In OCCA case No. F-2017-1186, Shannon James Kepler appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Kepler. The court found that he is an Indian and that the crime happened within the boundaries of the Muscogee Creek Nation Reservation. Therefore, the court granted his appeal and vacated the conviction. One judge dissented.
In this case summary, Alfonzo Lamonse Vineyard was convicted of multiple charges in the District Court of Tulsa County, including Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, First Degree Burglary, Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony, and several counts of Obstructing an Officer, among others. The jury found Vineyard guilty on all counts except one (Assault and Battery), and the court subsequently sentenced him to life imprisonment on the more serious counts, with concurrent and consecutive terms for other counts. Vineyard's appeal raised five main issues: 1. **Waiver of Right to Counsel**: The court found that Vineyard’s waiver of his right to counsel was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. He was adequately informed of the risks associated with self-representation. 2. **Right to Confrontation**: Vineyard argued that his right to confront witnesses was violated when the court allowed the reading of the victim's preliminary hearing testimony, as she did not appear at trial. The court found that the state had made sufficient efforts to locate the victim and that her unavailability was justified, thus upholding the admission of her prior testimony. 3. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Vineyard contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. The court determined that the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 4. **Lesser Included Offense Instruction**: Vineyard argued that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of Pointing a Firearm. While the court acknowledged that the lack of instruction was error, it did not affect the trial's outcome, and therefore did not warrant reversal. 5. **Cumulative Error**: Lastly, Vineyard claimed that the cumulative effect of errors warranted a new trial. The court found no individual errors that affected the trial's fairness, thus rejecting this claim. Ultimately, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence, concluding that none of the raised issues warranted relief. The decision highlighted the adherence to established legal standards regarding self-representation, confrontation rights, evidentiary sufficiency, jury instructions, and cumulative error analysis. [Download the full opinion here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1188_1734784723.pdf).
In OCCA case No. F-2018-541, Daniel Jeremiah McKay appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and the seven-year prison sentence. One judge dissented. McKay was originally charged with two things: sexual abuse of a child under 12 and failing to register as a sex offender. He was found not guilty of the first charge but convicted of the second. The jury gave him a sentence of seven years in prison, which the judge approved. He argued that his sentence was too long, claiming it should have been the minimum of four years because the jury was influenced by information related to the charge he was acquitted of. The court explained that they would not change the sentence unless it was extremely unfair. The law allowed for a sentence from four years to life for failing to register. The court also discussed that evidence from his past, including previous convictions and how he had dealt with sentences before, could be looked at by the jury when deciding the punishment. The judges stated that since McKay's sentence was only three years more than the legal minimum and much less than the maximum, it did not seem unreasonable. McKay's arguments about the sentences and the evidence were not enough to convince the court to change its decision. Therefore, they kept the original conviction and sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-356, Elizabeth A. Jennings appealed her conviction for Permitting Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed her conviction. One judge dissented. The case took place in Tulsa County, where Jennings was found guilty of allowing child sexual abuse to happen, which is against the law. The jury decided she should go to prison for 14 years. She was very unhappy about this and wanted to challenge the ruling. Jennings raised three big points in her appeal: 1. She said the prosecutor made a wrong hypothetical question during jury selection, which is called voir dire, and that this violated her rights. 2. She also argued that a lot of evidence was shown about her co-defendant's sexual misconduct, which she thought made it hard for her to get a fair sentence. 3. Lastly, she complained that the judge didn't tell the jury that she would have to register as a sex offender after her conviction, which she thought was an important piece of information. The court looked at everything carefully, including the evidence, the transcripts, and the arguments from both sides. It decided that Jennings did not deserve any relief from her conviction based on her arguments. For the first point, the court said that the prosecutor's question was okay. It was meant to see if jurors could be fair and follow the law without making decisions before hearing all the evidence. In the second point, the court agreed that the evidence about the co-defendant was relevant and helped to show Jennings' knowledge of the situation. The court found that this evidence was not unfairly hurtful to her case. On the third point, the court decided that it was not wrong for the judge to skip giving out the information about sex offender registration because it wasn't necessary for the case. In the end, the court upheld Jennings' sentence of 14 years in prison. The judges considered all the arguments but concluded that everything was handled correctly during the trial.