District Court

F-2018-113

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-113, the appellant appealed her conviction for multiple counts of child neglect and enabling child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and the sentences imposed. One judge dissented. The case involved Brenda Marie Huff, who was convicted by a jury of four counts of child neglect and one count of enabling child sexual abuse. The jury sentenced her to 25 years in prison for each count, which would be served at the same time. Brenda and her husband, co-defendant Andrew Huff, were accused of allowing their children to live in very poor conditions. Evidence showed the home was filthy, lacking running water, and filled with animal waste and sexual materials. The children were also exposed to troubling behavior, including sexual messages sent by Andrew to a young girl. Brenda was aware of this behavior but did not act to protect the child. Brenda raised several arguments in her appeal, including claims that the evidence against her was not enough to support the convictions, that there were problems with jury instructions, and that her sentence was too harsh. However, the court found that the evidence presented was sufficient for the jury to conclude that she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also noted that there were no errors in how the jury was instructed, and that the severity of her sentence was justified given the circumstances. The court upheld the jury's decision, concluding that Brenda had neglected the children and enabled her husband to harm them. Ultimately, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence, meaning Brenda would serve her time in prison as decided by the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2018-113

RE-2019-57

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, Toni Lynn Cook appeals the revocation of her suspended sentence from the McIntosh County District Court. Cook had originally pled guilty to the charge of Obstructing an Officer. Following her guilty plea, the State filed a Motion to Revoke her suspended sentence, claiming she committed new crimes while on probation, which included multiple counts of Assault and Battery on a Police Officer and Indecent Exposure. The revocation hearing saw evidence presented, including testimonies from jailers detailing that Cook had exposed herself and physically resisted their attempts to move her to a solitary cell, leading to injuries to the officers involved. The trial court found that the State met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Cook had violated her probation. Cook raised several propositions on appeal: 1. **Insufficient Evidence**: Cook argued that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the alleged probation violations. However, the court found that the evidence sufficient and credible, affirming that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion. 2. **Waiver of Hearing Within Twenty Days**: Cook contended that her waiver of the right to a hearing within twenty days was not valid. The court ruled that Cook had waived this right knowingly, as she had not requested an early hearing and did not provide evidence that she was unaware of this right. 3. **Excessiveness of Revocation**: Cook argued the revocation was excessive. The court noted that revocation is a matter of grace, and since Cook committed multiple new offenses while on probation, the trial judge's decision to revoke her sentence in full was not an abuse of discretion. In conclusion, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to revoke Cook's suspended sentence, finding no merit in her claims. The mandate was ordered to be issued upon filing the decision.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-57

RE-2019-42

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. CF-2012-206, the appellant appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court affirmed the revocation of his suspended sentence. The appellant failed to pay restitution and supervision fees, and he was found guilty of a new crime, Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the sentence based on these violations. One judge dissented, arguing that the appellant’s failure to pay was not willful and should have been considered.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-42

F-2018-1222

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding Larry Donelle Brown, Jr.'s appeal following his resentencing for a first-degree murder conviction. Here's a brief breakdown of the key points: 1. **Background**: - Larry Donelle Brown, Jr. was convicted of first-degree murder as a juvenile and initially sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. - This sentence was later challenged, and the Oklahoma Court granted post-conviction relief, allowing Brown to be resentenced. 2. **Resentencing**: - Upon resentencing by Judge Sharon K. Holmes, Brown received a life sentence with the possibility of parole, with credit for time served. 3. **Appeal**: - Brown's appeal argues that his life sentence effectively amounts to a life sentence without parole, violating his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. - He cites the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in *Miller v. Alabama* and *Graham v. Florida*, which assert that juveniles should have a meaningful opportunity for parole based on their maturity and rehabilitation. 4. **Court Findings**: - The court found no constitutional violation in Brown's sentence. - It reiterated previous rulings that a life sentence with the possibility of parole does not violate the standards set by the Supreme Court regarding juvenile offenders. - The court noted that Brown, having served over 21 years, appears eligible for parole consideration and affirmed that he had not been denied fair notice or opportunity in the parole process. 5. **Conclusion**: - The sentence was affirmed, indicating that the court found the sentencing to be constitutional and appropriate given the circumstances surrounding Brown's case. Overall, the Court concluded that Brown's concerns regarding parole and the juvenile sentencing principles established by prior Supreme Court rulings were sufficiently addressed by his current life sentence with the possibility of parole.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1222

