In OCCA case No. F-2019-420, Donta Keith Davis appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon and assault with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate Davis's judgment and sentence, meaning he would no longer be convicted of the crimes he was charged with. The court also instructed for the case to be dismissed. One judge dissented from the majority opinion.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOHNNY EARL JONES,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-805** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAN - 9 2020** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Appellant, Johnny Earl Jones, was convicted by jury of Child Neglect, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(C), in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case Number CF-2017-1887. The jury recommended a sentence of forty years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine, which the trial court imposed. Jones appealed from this judgment and sentence. 1. **Trial by Ambush:** Appellant contends that he was subjected to trial by ambush when the State called Corporal Eric Leverington as a witness without prior endorsement. However, the defense did not seek a continuance despite this late endorsement, and defense counsel had access to relevant materials, including Leverington's cell phone extraction report. Thus, the trial court’s decision to allow Leverington to testify was not an abuse of discretion, and appellant was not prejudiced. 2. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Appellant claims counsel was ineffective for opening the door to the cell phone evidence. The record indicates that defense counsel reviewed the report and made a strategic decision to call Leverington as a witness, which provided support for part of Appellant's narrative. The evidence against Appellant was substantial, and thus he could not demonstrate that but for counsel’s actions, the outcome would have been different. 3. **Admissibility of In-Life Photograph:** Appellant argues that a photograph of K.O. while alive was admitted in error. He did not object at trial, leading to a plain error review. The photograph was relevant to the defense that Appellant did not recognize the need for medical attention, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect. 4. **Prosecutorial Misconduct:** Appellant claims instances of prosecutorial misconduct, including misstatements regarding Appellant seeing Smith beat K.O. and regarding K.O.'s suffering. The evidence supports that Appellant knew of the abuse; thus, these claims did not deprive him of a fair trial. 5. **Admission of Pen Pack:** Lastly, Appellant characterizes prejudicial details in his previous offenses as grounds for error. However, under established law, pen packs are generally admissible to prove prior convictions, making their inclusion appropriate. **DECISION:** The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. **OPINION BY:** **LUMPKIN, J.** **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur in Results **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur in Results **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur in Results **KUEHN, V.P.J., CONCURRING IN RESULT:** While I agree with the affirmation of Appellant's conviction and sentence, I express concern regarding the prosecutor’s late endorsement of a witness which, while not resulting in prejudice, strays close to trial by ambush. I caution against such practices that may circumvent fair trial standards. [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-805_1735213973.pdf)
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1140, Michael Harold Denham appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Michael Harold Denham was found guilty of a crime related to domestic abuse. The jury, which is a group of people that decides if someone is guilty or not, recommended that he be sentenced to three years in prison. The judge who oversaw the trial followed this recommendation and also ordered that Denham pay some fees and receive credit for the time he had already spent in jail before the trial. Denham's appeal claimed that several mistakes had occurred during his trial. He listed five main points where he believed the trial had not been fair: 1. The trial court allowed the state to have an expert witness testify about domestic abuse. Denham argued that this was a mistake. 2. He said that one of the witnesses who testified about domestic violence was not properly qualified to do so. 3. Denham claimed that some evidence was admitted that should not have been according to the rules of evidence. 4. He argued that the court did not let his defense team ask questions about one juror, which meant they could not see if the juror was biased. 5. Finally, he said that all these mistakes happened together and made the whole trial unfair. The court looked closely at Denham's claims and the evidence from the trial. They decided that the court did not make errors that were significant enough to change the outcome of the trial. For the first point about the expert witness, the court ruled that Denham did not show why his defense would have benefited from having his own expert witness. His claim of needing a continuance (more time) to prepare for the trial was not justified because he could not show how it would have helped his case. For the second point, the court decided that the qualifications of the expert witness were acceptable. The judge found that the officer had enough training and experience in domestic violence matters to testify. Regarding the third point, Denham did not follow the right procedure to complain about the late disclosure of the expert witness. As a result, the court found no major violations that would affect the trial's fairness. For the fourth point, the court reviewed how the trial judge handled questions for the jurors. They found that the process was fair because the juror had given no indication beforehand that she would be biased. Lastly, for the fifth point about the overall fairness of the trial, the court did not agree that the combined claims could show any level of unfairness. They found no cumulative error that would merit a different outcome. In conclusion, the court upheld Denham's conviction, deciding that he received a fair trial and that the claims of error did not have enough merit to change the verdict. The appeal was denied, and the conviction was confirmed, meaning Denham would serve his sentence as decided by the jury.