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DAVID RUBLE, II,** **Appellant,** **VS.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2016-843** **FILED DEC 14 2017** **SUMMARY OPINION** *KUEHN, JUDGE:* David Ruble II was tried by jury and convicted of Count I, Felony Murder with the predicate Attempted Robbery by Firearm in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 701.7; and Count III, Conspiracy to Commit Robbery with a Firearm in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 421, in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2014-2691. Following the jury's recommendation, the Honorable William D. LaFortune sentenced Ruble to life imprisonment (Count I) and ten (10) years imprisonment (Count III), to run consecutively. Ruble appeals from these convictions and sentences. Ruble raises five propositions of error in support of his appeal: I. The trial court's erroneous rulings on challenges for cause deprived Appellant of his full complement of peremptory challenges to use at his discretion and prevented his ability to remove objectionable jurors. II. The cumulative effect of prosecutorial misconduct constituted plain error and deprived Appellant of a fair trial. III. The trial judge erred in not instructing the jury on lesser offenses. IV. Mr. Ruble was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. V. The accumulation of errors deprived Mr. Ruble of a fair trial and the due process of law secured to him. **DECISION:** After thorough consideration of the entire record, we deny Ruble's propositions of error. 1. **Proposition I:** The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ruble's challenges for cause. The record does not support that the jurors were biased, nor was there a showing that trial counsel properly preserved this issue. 2. **Proposition II:** Ruble's claims of prosecutorial misconduct were not substantiated. Many of his complaints were unobjected to and reviewed for plain error, which was not found. 3. **Proposition III:** There was no error in failing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses, as Ruble's defense was that he was not involved in the crime. 4. **Proposition IV:** Trial counsel's performance was not deficient. Ruble did not demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel's actions. 5. **Proposition V:** With no fundamental error established, the claim of cumulative error fails. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Tulsa County is AFFIRMED. **MANDATE:** Ordered issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL:** Michael Manning 624 South Denver, Ste. 201 Tulsa, OK 74119 **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL:** Rhiannon Sisk Homicide Direct Appeals Div. Oklahoma Indigent Defense System P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE:** Becky Johnson Mike Hunter Benjamin Fu 500 S. Denver, Ste. 900 Tulsa, OK 74103 **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, J.; LUMPKIN, P.J., CONCUR IN RESULTS; LEWIS, V.P.J., CONCUR; HUDSON, J., CONCUR; ROWLAND, J., CONCUR. **[Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2016-843_1734264868.pdf)**
In OCCA case No. C-2016-718, Jones appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon and kidnapping. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the sentence for one count where he was not charged, but affirmed the rest of the convictions. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2016-55, James Curtis Cox appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Here's a summary of what happened: Cox was tried by a jury and found guilty of two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child. The judge sentenced him to a long time in prison: twenty-five years for the first count and life imprisonment for the second count, along with fines. He had to serve eighty-five percent of his sentences before he could be considered for parole. Cox appealed because he thought several things went wrong during his trial. First, he complained that his lawyer did not do a good job. He also said the trial court made mistakes by not instructing the jury properly about certain evidence and that they considered witness statements that shouldn’t have been allowed. The court reviewed everything his lawyer did and decided that Cox was not able to show that he had suffered because of his lawyer's performance. They ruled that even if his lawyer didn’t object to some evidence or didn’t ask for certain instructions, it did not ruin his chance for a fair trial. The judges also looked at whether the trial court made mistakes about some evidence being used during the trial. They found that while some evidence shouldn’t have been used, it didn’t change the outcome of the trial. However, when it came to sentencing, the judges found a significant problem. The trial court should not have considered certain statements from victims who were not part of the case. They concluded that the judge was influenced by these statements, which were not allowed, while deciding how long Cox should stay in prison. In the end, the judges decided that Cox’s sentences should be changed to run concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time instead of one after the other. