District Attorney

RE-2021-1290

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2021-1290, Vernon Shawn Miller, Jr. appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking Miller's suspended sentences but vacated the part of the order that imposed post-imprisonment supervision. One member of the court dissented. Vernon Shawn Miller, Jr. had a serious legal history. He pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including kidnapping and domestic assault, and was given a sentence but had part of it suspended after he completed a special drug program. However, in August 2021, the State filed a motion to revoke his suspended sentence because he broke the rules of his probation, which included failing to complete a required assessment and getting arrested for a new crime. The trial court held a hearing and decided to revoke all of Miller's suspended sentence. Miller argued against this decision, claiming it violated the rules because he should not serve more time than the sentence he was given. The court explained during the hearing that it intended to revoke all of the suspended time left on his sentence. Miller raised several arguments during his appeal. He thought the sentence should not exceed what he had left to serve and believed that the facts used to revoke his sentence came from an earlier trial rather than the hearing itself. Miller also said he did not get good help from his lawyer during the process. The court reviewed Miller's arguments closely. It confirmed that the judge's decision to revoke the entire suspended sentence was valid and within their rights. They found no specific errors in what the trial court did, except for the imposition of post-imprisonment supervision, which should not have been added since it was not part of the original sentence. In the end, the court upheld the revocation of Miller's suspended sentence but removed the part about post-imprisonment supervision, meaning Miller had to serve the time his sentence required without additional conditions.

Continue ReadingRE-2021-1290

F-2020-510

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2020-510, Dewayne Shomo appealed his conviction for Possession of a Firearm, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented. Dewayne Shomo was found guilty during a non-jury trial and sentenced to eighteen months in prison. He argued that the state did not have the right to prosecute him because he is a member of the Choctaw Nation and the alleged crime happened within the Choctaw Reservation. The case's outcome was based on a ruling made in another case, McGirt v. Oklahoma, which established that certain crimes committed by or against Indians within Indian territory must be prosecuted in federal court, not state court. After reviewing his case, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed that Shomo’s crime was indeed committed within the boundaries of the Choctaw Nation, and he meets the criteria to be regarded as an Indian for jurisdiction purposes. As the state did not have the authority to prosecute him for this crime, his conviction was deemed invalid, and thus, the court instructed the lower court to dismiss the case against him.

Continue ReadingF-2020-510

F-2018-1268

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-1268, Stewart Wayne Coffman appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented. Coffman was found guilty of First Degree Manslaughter, and the judge sentenced him to forty years in prison. He appealed his conviction, claiming that the court did not have the right to try him because the victim, Joe Battiest, Jr., was a member of the Choctaw Nation and the crime took place in Indian Country. The case was affected by a past ruling, McGirt v. Oklahoma, which stated that crimes on certain Native American lands fall under federal jurisdiction. The appellate court ordered a hearing to investigate Coffman's claims about the victim’s status and the crime's location. During this hearing, experts confirmed that Battiest had a majority of Indian blood and was recognized by the Choctaw Nation. The crime took place at a specific address that was within the historical boundaries of the Choctaw Nation. The district court found no evidence that Congress had ever removed those boundaries. After reviewing the evidence, the court decided that Coffman's case should be dismissed because Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him, in line with the earlier McGirt decision. Therefore, the court reversed the judgments and sentences of the lower court, ordering the case dismissed.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1268

F-2020-54

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2020-54, Floyd Joseph Ball, Jr. appealed his conviction for kidnapping, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, aggravated assault and battery, and disrupting an emergency telephone call. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand the case to the District Court of McClain County with instructions to dismiss the case. Ball's appeal raised several issues, particularly regarding the state's jurisdiction to prosecute him. He argued that he is an Indian under federal law and that the crimes occurred in Indian Country. The court recognized that these issues required more investigation. They sent the case back to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing to clarify whether Ball was indeed an Indian and whether the crimes took place in Indian Country. Both sides later agreed on a stipulation about the facts related to these questions. The District Court found that Ball had enough Indian blood and was recognized as an Indian by his tribe. It also determined that the crime happened on a reservation, meaning the State of Oklahoma had no jurisdiction to prosecute him for these crimes. The court ruled that Ball had proven his status and the location of the crimes, leading to the decision that the state could not prosecute him in this situation. The court decided that because of this finding, it did not need to address other claims raised by Ball and sent the case back to the lower court to dismiss it. Overall, the court recognized that Ball's rights under federal law regarding his Indian status and the location of the crime played a significant role in the outcome of the appeal.

