District Court Archives - Page 5 of 29

F-2018-36

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 26, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-36, Robert Eugene Brewer appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child Under 12. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Brewer's conviction. One judge dissented. Brewer was tried in Tulsa County for sexually abusing a child under the age of 12. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to seven years in prison. He was also ordered to serve three years of supervision after his prison term. Brewer appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court made a mistake by allowing evidence related to other crimes that he believed had not been proven. The court reviewed the evidence and arguments presented. The main issue was whether the trial court had the right to let in evidence that showed Brewer had a pattern of behavior related to sexual abuse. This type of evidence is sometimes called propensity evidence. Brewer argued that the trial court should have held a special hearing before allowing this evidence and should have required witnesses to testify in person. However, the court found that the trial judge had done a thorough job. The judge had held multiple hearings and considered the evidence carefully. The judge did not make a mistake by allowing the evidence because they had enough information to decide it was relevant and necessary for the case. Even though Brewer did not object to the evidence when it was presented during the trial, the court considered whether there was a serious mistake that affected the fairness of the trial. After reviewing everything, the court concluded that the trial judge acted correctly. In summary, the court believed that the evidence presented was acceptable and did not harm Brewer's case. Therefore, Brewer’s conviction was upheld, but the court also instructed the district court to make some corrections to its legal documents regarding the correct law that applied to Brewer's actions at the time of the crime. The decision was to keep Brewer's sentence in place while correcting the legal documentation properly.

RE-2018-426

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 19, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CALVIN TAYLOR HERRIEN,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-426** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 19 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Calvin Taylor Herrien, appeals from the revocation of four years of his twenty-five year suspended sentences in Case No. CF-2011-4693 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, presided over by the Honorable Cindy H. Truong. **Background:** On November 2, 2012, Appellant entered a guilty plea to two counts of Lewd Acts With a Child Under Sixteen, resulting in a twenty-five year sentence for each count, both suspended under specific probation conditions. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence on November 1, 2017, alleging Appellant violated probation by failing to reside in a lawfully approved residence and not truthfully answering inquiries from the DOC and law enforcement. A hearing commenced on November 21, 2017, where evidence was presented, including testimony from police chief Allen Lane, who testified regarding Appellant's residence proximity to a park and his notification to Appellant to relocate. Further testimony came from probation officer Daniel Straka, who reported Appellant's admission about the residence, discrepancies about probation requirements, and additional violations not included in the revocation application. Appellant testified on his own behalf, offering explanations but ultimately, after considering arguments, Judge Truong found that Appellant had committed the two breaches alleged in the application. Following a continuance, on December 1, 2017, Judge Truong revoked four years of the suspended sentence. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Inadequate Notice:** Appellant contends that the consideration of testimony regarding uncharged violations denied him adequate notice, which impeded his ability to prepare a defense. 2. **Right to Confront:** Appellant alleges deprivation of his right to confront witnesses and due process during the hearing. 3. **Excessive Sentence:** Appellant argues that the four-year revocation of his suspended sentence is excessive. **Analysis:** The evidence presented at the revocation proceedings clearly showed that Appellant violated the terms of his probation. Appellant does not contest the findings concerning the recognized violations. He does not argue that he was unaware of the specifics related to the alleged probation violations or that he lacked the opportunity to defend himself against those violations. In regards to Propositions I and II, while Appellant claims other violations were improperly admitted, the court's finding that he committed the alleged violations outlined in the application suffices to validate the revocation. Furthermore, due process entitles Appellant to argue mitigating circumstances, which was provided by Judge Truong. Concerning Proposition III, revocation decisions are primarily at the discretion of the trial court and will only be overturned in cases of demonstrable abuse of that discretion. Appellant has not shown that the four-year revocation was disproportionate relative to the violations committed. **Decision:** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking four years of Appellant's twenty-five year suspended sentences in Case No. CF-2011-4693 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** to be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **Appearances:** **For Appellant:** Joshua C. Smith Attorney at Law 217 N. Harvey, Ste. 108 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **For Appellee:** Ryan P. Stephenson Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma County 320 Robert S. Kerr, Ste. 505 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **CONCUR IN RESULTS:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. *Click Here To Download PDF*