F-2018-1186

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DOMINICK JAVON SMITH, Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-1186** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA JAN 30 2020** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Appellant, Dominick Javon Smith, was tried by jury and convicted of Child Neglect, After Former Conviction of a Felony, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(C), in the District Court of Tulsa County Case Number CF-2017-1887. The jury recommended punishment of forty years imprisonment and payment of a $5,000.00 fine. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly; she will serve 85% of her sentence before becoming eligible for parole consideration. From this judgment and sentence, Appellant appeals, raising three propositions of error: **I.** The trial court erred in permitting the State to cross-examine Dominick Smith in the punishment stage on matters not relevant to her alleged prior felony conviction. **II.** Prosecutorial misconduct deprived Appellant of a fair trial. **III.** Appellant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. After thorough consideration of the record, including the original documents and briefs, we find that under the law and evidence, Appellant is not entitled to relief. In her first proposition, Appellant claims that the trial court improperly allowed the prosecutor to question her about matters irrelevant to her prior felony conviction. While defense counsel objected multiple times, only two objections referenced relevance. Therefore, the remainder is assessed under plain error review. Under the Simpson test, we assess actual error that is plain or obvious and that affects substantial rights. The trial court's limitations on cross-examination are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. During the punishment phase, Appellant testified on direct that she had a prior felony conviction for child abuse. On cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned Appellant about conflicting statements made to police, thereby attempting to impeach her credibility. Given that Appellant opened the door to her prior conviction and explanation, there was no error in allowing such cross-examination. Proposition I is denied. In Proposition II, Appellant contends prosecutorial misconduct occurred during closing arguments when the prosecutor suggested that Santa Claus may have caused the victim's injuries and discussed how Appellant's actions deprived K.O. of life experiences. As Appellant failed to object, we review these claims for plain error. The prosecutor's remarks were within acceptable boundaries as they focused on the evidence and reasonable inferences. Appellant's claim that the argument improperly sought sympathy for K.O. does not render it improper. The remarks about the consequences of Appellant's actions are relevant and permissible. Thus, Proposition II is denied. Lastly, in Proposition III, Appellant claims ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the prosecutor's cross-examination and closing argument. Under the Strickland test, the claims of ineffectiveness can be dismissed due to lack of demonstrated error in the prosecutor’s conduct. Since neither allegation resulted in plain error, the claim of ineffective assistance fails. Thus, Proposition III is denied. **DECISION** The JUDGMENT and SENTENCE is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- *Counsel for Appellant: Richard Koller, Richard Couch, Rebecca Newman* *Counsel for the State: Mike Hunter, Andrea Brown, Keeley L. Miller* **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur [Download Opinion PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1186_1734785732.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-1186

F-2018-1161

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **KENNETH ALLEN DAY,** Appellant, **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. Case No. F-2018-1161 **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant Kenneth Allen Day was tried and convicted by a jury in the District Court of Oklahoma County (Case No. CF-2017-2586) of: 1. **Count 1:** Sexual Battery (21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 1123(B)) 2. **Counts 2 and 3:** Indecent Exposure (21 O.S.2011, § 1021) The jury recommended a sentence of 30 days imprisonment on Count 1, and 1 year imprisonment each on Counts 2 and 3. The Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge, presided over the trial and executed the sentences as per the jury's recommendations, ordering them to run consecutively and consecutively to Oklahoma County Case No. CF-16-6470. Day was granted credit for 177 days served and was subject to various costs and fees. Day appeals, raising the following proposition of error: **I. THE TRIAL COURT INCORRECTLY INTERPRETED OKLA. STAT. TIT. 57, § 138(G) BY REFUSING TO GRANT MR. DAY CREDIT FOR ALL TIME SERVED WHILE AWAITING TRIAL AND SENTENCING, CLAIMING THAT THE STATUTE WAS DISCRETIONARY AND NOT MANDATORY.** Upon a thorough review of the entire record including transcripts, exhibits, and the parties' briefs, we find no legal error necessitating relief. Therefore, Day's judgments and sentences are AFFIRMED. **Proposition I:** Day's claim pertains to the nature of credit for time served—whether it is mandatory or discretionary. Citing *Loyd v. State*, 1981 OK CR 5, 624 P.2d 74, Day contends that 57 O.S.Supp.2015, § 138(G) mandates credit for all time served prior to judgment and sentence. However, as recently discussed and clarified in *Luna-Gonzales v. State*, 2019 OK CR 11, this argument has been rejected. This Court noted that *Loyd* is inconsistent with the majority of case law on this subject and that the Oklahoma Legislature has amended § 138 multiple times since 1980, which indicates a legislative intent to modify the ruling in *Loyd*. The current statute indicates that defendants automatically receive credit for jail time served only post-judgment and sentencing. Significantly, *Loyd* is overruled to the extent it conflicts with this interpretation. We also recognize that the district court exercised its discretion appropriately in awarding Day partial credit for time served, which aligns with previous ruling in *Luna-Gonzales* that grants sentencing judges discretion regarding credit for pre-sentencing incarceration. Thus, Day's argument is rejected, and his assertion is firmly denied. **DECISION** The judgments and sentences of the District Court are AFFIRMED. According to Rule 3.15 of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE shall be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY R. HENDERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** RICHARD HULL (Counsel for Appellant) HALLIE ELIZABETH BOVOS KRISTEN MESSINA, ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** LORI MCCONNELL MIKE HUNTER RACHEL SMITH JULIE PITTMAN, ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL, (Counsel for Appellee) **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR For further details and access to full judgment, [Click Here to Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1161_1734786325.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-1161

C-2018-1167

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the case of Ronald Fitzgerald Williams. Williams entered a negotiated guilty plea to multiple counts related to drug offenses and other violations. After sentencing, he filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted a writ of certiorari (a type of court order) and remanded the case for a new hearing on Williams' motion to withdraw his plea. The court found significant errors: 1. Williams was allegedly misadvised about his appellate rights, affecting the voluntariness of his plea. 2. The evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea was held in his absence without a valid waiver of his right to be present. 3. Williams asserted he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The court emphasized that due process requires a defendant's attendance at a hearing concerning the withdrawal of a plea unless there’s evidence of a waiver, which was not present in this case. The court reversed the trial court’s denial of the motion to withdraw the plea and ordered a new hearing to ensure due process is upheld. The document concludes with information about the attorneys involved in the case and instructions for further proceedings. For additional details or specific legal arguments, you can download the full opinion using the link provided.

