District Court Archives - OCCA Opinions

SR-2022-250

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:April 20, 2023
Post category:SR

In OCCA case No. SR-2022-250, Dustin Daukei-Cole appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to dismiss the appeal. One judge dissented. Dustin Daukei-Cole was found guilty of possessing illegal drugs and was given a sentence of five years in prison, with three years of that sentence held back, called a suspended sentence. This meant that he wouldn't go to prison for those three years unless he broke the rules again. Later, the state wanted to take away those three years because they claimed he had violated the conditions of his suspended sentence. The trial court held a hearing and decided that they could only revoke one year of his sentence instead of the full three years because the law had changed. The state didn't agree with this decision and tried to appeal, asking the court to consider whether the law allowing this ruling was against the state constitution. However, the court explained that states can only appeal in certain situations, and this case did not fit that requirement. They highlighted that previous rulings allowed appeals only in cases where someone had been found not guilty or where there was a judgment preventing further prosecution. Since there wasn't a rule blocking further prosecution or an acquittal in this case, the court dismissed the appeal. In conclusion, the court said that the original decision to limit the time revoked was correct and the state could not appeal this issue. The judges decided not to change the trial court's decision.

RE-2021-1290

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:March 23, 2023
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.

F-2018-790

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:March 21, 2023
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-790, the individual appealed his conviction for first-degree rape and kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the convictions and remand the case to dismiss it due to a jurisdictional issue. One judge dissented. The case began when the individual, Wadkins, was convicted of committing serious crimes in Oklahoma. He argued that he should not have been tried in Oklahoma courts because he is considered Indian, and the crimes happened in an area recognized as Indian Country. This argument was based on the Supreme Court's earlier decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which stated that certain areas, like those belonging to the Creek Nation, are still considered Indian Country under the law. The focus of the appeal was on whether Wadkins could prove he had Indian status at the time of the crimes. To determine this, the court needed to check two things: if Wadkins had Indian blood and if he was recognized as an Indian by a tribe or the federal government. The court found that he had some Indian blood but struggled with whether he was recognized as an Indian when the crimes took place. During a hearing, evidence was presented to show that Wadkins had some ties to the Choctaw Nation but was not an enrolled member at the time of the offenses. He had a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) and received health services reserved for Native Americans but was not yet a member of the tribe until after the crimes occurred. The court concluded that he did not meet the requirements to show he was recognized as Indian then and so ruled that Oklahoma had the right to prosecute him. However, upon appeal, the court found that the lower court made errors in its decisions regarding his recognition. They noted that even though Wadkins was not an official member at the time, he presented various forms of evidence, including his history of receiving medical care designed for Indians and family connections to the tribe, that showed he was, in fact, recognized as Indian. The final judgment stated that since Wadkins was recognized as Indian and the crimes occurred in Indian Country, Oklahoma courts did not have the authority to prosecute him. The decision concluded by saying that the charges against him were to be dismissed, meaning he would potentially face prosecution in a federal court instead. One judge expressed disagreement with this outcome, reflecting on the complex relationship of state and federal law regarding Indian issues.

RE-2021-1042

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:January 19, 2023
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2021-1042, Matthew Bryan Buttery appealed his conviction for a series of crimes including distribution of controlled substances and petit larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered that his new sentence run concurrently with a prior sentence from another case. One judge dissented on the issue of how the sentences should relate to one another. Matthew Buttery had previously pled guilty to several charges. He was given a ten-year suspended sentence, which means he didn't have to serve time in prison at that moment but had to follow certain rules. If he broke any rules, the court could take back that suspended sentence and send him to prison. The state claimed that Buttery did not report as required, did not pay his probation fees, and committed a new crime, for which they wanted to revoke his suspended sentence. During the hearing, the court found Buttery had violated the terms of his probation and revoked his suspended sentence. Buttery argued that the court made a mistake by not giving him credit for time he had already served and by ordering that his new sentence run after a different sentence from another county. The court explained that it had the right to revoke Buttery's suspended sentence because he violated the rules. They stated they didn't have to give him credit for time served because the suspended sentence is not changed by the violation. They also found that the judge improperly decided his new sentence would run after the one from the other county rather than at the same time. The judges clarified that when a sentence is revoked, it should not change how sentences from different cases affect each other. In the end, Buttery's appeal led to some changes. The court ordered that his new sentence should run concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time, rather than one after the other. However, the court upheld the overall decision to revoke his suspended sentence for breaking the rules of his probation. One judge agreed with the decision to affirm the revocation but disagreed with other parts of the analysis regarding the relationship between the sentences. So, to summarize, the main points from the case are that Matthew Bryan Buttery's suspension was revoked because he violated probation rules, but the court made a mistake when deciding how his new sentence should relate to an older sentence. He is to serve them at the same time now, according to the latest court ruling.