Continue ReadingF-2020-54

F-2016-1030

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-1030, David Deval Martin appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for dismissal. No one dissented. David Deval Martin was found guilty of First Degree Murder after a jury trial in McIntosh County. The judge sentenced him to life in prison without the chance of parole. Martin argued that the court did not have the authority to try him because he is a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and the crime occurred on tribal land. The court looked at an important case called McGirt v. Oklahoma, which helped answer Martin’s questions about his status as an Indian and where the crime took place. They sent the case back to the local court for a closer look. There, it was determined through evidence that Martin is a member of the Creek Nation with some Indian blood, and the crime occurred within the Creek Nation’s territory. After the local court reviewed the evidence and found in favor of Martin, both sides agreed on important facts about his identity and where the crime occurred. Because of this, the higher court concluded that the state of Oklahoma did not have the right to prosecute Martin under these circumstances. As a result, they overturned the conviction and told the lower court to dismiss the charges against him.

Continue ReadingF-2016-1030

F-2017-1245

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1245, Jeffery Arch Jones appealed his conviction for five counts of Sexual Abuse-Child Under 12. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him because he is a member of the Cherokee Nation, and the crimes occurred within the boundaries of the Creek Reservation. The conviction and sentence were reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1245

F-2017-336

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-336, Bea Ann Epperson appealed her conviction for two counts of Embezzlement of Building Trust. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her convictions and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Bea Ann Epperson was found guilty in a trial without a jury for embezzling money related to a building trust. She was sentenced to five years in prison for each count, but her sentences were suspended, meaning she wouldn’t serve time unless she violated certain conditions. Epperson believed that the court did not have the right to try her case because she is a member of the Cherokee Nation, and the victims might be part of the Creek Nation, with the crimes happening on Creek Reservation land. This argument was connected to a U.S. Supreme Court decision called McGirt v. Oklahoma, which deals with whether certain areas are considered Indian Country. The questions involved were Epperson's Indian status, the status of the victims, and the location of the crimes. Because these questions needed more fact-finding, the case was sent back to the District Court. At a hearing to gather more details, it was determined that Epperson had some Indian blood (3/64th degree) and was recognized as a member of the Cherokee Nation. It was also confirmed that the crimes took place within the boundaries of the Creek Reservation. The court accepted these agreements made by both sides regarding what the evidence would show. In a later brief, the State supported the District Court’s findings, but wanted time to consider whether to file new charges against Epperson. After reviewing everything, the court agreed Epperson had shown she was an Indian and that the crimes happened in Indian Country, thus the State of Oklahoma did not have the right to try her. The court reversed the judgment of Epperson's convictions and sent the case back to be dismissed, meaning she wouldn't face charges for the embezzlement anymore.

Continue ReadingF-2017-336

C-2019-263

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2019-263, Floyd Joseph Ball, Jr. appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree and Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have the right to prosecute Ball because he is considered an Indian under federal law, and the crimes occurred in Indian Country. The judgment and sentence were reversed, and the case was remanded to the District Court with orders to dismiss it. One judge dissented from this decision.