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences so Cox would have a slightly lighter sentence to serve compared to what they initially decided. The appeal allowed Cox to get a better outcome in terms of his sentences, even though he still faced serious charges.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-137, Antonio Catalino Myrie appealed his conviction for burglary in the second degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Myrie's conviction but vacated the $10,000 fine imposed. One judge dissented regarding aspects of the sentencing arguments presented at trial. Antonio Myrie was tried and found guilty by a jury. The jury decided that he would spend thirty-five years in prison and pay a fine for the crime. Myrie appealed this decision, claiming several errors during his trial. He argued that the trial court made mistakes by not allowing him to suppress DNA evidence, not giving him more time to prepare his case, and other issues he thought affected his right to a fair trial. The judges reviewed the claims made by Myrie. They explained that the evidence used in his trial, including the DNA, was evaluated carefully. The judges believed that the trial court's decision to admit the DNA evidence was not a mistake. They also felt that Myrie did not show that he would have won his case even if the DNA had been tested differently. Myrie's other claims included that the court made mistakes in admitting hearsay evidence, which means statements made outside of court that shouldn't be used as evidence in court. The judges found that there was no strong reason to believe this would change the outcome of the trial, so they denied this claim as well. One important point was about how the jury was instructed on the consequences of a conviction. Myrie’s lawyers did not object to the jury instructions, and the judges concluded that one instruction wrongly made it sound like the fine was mandatory. They decided to remove the fine based on this mistake. Myrie also argued about misconduct during the trial, specifically that the prosecutor mentioned too many of his previous convictions, which he believed made the jury biased against him. However, the judges thought that while there were errors in how the prosecutor presented this information, it did not affect the fairness of the trial enough to change the outcome. In the end, the judges agreed that Myrie's punishment was justified given his past actions, and they decided to keep the thirty-five-year prison sentence while removing the fine due to a mistake about the jury instruction. One judge disagreed with parts of the decision, particularly about how the prosecutor argued about Myrie's past, stating it should have a different impact on the sentence. Overall, the court upheld the conviction and modified the fine.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-170, Darnell Lamar Wright appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm, False Personation, and Assault while Masked. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Robbery with a Firearm and False Personation but reversed the conviction for Assault while Masked. One judge dissented. The case began when Wright was tried by a jury and found guilty on multiple counts. The jury recommended a life sentence for the robbery charge, four years for false personation, and twenty years for assault while masked. The judge sentenced him accordingly, ordering the sentences to run one after another. Wright raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that the trial court made errors that affected the fairness of his trial. One main concern was about how the court answered a jury question regarding parole eligibility for some of the charges. Wright claimed that the response was confusing and led to misunderstandings about how long he might serve. He also contended that there wasn't enough proof for the false personation charge, and he believed the law about that charge was unclear and unfair. Additionally, he argued that being convicted of both robbery with a firearm and assault while masked for the same act was not right, claiming it violated the principle against double jeopardy. Wright thought that evidence shown during the trial, which wasn’t directly related to him or the robbery, shouldn't have been allowed. He felt that this hurt his right to a fair trial. Lastly, he claimed that many small errors during the trial added up to deny him a fair chance. After reviewing Wright's arguments and the entire case, the court found that there was a valid point in Wright's argument about the assault charge. The court agreed that the attack with a weapon and the robbery were part of the same event and therefore should not both result in separate punishments. However, they found no substantial errors with the other appeals he raised. The judges stated that the original instructions the jury received were clear and that any confusion they had didn’t change the outcome of the trial. They also determined that the law concerning false personation was not vague and that the evidence against Wright was sufficient for the charges. Thus, while the court upheld the convictions for robbery and false personation, they overturned Wright’s conviction for assault while masked, instructing the lower court to dismiss that charge. The decision meant that Wright would have to serve time for the robbery and false personation but not for the assault.