F-2018-664

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 19, 2019
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **KEYUNA CRYSTAL MOSLEY,** Appellant, vs. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. F-2018-664** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 19 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Keyuna Crystal Mosley was tried by jury and convicted of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 801, after being previously convicted of two or more felonies, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2017-1853. Following the jury's recommendation, the Honorable Ray C. Elliott sentenced Appellant to twenty (20) years imprisonment, requiring her to serve 85% of her sentence before becoming eligible for parole consideration per 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1. Appellant appeals this conviction and sentence. **Proposition of Error:** Appellant raises one proposition of error: that the State’s evidence was insufficient to prove her guilt of conjointly committing robbery with a dangerous weapon beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus due process mandates her case be reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss. **Decision:** After thorough consideration of the complete record, including original records, transcripts, exhibits, and briefs, we find the law and evidence do not necessitate relief. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed robbery with a dangerous weapon (Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, ¶ 15, 90 P.3d 556, 559). To establish robbery with a dangerous weapon, the State must demonstrate that the wrongful taking and carrying away of personal property from another's person or immediate presence occurred by force or fear, specifically involving a knife (21 O.S.2011, § 801; OUJI-CR 2d 4-144). The term “principal” in a crime includes anyone who either directly and actively commits the acts constituting the offense or knowingly and with intent aids and abets in its commission (Hackney v. State, 1994 OK CR 29, ¶ 9, 874 P.2d 810, 814; OUJI-CR 2d 2-5, 2-6). Appellant contends the State failed to prove that she acted conjointly with her boyfriend in committing the robbery. She argues that the victim Seale's testimony was incredible and contradicted by her own statement, and that the State should have corroborated Seale's testimony with additional evidence such as forensic evidence, text records, or records of their online communications. This assertion is incorrect. While the State could have provided such corroborative evidence, it was not required to do so. Seale was both an eyewitness and the victim, and the jury determines the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimony (Mason v. State, 2018 OK CR 37, ¶ 13, 433 P.3d 1264, 1269). The jury is entitled to make reasonable inferences supporting their verdict. Even in cases of sharply conflicting evidence, we will not disturb a properly supported verdict (Robinson v. State, 2011 OK CR 15, ¶ 17, 255 P.3d 425, 432). The evidence established that Appellant lured victim Seale to the crime scene, called her accomplice, and directly took and carried away Seale’s property while her accomplice threatened the victim with a knife. We will not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the jury (White v. State, 2019 OK CR 2, ¶ 9, 437 P.3d 1061, 1065). Thus, this proposition is denied. **Conclusion:** 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** TIMOTHY M. WILSON ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE. 611 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL** ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE 611 COUNTY OFFICE BLDG. 320 ROBERT S. KERR AVE. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** DAN POND KATHERINE BRANDON ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA. ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS TESSA L. HENRY 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE. 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 **[Download PDF Version Here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-664_1735223763.pdf)**

F 2018-0812

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 19, 2019
Post category:F

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

F-2018-446

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 19, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-446, Byron Craig Herd appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Byron Craig Herd was found guilty by a jury for breaking into someone's home. The court sentenced him to life in prison because he had a history of other convictions. During the trial, Herd's defense claimed that the prosecutor acted unfairly, which made it hard for him to get a fair trial. Herd argued two main points in his appeal. First, he said the prosecutor made the trial unfair by trying to make the jury feel sorry for the victims. The prosecutor did this by asking the jury about their feelings as potential victims of a burglary, which led to emotional comments during the trial. Secondly, Herd believed his life sentence was too harsh. The court looked carefully at the trial and the evidence. They noted that while some of the prosecutor's comments may have been too emotional, the evidence against Herd was very strong. There were recordings of him inside the victims' house, and he was caught shortly after the crime. The court concluded that, despite some mistakes made by the prosecutor, these did not significantly affect the fairness of the trial because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. They also determined that Herd's sentence was appropriate given his past crimes and the seriousness of his current crime. In the end, the court denied Herd’s appeal, meaning he would stay in prison for life.

F-2018-241

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 19, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-241, Mario Darrington appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Marijuana and Methamphetamine) and related drug charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Darrington was arrested after police executed a search warrant at a home in Tulsa. Officers found a large quantity of marijuana and methamphetamine in the house. Darrington was linked to this evidence through various items found at the scene, including drugs located in a suit pocket with his name on prescription bottles and documents. He was charged with trafficking and other felonies due to having a prior criminal record. During his trial, Darrington requested that evidence obtained from the search be suppressed, arguing that the search warrant was not valid. He believed that the warrant did not show enough information to justify the search. The court reviewed his claim and determined that the affidavit supporting the search warrant provided sufficient evidence for a judge to find probable cause. The police officer had personal observations and corroborated information that indicated illegal drug activity was happening at the residence. The court also found that the timing of the information was relevant and not too old to be dismissed. Additionally, Darrington sought to know the name of an unnamed informant who provided information to the police for the search. The court ruled that this informant was not a material witness, meaning their identity did not significantly affect Darrington's case. As a result, the court affirmed Darrington's conviction and upheld the district court's decisions regarding the suppression of the search evidence and the request for the informant's identity.