Continue ReadingC-2019-263

F-2017-889

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-889, Joseph Stanley Harjo appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case to the District Court of Muskogee County with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Harjo was convicted in a trial where the jury sentenced him to life imprisonment. He argued that the court did not have the right to try him because he is a member of the Creek Nation, and the crime occurred within the Creek Reservation. This raised important questions about whether he is legally recognized as an Indian and if the crime took place on tribal land. The case was sent back to the District Court for a fact-finding hearing, where it was determined that Harjo is 1/4 Indian blood, a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and that the crime took place within the jurisdiction of the tribe. Both parties agreed on these facts, leading the District Court to conclude that the state did not have the authority to prosecute Harjo. After careful review of the case and the findings from the evidentiary hearing, the court determined that Harjo was indeed an Indian under federal law, and the crime occurred in Indian Country. Therefore, the state had no jurisdiction over the case. The court reversed the judgment and sent the case back to be dismissed.

Continue ReadingF-2017-889

C-2019-489

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2019-489, Taheerah Ayesha Ahmad appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery by means likely to produce death, Child Neglect, and Arson in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to deny her petition for a writ of certiorari and affirmed the District Court's judgment. However, the case was remanded to the District Court to correct errors in the judgment regarding the imposition of costs. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2019-489

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-2019-25

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Filed December 12, 2019** **Conner E. Dover, Petitioner, Case No. C-2019-25** **v.** **The State of Oklahoma, Respondent.** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Conner E. Dover, Petitioner, pled guilty to Count 1, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, in violation of 47 O.S.2011, § 4-402; and Count 2, aggravated attempting to elude a police officer, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 540(A)(B), in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2018-610. The Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, accepted the plea and delayed sentencing pending Petitioner's completion of a Regimented Inmate Discipline program. Judge Elliott later sentenced Petitioner to five (5) years imprisonment for each count, to be served consecutively. Petitioner filed an application to withdraw the plea, which was denied. He now seeks a writ of certiorari, asserting the following proposition of error: The trial court abused its discretion by not allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea when the court did not intend to sentence him in accordance with the plea agreement. Certiorari review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently before a court of competent jurisdiction (Weeks v. State, 2015 OK CR 16, ¶ 11, 362 P.3d 650, 654); whether the sentence is excessive (Whitaker v. State, 2015 OK CR 1, ¶ 9, 341 P.3d 87, 90); whether counsel was constitutionally effective (Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, ¶ 27, 932 P.2d 22, 31); and whether the State has the authority to prosecute the defendant at all (Weeks, 2015 OK CR 16, ¶ 12, 362 P.3d at 654). A valid plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant (North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S. Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)). We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea for an abuse of discretion (Carpenter v. State, 1996 OK CR 56, ¶ 40, 929 P.2d 988, 998), unless it involves a question of statutory or constitutional interpretation, which we review de novo (Weeks, 2015 OK CR 16, ¶ 16, 362 P.3d at 654). We find that Petitioner's plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. Petitioner’s dissatisfaction with the sentences he received does not provide sufficient grounds for withdrawal of a plea (Lozoya, 1996 OK CR 55, ¶ 44, 932 P.2d at 34; Estell v. State, 1988 OK CR 287, ¶ 7, 766 P.2d 1380, 1383). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Petitioner's motion to withdraw the plea. No relief is warranted. **DECISION** The petition for the writ of certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. **APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** ROBIN BRUNO ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER DANNY WHITE 320 ROBERT S. KERR # 611 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT (PLEA & SENTENCING) **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** THOMAS P. HURLEY 320 ROBERT S. KERR # 611 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 (WITHDRAWAL) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT DAN POND ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 320 ROBERT S. KERR # 505 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur in Results **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur For more details, [click here to download the PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2019-25_1733763771.pdf).

Continue ReadingC-2019-25

F 2018-0812

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2018-0812, Cesar Jurado appealed his conviction for various drug-related offenses and weapon possession. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to accelerate Jurado's deferred sentences; he had previously entered guilty pleas to several felony charges. The State had applied to accelerate his deferred sentences based on new serious crimes he was alleged to have committed. Jurado argued that the evidence used to support this decision was based on unreliable testimony from a witness who did not appear in person. He claimed this was an abuse of discretion. The court found that the trial court acted within its rights and that there was enough evidence to support the acceleration of Jurado's sentences. It concluded that Jurado did not prove that there was any improper action taken by the trial court. Therefore, his appeal was denied, and the acceleration of his sentences was upheld. One justice dissented from this opinion.