Continue ReadingC-2018-1167

RE-2018-932

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ANTHONY CURTIS CREEK,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. RE-2018-932** **SUMMARY OPINION** **Filed January 23, 2020** ROWLAND, JUDGE: Anthony Curtis Creek, Appellant, entered a guilty plea on March 16, 2015, in Garfield County District Court Case No. CF-2013-393, to Count 1 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, a misdemeanor, and Count 2 - Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a misdemeanor. He received a sentence of one year in the County Jail on Count 1, with 90 days to be served and the remainder suspended; Count 2 was sentenced to one year suspended, with penalties running consecutively. He was also fined $500.00. On January 20, 2017, the State applied for the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence on Count 2, alleging violations: (1) possession or consumption of alcohol; (2) DUI-A, a misdemeanor; and (3) Defective Equipment, a misdemeanor, in Oklahoma County Case No. CM-2016-2776. During the revocation hearing on June 2, 2017, Appellant admitted to the first allegation. The trial judge, Honorable Dennis Hladik, determined that the State proved the other allegations and revoked six months of Appellant's suspended sentence. Appellant appeals this decision, raising several propositions of error: 1. **Abuse of Discretion:** The trial court allegedly utilized a strict liability standard, resulting in a cruel and excessive sentence. 2. **Prosecutorial Misconduct:** Claiming that Appellant was deprived of a fundamentally fair proceeding due to misconduct. 3. **Plain Error:** The trial court's finding on the State's evidence and the standard of proof was erroneous. 4. **Equal Protection Violation:** Appellant asserts he was denied equal protection under the law. 5. **Cumulative Error:** The accumulation of errors deprived Appellant of due process. Upon review, the Court affirms the District Court's order revoking six months of Appellant's suspended sentence. 1. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence is within the substantial discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. The evidence supported Judge Hladik’s decision to revoke only part of the sentence after considering a stipulation and witness testimonies. 2. The Court agrees with Appellant's counsel that prosecutorial misconduct is more appropriate for post-conviction matters. The record does not support claims of misleading behavior by the prosecutors. 3. The standard of proof for such violations is a preponderance of the evidence, adequately satisfied in Appellant's case. Revocation is valid with any proven violation. 4. The trial court's exclusion of evidence does not equate to an equal protection violation. The ruling was consistent and reasonable. 5. As there were no individual errors identified, the argument for cumulative error also fails. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Garfield County District Court Case No. CF-2013-393 is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is ordered to be issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** **David J. Batton** Counsel for Defendant **Tallena Hart** Carter Jennings Assistant District Attorney Counsel for the State **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J:** **LEWIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **LUMPKIN, J: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-932_1734358983.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-932

C-2019-329

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. C-2019-329** **Filed January 16, 2020** **Petitioner:** Andrea Dawnelle Feeling **Respondent:** The State of Oklahoma **Summary Opinion Denying Certiorari** **Judge Rowland:** Petitioner Andrea Dawnelle Feeling entered a blind plea of guilty in the Mayes County District Court (Case No. CF-2017-355) to Aggravated Assault and Battery (Count 1), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 646, and Battery on a Police Officer (Count 2), in violation of 21 O.S.2015, § 649(B). The Honorable Stephen R. Pazzo accepted Feeling's guilty plea on January 24, 2019. She received a sentence of five years for Count 1 and four years for Count 2, both served consecutively, along with a $500 fine on each count. Feeling filed a timely motion to withdraw her guilty plea, which was denied after a hearing on April 26, 2019. Her appeal raises three primary issues: 1. The voluntariness and knowing nature of her plea. 2. The alleged ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea process. 3. The claim that her sentence is excessive. **1. Voluntariness of Plea:** Feeling contends the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion to withdraw, arguing her plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily. This Court reviews such denials for an abuse of discretion standard, which entails examining whether the trial court’s actions were unreasonable or arbitrary. The petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate a defect in the plea process. In analyzing the motion to withdraw, the trial court's review included the plea form and testimony from the withdrawal hearing. The record indicates that the district court did not abuse its discretion; Feeling's claims regarding the nature of her plea do not find support in the existing evidence. **2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must prove both deficiency in the attorney's performance and resulting prejudice. The court noted that Feeling did not demonstrate that counsel's performance affected the outcome of the plea proceedings. Given the existing record, the Court found no reasonable probability that different actions by counsel would have changed the result, rendering her ineffective assistance claim without merit. **3. Excessiveness of Sentence:** Feeling also appeals on the basis of an excessive sentence. The Court adheres to the principle that sentences within statutory limits are generally upheld unless they shock the conscience under the circumstances presented. The imposed sentences align with statutory expectations and do not shock this Court's conscience. **Decision:** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED, and the district court's denial of the motion to withdraw the plea is AFFIRMED. **Pursuant to Rule 3.15, MANDATE is ORDERED issued.** **Appearances:** - **For Petitioner:** Ashley Klinck, Garrett Marshall, Misty Fields - **For State:** Kyle Long, Assistant District Attorney **Opinion by:** Rowland, J. **Concurred by:** Lewis, P.J.; Kuehn, V.P.J.; Lumpkin, J.; Hudson, J. **[Link to full opinion in PDF format](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2019-329_1734233272.pdf)**

Continue ReadingC-2019-329

S-2019-479

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case involving Chris Forte and Skyla Forte, who were charged with Child Abuse by Injury and Child Neglect. The order of the District Court, which quashed the child abuse charge due to insufficient evidence, has been reversed by the appellate court. Key points from the document include: 1. The appellate court held that the District Court abused its discretion in determining that the magistrate's bind-over order for Count 1 (Child Abuse by Injury) was not based on competent evidence. 2. The preliminary hearing established that the alleged victim, a six-year-old girl named K.K., suffered extensive bruising and malnourishment which were reported as a result of the conduct of the Appellees. 3. Evidence included testimony from a child abuse pediatrician whose findings indicated that the injuries were consistent with abuse rather than legitimate disciplinary actions. 4. The court stated that the determination of whether the force used was reasonable or excessive is typically a matter for a jury to decide. 5. Ultimately, the matter has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. The case illustrates the legal standards for assessing probable cause during preliminary hearings and clarifies the threshold for determining whether the use of physical discipline may cross into abusive conduct under Oklahoma law.