S-2022-41

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:December 15, 2022
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2022-41, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Joshua Kyle Rhynard for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, possession of a controlled dangerous substance (marijuana), and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the appeal was improperly brought and dismissed it. One judge dissented, arguing that the State made a sufficient case for review based on the importance of the evidence that had been suppressed. The dissenting opinion believed that the trial court made an error in suppressing the evidence found during a search because the officers executing the warrant used reasonable belief about the address they were searching.

F-2021-554

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:December 15, 2022
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-554, Robert Willie Wilson, Jr. appealed his conviction for accessory to burglary in the second degree and carrying weapons. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Count 1 (accessory to burglary) with instructions to dismiss the charge, while affirming Count 2 (carrying weapons). One member of the court dissented. The case revolved around Wilson's alleged involvement in a burglary at a laundromat. The jury found him guilty of being an accessory rather than guilty of the burglary itself. They sentenced him to twenty years for the accessory charge and thirty days for carrying a weapon, to be served at the same time as his other sentence. Wilson challenged his conviction, arguing that the evidence was not enough to prove he was an accessory to the burglary. He claimed that the State failed to show he actively concealed or helped another person, named Justin White, who committed the burglary. The law requires that to be an accessory, someone must help the offender escape arrest or punishment after the crime. During the trial, the evidence suggested that while Wilson was present in the vehicle during the time of the burglary, there was no proof that he helped White in any way after the crime. The court pointed out that Wilson's mere presence did not make him guilty. It highlighted that the State only showed he knew about the burglary, which was not enough to convict him as an accessory. Ultimately, the court concluded that the evidence did not support a conviction for accessory to burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, they reversed Wilson's conviction for that charge, but they did maintain the conviction for carrying a weapon. The remaining claims in Wilson's appeal were no longer necessary to consider due to this decision.

F-2019-912

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:August 25, 2022
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-912, Charles Issac Jacobs appealed his conviction for Aggravated Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Jacobs was charged in McCurtain County after a jury found him guilty and sentenced him to two years in prison. During his appeal, he raised several points: 1. **Jurisdiction**: Jacobs argued that the State did not have authority to prosecute him because the victim was an Indian, and the crime happened in Indian Country. The trial court found that Jacobs was not an Indian according to legal standards, while the victim was. The court also determined that the crime took place within the boundaries of the Choctaw Reservation, meaning the State had the jurisdiction to proceed with the case. 2. **Self-Defense**: Jacobs claimed that he acted in self-defense when he assaulted the victim. The court noted that self-defense is a legal reason for actions that would typically be considered crimes. However, the court found there was enough evidence to show that Jacobs did not have a reasonable belief that he was in danger when he attacked the victim. 3. **Jury Instructions**: Jacobs requested that the jury be given a specific instruction about standing your ground during the trial. The court stated that whether to give specific jury instructions is up to the trial judge. They found that Jacobs did not meet the legal requirements for this instruction because there wasn’t enough evidence showing he was in a situation where he could lawfully defend himself. 4. **Monetary Fine**: At sentencing, the jury did not impose a fine, but the court record incorrectly showed a fine of $500 was imposed. The State and Jacobs both agreed that this was a mistake. The court instructed that this clerical error should be corrected. The main decision reached by the court was that Jacobs' conviction was upheld. They affirmed that the State had the right to prosecute him, and there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction. However, the court also ordered that the punishment record should be corrected to show that no fine was actually imposed.