Continue ReadingF 2018-0812

F 2018-0812

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, the case of Cesar Jurado is summarized as follows: **Background:** Cesar Jurado pled guilty in multiple cases in December 2015, including felonies for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute, among other charges. After completing a Delayed Sentencing Program for Youthful Offenders, his sentences were deferred until June 14, 2026. **Acceleration of Sentences:** In January 2018, the State sought to accelerate Jurado's deferred sentences, claiming he committed new crimes, including Murder in the First Degree and Assault with a Deadly Weapon. Following a hearing in July 2018, Jurado's deferred sentences were accelerated, resulting in life imprisonment on several counts, which were to run concurrently. **Appeal:** Jurado appealed the trial court's decision to accelerate his sentences, arguing that it was an abuse of discretion based on the uncorroborated testimony of an unreliable witness, who did not provide in-person testimony. **Court's Decision:** The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the lower court, finding no abuse of discretion in allowing the State to introduce the transcript of a preliminary hearing as evidence. The court noted that the Appellant's counsel had the opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses during the preliminary hearing. The standard of proof for violations of deferred sentences is a preponderance of the evidence, and the trial court has discretion in such matters. **Conclusion:** The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the acceleration of Jurado's deferred sentences, concluding that the trial court acted within its discretion based on the evidence presented. **Mandate:** The mandate for this decision is to be issued upon the filing of this opinion. **Opinion by:** Judge Hudson, with Judges Lewis and Kuehn concurring, and Judge Rowland recused. For more detailed information, you can download the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-610_1735310684.pdf).

Continue ReadingF 2018-0812

F-2018-411

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-411, Joey Elijo Adames appealed his conviction for Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold his convictions and the order revoking his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when Adames was charged with several serious offenses. After a trial, a jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to a total of 45 years in prison. This included 35 years for the conspiracy charge and 10 years for the gun possession charge, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. Adames had previous felony convictions, which affected his sentences. Furthermore, Adames had prior suspended sentences due to earlier charges, including Domestic Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. The state decided to revoke those suspended sentences after Adames committed the new crimes. During the trial, Adames argued that the prosecutor acted unfairly by making comments that hinted he should have testified, which he did not. He believed this made it hard for him to get a fair trial. However, the court examined Adames' claims. They found that the prosecutor’s comments did not directly force attention to the fact he did not testify and were within the acceptable limits of court arguments. The judges believed the jury was properly instructed to not hold his silence against him, and thus they did not see an error in the trial process. Adames also complained about the sentencing part of the trial, saying the prosecutor made remarks that were inappropriate and could have influenced the jury to give him a harsher sentence. Again, the court found that the comments focused more on his past behavior and did not unfairly sway the jury’s decision. Lastly, about the revocation of Adames' previous suspended sentences, he argued that he should have had a hearing within 20 days after pleading not guilty to the revocation. The court reviewed the record and concluded that Adames had waived his right to that fast hearing when he entered his plea of not guilty. Therefore, the court ruled that since no rule was broken, the revocation of his suspended sentence was valid. In summary, the court found no significant errors in Adames' trial or the revocation order. As a result, his convictions and the revocation of his suspended sentences were upheld, affirming the decisions made by the lower court.