Continue ReadingS-2019-479

F-2018-900

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ANGEL MUNOZ,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-900** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAN - 9 2020** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Angel Munoz, appeals from the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2016-701 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, by the Honorable Glenn M. Jones, District Judge. On March 7, 2018, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to Count 1: Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon, with sentencing deferred for a period of five years under probation conditions until March 6, 2023. On June 26, 2018, the State filed an application to accelerate Appellant's deferred judgment and sentencing, alleging he violated probation by committing the new crime of Possession of a Firearm after a prior felony conviction, as charged in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2018-2625. An amended application was filed on August 21, 2018. At the hearing on this application, the State called Appellant's probation officer, Tammera Saavedra. During a home visit on April 13, 2018, Officer Saavedra found a nine-millimeter semiautomatic pistol and ammunition in plain view in a garage where Appellant claimed to be staying. Additionally, personal items belonging to Appellant were found near the firearm, leading to his arrest for possessing the firearm. Appellant's brother-in-law, Arturo Plascencia, testified that Appellant did not live in the garage, stating that he had never stayed there. Appellant corroborated this, but both testimonies were contradicted by evidence showing Appellant's possession and control of the area where the gun was found. After hearing the evidence, Judge Jones found that Appellant violated his probation. Consequently, he accepted the State's recommendation and sentenced Appellant to a term of ten years. Appellant raises two propositions of error on appeal: 1. **Proposition I**: The trial court abused its discretion by accelerating Appellant's sentence when the State failed to provide sufficient competent evidence of the alleged new offense. 2. **Proposition II**: The acceleration judgment should reflect Appellant's conviction for Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon, rather than Assault and Battery With a Deadly Weapon. **ANALYSIS** In **Proposition I**, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish his knowledge of the firearm's presence. The standard for reviewing such claims requires that the court finds whether a rational trier of fact could have concluded the essential elements of the probation violation were met by a preponderance of the evidence. Evidence presented indicated Appellant's admission to living in the garage at the time the firearm was discovered. Testimony from Officer Saavedra and physical evidence reinforced the conclusion that Appellant had dominion and control over the area where the firearm was located. Conflicting testimonies regarding Appellant's residence and possession were matters for the court to evaluate. Thus, Appellant failed to substantiate that Judge Jones acted irrationally in his ruling. In **Proposition II**, Appellant argues for a correction of the accelerating judgment to accurately reflect his offense. The State agrees that this matter warrants attention. Therefore, it should be remanded to the District Court for the necessary correction. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County accelerating Appellant's deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2016-701 is AFFIRMED. However, the case is REMANDED to the District Court for a correction in accordance with Appellant's request. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2020), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** **For the Appellant:** Kenneth C. Watson, Nancy Walker-Johnson Attorney at Law 119 N. Robinson, Suite 640 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **For the State:** Tiffany Noble, Mike Hunter, Diane L. Slayton Assistant District Attorneys 505 County Office Building Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-900_1735119586.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-900

F-2018-835

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ANTHONY BRUCE HENSON, SR.,** Appellant, **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. Case No. F-2018-835 Summary Opinion FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA JAN - 9 2020 **OPINION** *LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:* Anthony Bruce Henson, Sr., Appellant, was tried by jury and found guilty on Counts 1 through 6 for sexual abuse of a child under twelve (12) years, violating 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(F); and Count 7 for child abuse, violating 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(A), in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2017-3127. The jury sentenced the Appellant to life imprisonment and a $1,000.00 fine for each of Counts 1 through 6, and six (6) years imprisonment for Count 7. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively, though the court did not impose the fines. The State dismissed Count 8, charging child abuse, prior to trial. The jury deadlocked on Counts 9 and 10, also charging sexual abuse of a child under twelve, leading the State to dismiss those counts. Mr. Henson raises the following propositions of error on appeal: 1. The District Court erred in admitting bad act evidence of pornography, violating provisions of the Oklahoma Evidence Code and denying due process and a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment. 2. The jury instruction concerning the other crimes evidence was erroneous, as it did not limit its admission purpose. 3. The consecutive life sentences are excessive and should be modified. 4. Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel per the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. **Proposition One:** Appellant argues the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his possession of child pornography on a cell phone, which counsel did not object to at trial, waiving all but plain error. As established in *Simpson v. State*, Appellant must demonstrate that this plain error affected the trial's outcome. The Court finds no error in the admission of this evidence to show motive or intent for the charged crimes. **Proposition Two:** Appellant contends the trial court used an incorrect limiting instruction for the other crimes evidence of child pornography. The request for this instruction constituted a waiver of the standard error analysis. Although the court erred in using a modified instruction, it did not compromise the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings, thus, relief is unwarranted. **Proposition Three:** Appellant claims his six consecutive life sentences are excessive. The Court will not alter sentences within statutory limits unless they are so excessive that they shock the court’s conscience. The sentences here do not shock the conscience and are within legal limits. **Proposition Four:** The Appellant argues ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to inadmissible evidence and not requesting a proper limiting instruction. Following *Strickland v. Washington*, the Court finds no reasonable probability that the outcomes would have differed due to trial counsel's performance. **DECISION** The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES** **AT TRIAL** Richard Koller, Attorney for Appellant Barbara Woltz **ON APPEAL** Nicole Dawn Herron, Attorneys for Defendant Katie Koljack, Mike Hunter, Mark Morgan, Asst. District Attorneys Sheri M. Johnson, Asst. Attorney General **OPINION BY:** Lewis, P.J. Kuehn, V.P.J.: Concur Lumpkin, J.: Concur in Results Hudson, J.: Concur Rowland, J.: Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-835_1735212413.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-835