F-2021-123

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:July 7, 2022
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-123, Airick William Fuller appealed his conviction for kidnapping and first-degree robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Fuller was found guilty by a jury in Custer County for two counts of kidnapping and one count of robbery, having prior felony convictions. The jury gave him sentences of ten years for each kidnapping count and thirty years for the robbery, all to be served concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time. Fuller argued that the evidence used in the trial was not enough to prove he committed first-degree robbery and that the trial court did not inform the jury about a lesser crime, second-degree robbery. The court carefully reviewed the entire case, including the evidence and arguments from both sides. Regarding the first argument, the court stated that there was enough evidence to show that Fuller threatened a victim, Jason White, with serious harm during the robbery. Even though White did not actually see a gun, the court noted that he had reason to fear for his safety because of what had happened earlier. The court concluded that the jury could justifiably find Fuller guilty based on this evidence. For the second argument, the court explained that since Fuller did not ask for the jury to consider the lesser charge of second-degree robbery, it was difficult for him to claim a mistake was made. The court found that no errors that would have changed the outcome of the trial were made. The court confirmed the original sentences but also instructed the District Court to make sure that the official record reflected that the sentences were to be served concurrently if that had not already been done. Overall, the court affirmed the conviction and rejected Fuller’s arguments.

C-2021-163

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:June 23, 2022
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2021-163, April Dawn Summers appealed her conviction for child abuse, child neglect, and enabling child abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court denied her appeal. One judge dissented. Summers was charged in Grady County with several serious offenses related to child abuse. She decided to plead guilty to these charges in December 2019. The judge accepted her plea but decided to wait to give her a sentence until a presentence investigation report was completed. In January 2021, after looking at evidence and hearing from lawyers, the judge sentenced Summers to fifty years in prison for each charge. However, she only had to serve twenty-five years, as the rest of her sentence was suspended. After sentencing, Summers wanted to change her guilty plea and claimed that she didn’t fully understand what she was doing when she pleaded guilty. She argued that her plea was not made knowingly or willingly, and she did not grasp the full consequences. She also said that she should not have to pay for the costs of her incarceration because of her mental health issues. The court reviewed her case and found that her plea was made voluntarily. They determined that she understood the charges and the risks of her guilty plea. Therefore, the court did not believe there was a reason to let her take back her plea. Regarding the costs of her incarceration, the court noted that Summers didn’t raise this issue when she tried to withdraw her plea. However, they acknowledged that her mental health might exempt her from such costs. Thus, they decided to investigate whether she is indeed considered mentally ill under the law, which could mean that she wouldn't have to pay. In summary, the court decided to keep her guilty plea in place, but they also said that it needs to be checked whether she qualifies as mentally ill to decide if she should be charged for her time in prison. The case was sent back to the lower court for further decisions on her mental health status.

RE-2020-501

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:May 26, 2022
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2020-501, Kaylen Harrison Rice appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but vacated the portion that required him to remain under supervision. One judge dissented. Kaylen Harrison Rice had previously been given suspended sentences for his crimes. He was supposed to follow certain rules instead of serving time in jail, but the rules changed to make his crime less serious. A new law stated that if someone is being revoked for a crime that is now seen as less serious, their punishment must follow the new law's limits. Kaylen argued that his one-year revocation was too long given the new law. However, the court found that the existing rules and his situation didn’t allow for the changes he suggested. During his revocation hearing, Kaylen raised concerns about being supervised after his jail time, saying that the law did not allow for that kind of supervision for his crime. The State acknowledged this point but later dropped the argument, which meant the court didn't consider it. The court decided that since the State had waived its right to challenge this part, it could not revisit it in Kaylen's appeal. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to revoke Kaylen's suspended sentences but overturned the requirement that he be supervised, which was not allowed under the new law.