Continue ReadingF-2018-411

F-2018-513

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-513, Bobby Lee Ruppel, Jr. appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and robbery with a weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Ruppel's conviction but vacated the restitution order, meaning a proper determination of the victim's economic loss must take place. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2018-513

F-2018-272

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-272, Lavonte Antonio Johnson appealed his conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of his deferred sentence to 27 years in prison. One judge dissented. Lavonte Johnson entered a guilty plea in 2014, which was followed by a five-year deferred sentence. However, in 2018, the state sought to accelerate this sentence, claiming Johnson had violated probation by possessing a firearm and committing bail jumping. During a traffic stop, police found Johnson could not provide a driver's license and that he had a gun with him. Johnson argued that the police had to give him a Miranda warning before asking about the gun, as he believed it was a custodial interrogation. The court found that because this was a routine traffic stop, the police were not required to issue a Miranda warning. Johnson's statements about the gun were deemed admissible. The court reviewed the decision to accelerate Johnson's sentence and found no abuse of discretion. Therefore, Johnson’s appeal was denied, and the original sentence was upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2018-272

M-2017-1021

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. M-2017-1021** *BYRIN CARR, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.* **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA APR 25 2019 JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** The Appellant, Byrin Carr, appeals from his misdemeanor Judgment and Sentence entered after a jury trial before the Honorable Timothy D. Haworth, Associate District Judge, in Case No. CM-2016-655 in the District Court of Garfield County. Appellant was convicted of Threaten to Perform Act of Violence, and was sentenced to a term of six months in the Garfield County Jail. **PROCEDURAL HISTORY** On June 28, 2016, Appellant was charged with Threaten to Perform Act of Violence, misdemeanor, 21 O.S.2011, § 1378(B), for threatening to kill Garfield County judges and prosecutors. Subsequently, the case was assigned to Judge Haworth who appointed a different District Attorney before the trial proceeded on September 19, 2017. **FACTS** At trial, Brian Dickson, a news photographer for KOCO-TV, testified about an incident on June 27, 2016, where Appellant approached him and his co-worker while they were parked at McDonald's. Appellant made threatening statements about harming local judges and prosecutors, leading to Dickson recording their conversation. The recording included Appellant’s comments about killing judges and district attorneys. After the incident, the news supervisors contacted local law enforcement. Appellant, in his defense, argued that he meant no harm and merely sought to share his grievances about local authorities. His defense included proposed jury instructions regarding subjective intent and political speech, which were denied by the court. **ANALYSIS** **PROPOSITION I:** The court addressed whether the denial of Appellant's requested jury instructions constituted error. The court held that the crime outlined in § 1378(B) does not necessitate proof of the threat being a true and credible threat and is a general intent crime. Therefore, the judge's refusal to give the requested instruction was not an error. **PROPOSITION II:** Appellant contested the jury instructions regarding the term willfully. The court affirmed that proof of general intent suffices under § 1378(B) and that the judge's definitions were proper and aligned with legal requirements. **PROPOSITION III:** Finally, Appellant argued that he was denied the right to present a defense, specifically regarding the characterization of his speech as political. The court reasoned that the threats made by Appellant fell outside the bounds of protected political speech and were not relevant to the presented case. **DECISION** The Appellant’s misdemeanor Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** JAMES L. HANKINS Attorney at Law Edmond, OK **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** BRIAN T. HERMANSON District Attorney, 8TH District Counsel for the State --- **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **CONCURRING:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. *(Refer to the official document for textual fidelity and details of legal references.)*

Continue ReadingM-2017-1021

F-2017-1270

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1270, Bryan James Abner appealed his conviction for several offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the decision to terminate him from drug court and sentence him according to the plea agreement. One judge dissented. Bryan James Abner was involved in multiple criminal cases related to theft, guns, drugs, and burglary. He was given the chance to join a Drug Court program to help him with his drug addiction instead of going straight to prison. However, if he did not follow the rules of the program, he would be sentenced for his crimes. Abner did well in the Drug Court for the first six months, but then he started to have problems. He tested positive for methamphetamine several times, had legal troubles, and missed appointments. The State's attorney asked to terminate him from the Drug Court because of these issues. During the hearing, witnesses testified about Abner's behavior. One officer found drugs on him, and a supervisor explained that Abner had many chances to improve but did not make enough progress. Abner's counselor testified that he had learned from some difficult experiences, including the death of his son, and asked for another chance in the program. The judge decided against Abner, saying that despite what the counselor said, Abner's problems continued. She noted that he had broken the rules of the Drug Court many times and had not responded to the chances he had been given. In summary, the court ruled that Abner needed to be removed from the Drug Court program for not following the rules, and he was sentenced based on his plea agreement. The court found that the evidence supported this decision, and there was no abuse of discretion by the judge.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1270

