporting and changing his address without telling his probation officer. This led to a revocation hearing where the judge decided to enforce his suspended sentences. Clemons argued that he wasn't properly informed about the reasons for revoking his sentence. He also raised concerns about not being given enough evidence of his alleged failures, and about a mistake in the length of his punishment for the misdemeanor charge. Ultimately, some of his arguments were accepted, especially regarding sentencing errors, but the court found enough evidence to support the revocation of his sentence based on his failure to report and violating other conditions. The court directed that the modified orders clarify that the sentences were to be served at the same time instead of one after the other. Clemons also claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly, which might have affected his defense. However, the court concluded that Clemons did not prove this claim sufficiently. In summary, while the court agreed to fix some mistakes in his sentencing, it still upheld the decision to revoke his suspended sentences due to the established violations.

Continue ReadingRE-2016-929

RE 2016-1019

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2016-1019, Jerry Lynn Clemons appealed his conviction for Home Repair Fraud and Robbery By Force of Fear. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but remanded the case to the District Court to modify its revocation orders to ensure that the sentences are served concurrently. One judge dissented. Clemons had pleaded guilty to several charges and was given suspended sentences with specific rules to follow. However, he later failed to report to his probation officer and changed his address without notifying them, which led the State to apply for the revocation of his suspended sentences. During the revocation hearing, the judge revoked Clemons' suspended sentences. Clemons appealed the revocation, arguing that he did not receive proper notice of the allegations against him, the State did not provide enough evidence for revocation, and that he was sentenced incorrectly for his misdemeanor charge. The court found that the State did indeed provide enough evidence to revoke the sentences and noted that some charges had already been corrected in an amended ruling regarding the length of his sentence for the misdemeanor. Moreover, the court determined that the revocation orders did not align with the original sentence where counts were meant to be served concurrently. Therefore, they directed the District Court to correct this mistake. In conclusion, while the revocation of Clemons' suspended sentences was largely upheld, the court required modifications to ensure that his sentences would run concurrently as originally intended. This led to a decision that balanced the need for imposed penalties with the requirement for proper procedure.

Continue ReadingRE 2016-1019

F-2016-55

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-55, James Curtis Cox appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Here's a summary of what happened: Cox was tried by a jury and found guilty of two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child. The judge sentenced him to a long time in prison: twenty-five years for the first count and life imprisonment for the second count, along with fines. He had to serve eighty-five percent of his sentences before he could be considered for parole. Cox appealed because he thought several things went wrong during his trial. First, he complained that his lawyer did not do a good job. He also said the trial court made mistakes by not instructing the jury properly about certain evidence and that they considered witness statements that shouldn’t have been allowed. The court reviewed everything his lawyer did and decided that Cox was not able to show that he had suffered because of his lawyer's performance. They ruled that even if his lawyer didn’t object to some evidence or didn’t ask for certain instructions, it did not ruin his chance for a fair trial. The judges also looked at whether the trial court made mistakes about some evidence being used during the trial. They found that while some evidence shouldn’t have been used, it didn’t change the outcome of the trial. However, when it came to sentencing, the judges found a significant problem. The trial court should not have considered certain statements from victims who were not part of the case. They concluded that the judge was influenced by these statements, which were not allowed, while deciding how long Cox should stay in prison. In the end, the judges decided that Cox’s sentences should be changed to run concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time instead of one after the other. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences so Cox would have a slightly lighter sentence to serve compared to what they initially decided. The appeal allowed Cox to get a better outcome in terms of his sentences, even though he still faced serious charges.

Continue ReadingF-2016-55

C 2015-473

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2015-473, Johnny Allen Ross appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) and Possession of a Controlled and Dangerous Substance (Marijuana). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the appeal because Ross was denied effective assistance of counsel during the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC 2015-473

C-2014-373

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-373, Jack Eugene Metzger appealed his conviction for multiple charges including First Degree Burglary, Larceny of an Automobile, Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (second offense), Eluding a Police Officer, Violation of Protective Order, and Driving Without a Driver's License. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Metzger could withdraw his guilty plea for certain counts but denied the request for others. One judge dissented. Metzger entered a guilty plea for several crimes and was sentenced to serve time in prison along with fines. After his plea, he asked to take it back, saying he hadn’t been fully informed. He raised several issues in his appeal, claiming his pleas were not voluntary, the sentences for some charges were illegal, and he didn’t get help from his lawyers when he needed it. The court looked at whether Metzger's pleas were made knowingly and voluntarily. It noted that mistakes were made when explaining the possible punishments for some of the charges. The court decided that while Metzger did understand a lot, there were significant errors in how he was informed about some counts. Since he didn’t receive the correct information on charges related to driving under the influence, eluding police, and violations of protective orders, his plea for those counts was not properly made. Therefore, he was allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas for those specific counts but not for the burglary or larceny charges. In summary, the court allowed Metzger to take back his guilty plea on the counts where he was not informed correctly about the punishment, but it did not agree with his claims regarding other counts.

Continue ReadingC-2014-373

C-2013-730

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2013-730, Mon'tre Brown appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, First Degree Burglary, and Attempted Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and remand the case to the District Court. The dissenting opinion argued against the majority's decision. Mon'tre Brown was given several charges, including serious ones like murder and burglary. He pleaded guilty to all counts in April 2013 but later wanted to change his plea, claiming he didn’t understand what he was doing due to his mental condition. The trial court denied his request, leading to this appeal. During the initial plea hearing, there were concerns about Mon'tre's mental competency because of his low IQ, which was reported as around 65. His attorney was aware of his learning disabilities, but they appeared not to conduct a thorough investigation into his mental health before allowing him to plead guilty. Mon'tre claimed he felt pressured to plead guilty because his counsel had said he couldn’t win the case. At a later hearing, Mon'tre's family and mental health professionals testified that he struggle to understand the legal concepts involved in his case, which raised questions about his ability to make informed decisions. Some of the professionals stated he didn’t have a clear understanding of what his guilty plea meant or the consequences of waiving his right to trial. The court found that the attorney had not adequately assessed Mon'tre's competence or sought further evaluations that could have supported his claim of mental retardation. It decided that his attorney's failure to investigate his mental condition and present sufficient evidence during the plea process was ineffective assistance of counsel. Ultimately, the court believed that there’s a reasonable chance that had adequate evidence of Mon'tre's mental condition been presented early, it may have changed the outcome of his guilty plea. Thus, they ruled in favor of allowing Mon'tre to withdraw his guilty plea and directed for conflict-free counsel to represent him in further proceedings.

Continue ReadingC-2013-730

C-2009-900

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-900, Hooks appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his request for a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One member of the court dissented. Leon Lee Hooks was sentenced to thirty years in prison, but he could have ten years suspended. He decided to plead guilty, but later felt that he did not have the help he needed from his lawyer during the plea process. He filed a motion to change his plea and wanted to show that he was not given a fair defense. The main question was whether Hooks received good help from his attorney when asking to withdraw his guilty plea. The court found that there was a conflict because Hooks' complaints were about the quality of help from his lawyer. The lawyer could not fully defend Hooks and also prove that he did a bad job at the same time. Because of this, the court believed Hooks had a right to a new hearing where he could have a different lawyer who could help him without any conflicts. This was important to ensure he received a fair chance to prove his side of the story. In conclusion, the court decided to allow Hooks to have another chance to explain why he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea with the assistance of a lawyer who did not have a conflict of interest.

Continue ReadingC-2009-900