F-2020-818

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:April 28, 2022
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2020-818, the appellant appealed his conviction for child sexual abuse and other related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute the appellant. One judge dissented. The case involved Joseph Scott Bennett, who was convicted of several crimes, including child sexual abuse and possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. The jury sentenced him to life in prison without parole for the most serious crimes and additional years for firearm possession. Bennett argued that the State didn't have the right to prosecute him because the crimes took place on lands that are part of the Cherokee Nation, and he is recognized as a member of the Cherokee Nation. During the trial, Bennett tried to dismiss the charges based on the argument that the state court did not have jurisdiction because of a Supreme Court case known as McGirt v. Oklahoma. This case stated that some crimes committed by Native Americans on certain lands could only be prosecuted in federal court rather than state court. The trial court did not agree with Bennett's argument but allowed the issue to be reviewed later on appeal. The appeals court found that, following McGirt, it was established that the area where the crimes occurred was indeed a Cherokee Reservation, and since Bennett proved he was a member of the tribe, the state courts should not have held the trial. As a result, the court vacated Bennett's judgment and sentence, which meant that his convictions were canceled, and they instructed that the matter be dismissed. The case shows how legal rulings can change depending on new interpretations of jurisdiction and tribal rights under U.S. law.

C-2021-218

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:February 7, 2022
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2021-218, the petitioner appealed her conviction for outraging public decency and violation of a protective order. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the appeal. The court agreed that her due process rights were violated when the district court denied her motions to withdraw her pleas while she was absent from the hearing. No one dissented.

F-2020-510

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:January 13, 2022
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.

RE-2019-80

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:December 14, 2021
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JODY LYNN BAILEY,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. RE-2019-80** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Appellant Jody Lynn Bailey appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2016-2879. On February 1, 2017, Appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas to four counts of Identity Theft (21 O.S.Supp.2011, § 1533.1) and two counts of Using a Computer with the Intent to Defraud (21 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1953(A)(2)). He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for fifteen years on each count with all but the first four years suspended. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. On November 1, 2018, the State filed an application to revoke the suspended sentences, alleging Appellant committed the new crime of robbery. A hearing on the application was held on January 22, 2019, before the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge. Judge Elliott granted the State's application and revoked Appellant's suspended sentences in full. On appeal, Appellant asserts the revocation was excessive. We disagree. **ANALYSIS** At the hearing where the State seeks revocation of a suspended sentence, the court must determine whether the suspended portion of the sentence should be executed based on whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated. A violation need be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, a trial court's decision to revoke a suspended sentence should not be overturned unless there is an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when there is an unreasonable or arbitrary action taken without proper consideration of the facts and law, or a clearly erroneous conclusion that goes against the logic and effect of the evidence presented. In this case, we find no abuse of discretion in Judge Elliott's decision to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences. The determination of witness credibility and the weight given to their testimony is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the trier of fact. Therefore, Judge Elliott's decision to revoke the suspended sentences has not been established as an abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended judgments and sentences in Case No. CF-2016-2879 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. --- **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** **THOMAS P. HURLEY** ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE 611 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **HALLIE BOVOS** ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE 400 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **DAN POND** ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE 505 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR STATE **MIKE HUNTER** OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL **CAROLINE HUNT** ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21st STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** **LEVIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** **ROWLAND, J.: Concur** --- For further information, you may download the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2019-80_1734335833.pdf).

