Discovery

F-2018-814

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. F-2018-814** **MELINDA GAYLE HENRY,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Appellant, Melinda Gayle Henry, was convicted by jury of Embezzlement, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 1451, in the District Court of Nowata County Case Number CF-2016-71. The jury recommended a punishment of five years imprisonment and a fine of $10,000.00, which the trial court imposed. Appellant now appeals this judgment and sentence. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Appellant contends trial counsel was ineffective for failing to secure necessary discovery. 2. **Failure to Request Continuance:** Appellant also asserts counsel was ineffective for not seeking a continuance for trial. 3. **Plain Error:** Lastly, Appellant claims the trial court committed plain error by proceeding to trial with unprepared counsel. **Analysis:** **Propositions One and Two (Ineffective Assistance of Counsel):** Under the Strickland v. Washington framework, Appellant must show (1) that counsel's performance was deficient and (2) that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. There is a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within a range of reasonable professional assistance. In Proposition One, Appellant argues that her counsel did not obtain critical records from the victim, The Woodshed convenience store, potentially impacting her defense. Counsel did request the records but believed they were destroyed. The trial court found that the State had offered access to the records, which the defense did not utilize. Appellant's assertion lacks evidence that obtaining these records would have changed the outcome of her trial; thus, this claim is speculative and fails to demonstrate prejudice. In Proposition Two, Appellant claims counsel was ineffective for not requesting a continuance due to the lack of records. However, the trial court's history with the case and previous findings suggested a request for a continuance would have been denied. Therefore, counsel would not be ineffective for abandoning a baseless motion. **Proposition Three (Plain Error):** Appellant's final claim of plain error regarding the trial being held without sufficient preparation fails under Rule 3.5(A)(5) of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which requires specific citations to the record. This assertion is superficial and unsubstantiated, leading to its waiver from appellate review. **Decision:** The judgment and sentence are **AFFIRMED**. **Mandate Ordered.** --- **APPEARANCES:** **AT TRIAL:** - **Mark Kane, Counsel for Appellant** - **Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma; Kevin Buchanan, Assistant District Attorney for the State** **ON APPEAL:** - **Kevin D. Adams, Counsel for Appellant** - **Katherine R. Morelli, Assistant Attorney General for the State** **OPINION BY:** **LUMPKIN, J.** **LEWIS, P.J., KUEHN, V.P.J., HUDSON, J., ROWLAND, J.:** Concur in Result [Download Full Opinion PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-814_1735213396.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-814

RE-2018-357

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CASE NO. RE-2018-357** **JAMES MONROE JONES, Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** James Monroe Jones (Appellant) appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290, and CF-2013-6519, adjudicated by the Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge, in the District Court of Oklahoma County. On June 16, 2010, Appellant pled guilty in Cases CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, and CF-2010-290, receiving concurrent sentences with significant portions suspended. Specifically, in CF-2008-7440, he was convicted of two counts of Concealing Stolen Property and sentenced to fifteen years on each count, with the first five years served. Similar sentences were imposed for offenses stemming from the other cases. On May 1, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated nolo contendere plea in CF-2013-6519 for an amended count of Concealing Stolen Property, resulting in a ten-year sentence with the first year served. On August 26, 2016, the State filed applications to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences due to reported violations, including failure to report, change of address, and new criminal activity related to Domestic Assault and Battery. Enhanced allegations were added on March 7, 2018, encompassing additional crimes attributed to Appellant. A hearing was conducted on April 2, 2018. Appellant's counsel objected to the State's evidence, citing inadequate discovery. The trial court, however, noted Appellant had received relevant documents previously, and dismissed the objections after reviewing the evidence. Judge Henderson ultimately found Appellant had violated his probation through specific new criminal conduct and revoked his suspended sentences in full. Appellant presents two propositions of error on appeal: **PROPOSITION I:** The trial court violated Jones's right to due process and a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II § 7 of the Oklahoma State Constitution. **PROPOSITION II:** Defense counsel failed to prepare adequately for trial, resulting in ineffective assistance of counsel. **ANALYSIS** In addressing Proposition I, Appellant contends that the overruling of his objections regarding discovery violations deprived him of due process. It is established that defendants have minimal due process rights in revocation hearings, including evidence disclosure. However, since Appellant’s counsel did not request discovery prior to the hearing, the burden falls on them for preparation. The trial court did not deny Appellant the opportunity to defend—therefore, Proposition I is denied. Regarding Proposition II, Appellant asserts his counsel's ineffectiveness based on a lack of preparedness stemming from unrequested discovery. The Strickland standard evaluates ineffective assistance claims through performance deficiency and resultant prejudice. Appellant has not substantiated claims that better-prepared counsel would have altered the outcome, as evidence showed several violations were confirmed. Thus, Proposition II is also denied. **DECISION** The order from the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290, and CF-2013-6519 is **AFFIRMED**. --- **APPEARANCES:** **AT TRIAL** Katie Samples, Assistant Public Defender Marva A. Banks, Assistant Public Defender **ON APPEAL** David Nichols, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Attorney General Keeley L. Miller, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. **[Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-357_1734695459.pdf)**