F-2017-559

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-559, Jonas Jorge Conroy-Perez appealed his conviction for Harboring a Fugitive From Justice. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing. One judge dissented. The case started when Conroy-Perez entered a guilty plea in 2015, which allowed him to avoid immediate penalties but required him to follow certain rules for two years. One of these rules involved paying fees. Later, the state claimed he violated these rules by not only missing payments but also due to new felony charges. In 2017, after a hearing, the judge decided that Conroy-Perez had violated his probation and increased his sentence to a 10-year term, with time suspended except for the first 90 days in jail. Conroy-Perez argued that he couldn’t pay the fees because he was unable to work after a vehicle accident and was receiving worker's compensation. The court looked into his arguments. On one hand, the court agreed that while the state proved he owed money, they should also have checked whether he was willfully not paying. The state did not show he could afford to pay the fees, thus the court ruled it was not right to increase his sentence based solely on that. Therefore, they sent the case back for further examination. On other points of appeal, the court found that there was no evidence his legal representation was inadequate and did not rule on the length of the new sentence since they had already reversed it. The dissenting judge noted concern about the implications of the ruling, emphasizing the importance of understanding a person’s ability to pay before increasing sentences for not paying fees.

Continue ReadingF-2017-559

F-2016-562

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-562, Kadrian Daniels appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court, except that the fine imposed on the Possession count was vacated. One judge dissented. Daniels was found guilty by a jury and received a thirty-year sentence for the robbery and an additional eight years and a $10,000 fine for the illegal firearm possession. Daniels raised several concerns on appeal. He argued that the trial court made mistakes that affected his right to a fair trial. First, Daniels objected to a question asked by the prosecutor to a detective about the number of robberies that happened in Tulsa during the past year. He felt that this question could alarm the jury. However, the court decided that the question was allowed because it was relevant to the case and didn’t unfairly sway the jury. Next, Daniels claimed that the prosecutor behaved improperly during the closing arguments, which made his trial unfair. Some of the comments made by the prosecutor were challenged, but the court ruled that those comments were acceptable and did not harm the fairness of the trial. Additionally, Daniels complained about the jury being instructed that a $10,000 fine was mandatory if they convicted him of the firearm charge. Since Daniels’ lawyer did not object to this instruction during the trial, the court reviewed this issue only for plain error. The court found that the instruction was incorrect because the law does not require such a fine. This error was significant enough that the court decided to remove the fine. Moreover, Daniels argued that his attorney did not provide effective help during the trial, especially for not calling out the errors made by the prosecution or the judge. The court considered this but concluded that the issues raised by Daniels were not serious enough to have changed the outcome of the trial. The final decision affirmed the conviction but removed the unnecessary fine, ensuring that the legal process remained fair despite the mistakes noted during the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2016-562

F-2013-732

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-732, Bryan Thomas Delaney appealed his conviction for Escape from a Penal Institution and Resisting Arrest. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence for post-imprisonment supervision but upheld the rest of his conviction. One member of the court dissented. Delaney was found guilty by a jury after a trial where he faced charges for escaping a jail and resisting the police. As a result of these charges, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for the escape and 1 year in the county jail for the resisting arrest. The judge also ordered him to have 2 years of supervision after his prison time. Delaney argued that he was treated unfairly during the sentencing. He felt that the jury was wrongly told that his previous felony convictions could lead to a harsher sentence. However, he did not raise this issue during the trial, which made it harder for him to win the appeal. The court found that his past crimes were separate incidents and did not fall under the rules for counting prior offenses. Delaney also claimed that his lawyer did not do a good job because they did not challenge the jury instruction about the prior convictions. For his appeal to be successful on this point, he needed to show that his lawyer's mistakes really changed the outcome of his trial. The court decided that, since the jury's instruction was appropriate, his lawyer's actions did not affect his case. Finally, the court noted that while neither side pointed it out, Delaney was sentenced to longer supervision than what the law allows. They corrected this by reducing the supervision time to just 1 year. In summary, the court made some changes to Delaney's post-prison supervision but agreed with the rest of his sentencing and conviction. The decision was mostly upheld, and only one part was changed to be in line with the law.