F-2017-1300

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:December 2, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1300, Emmitt G. Sam appealed his conviction for first-degree murder and robbery with a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Emmitt G. Sam was found guilty of committing serious crimes in Tulsa County. The jury decided his punishment would be life in prison for murder and several years for the robberies, with fines. However, during his appeal, he raised important questions about whether he should have been tried in state court at all. Sam argued that he is a member of the Cherokee Nation and that his crimes occurred in an area recognized as Indian land. He claimed that under previous court rulings, the state did not have the authority to prosecute him because those crimes fell under federal jurisdiction due to their location on Indian territory. The court needed to determine two main things: if Sam is considered an Indian and if the crimes happened within the historic boundaries of the Creek Nation's Reservation. After looking into these questions, the trial court found that Sam had Indian blood and was recognized as an Indian by his tribe, even though he was not formally enrolled at the time of the crimes. The parties agreed the crimes took place in Indian Country. The trial court examined evidence presented in a hearing, including testimonies from witnesses who said that Sam was part of the Cherokee community and received benefits meant for Native Americans throughout his childhood. The evidence showed he lived in a supportive environment that aligned with his claims of being recognized by his tribe. Since the appeals court agreed with the trial court's findings, it ruled that Sam could not be prosecuted by the state but instead should face trial in federal court, where such cases are decided for crimes committed on Indian lands. As a result, the earlier judgments and sentences against Sam were overturned, and the case was sent back for dismissal by the district court. The ruling highlighted the intersection of state and federal law regarding Indian affairs, confirming that the rights of Native Americans must be respected within the court system.

S-2020-858

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:October 21, 2021
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2020-858, the State of Oklahoma appealed the dismissal of a conviction against Jeremy Lawhorn for Lewd or Indecent Acts with a Child Under 16. In a published decision, the court decided that the district court correctly dismissed the case due to a lack of jurisdiction, affirming that the crime occurred in Indian Country within the boundaries of the Quapaw Nation Reservation. A dissenting opinion was filed.

RE-2020-452

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:September 30, 2021
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2020-452, Katlin Maye Ford appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Katlin pled guilty to Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and received a ten-year sentence that was suspended. This means she did not have to go to prison right away but had to follow certain rules. One rule was that she needed to pay restitution, which is money that goes to the victim to help with their losses. In October 2018, the State of Oklahoma asked the court to end her suspended sentence because she had not paid the restitution. In November 2018, Katlin decided to represent herself in court, meaning she did not want a lawyer. She admitted that she had not paid the restitution as ordered. The court then allowed more time for her to get back on track with her payments. However, in June 2020, the court decided to take away three years of her suspended sentence because she still had not paid the restitution. Katlin thought this was unfair and appealed the decision, making some important claims: 1. She said she was not given proper legal help when she needed it. 2. She believed the court should have helped her get a lawyer for her hearing. 3. She argued that any failure to pay the restitution was not intentional. In examining her first claim, the court noted that people have the right to have a lawyer when their suspended sentences are being revoked. For someone to give up that right, they must do it knowingly, which means they understand what they are doing. The court found that there was no clear record showing that Katlin had enough information about self-representation or that she made her decision with full understanding of the consequences. Since the court did not make sure she understood everything about waiving her right to a lawyer, the appeal was successful. The original decision to revoke her suspended sentence was reversed, meaning Katlin would get another chance to address her restitution payments and have proper legal representation. Therefore, the court instructed for the case to go back to the lower court for further actions that are consistent with its opinion. One judge disagreed with the majority's decision.

C-2020-668

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:September 30, 2021
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2020-668, Jeffrey Montrell Alexander McClellan appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the lower court's order denying McClellan's application to withdraw his guilty plea and remanded the case for a new hearing with conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented. McClellan had entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to twelve years in prison and fined one thousand dollars. Later, he wrote a letter to the court saying he wanted to appeal because he believed he didn’t have proper legal help. The court treated this letter as a request to withdraw his guilty plea, but this request was denied. McClellan’s main argument was that he was not given effective assistance of counsel, especially at the hearing where he wanted to withdraw his plea. He said that the attorney who was supposed to help him at the hearing had represented him during the plea, creating a conflict of interest. The court agreed with him, saying that defendants have a right to a lawyer who can represent their interests without any conflicts. Since McClellan’s attorney did not actively defend him during the hearing and was the same attorney who represented him at the plea, the court found this to be a problem. As a result, the court ordered that McClellan gets a new hearing to discuss withdrawing his guilty plea, but this time with a different attorney who has no conflicting interests.

F-2018-1268

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:August 26, 2021
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.