F 2018-0812

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 19, 2019
Post category:F

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

PC-2018-723

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 5, 2019
Post category:PC

**Summary of Court Decision: Shawn A. Detwiler v. The State of Oklahoma** *Case Overview:* Shawn A. Detwiler sought post-conviction relief related to multiple convictions stemming from offenses committed as a juvenile, including armed robbery and shooting with intent to kill. After initially pleading guilty to several charges and receiving concurrent sentences, he argued that the combination of his consecutive sentences constituted a de facto life without parole sentence, violating his Eighth Amendment rights. *Key Points of Rulings:* 1. **Case Summation:** Detwiler was convicted on several counts involving crimes such as burglary, robbery, and assault. His sentences ranged from 5 years to life imprisonment, some being discharged over time. 2. **Legal Precedents Cited:** Detwiler's argument was heavily reliant on the legal interpretations established in *Graham v. Florida*, *Miller v. Alabama*, and *Montgomery v. Louisiana*, which emphasize that juvenile offenders should not be sentenced to life without parole for non-homicide crimes. 3. **District Court's Findings:** The District Court found that since Detwiler was not sentenced to life without parole or its functional equivalent, the Eighth Amendment protections cited in those cases did not apply. 4. **Aggregate Sentencing Argument:** Detwiler contended that his sentences, when viewed collectively, equated to a de facto life sentence. However, the court maintained that each sentence should be evaluated independently. 5. **Response to Tenth Circuit Precedent:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals referred to a prior ruling (Martinez v. State) which rejected the idea of viewing multiple sentences in aggregate for Eighth Amendment analysis. 6. **Conclusion by the Court:** Detwiler's post-conviction relief was ultimately denied. The court established that he has the potential for parole consideration and has not received sentences that deal with him as if he was sentenced to life without parole as per the noted precedents. *Dissenting Opinions:* 1. Judge Lewis dissented, arguing that consecutive sentences for multiple serious offenses committed as a juvenile effectively mean a lifetime sentence without a realistic chance for release, which may constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 2. The dissent emphasized that juveniles should be given a chance to demonstrate maturity and rehabilitation, which the current sentencing practices do not permit. 3. It was asserted that the framework of Graham should extend to prevent the imposition of excessively punitive aggregated sentences for juveniles, thereby relieving them of permanent confinement without the chance for parole. *Final Notes:* The court's ruling underscores ongoing debates about sentencing juveniles, the interpretation of constitutional protections, and the lengths of sentences impacting juvenile offenders. The dissent highlights the critical need for opportunities for rehabilitation and review in cases involving young individuals.

F-2018-892

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 5, 2019
Post category:F

**Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma** **Case Summary:** **Case Name:** David Andrew Sanders, Appellant, v. The State of Oklahoma, Appellee **Case Number:** F-2018-892 **Date Filed:** September 5, 2019 --- **Background:** David Andrew Sanders appeals the acceleration of his deferred sentencing resulting from finding evidence that he committed new offenses while on probation. On April 29, 2016, in **Case No. CF-2012-2326**, Appellant entered no contest pleas to Burglary in the First Degree and Pointing a Firearm at Another. In **Case No. CF-2016-1178**, he entered a guilty plea for Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer. His sentencing was deferred for ten years (Burglary), five years (Firearm charge), and 30 days (Larceny). All sentences were to run concurrently. On November 28, 2017, the State filed an Application to Accelerate the Deferred Sentence, alleging new offenses. At a hearing on August 21, 2018, the court found sufficient evidence of new offenses: possession of a firearm while on probation, possession of a controlled dangerous substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. **Facts of the Case:** On May 6, 2017, police found Sanders unconscious in an idling car with a handgun in his lap. During the arrest, officers discovered a glass pipe and methamphetamine in the car's console. Sanders argued that this evidence was the product of an unlawful search. **Legal Findings:** The district court ruled that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the acceleration proceeding, which is not akin to a full trial. The court found no evidence of egregious police misconduct. According to Oklahoma law (Richardson v. State), exclusion of evidence is only warranted in revocation hearings where there has been egregious misconduct. **Conclusion:** The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The discovery of the firearm, glass pipe, and methamphetamine did not violate Sanders' rights given the context of the proceedings. **Decision:** The order of the district court accelerating Sanders’ deferred judgment and sentencing is AFFIRMED. --- **Counsel on Appeal:** - For Appellant: Micah Sielert and Andrea Digilo Miller - For Appellee: Tiffany Noble, Mike Hunter, Tessa L. Henry **Opinion by:** Presiding Judge Lewis **Concurrences:** Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn, Judge Lumpkin, Judge Hudson, Judge Rowland --- For more details, you may [download the full PDF here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-892_1735120506.pdf).