F-2018-136

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-136, Michael Emmanuel Ishman appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Possession of a Firearm After Former Felony Conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Ishman's conviction and sentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Ishman who was trialed and convicted by a jury. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for each count, with all sentences running consecutively. Ishman raised several arguments in his appeal regarding the evidence presented, jury instructions, and the conduct of his trial. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for robbery and determined that the witness's corroboration was not required as she was not considered an accomplice. The court also addressed claims of instructional errors regarding the punishment range for firearm possession, finding that the errors were harmless because the jury recommended the maximum sentence. Moreover, the court dismissed claims about the introduction of evidence of other bad acts and the failure to instruct the jury on lesser offenses. The court determined that defense counsel performed adequately, stating that there was no evidence that any of the claimed errors affected the trial's outcome. The court summarized that the jury's recommendation of life sentences was appropriate given the circumstances of the case, and affirmed all judgments made by the trial court. Overall, the court did not find sufficient grounds for relief based on Ishman's claims and decided to uphold the conviction and sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2018-136

F-2017-1001

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1001, Jacob Darrell Tyre appealed his conviction for child abuse and child neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Jacob Darrell Tyre was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for child abuse and child neglect. He received a sentence of eight years in prison for child abuse and twelve years for child neglect, with both sentences served back-to-back. He was also fined but the fines were later suspended. Tyre argued three main errors in his appeal. First, he claimed his lawyer had not effectively represented him because the lawyer admitted Tyre was guilty of child abuse without discussing it with him first. The court looked into this issue and found that the lawyer had actually talked to Tyre about this strategy beforehand, and Tyre approved it, even if he was not happy about it. Second, Tyre believed that the actions of the prosecutor made his trial unfair. However, the court found that there were no clear mistakes that affected the fairness of the trial. Third, Tyre challenged the testimony of a doctor who suggested that a child was abused. Since Tyre did not object to this during the trial, the court reviewed it for serious mistakes but found that the doctor's testimony was allowed. In the end, the court upheld Tyre's convictions and sentences, ordering that the decision be effective immediately.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1001

RE-2018-1217

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DEXTER JEROME BIGLOW,** Appellant, **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. RE-2018-1217** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA DEC 19 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** KUEHN, VICE-PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant Dexter Jerome Biglow appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2017-3262. On February 14, 2018, Appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas to Aggravated Attempting to Elude and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (marijuana). He was sentenced to five years of imprisonment on the eluding count and to one year of incarceration on the drug charge, to be served concurrently, with both sentences suspended. On November 6, 2018, the State filed an application to revoke the suspended sentences, alleging that Appellant had committed the new crimes of domestic abuse by strangulation and domestic abuse resulting in great bodily injury. A hearing on the application to revoke was held on November 27, 2018, before the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, who granted the State's application and revoked Appellant's suspended sentences in full. On appeal, Appellant contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the allegations contained in the application to revoke. We respectfully disagree. **ANALYSIS** At a revocation hearing, the focus is whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated, with the standard of proof being a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court's decision should not be overturned unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. In this case, both Officers Taylor and Mueggenborg testified at the hearing, having individually interviewed the alleged victim of the domestic abuse. The judge found their testimony had substantial guarantees of trustworthiness, which allowed the court to consider the victim's out-of-court statements. Notably, while the testimony was contradictory, the court did not abuse its discretion by finding the State adequately proved its case for revocation. The credibility of witnesses is a matter for the trial court, which may choose to believe or disbelieve any witness. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended judgments and sentences in Case No. CF-2017-3262 is therefore AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** Thomas P. Hurley - Assistant Public Defender Marva A. Banks - Assistant Public Defender Danielle Connolly - Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter - Oklahoma Attorney General Tessa L. Henry - Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J.: LEVIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1217