Continue ReadingF-2013-732

C-2014-254

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-254, the petitioner appealed his conviction for embezzling over $25,000. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling regarding the petitioner's motions, but vacated the restitution order and remanded the case for a new determination of the victim's loss. One judge dissented. The petitioner, who is William Reeves Cathey, was accused of embezzlement by the state. He pleaded guilty to the charge in 2012, and his sentencing was delayed multiple times so he could repay the money he took. When his sentencing finally took place in January 2014, he decided to represent himself after dismissing his lawyer due to their illness. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison, but allowed him to suspend six years of that sentence and ordered him to pay $96,500 in restitution to the victim. Before he was sentenced, the petitioner made several requests to withdraw his guilty plea and to disqualify the District Attorney's office, claiming it was unfair. The court denied these requests. He also claimed that he did not understand the plea agreement because he thought the maximum fine would be much lower than what it was. He felt that the judge had not properly explained the charges to him when he entered his plea and claimed this made his plea involuntary. During the appeal process, the court looked at the petitioner's points. They decided that his concerns about the restitution order were valid. The court found that the lower court had not made it clear how the restitution amount was determined, and they thought that a new hearing was needed to sort this out. The court also rejected all of the petitioner's other arguments. They believed that he had entered his plea knowingly and that his sentence, while long, was not excessively severe. In conclusion, the court confirmed the denial of his motions to withdraw his plea but returned the issue of the restitution amount back to the trial court for further evaluation.

Continue ReadingC-2014-254

RE-2013-279

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-279, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol and transporting an open container of liquor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences, stating that the trial court lost jurisdiction because it did not hold the revocation hearing within the required twenty days after the appellant entered his plea. The decision was made without needing to address the other arguments raised by the appellant. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2013-279

F-2012-478

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-478, Michael Ray Baack appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Public Intoxication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the District Court while remanding the case to correct the judgment regarding the fine on Count 1. One member of the court dissented. Michael Ray Baack was found guilty by a jury in Canadian County for having controlled substances and for being publicly intoxicated. The jury decided that he should serve eight years in prison and pay a $2,000 fine for the drug charge, along with thirty days in jail for public intoxication. The judge ordered both sentences to be served one after the other but waived the fine on the drug charge. Baack raised several questions on appeal. He argued about the evidence being enough to convict him of the drug charge, how other crimes were presented during the trial, the lack of instructions on a lesser drug offense, the fine, and whether his sentence was too harsh. 1. The court found that the evidence showed Baack had knowingly possessed drugs. The jury had enough proof to make a logical decision based on the facts presented. 2. About the other crimes evidence, the court mentioned that Baack had introduced his prior record himself, so he could not complain about that during the appeal since it was his choice to bring it up. 3. Baack's request for a lower charge on drug paraphernalia was not granted because he claimed he was innocent. The court said that when someone claims they did not do something, they cannot ask for lesser charges. 4. The fine for the drug charge was waived, and both Baack and the state agreed that the case should go back to the lower court to correct the documents to show there was no fine. 5. The claim that Baack was hurt by showing his previous felony conviction was denied because it did not affect the outcome of the case. The court stated that the sentences were appropriate and followed the law. In conclusion, the court upheld the findings of the lower court and noted there was no need for a new trial or changes to the verdicts, except for correcting the issue with the fine.

Continue ReadingF-2012-478