J 2019-0283

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 5, 2019
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2019-0283, D. J., III appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the order granting the imposition of an adult sentence. One judge dissented. D. J., III, who was born on November 1, 2000, faced serious charges after taking part in a hazing incident at school. The state wanted to try him as an adult, which is a significant step for a young person. This happened after a court decided that D. J. could not be helped enough through the juvenile system and that the public needed more protection. The court had a hearing on April 5, 2019, where the judge reviewed evidence and decided that D. J. should face adult charges. The main arguments in the case included whether the earlier ruling was correct and if it used the right laws to make its decision. D. J. argued that the state did not show strong enough evidence to justify moving him to adult court. When D. J. appealed, he claimed two main problems with how the trial was handled. First, he believed the state did not provide clear evidence for why he should be seen as an adult rather than a juvenile. Next, he said that the judge applied the wrong law when making the decision. However, the court found that the judge's decision was reasonable and based on the facts presented during the hearing. The court stated that judges have the right to decide which witnesses to believe and how to weigh their testimonies. The judges on the court agreed that even though there was a mistake in mentioning the wrong law, this did not harm D. J.'s case because both laws were similar. The important aspects of the case were clear, and ultimately, D. J. was seen as not being able to complete rehabilitation in the juvenile system. In the dissenting opinion, the judge expressed concern that the law limits how long juveniles can be kept under the juvenile system, and this may not allow for fair treatment when they are close to being adults. The dissenting judge felt that D. J. still had the potential for rehabilitation and disagreed with moving him to adult court. In summary, the court decided to uphold the decision to treat D. J. as an adult following the state's appeal, while one judge thought this decision should be reconsidered, suggesting changes to juvenile sentencing laws to allow more flexibility for young offenders.

F-2017-1176

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 5, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1176, Anthony Dean Wilkerson, Jr., appealed his conviction for seven counts of Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence given to him. One judge dissented. Wilkerson was convicted by a jury for serious crimes against a child. The jury decided on the punishments for each count, giving him long sentences, including life imprisonment for some of the counts. The trial court judge sentenced him to serve these sentences one after the other, meaning he would spend a long time in prison. Wilkerson raised several issues in his appeal, saying that his trial was not fair. He argued that he was punished too harshly for the same crime (double punishment), that the trial court made mistakes during the trial, and that the total effect of these mistakes made it unfair for him. The court looked at all the evidence and decided that Wilkerson's arguments were not strong enough to change the original decision. For his first point about double punishment, the court noted that the crimes were separate acts, so it was okay for him to be convicted on all counts without violating laws against multiple punishments. For his second and third points, the court said the trial judge was allowed to let the state ask questions that helped the young victim, J.W., remember her experiences better and to clarify her testimony about what happened to her. Regarding the length of his sentences and how they were administered (running consecutively), the court found no reason to change what the jury and trial judge decided. The punishments fell within legal limits, and the court didn't find that they were too harsh when considering the seriousness of the crimes. Wilkerson also claimed there was an error about a fine that was not mentioned at his sentencing. The court agreed that it was a simple mistake and ordered the lower court to correct this. Finally, the court did not find any combined errors that affected the fairness of the trial, so they rejected his last claim about cumulative error. In conclusion, the court upheld the original decision and confirmed Wilkerson's convictions, but instructed the lower court to fix the written sentencing document to remove the fine.

RE-2018-662

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 29, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **RYAN MITCHELL CRONIC,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-662** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA AUG 29 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Ryan Mitchell Cronic, pleaded guilty to three felony counts of Concealing Stolen Property in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2013-2184. He was sentenced to five years suspended on each count and was ordered to pay restitution. Additionally, he pleaded guilty to one felony count of Concealing Stolen Property in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2015-580, which resulted in a five-year imprisonment sentence, also suspended in full and ordered to run concurrently with Case No. CF-2013-2184, with credit for time served. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence for each case, alleging Appellant failed to pay supervision fees and restitution. Appellant stipulated to these allegations and received a sentence of thirty days in the custody of the Oklahoma County Sheriff. The applications to revoke were later dismissed by the State's motion. A second Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence was filed alleging that Appellant again failed to pay supervision fees and restitution, as well as including new charges: Aggravated Attempting to Elude a Police Officer, Driving While Revoked, and Failure to Provide Proof of Security Verification. After a hearing, the Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge, ordered Appellant's suspended sentences revoked in full. Appellant appeals this revocation, claiming it was an abuse of discretion. We affirm the order of the District Court regarding the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences. The decision to revoke suspended sentences lies within the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed unless there is an abuse. An abuse of discretion is described by this Court as a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented. Appellant has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion in the present case. However, there is a discrepancy in the record regarding Appellant's sentences. The Judgment and Sentence for both cases states Appellant was given a ten-year suspended sentence, while all other documents refer to a suspended sentence of five years. Consequently, we remand this matter to the District Court to address this inconsistency. **DECISION** The District Court's revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2013-2184 and CF-2015-580 is **AFFIRMED**, but the case is **REMANDED** to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the **MANDATE is ORDERED** to 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 APPEAL REVOCATION HEARING** **RICHARD HULL** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **HALLIE E. BOVOS** **611 COUNTY OFFICE BLDG.** **OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102** **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** **KELLY COLLINS** **OKLAHOMA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY** **MIKE HUNTER** **ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA.** **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J.: **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR**