F-2018-1087

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, addressing the appeal of Spencer Joe Cuccaro regarding his termination from the Kay County Drug Court and subsequent sentencing. ### Key Points: 1. **Case Background**: - Appellant Spencer Joe Cuccaro was placed in the Kay County Drug Court program on June 22, 2017, following a plea agreement that stipulated the conditions of his sentencing based on his performance in the program. - Cuccaro was involved in multiple cases (CF-2016-561, CF-2011-74, CF-2008-353) linked to drug offenses and was under specific probationary requirements. 2. **Allegations Against Cuccaro**: - The State filed a petition to remove Cuccaro from Drug Court, citing new criminal charges (including trafficking in illegal drugs), non-compliance with counseling requirements, and outstanding fees. - Evidence presented included testimonies from law enforcement regarding drug possession during a traffic stop and at the jail. 3. **Termination Hearing**: - At the termination hearing, evidence presented indicated that Cuccaro had violated the terms of his drug court agreement by committing new offenses and failing to meet his counseling and payment obligations. - The trial judge, David R. Bandy, found sufficient evidence to terminate Cuccaro from the Drug Court program. 4. **Appeal Propositions**: - **Proposition I**: Cuccaro claimed his no contest pleas were coerced. - **Proposition II**: He alleged the trial court failed to follow mandatory Drug Court procedures. - **Proposition III**: He contended the trial judge abused discretion in terminating him. - **Proposition IV**: He argued that the sentencing was excessive. 5. **Court's Analysis**: - The court found that Proposition I was not a suitable subject for this appeal and should be addressed in a separate certiorari appeal regarding the plea. - Proposition II also fell outside the scope of the termination appeal, which is to assess the validity of the termination order. - For Proposition III, the court upheld that the decision to terminate Cuccaro was within the judge’s discretion, consistent with the evidence of non-compliance and new criminal activity. - Proposition IV regarding sentencing was similarly ruled to be outside the appeal context, advising Cuccaro to raise such claims in the separate certiorari appeal. 6. **Decision**: - The court affirmed the termination order, emphasizing the trial judge's proper authority and the sufficiency of the evidence for termination from Drug Court. ### Conclusion: The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the District Court's order to terminate Spencer Joe Cuccaro from Drug Court and advised him to pursue any excessive sentence claims separately. The decision reflects adherence to legal standards concerning plea agreements, drug court compliance, and the discretion exercised by trial judges in such matters. For more details, you can access the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1087_1734789881.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-1087

F-2018-691

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document you provided outlines a legal case involving Jose Santiago Hernandez, who had his suspended sentences revoked due to alleged perjury. Here’s a summary of the key points: 1. **Background**: Hernandez entered a guilty plea to charges of robbery with a firearm and conspiracy in January 2017, resulting in a ten-year sentence with the last five years suspended. 2. **Revocation**: The State filed an application to revoke his suspended sentences on the grounds that he committed perjury by providing false statements regarding his co-defendant's involvement in the robbery during court proceedings. 3. **Hearing**: A revocation hearing took place on December 19, 2018, where the judge found that Hernandez did not provide truthful testimony. The judge ruled in favor of the State's application to revoke his suspended sentences. 4. **Appeal**: Hernandez appealed the revocation, arguing that the State did not present sufficient evidence of perjury, violating his due process rights. 5. **Court's Decision**: The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that violations of suspended sentences need only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation and found no abuse of discretion by the trial court. 6. **Conclusion**: The revocation of Hernandez's suspended sentences was upheld. For any further inquiries or specific details about the case, feel free to ask!

Continue ReadingF-2018-691

RE 2018-1288

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-1288, Jose Santiago Hernandez appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and conspiracy to commit a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Hernandez had pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm and conspiracy in 2017, getting a ten-year sentence for each count, but only had to serve five years if he followed the rules set for his probation. The State accused him of perjury, claiming he lied during a court proceeding about his co-defendant's involvement in the crime. During a hearing in December 2018, the judge found enough evidence to revoke Hernandez’s suspended sentences because he did not truthfully testify. Hernandez argued that the State did not show he committed perjury, but the court explained that they only needed to prove the violation of his probation terms by presenting a greater weight of evidence. The court concluded that they had enough evidence to believe Hernandez had broken the rules. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision to revoke his suspended sentences, meaning he would have to serve the full ten years.

Continue ReadingRE 2018-1288

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

RE-2018-1236

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Richard James Nunes, Appellant,** **-VS-** **The State of Oklahoma, Appellee.** **Case No. RE-2018-1236** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant, Richard James Nunes, appeals from the revocation of his eight-year suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2014-450 by the Honorable George Butner, District Judge, in the District Court of Seminole County. **Background:** On March 12, 2015, Nunes entered a guilty plea to Possession of a Stolen Vehicle (felony) and Altering License Plate/Decal (misdemeanor). He was sentenced to ten years on the felony, with the first two years to be served and the remainder suspended, and one year on the misdemeanor to be served concurrently. On December 27, 2017, the State filed a motion to revoke Nunes' suspended sentence, alleging probation violations. An initial appearance occurred on January 23, 2018, followed by the appointment of counsel on February 2, 2018. Nunes was released on bond on February 8, 2018 but failed to appear for a scheduled hearing on February 15, 2018. A hearing was ultimately held on November 26, 2018, where the probation officer testified that Nunes never reported after his release and was considered an absconder. Despite Nunes' testimony providing varying explanations for his actions, Judge Butner concluded that he violated probation and revoked the suspended sentence in full. **Proposition of Error:** Nunes asserts the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his suspended sentence because the revocation hearing was not timely. **Analysis:** According to 22 O.S.Supp.2016, § 991b(A), a revocation hearing must be held within twenty days following a plea of not guilty to the motion to revoke, unless waived. Nunes contends he never entered a plea and thus the hearing was untimely. However, as acknowledged by the State and Nunes himself, he never formally entered a plea of not guilty, meaning the twenty-day timeframe was never initiated. Moreover, the delay in the revocation hearing was primarily due to Nunes absconding and not fulfilling his responsibilities, further complicating the matter. **Decision:** The order of the District Court of Seminole County revoking Nunes' eight-year suspended sentence is therefore AFFIRMED. **OPINION BY: HUDSON, J.** **CONCUR: LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J. (CONCUR IN RESULTS); LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J.** --- For the full decision document, please visit the following link: [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-1236_1734353731.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1236

