Delinquency Archives - OCCA Opinions

RE-2017-706

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 8, 2018
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **THOMAS LYNN SPANN,** Appellant, **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. No. RE-2017-706 **FILED ** IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOV 8 2018 JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** In the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CF-2012-436A, Appellant, while represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty to the offense of Cruelty to Animals. On October 10, 2013, in accordance with a plea agreement, the Honorable Joe H. Enos, District Judge, sentenced Appellant to a $1,000.00 fine and to five (5) years imprisonment, with all but the first one (1) year of that term conditionally suspended under written rules of probation. On October 20, 2016, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence. The Motion alleged Appellant had violated his probation by: 1. Failing to provide verification of employment; 2. Being in $920.00 in arrears on supervision fees due to the Department of Corrections; 3. Failing to pay restitution of $152.44; 4. Failing to pay $75.00 per month beginning October 2015 towards costs, fines, and fees, resulting in arrears of $675.00. On November 10, 2016, the parties appeared before the Honorable Ken Graham, District Judge, regarding the Motion to Revoke. While represented by counsel, Appellant stipulated to the probation violations contained in that Motion. Further revocation proceedings regarding punishment were postponed for two months, allowing Appellant time to comply with his probation requirements. This period was later expanded twice, eventually leading to a hearing on June 22, 2017. At this June 22nd hearing, Appellant again appeared with counsel. The probation officer provided a Supplemental Report indicating that Appellant remained significantly delinquent in fulfilling payment obligations, although he had paid off the restitution. Additionally, the report noted that Appellant had not verified employment nor demonstrated compliance with job search requirements. There were also reports of unsigned traffic citations and evidence of an altered appointment slip presented by Appellant. After considering testimonies and evidence regarding Appellant's compliance, Judge Graham revoked Appellant's suspended sentence in full. Appellant now appeals that final order of revocation, asserting that the court denied due process and abused its discretion by revoking the remaining suspended sentence based on extra-application allegations. After careful review, we find no error warranting reversal. Appellant had stipulated to the probation violations, providing the State with the necessary grounds to prove the allegations. Consequently, the trial court had the authority to revoke the suspended sentence. Appellant failed to demonstrate significant compliance with probation requirements over an extended period, despite having opportunities to rectify the situation. The revocation order is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2018), MANDATE IS ORDERED ISSUED on the filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** **R. L. WILLIAMS** P.O. BOX 2095 LAWTON, OKLAHOMA 73502 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT **GREG STEWARD** ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY STEPHENS COUNTY COURTHOUSE 101 SOUTH 11TH STREET DUNCAN, OKLAHOMA 73533 ATTORNEY FOR STATE OF OKLA. --- **OPINION BY: HUDSON, J.** **LUMPKIN, P.J.: CONCUR** **LEWIS, V.P.J.: CONCUR** **KUEHN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** --- **KUEHN, JUDGE, CONCURRING IN RESULT:** I concur in the result. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in full. Appellant stipulated to the Application to Revoke, making only the issue before the trial court whether to revoke the suspended sentence in part or in full. While Appellant used this opportunity to pay restitution, he failed to comply with the rest of the conditions. The trial court reasonably considered Appellant's interim behavior, given the evidence of continued violations, leading to the conclusion to revoke. The failure to make a determination regarding Appellant’s ability to pay was error, but not dispositive as Appellant had already stipulated to the original allegations. The trial court properly considered the evidence presented in mitigation when deciding the final revocation of the sentence.

J-2014-326

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 31, 2014
Post category:J

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

J-2001-57

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 2, 2001
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2001-57, J.L.H. appealed her conviction for Public Drunk. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the adjudication of delinquency and disposition of the District Court while modifying the victim compensation assessment. One judge dissented. J.L.H. was found delinquent because she did something that, if she were an adult, would be considered being publicly drunk. This happened in the District Court of Grady County. After the court made its decision, J.L.H. was placed under the care of the Office of Juvenile Affairs and was to live with her grandmother. J.L.H. had three main reasons for her appeal. First, she believed that the court's decision did not match the evidence presented and the court's own conclusions. Second, she thought it was wrong that her treatment plan was not filed on time, as the rule says it should be done in thirty days. Third, she argued that the court should not have made her pay a victim compensation fee because it did not apply to her case. After looking closely at the records, the court found that there was enough proof during the hearing to support the decision made about J.L.H. They decided that the way she was placed with her grandmother was in her best interest and fit with the law's requirements. The court also determined that not filing the treatment plan on time did not harm J.L.H. However, the court agreed with J.L.H. on the issue of the victim compensation fee. They said that the court could not charge her this fee because there was no evidence to support it in her case. So, they decided to cancel the $25 fee. Overall, the court upheld the main decision about J.L.H.'s delinquency and how she would be treated, but they removed the charge for the victim compensation fee.

J 2000-690

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 11, 2001
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2000-690, M.G. appealed his conviction for disturbing a meeting and assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the adjudication of delinquency and remand the case to the trial court for a new hearing. One justice dissented. The case began when M.G. was found delinquent after a jury trial held in Grady County. The judge decided that M.G. had committed acts that could be considered disturbing a meeting and assault and battery. After the trial, M.G. appealed the decision, raising multiple arguments as to why the finding should be overturned. One of the main arguments was that M.G.'s mother did not receive proper notice of the trial, which meant the court did not have the right to make a decision about M.G. without her being informed. The court found this point very important. It decided that because the mother wasn’t served with the petition, the trial process was not valid. M.G. also argued that expanding the definition of disturbing a meeting to include disruptions in school classes made the law unclear and too broad. He believed this was unfair. Moreover, he claimed there wasn’t enough evidence to support the allegations of assault and battery or disturbing the peace. The State of Oklahoma, the other party in this case, did not respond to M.G.’s arguments during the appeal. Because of the lack of reply from the State, the court decided to review the case based solely on M.G.'s points. After looking at all the information provided, the court stressed the significance of proper notice to the parents in these types of cases. They referred to a previous case to back up their reason for reversing M.G.’s adjudication. In the end, the court instructed that a new hearing must take place where all proper notices are given to the required parties. Ultimately, the court's decision meant that M.G. would have another chance to address the accusations against him in a lawful manner, ensuring that his rights and his family’s rights were properly respected.