F-2020-125

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:June 17, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2020-125, Justin Dale Little appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Little's conviction should be vacated because the State of Oklahoma did not have the jurisdiction to prosecute him due to his status as an Indian and the location of the crime within Indian country. The ruling was influenced by the prior case McGirt v. Oklahoma, which established that certain lands are still considered Indian reservations under federal law. The court found that since Little is recognized as an Indian and the crime occurred within the boundaries of the Muscogee Reservation, only the federal government has the authority to prosecute him. There was a dissenting opinion expressing concerns about the implications of the decision and how it followed previous legal precedents.

F-2020-54

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:June 3, 2021
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.

F-2017-1294

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:May 6, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1294, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. The case involved Terrance Lucas Cottingham, who was found guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon after having been previously convicted of two or more felonies. The conviction took place in the District Court of Washington County, where he was sentenced to 25 years in prison. He would have to serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. Cottingham argued that the court did not have the right to prosecute him because of his status as a member of the Osage Nation and because the crime occurred in what he believed to be Indian Country, specifically the Cherokee Nation's boundaries. He cited a federal law and a Supreme Court decision, McGirt v. Oklahoma, to support his argument. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals decided to send Cottingham's case back to the lower court for a hearing to examine his Indian status and the location of the robbery. They said that Cottingham needed to show that he had Indian blood and was recognized as an Indian by the tribe or by the federal government. If he could prove this, then it would be up to the state to show that it had jurisdiction to prosecute him. During the hearing, Cottingham and the Cherokee Nation agreed on certain facts. They confirmed that he had a degree of Indian blood and was a member of the Osage Nation at the time of the robbery. They also agreed that the robbery happened within the geographic area defined by treaties establishing the Cherokee Nation. The court found that Cottingham was indeed a member of the Osage Nation and that the robbery occurred in Indian Country based on their analysis of the law and treaties. This evidence showed that the state of Oklahoma did not have the legal right to prosecute Cottingham for the crime. The appeals court ultimately agreed with the findings of the lower court and concluded that Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, they reversed Cottingham's conviction and instructed the District Court to dismiss the case. In summary, Cottingham's conviction was undone because it was determined that he was an Indian and that the crime took place in Indian Country. Consequently, the state court did not have the authority to prosecute him.

F-2017-1000

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:April 29, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1000, Sonny Raye McCombs appealed his conviction for several crimes including robbery, using a vehicle in a crime, possessing a firearm, larceny, and obstructing an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and dismiss the case. McCombs argued that the court did not have jurisdiction over his case because he is a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and the crimes happened on Native American land, which is called Indian Country. The court agreed that the State of Oklahoma could not prosecute him for these crimes because of the legal rulings made in earlier cases regarding Indian rights and territories. The majority of the judges emphasized that the crimes took place in areas still recognized as part of Indian Country, leading to the conclusion that the state lacked the authority to prosecute him. One judge dissented, expressing concerns over the majority opinion and its implications for federal and state law relationship.

F-2017-357

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:April 29, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-357, Shawn Lee McDaniel appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence, remanding the matter with instructions to dismiss. The main issue in this case was whether the victim was considered an Indian under federal law and whether the crime took place in Indian country, which is defined as land within the boundaries of Indian reservations. Both questions were answered affirmatively. The court looked to a previous case, McGirt v. Oklahoma, which established that certain lands in Oklahoma were still recognized as Indian reservations under federal law. McDaniel’s appeal was based on the fact that the murder occurred within the historic boundaries of the Cherokee Nation and that the victim was a recognized member of the Cherokee Nation at the time of his death. The court remanded the case to a lower court, which found that both of these conditions were true, meaning federal, not state, authorities had jurisdiction over the case. The court’s decision concluded that since the crime fell under the federal jurisdiction, the state of Oklahoma did not have the authority to prosecute McDaniel. Consequently, the judgement was vacated, and the matter was directed to be dismissed. While most judges agreed with the results, there were dissenting opinions which expressed concern and highlighted issues within the majority opinion, particularly regarding its adherence to historical precedents and the implications of McGirt's ruling.

F-2016-1030

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:April 29, 2021
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.