RE-2018-1006

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case No. RE-2018-1006** **Jose Adolfo Rios, Appellant,** **vs.** **The State of Oklahoma, Appellee.** **Summary Opinion** **Judge Lumpkin:** Appellant, Jose Adolfo Rios, appeals from the revocation in full of his concurrent ten-year suspended sentences in Case No. CF-2006-6132. The Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, ruled on this matter. On April 4, 2008, Appellant entered a guilty plea to two counts of Rape in the First Degree and two counts of Indecent or Lewd Acts With a Child Under Sixteen, resulting in sentences of twenty-two years for the rape counts (with the first twelve years suspended) and twenty years for the lewd acts counts (with the first ten years suspended), all to run concurrently. On July 25, 2018, the State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence, asserting multiple violations of probation, including failing to report, change of address, pay supervision fees, attend mandated treatment, and committing a new crime—Domestic Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon. During the revocation hearing before Judge Elliott, substantial evidence was presented regarding Appellant's violation of probation terms, including testimonies from Appellant’s probation officer and other evidence illustrating Appellant's failure to comply with treatment and reporting requirements. Appellant testified about personal struggles following a crime in which he was a victim, stating he had fallen victim to substance abuse and homelessness. After reviewing the evidence, Judge Elliott found sufficient basis to revoke the suspended sentences, having established by a preponderance of the evidence that Appellant had committed multiple violations, including failing to report and failing to attend treatment. **Proposition of Error:** Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in fully revoking his sentence, asserting that Judge Elliott did not adequately consider alternatives to full revocation. **Analysis:** The decision to revoke a suspended sentence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned without evidence of abuse of that discretion. Here, Judge Elliott had unrefuted evidence of Appellant's violations. The record demonstrates that Appellant acknowledged his failures and did not meet the terms of probation. While Appellant claimed that less severe measures should have been considered, the applicable statutes do not mandate such considerations during revocation proceedings. As such, Appellant has not demonstrated that the trial court erred or abused its discretion in revoking the sentences in full. **Decision:** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's concurrent ten-year suspended sentences is AFFIRMED. **Appearances:** **For Appellant:** Ben Munda, Assistant Public Defender Hallie Elizabeth Bovos, Assistant Public Defender 320 Robert S. Kerr, Suite 400 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **For the State:** Suzanne Lavenue, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma Tessa L. Henry, Assistant Attorney General 320 Robert S. Kerr, Suite 505 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **Opinion By:** Lumpkin, J. **Concurred by:** Lewis, P.J.; Kuehn, V.P.J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. [Download Full Opinion PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-1006_1734358375.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1006

F-2018-562

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AARON THOMAS BROCK,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2018-562** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Aaron Thomas Brock was convicted by jury of robbery with a dangerous weapon and conspiracy to commit a felony in Oklahoma County District Court, receiving a total sentence of thirty-five years imprisonment. He appeals with two propositions of error. **Proposition One: IAD Violation** Brock argues his rights under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) were violated when the State did not bring him to trial within the mandated 180 days. The trial court ruled that no proper detainer was lodged against him as required by Article III of the IAD. Brock contends that a documentation was sent to the appropriate authorities, triggering the IAD timeline. The trial court determined that there was no evidence of a proper detainer because the Oklahoma County District Attorney's office and the Court Clerk's office had no record of receiving documentation from Brock. Notably, the trial court found a facsimile from the Sheriff's office did not constitute a proper detainer as defined by case law (Fex v. Michigan). The Court agreed with the trial court's findings, ruling that Brock failed to provide sufficient documentation and credible evidence to support his claims. **Proposition Two: Insufficient Evidence** In his second proposition, Brock asserts that the evidence was insufficient to uphold the conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. The standard for reviewing evidence requires this Court to determine if, viewing the evidence favorably to the prosecution, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The facts presented included testimony that a knife was brandished toward a victim and that money was taken by a co-defendant and given to Brock. The Court found that this evidence met the elements for robbery with a dangerous weapon, reinforcing that the presence of fear in the victim suffices for conviction. **Decision** Both propositions of error raised by Brock are denied. The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. A mandate will issue upon filing this decision. **Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County** The Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge **Attorneys for Appellant**: Nick Southerland, Andrea Digilio Miller, Micah Sielert **Attorneys for Appellee**: Kelly Collins, Mike Hunter, Lori McConnell, Jennifer B. Miller **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **CONCURRING:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. [**Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-562_1735316443.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-562

C-2019-125

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**Case Summary: Cody Allen Blessing v. The State of Oklahoma** **Court:** Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals **Case No.:** C-2019-125 **Filed:** December 5, 2019 **Judge:** Rowland **Background:** Cody Allen Blessing entered a negotiated plea of no contest in the District Court of Alfalfa County to three counts of Child Abuse by Injury. His plea was accepted by the Honorable Loren Angle, who sentenced him to twenty years in prison on each count, with all but the first five years suspended, to be served concurrently. Subsequently, Blessing filed a motion to withdraw his plea, claiming it was not knowingly and voluntarily entered, among other issues. **Issues on Appeal:** 1. Denial of due process due to the hearing on his plea withdrawal not being held within thirty days. 2. Abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying the motion to withdraw the plea. 3. Ineffective assistance of counsel. **Court Findings:** 1. **Due Process Claim:** - The Court found that although the hearing was not held within the thirty-day timeframe set by court rules, the failure to do so was deemed harmless as a proper hearing was eventually conducted. Blessing did not seek extraordinary relief for the delay, thus the claim was denied. 2. **Withdrawal of Plea:** - Blessing claimed his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. However, he failed to express this specific claim in his initial motion to withdraw, but it was presented by conflict counsel at the hearing. The district court found that Blessing understood the implications of his plea. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** - Blessing argued that conflict counsel's failure to raise the issue of a knowing and voluntary plea waived it for appellate review. The Court ruled that since the claim was presented during the withdrawal hearing, it remained preserved for review. Blessing could not demonstrate any resultant prejudice from counsel's actions. Therefore, this claim was also rejected. **Decision:** The Court denied the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and affirmed the district court's denial of Blessing's motion to withdraw his plea. **Signatories:** - Opinion by: Rowland, J. - Concurrences: Lewis, P.J.; Kuehn, V.P.J.; Lumpkin, J.; Hudson, J. **For Further Information:** You can download the detailed opinion from the court [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2019-125_1734230491.pdf).