Continue ReadingRE-2018-357

F-2009-528

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-528, Jimmy Lee Baker appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With A Dangerous Weapon After Two Or More Felony Convictions and Malicious Injury To Property. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Jimmy Lee Baker was found guilty by a jury of two charges. The first charge was about hurting someone with a dangerous weapon after having two or more previous felony convictions. The second charge was related to damaging someone else's property. The jury decided Baker should serve life in prison for the first charge and for the second charge, they gave him a fine but did not suggest a specific punishment. Baker argued several points during his appeal which he believed were unfair to him. Firstly, he claimed he did not get a fair trial because the state did not share important information about the main witness against him. This witness had a past with drugs and a criminal record, which could have shown that he had reasons to lie. Baker’s defense lawyer also did not use this information to help his case. Secondly, Baker felt that his lawyer did not do a good job during the sentencing part of the trial, which led to a harsher punishment than necessary. He thought the lawyer should have done more to defend him. Thirdly, Baker argued that the judge did not explain what counted as a dangerous weapon or give the jury the option of deciding on a lesser charge of simple assault and battery. He believed his lawyer should have asked the judge for these explanations. Lastly, Baker said it was wrong for the court to allow testimony about injuries to someone else that was not related to his charges. He believed this made the jury think badly of him for things he did not do. After reviewing the case, the court found that the state failed to provide Baker with evidence that could have helped his defense, specifically information about the witness that could show bias or dishonesty. Because this information was important and could have changed the outcome of the trial, the court decided to reverse Baker’s conviction and grant him a new trial. Since the court was reversing the conviction based on this issue, they did not need to look at the other arguments Baker made.

Continue ReadingF-2009-528

F 2004-577

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-577, Marion Lewis appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Forcible Oral Sodomy, and Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Mr. Lewis was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County for serious crimes against a child. The jury decided that he should serve life in prison without parole for the majority of the counts and 20 years for one count. He then appealed this decision, raising three main problems he believed were wrong in his trial. First, he argued that he wasn't properly warned about the risks of representing himself in court, which meant he didn't fully understand what he was giving up by choosing to do so. This was important because it related to his rights as a citizen, protected under the Sixth Amendment. Second, he claimed that the trial court didn't look carefully at whether he was capable of standing trial. He thought there were signs that suggested he wasn't mentally fit for the trial, which might have violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Third, he complained that the trial court wouldn't allow him to delay the trial, which prevented him from calling witnesses and putting forth a strong defense. He believed this decision also violated his rights. The court noted that Mr. Lewis had been asking to represent himself for a long time before the trial. However, he only received permission to do so a few days before his trial began. The trial court denied his request for more time to prepare and to gather witnesses that he wanted to bring to help his case. The judges noted that having enough time to prepare is important for someone defending themselves in court, especially when they have only just been allowed to do so. The court found that denying him more time was unfair and hurt his chances for a fair trial. As a result, the court agreed that his right to present a defense had been violated when the trial court wouldn’t allow a continuance. This led them to reverse his convictions and order a new trial, meaning he would have another chance to fight the accusations against him. The other issues he raised about warnings and competency were not necessary to discuss because they were overshadowed by the first issue. In conclusion, the court decided that Mr. Lewis's convictions were unfair, and he will get a chance to have a new trial. One judge disagreed with this outcome, feeling that the trial court made the right decision in denying a continuance and that Mr. Lewis had not shown how he was harmed by that decision.

Continue ReadingF 2004-577

F-2000-1308

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1308, Recil Gravitt appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Maintaining a Dwelling for Drugs, and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in the Presence of a Minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions, but modified the fine on Count I to $10,000. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2000-1308