F-2018-852

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 29, 2019
Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the case of Donald Ray Morrow. The key points of the opinion are as follows: 1. **Case Background**: Donald Ray Morrow was convicted by a jury of first-degree burglary, second-degree burglary, and larceny of an automobile in Custer County. He received a concurrent sentencing of fifteen years for the first-degree burglary, four years for the second-degree burglary, and six years for larceny. 2. **Propositions of Error**: Morrow raised two main arguments on appeal: - **Proposition One**: He claimed the trial court erred by allowing a juror who had a social acquaintance with a prosecution witness to remain on the panel. Upon examination, the juror stated that she could set aside any prior knowledge and decide based solely on the evidence presented. The court found no actual bias or harm and denied the request for a mistrial. - **Proposition Two**: Morrow argued that his sentence did not properly reflect credit for time served. The court agreed that an order was necessary to ensure that the credit for time served is accurately recorded in the judgment. 3. **Decision**: The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Morrow's convictions but remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to correct the judgment to reflect that he is to receive credit for time served. 4. **Outcome**: The mandate was ordered to be issued upon the filing of the decision, and all participating judges concurred with the opinion. For those interested in the full legal document, a link to download the complete opinion in PDF format is provided.

F-2018-322

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 29, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-322, Juan Carlos Renovato-Juaregui appealed his conviction for assault and battery with intent to kill and domestic assault and battery resulting in great bodily harm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. Judge Drummond merged the two counts into one, sentencing him to fifteen years in prison with credit for time served. The court found that the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct did not require reversal of the conviction. No judges dissented.

F-2018-84

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 29, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-84, #1 appealed his conviction for #2 driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. In a (published) decision, the court decided #3 to affirm the trial court's order to terminate #1 from the Drug Court Program. #n issued a dissenting opinion. Summary: Carl David Wagnon was charged in 2015 with a serious crime for driving under the influence of alcohol after having previous felony convictions. He pleaded guilty and entered a Drug Court program, which was part of an agreement that allowed him to avoid a long prison sentence if he was successful. However, in 2017, he was accused of a new crime, which led to a hearing where the court decided to remove him from the Drug Court program. Wagnon argued that his removal was unfair for several reasons. He claimed that the court relied too much on secondhand information and did not give him a chance to challenge the evidence against him. He also said that his removal was based on a crime that was not formally charged and that he did not receive enough warnings or chances to correct his behavior before being expelled from the program. Lastly, he believed that the court did not clearly explain why he was being removed. The court looked at these arguments but found that Wagnon was treated fairly and that the decision to terminate him from the Drug Court program was appropriate. They stated that the judge had the right to make this decision and had done so correctly, so they upheld the lower court's ruling. The case was affirmed and Wagnon was sentenced to twenty years in prison.

C-2018-1119

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 15, 2019
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AARON MARCUS SHORES,** **Petitioner,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-1119** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Petitioner Aaron Marcus Shores entered a negotiated plea of no contest in the District Court of LeFlore County to resolve his felony and misdemeanor charges in three cases. The charges included: 1. **Case No. CF-2018-239:** Failure to Notify Address Change of Sex Offender (felony). 2. **Case No. CM-2018-371:** Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (misdemeanor). 3. **Case No. CM-2018-373:** Malicious Injury to Property Under $1,000.00 (misdemeanor). Pursuant to the plea agreement, one count of Obstructing an Officer and one count of Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia were dismissed by the State. Judge Marion Fry subsequently sentenced Shores to four years of imprisonment on the felony count and one year in the county jail for each misdemeanor count, with all sentences running concurrently. He was also ordered one year of post-imprisonment supervision and awarded credit for time served. Shores filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, which was denied after a hearing. He appeals this denial, claiming: 1. The district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea as he did not receive the benefits of his plea bargain. 2. He received ineffective assistance of counsel. **1. Denial of Motion to Withdraw Plea** Shores argues he did not receive the promised benefits of his plea bargain. The court evaluated this claim against the standard set forth in *Couch v. State*, noting that promises made in plea agreements must be fulfilled. While Shores did not specifically raise his current argument in his initial motion to withdraw, it was discussed during the evidentiary hearing. The appellate court reviews the denial for abuse of discretion and affirmatively holds that Shores received the benefits of his plea agreement. The district court's order confirmed that Shores's Oklahoma sentences would run concurrently with his sentences from Arkansas, fulfilling the terms agreed upon during the plea process. **2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel** Shores claims ineffective assistance from conflict counsel, who allegedly failed to preserve his claim regarding the benefits of the plea agreement. To prevail on such a claim, Shores must demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel's performance. The court found that conflict counsel adequately raised Shores's concerns at the withdrawal hearing, effectively preserving the issue for appeal. Therefore, Shores could not establish that his counsel's performance resulted in any prejudice. **CONCLUSION** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The district court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to withdraw plea is AFFIRMED. **MANDATE ordered to be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.** **Appearances:** - Doug Schmuck, Appellate Defense Counsel, for Petitioner. - Matt McBee, Counsel for Withdraw Motion. - Kevin Merritt and Margaret Nicholson, Assistant District Attorneys for the State. --- This summary is designed for clarity and understanding without retaining excessive legal jargon, while accurately reflecting the decisions and arguments presented in the original case summary.