In OCCA case No. RE-2011-710, Jermaine Richard Newton appealed his conviction for two counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation order of his suspended sentences to time served. One judge dissented. Newton had originally pleaded guilty to the charges and was given a ten-year suspended sentence, which meant he would not go to prison right away as long as he followed certain rules. One of the rules was that he could not break any laws. Later, he was accused of violating a protective order that had been put in place to keep him away from a specific person. The court examined whether there was enough evidence to show that Newton had broken the order. They found that there was enough proof that he had violated the order by being near the person it was intended to protect. The court also looked at whether the decision to revoke his suspended sentences was fair or too harsh. The judges noted that he was young and hadn't been in trouble before this violation. They concluded that sending him to prison for the full ten years was not necessary since he hadn't done anything very dangerous lately. In the end, the court decided he should not serve the full ten years but should instead be given a second chance, and they ordered that he should be returned to probation. The judges who agreed with this decision believed it was a fair outcome. However, one judge disagreed and felt that the original decision to revoke his suspended sentences should stand.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-1047, Melvin Edward Dan appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, burglary in the first degree, and possession of a firearm after previous juvenile adjudication for a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for robbery and burglary, but reverse the conviction for possession of a firearm. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-538, Manh Micahel Mach appealed his conviction for several drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse three of the convictions and affirmed the others. One member of the court dissented. Mach faced multiple charges, including unlawful possession of cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana with the intent to distribute, as well as failure to obtain a drug tax stamp, unlawful use of surveillance equipment, and possession of a firearm during a felony. He was sentenced to numerous years in prison and fines, with all sentences to be served one after the other. The court looked at several issues raised by Mach. First, they confirmed that he had waived his right to a jury trial knowingly. They also found that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop him, which led to a lawful search of his car after he consented. However, Mach's convictions for possessing cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana with the intent to distribute were seen as overlapping offenses. He was found guilty of only one violation for possessing these drugs for distribution, meaning the court reversed two of those drug convictions. The court also agreed with Mach that he was wrongly convicted for failing to obtain a tax stamp because there was no evidence presented about this charge. Thus, that conviction was reversed and dismissed. The evidence showed that Mach was guilty of using surveillance equipment to avoid police detection while selling drugs, so that conviction was affirmed. The court held that Mach's overall sentence was not excessive and within legal limits, leading to the conclusion that other convictions must remain as is. In summary, the court reversed and dismissed some convictions while affirming others based on their findings regarding the lawfulness of the search, evidence presented, and the nature of the offenses.
In OCCA case No. S-2005-866, Matthew Ryan Wells appealed his conviction for several charges including trafficking in illegal drugs and use of a weapon in commission of a crime. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling of the District Court, which had sustained Wells' motion to quash the information, meaning that the charges against him could not move forward. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-422, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentences for certain counts. One judge dissented. The case involved Jerry Lee Mays, who was found guilty of multiple charges, including shooting with intent to kill and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. The jury sentenced him to several years in prison, varying by count. Appellant believed that the evidence presented at trial was not enough to support his conviction for shooting with intent to kill. He argued that there was no proof of his intent to kill a specific person when he fired his weapon. Mays also claimed that his convictions violated double jeopardy laws, which protect individuals from being tried for the same crime multiple times. He argued that he should not be punished for both possession of a firearm and shooting with intent to kill since they were related offenses. Additionally, he felt that his punishment for possession of a firearm was excessive, that the jury should not have considered assault and battery as a lesser offense, and that the jury did not receive adequate instructions about his right to a fair trial. The court carefully reviewed Mays's arguments and considered all the evidence from the trial. They found that the jury had enough evidence to convict him of shooting with intent to kill. Even though Mays focused on the victim’s perception of his actions, the law does not depend solely on that view but considers all evidence as part of understanding a defendant's intent. The court also concluded that Mays's double jeopardy claim did not hold since he committed two separate offenses at different times. The first offense was possessing the firearm, and the second offense was shooting at people, which were considered distinct. In terms of sentencing, the court recognized that Mays's conviction for possession relied on prior felony convictions, which were also used in different charges. However, they concluded this did not unfairly impact his sentence. Important to note was that the trial court had made an error in telling the jury that Mays's conviction for assault and battery could be enhanced due to previous felonies, which was incorrect for a misdemeanor charge. The judges found that this error did not change the overall outcome significantly, so it was ruled as harmless. They did acknowledge a need to change the length of Mays's sentence for shooting with intent to kill from forty years to thirty years for each of those counts due to one of Mays's points about jury instructions that were missed. Ultimately, the court affirmed most of Mays's convictions and modified some sentences. Despite some errors, the judges felt that Mays received a fair trial overall, and the necessary adjustments to his sentences did not warrant a full new trial.