In OCCA case No. S-2011-545, the State of Oklahoma appealed his conviction for evidence suppression. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order. One judge dissented. The case involved the State of Oklahoma appealing a decision made by a special judge in Cleveland County. The State was unhappy with the judge's ruling to suppress evidence, which they felt was unfair. The main reason for the appeal was that the State believed the judge did not have the right to impose punishment on them for what they claimed was a misunderstanding of the Discovery Code. Essentially, they argued that they had not violated any rules regarding the sharing of evidence and information before the trial. The court had to look at whether the judge's decision was reasonable or if it was clearly wrong. The judges found that the special judge had good reason to impose sanctions on the State because it was determined that the State did not follow the proper procedures for sharing evidence. This is known as discovery. The court highlighted that it is very important in criminal cases for both sides to share information so that there are no surprises during the trial. This process helps ensure fairness and allows both sides to prepare adequately. The court explained that there are rules in place for how evidence should be shared and that these rules are crucial to ensuring justice. The district court had determined that the State should have done more to preserve evidence that could have been useful for the defense. Because they did not do this, the special judge decided to impose penalties on the State as a form of punishment for not following the rules. After reviewing the situation, the court found that the special judge acted within his rights in deciding to sanction the State. As a result, the court affirmed the decision made by the district court in Cleveland County. The judges agreed that enforcing these discovery rules is necessary to avoid similar problems in future cases. So, in the end, the court supported the lower court's ruling by stating that the sanctions against the State were appropriate. This decision encourages the State and other prosecutors to comply with the Discovery Code in future cases, ensuring fair trials for everyone involved.
In OCCA case No. S-2011-544, the State of Oklahoma appealed a court's decision where evidence was suppressed in a criminal case. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling. One member of the court did not agree with this decision. The case began when the district court, under the Special Judge, found that the State had not followed the rules about sharing evidence, known as the Discovery Code. The State argued that it had done nothing wrong and claimed that the court should not have punished them for this. They believed the judge’s decision to tell the jury about the supposed violation was also wrong, especially since they didn't act in bad faith. The court examined the arguments from both sides and concluded that the district court did not make a mistake. They believed that the State really did not follow the rules and agreed that it was appropriate to impose penalties for this. The court also explained that they don't usually review jury instructions in these matters. Ultimately, the higher court decided to keep the ruling from the district court, meaning the previous decision to suppress the evidence remained in effect. The ruling was considered important in the context of the legal process. In the end, the reasoning emphasized that having a fair process helps both sides in a case and that knowing the strengths and weaknesses of each other's arguments can make trials go better. Even though some might think the penalties were harsh, the court felt it was essential to make sure that such rules are followed in the future.
In OCCA case No. S-2011-543, the State of Oklahoma appealed its conviction for suppressing evidence against DAREN LEVI GEYER. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's order. The judges noted that the trial court was correct in determining that the State had violated rules regarding evidence disclosure and imposed sanctions on the State for not following these rules. The court found that the State's failures warranted these sanctions, and the imposition of a jury instruction against the State was also upheld. One judge dissented, emphasizing the importance of fair play in the discovery process during trials.
In OCCA case No. PR-99-1326, the Petitioners appealed their conviction for murder and shooting with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the mistrial declared by the judge was not justified and therefore double jeopardy bars the State from retrying the Petitioners. One judge dissented. The case began when the Petitioners were charged with serious offenses. The first trial ended in a mistrial, which the judge declared after issues arose during a witness's cross-examination. The attorneys raised concerns about whether the prosecution had failed to provide evidence that could help the defense. This evidence related to the witness's background and credibility. The judge felt that the defense attorney’s questions may have harmed the trial, which led him to call for a mistrial. However, after reviewing the trial's events, the court found that there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial. In other words, the situation did not require such an extreme remedy. The court felt that a warning could have been sufficient to address any perceived problems before resorting to declaring a mistrial. Ultimately, the review concluded that the judge made errors in declaring the mistrial and, as a result, the defendants could not be tried again for these charges. The opinion emphasized that once a jury is discharged without sufficient reason, it can lead to violating the defendants' rights under the double jeopardy clause, which prevents someone from being tried for the same crime twice.