S-2018-978

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 15, 2019
Post category:S

**State v. Cousan: Summary of the Court's Decision** In the case of *State of Oklahoma v. William Lee Cousan*, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed the legality of the police actions leading to the arrest of Cousan and the subsequent search of his person that resulted in the discovery of crack cocaine. **Background:** William Lee Cousan was charged with Illegal Drug Trafficking, Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. The charges arose from a police investigation initiated by an anonymous tip suggesting that Cousan was dealing drugs from a Motel 6 room. Following a surveillance operation and gathering additional evidence, police obtained a search warrant for Cousan's motel room. While executing the warrant, Cousan left the motel in a vehicle, and police conducted a traffic stop approximately eight blocks away. During this stop, officers found cocaine on him and placed him under arrest. Cousan argued that the officers exceeded the scope of the search warrant during his detention and that the subsequent search of his person was unlawful. **District Court Ruling:** The district court agreed with Cousan's motion to suppress evidence, stating that the search was not justified as incident to the execution of the search warrant since it occurred outside the immediate vicinity of the premises. **Court of Criminal Appeals Decision:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the district court's ruling, holding: 1. **Probable Cause:** The court found that the officers had probable cause to arrest Cousan at the time of his detention based on the tips and surveillance evidence indicating he was dealing drugs. 2. **Lawful Search Incident to Arrest:** The search of Cousan's person was deemed lawful as a search incident to arrest because probable cause existed for that arrest, independent of the execution of the search warrant. 3. **Inevitability Doctrine:** Even if the court did not find probable cause at the time of the stop, the officers could have made a valid investigative stop based on reasonable suspicion. Given the circumstances, the evidence inevitably would have been discovered after the execution of the warrant. 4. **Categorical Detention Rules:** The appeals court acknowledged that while the detention of Cousan was not justifiable under the Summers rule (as it did not occur immediately near the premises), the officers still had the right to detain Cousan based on the totality of circumstances, including the undercover work that had identified him as a key suspect. **Conclusion:** The appellate ruling overturned the district court's decision to suppress the evidence found on Cousan, allowing the State of Oklahoma to continue its prosecution for illegal drug trafficking and associated charges. **Final Note:** The opinion reflects on the importance of understanding both the probable cause standard for arrest and the rules surrounding lawful searches and seizures, emphasizing the balance between individual rights and public safety in law enforcement practices.

RE-2018-858

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 15, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JEREMY LANCE LABBY,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-858** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AUG 15, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Jeremy Lance Labby appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Cherokee County District Court Case No. CF-2015-149. Labby was originally charged with Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, in violation of 47 O.S.2011, § 4-102. On December 15, 2016, Labby entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced to three years imprisonment, with all three years suspended. On June 20, 2018, the State filed a 2nd Amended Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence, alleging multiple violations of probation, including new crimes related to two counts of Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, Theft of Property in Benton County, Arkansas, and First Degree Burglary and Resisting Arrest in Cherokee County. Following a revocation hearing, Special Judge Gary Huggins revoked Labby's suspended sentence in full. In his sole proposition, Labby contends that the revocation of his suspended sentence was excessive and represents an abuse of discretion. He argues that despite his limited intellect and efforts to comply with probation requirements—such as being current on probation fees and meeting with probation officers—Judge Huggins’s decision to revoke his sentence in full was unwarranted. The Court finds Labby’s claims to be without merit. A suspended sentence is a matter of grace, and the State needs to establish only one violation of probation to revoke a suspended sentence in its entirety. The State successfully demonstrated that Labby committed multiple violations, including new felony offenses, while on probation. The determination to revoke a suspended sentence, either in whole or in part, rests within the trial court’s sound discretion, and such decisions are not to be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Although it is noted that Judge Huggins had the option to impose a lesser penalty, his discretion to choose full revocation is justified by the evidence presented, which established significant violations by Labby. **DECISION** The Court affirms the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Cherokee County District Court Case No. CF-2015-149. Pursuant to Rule 3.15 of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the Mandate is ordered issued upon the filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHEROKEE COUNTY, THE HONORABLE GARY HUGGINS, SPECIAL JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT REVOCATION** **CRYSTAL JACKSON** Counsel for Defendant 239 W. Keetoowah Tahlequah, OK 74464 **MARK HOOVER** Counsel for Appellant P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 **CODY BOWLIN** Counsel for State ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 213 W. Delaware Tahlequah, OK 74464 **MIKE HUNTER** Counsel for Appellee OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur **RA/F** *Click Here To Download PDF*

