Discovery Request Archives

RE-2018-249

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CAMERON CLEO GIVENS,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-249** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 16, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Appellant Cameron Cleo Givens appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2003-2422, overseen by Judge Glenn M. Jones. On February 2, 2005, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to multiple counts, including four counts of Rape in the Second Degree and three counts of Forcible Oral Sodomy. He was sentenced to prison terms, with most of the sentences suspended, leading to an effective agreement of concurrent sentences. On May 2, 2017, the State filed an Amended Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence, alleging several violations, including failure to report to his probation officer, non-compliance with the Sex Offender Registration Act, and new crimes committed in two other cases. After the revocation hearing, Judge Jones revoked Appellant's suspended sentence in full. **Proposition I:** Appellant contends he was denied adequate opportunity to request discovery regarding Officer O'Connor's testimony. However, he was given notice about Officer O'Connor's potential testimony and did not establish a right to further discovery. The proposition is deemed meritless. **Proposition II:** Appellant asserts that it was improper to admit and rely on the preliminary hearing transcript from Case No. CF-2016-9187 for the revocation. The standards of due process allow for such admission without requiring proof of a witness's unavailability when the defendant had the chance to confront the witness in prior hearings. His objections are similarly without merit, as the case law indicates that competent evidence supported the revocation independent of the contested transcript. **Conclusion:** A suspended sentence is a grace extended by the court. The State need only prove one violation to justify a full revocation of a suspended sentence. In this case, the trial court's decision was within its discretion and supported by competent evidence. **Decision:** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2003-2422 is **AFFIRMED**. ADDITIONAL NOTES: The opinion was filed by Judge Lumpkin, with concurrence from Presiding Judge Lewis, Vice-Presiding Judge Kuehn, and Judges Hudson and Rowland. **Mandate ordered upon filing.** **Counsel for Appellant:** Katie Samples and Johanna F. Roberts, Assistant Public Defenders, Oklahoma City, OK. **Counsel for Appellee:** Jessica Foster, Assistant District Attorney, and Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK. **For complete judicial proceedings, refer to the downloadable PDF.** [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-249_1734697863.pdf) --- *This document summarizes the judicial opinion concerning the revocation of Cameron Cleo Givens' suspended sentences following probation violations and provides insights on the legal rationale behind the court's decision.*

F-2014-46

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 25, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-46, Bradley appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine base) in the county jail. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the district court but modified Bradley's sentence from thirty years to twenty years. One judge dissented. Bradley was found guilty by a jury in Garvin County. The jury decided his punishment would be thirty years in prison because he had previously committed felonies. The judge in his case sentenced him accordingly and this new sentence would be served at the same time as sentences from other cases he had. Bradley raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that the district court should have allowed him more time to prepare for his trial, but the court did not agree. They believed he did not meet the requirements needed for a continuance. Second, he wanted a new trial because of new evidence, but the court found that the evidence wouldn’t change the trial's outcome. He also claimed that his lawyer did not help him as much as they should have. However, the court found that he could not show how this lack of assistance changed the trial result. Additionally, he argued that the state did not share important information before the trial, but the court ruled that the information was not crucial. Bradley was concerned about comments made by the prosecutor regarding his right to remain silent. The court found no serious mistakes in this regard. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct were also rejected since the comments made were considered harmless in the context of the trial. One key issue was about Bradley's past felony convictions. The state had shown more convictions than were necessary, which the court admitted was a mistake. The court concluded that the jury might have been influenced by the extra information about Bradley's past and decided to lessen his sentence to twenty years, believing this was a fair correction. The judgment of the district court was affirmed, indicating they found no major errors in the trial process that would affect fairness, except for the over-exposure to extraneous felony convictions which led to a reduced sentence. The dissenting judge argued that the error did not greatly affect Bradley's rights and believed the original thirty-year sentence was appropriate.

F-2003-583

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 26, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-583, Ronald Lee King appealed his conviction for Unlawful Delivery of Cocaine Base, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Ronald King was found guilty of delivering a type of illegal drug. The jury decided that he should go to prison for twenty-five years and pay a fine of $30,000. King thought the trial was unfair for several reasons. First, he argued that the evidence, which was the illegal drug, should not have been used in court. He believed there was not enough proof to show that the drug was really connected to him. However, the court thought that the State had enough proof to say that the evidence was properly linked to King. Second, King said he should have been able to see notes from a police officer who helped in his case. The court found that there was no mistake here because King had everything he needed from the prosecutor's file. Third, King believed his punishment was too harsh and thought the prosecutor said some unfair things during the trial that might have influenced the jury. The court agreed that the sentence was too much in terms of the fine. They lowered the fine from $30,000 to $10,000 but kept the prison sentence the same. In the end, King's prison sentence stands, but the amount he has to pay was reduced.