Continue ReadingC-2019-125

F-2018-1160

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **RASHAUN HAASTROP,** **Appellant,** **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-1160** **FILED DEC - 5 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** *KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:* Appellant, Rashaun Haastrop, was charged in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2018-55, with First Degree Burglary, After Conviction of Two Felonies. He was convicted of the lesser related offense of Attempted First Degree Burglary, After Conviction of Two Felonies. On November 13, 2018, the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, sentenced him to twenty years imprisonment in accordance with the jury's recommendation. This appeal followed. Appellant raises one proposition of error in support of his appeal: **PROPOSITION:** The State introduced insufficient evidence to prove that Mr. Haastrop had prior convictions out of Illinois and therefore his sentence must be modified. After thorough consideration of this proposition, the briefs of the parties, and the record on appeal, we affirm. Appellant's sole complaint on appeal is that the State failed to sufficiently prove that he was the person named in two Illinois documents reflecting felony convictions for Rashaun Haastrup, or that those convictions were valid and final, i.e., that the defendant in those proceedings had the assistance of counsel and that the convictions had not been appealed. The two latter challenges were not raised below, so we review them only for plain error, as established in *Mathis v. State*, 2012 OK CR 1, ¶ 30, 271 P.3d 67, 78. Plain errors are those errors which are obvious in the record and affect the substantial rights of the defendant; that is, the error affects the outcome of the proceeding, as seen in *Daniels v. State*, 2016 OK CR 2, ¶ 3, 369 P.3d 381, 383. The State offered two certified documents reflecting convictions in Illinois for a Rashaun Haastrup. The chronological entries on these documents show that in each case, (1) Mr. Haastrup was represented by counsel, (2) his rights to appeal were explained to him, but (3) no appeals were taken. The documents were generated several years after the convictions were entered, and neither reveal any activity after formal sentencing. See *Bickerstaff v. State*, 1983 OK CR 116, ¶ 8, 669 P.2d 778, 780. On this record, the trial court's conclusion that the convictions were valid and final was not plainly erroneous. As for whether Appellant (Rashaun Haastrop) and the person named in the documents (Rashaun Haastrup) are the same person, the jury received testimony from a police officer who interviewed Appellant after his arrest. The officer testified that Appellant admitted serving time in Illinois for two different crimes, specifically a drug offense and a theft offense; the State's documents reflected convictions for a drug crime and a theft crime. With identifying information provided by Appellant, the officer retrieved the Illinois documents. Given the unusualness of both names, their similarity, and Appellant's own admissions, a rational juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the convictions were, in fact, Appellant's, as established by *Jackson v. Virginia*, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) and *Garcia v. State*, 1987 OK CR 49, ¶ 30, 734 P.2d 820, 825. As there is no error, his sole proposition is denied. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Oklahoma County 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 the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** **ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL** **BENJAMIN MUNDA** **ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER** **BONNIE BLUMERT** **ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER** **OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **320 ROBERT S. KERR AVE.** **SUITE 611** **OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73101** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL** **DANIEL GRIDLEY** **MIKE HUNTER** **DANIEL POND** **ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA.** **ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS** **TESSA L. HENRY** **ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL** **320 ROBERT S. KERR AVENUE** **SUITE 505** **OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102** **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1160_1734786705.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-1160

F-2018-1083

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma regarding the case of Bryan Lee Guy, who was appealing his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. Below is a concise breakdown of the case and its outcome: ### Case Overview: - **Appellant**: Bryan Lee Guy - **Appellee**: The State of Oklahoma - **Court**: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma - **Original Jurisdiction**: District Court of Tulsa County - **Case Number**: F-2018-1083 - **Trial Judge**: Honorable Dawn Moody - **Sentence**: Thirty-seven years imprisonment (with a requirement to serve 85% before parole eligibility) ### Issues on Appeal: 1. **Instruction on Inconsistent Statements**: Guy argued that the jury was not properly instructed regarding the use of a victim's prior inconsistent statements. The court concluded this omission was not plain error and did not affect the trial's outcome. 2. **Conflicting Instructions**: Guy contended that jury instructions about the return of the verdict and lesser offenses were conflicting. The court found no plain error in these instructions, stating they did not misdirect the jury. 3. **Post-Imprisonment Supervision Instruction**: Guy challenged the inclusion of an instruction on mandatory post-imprisonment supervision, which the court acknowledged was given in error but did not constitute plain error affecting his rights. 4. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Guy claimed his attorney was ineffective on several grounds, including not reasserting a pretrial motion to dismiss and failing to take judicial notice of prior convictions. The court found no merit in these claims, concluding Guy could not show that these alleged deficiencies affected the trial outcome. ### Court's Decision: - The court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court. - Guy's request for an evidentiary hearing to further support his claim of ineffective assistance was denied. ### Conclusion: The appeal did not result in a reversal of the conviction or sentence, as the court found that the issues raised were either without merit or did not rise to the level of plain error that would impact the fairness of the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1083