RE-2018-611

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 15, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SHAZEL STEEL,** Appellant, v. **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-611** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, STATE OF OKLAHOMA AUG 15 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** On June 6, 2015, Appellant, Shazel Steel, pled guilty in three separate cases in Tulsa County. The details of these cases are summarized as follows: 1. **Case CF-2015-1948**: Appellant was convicted of Robbery in the First Degree and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment and fined $500.00. 2. **Case CF-2015-2091**: Appellant was convicted on Count 1 of Robbery with a Firearm and Count 2 of Burglary in the First Degree, receiving a twenty-year sentence and a fine of $100.00 for each count. (Count 3 was dismissed). 3. **Case CF-2015-2152**: For Count 1 (Robbery with a Firearm) and Count 2 (Kidnapping), Appellant received a twenty-year sentence each, while Count 3 (Assault with a Dangerous Weapon) led to a ten-year sentence and a fine of $100.00. (Count 4 was dismissed). All sentences were set to run concurrently, with a two-year judicial review period established. During the Judicial Review proceeding on June 5, 2017, Appellant's sentences were modified to be suspended in full. However, the State subsequently filed applications to revoke these suspended sentences based on allegations of violations related to ongoing criminal activity and non-compliance with probation conditions. The revocation hearing revealed that Appellant was in possession of a firearm while driving without a license, which was a violation of probation Rule #7 that prohibited being in a vehicle where firearms are located. Multiple other violations related to probation were also noted, leading to the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in full by the Honorable James M. Caputo. On appeal, Appellant challenges the revocation on the following grounds: 1. The evidence was insufficient to establish that he knowingly and willfully possessed a firearm. 2. The District Court abused its discretion in revoking the entire sentence. The Court addressed these propositions: **I.** The standard for revocation is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Given the evidence from Officer Terwilliger indicating that a loaded firearm was found in a car Appellant was operating, the Court deemed that the evidence sufficiently supported the revocation of the suspended sentences. **II.** As for the claim of abuse of discretion, the trial court’s decision to revoke the full suspended sentence was found to be reasonable given the multiple violations of probation. Thus, the Court affirmed the order granting the State's applications for revocation of the suspended sentences in all three Tulsa County District Court Cases. **DECISION:** The order revoking Appellant's suspended sentences is **AFFIRMED**. **APPEARANCES:** - **At Trial**: Kayla Cannon, Assistant Public Defender for Appellant; Sean Waters, Assistant District Attorney for the State. - **On Appeal**: Nicole Herron, Counsel for Appellant; Mike Hunter and Tessa L. Henry, Counsel for the State. **OPINION BY:** **LUMPKIN, J.:** **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur **[Download PDF of Full Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-611_1734429007.pdf)**

F-2018-923

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 15, 2019
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **PHILIP JAN CANNON,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2018-923** **FILED** **AUG 15 2019** **Clerk** **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant Philip Jan Cannon was tried by a jury in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Case No. CF-2016-541, for Possession of Child Pornography, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2. The jury found Cannon guilty and assessed punishment at twenty years imprisonment and a $25,000.00 fine. The Honorable John Canavan, District Judge, who presided over Cannon's trial, sentenced him according to the jury's verdict. Cannon appeals, raising the issue of whether improper closing remarks by the prosecutor deprived him of a fair trial. Under 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1, Cannon must serve 85% of his sentence before he is eligible for parole consideration. We find relief is not required and affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. 1. Cannon complains of prosecutorial misconduct, arguing it deprived him of his right to a fair trial. Because the comments at issue were not objected to at trial, our review is for plain error only. *Harney v. State*, 2011 OK CR 10, ¶ 23, 256 P.3d 1002, 1007. To qualify for relief based on plain error, Cannon must demonstrate: (1) the existence of an actual error (a deviation from a legal rule); (2) that the error is plain or obvious; and (3) that the error affected his substantial rights, meaning it impacted the trial's outcome. *Hogan v. State*, 2006 OK CR 19, ¶ 38, 139 P.3d 907, 923. This Court only corrects plain error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings or represents a miscarriage of justice. *Stewart v. State*, 2016 OK CR 9, ¶ 25, 372 P.3d 508, 514. We evaluate alleged misconduct in the context of the entire trial, considering not only the propriety of the prosecutor's actions but also the strength of the evidence against Cannon and the arguments of defense counsel. Both parties have broad latitude to discuss the evidence and make reasonable inferences. Relief is granted only where the prosecutor's flagrant misconduct has so tainted the trial that it is rendered fundamentally unfair. *Jones v. State*, 2011 OK CR 13, ¶ 3, 253 P.3d 997, 998. It is rare that prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument necessitates reversal. *Pryor v. State*, 2011 OK CR 18, ¶ 4, 254 P.3d 721, 722. Cannon alleges the prosecutor argued facts not in evidence and appealed to the jury's sympathy for the victims. However, we find there was no plain error in these remarks. Therefore, this claim is denied. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the district court 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. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE JOHN CANAVAN, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** **ADAM BANNER** **DUSTIN PHILLIPS** **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** 1900 N.W. Expressway, P.O. Box 926 Suite 601 Norman, OK 73070 **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** **ROBERT W. JACKSON** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** Oklahoma City, OK 73118 **ADAM PANTER** **COUNSEL FOR STATE** **MIKE HUNTER** Pottawatomie County Attorney General of Oklahoma 331 N. Broadway Shawnee, OK 74801 **DIANE L. SLAYTON** Assistant Attorney General 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 **OPINION BY:** ROWLAND, J. **LUMPKIN, P.J.:** Concur **LEWIS, V.P.J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **KUEHN, J.:** Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-923_1734954802.pdf)

F-2018-0851

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 15, 2019
Post category:F

**In The Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Keye Yarnell Smith,** Appellant, **v.** **The State of Oklahoma,** Appellee. **No. F-2018-0851** **Filed August 15, 2019** **Summary Opinion** **Presiding Judge Lewis:** On December 23, 2014, Keye Yarnell Smith was charged in Tulsa County Case No. CF-2014-6405 with: - Count 1: Possession of Controlled Drug (felony) - Count 2: Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (misdemeanor) - Count 3: Obstructing an Officer (misdemeanor) Smith pled guilty to all counts on August 26, 2015. Sentencing was deferred until August 17, 2018, pending successful completion of the Tulsa County Drug Court program, which would result in a four-year deferred sentence for Count 1, with Counts 2 and 3 dismissed. If terminated from the program, he would face six years imprisonment for Count 1 and one year in the County Jail for Counts 2 and 3, with sentences running concurrently and credit for time served. On July 5, 2018, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Smith’s participation in Drug Court, citing violations of program rules. After a hearing, Special Judge April Seibert ordered Smith's termination from the program and sentenced him per the plea agreement. Smith appeals this decision, claiming the trial court abused its discretion in terminating him from Drug Court. On appeal, Smith argues the court lacked adequate information due to the absence of the Performance Contract and Rules of Drug Court in the record. However, evidence provided during the hearing demonstrated that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Oklahoma Statute Title 22 O.S. § 471.7(E) outlines that drug court judges must recognize relapses and provide progressive sanctions, rather than automatic termination, unless the offender's conduct warrants such action. The judge has broad authority over program removal decisions as outlined in § 471.7(G). This Court reviews the lower court’s decisions for abuse of discretion, which requires Smith to show that the court reached a clearly erroneous conclusion. No objections were raised by Smith regarding the allegations or the lack of understanding of the program's rules. **Decision:** The Court affirms the State’s Motion to Revoke Smith’s participation in Drug Court in Tulsa District Court Case No. CF-2014-6405. The mandate will be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision in accordance with Rule 3.15 of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. **Appearances:** - **Counsel for Appellant:** Stephanie Singer - **Counsel for Appellee:** Cindy Cunningham, Assistant District Attorney - **Attorney General:** Mike Hunter, Sher M. Johnson **Opinion By:** Presiding Judge Lewis **Concurred by:** Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn, Judge Lumpkin, Judge Hudson, Judge Rowland. [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-0851_1735123379.pdf)

F-2018-485

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 15, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-485, Scott Thomas Stout appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape and Sexual Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Scott Thomas Stout was found guilty by a jury in Kay County for forcing himself on a long-time friend and for sexual battery. The jury did not find him guilty of two other charges of Rape by Instrumentation. The judge sentenced him to twenty years for the rape charge and four years for the sexual battery charge, which he must serve consecutively. Furthermore, he must serve at least 85% of his sentence before being considered for parole. Stout raised two main points in his appeal. First, he argued that the prosecutor acted improperly and that these actions denied him a fair trial. Second, he claimed that the trial court made a mistake by allowing the prosecution to call a witness in the middle of his defense to present evidence. In the first point, Stout pointed out three specific issues with the prosecutor's conduct. He said the prosecutor tried to make the jury feel sorry for the victim, asked questions that seemed to give opinions on the victim's credibility, and used first names for witnesses inappropriately. The court looked at all of the evidence and determined that these actions did not distract from the overall fairness of the trial. The jury acquitted Stout on two of the charges and recommended lighter sentences for the others. Therefore, the court ruled that Stout did not experience unfairness due to prosecutorial misconduct. Regarding the second point in his appeal, Stout argued that it was wrong for the prosecutor to cause the defense to stop its case to bring in a detective to verify some evidence. The court noted that the prosecutor's interruption was related to a question raised by Stout's own lawyer and that the trial judge had acted fairly in allowing it. The judge ruled that this did not disrupt the trial's fairness. In conclusion, the court found no errors in how the trial was conducted and affirmed Stout's conviction, meaning the original decision stood.

F-2018-945

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 8, 2019
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CASE SUMMARY:** **Appellant:** Carey James Buxton **Appellee:** The State of Oklahoma **Case Numbers:** CM-2014-358, CF-2014-578, CF-2017-5 **Opinion Date:** August 8, 2019 **Judge:** Lumpkin --- **BACKGROUND:** Carey James Buxton appealed the termination of his participation in the Drug Court program and the imposition of sentencing by the District Court of Kay County, presided by Judge David Bandy. Buxton had entered pleas of no contest to multiple charges, including drug possession and burglary, and was sentenced to a Drug Court program where successful completion would lead to dismissal of the charges. However, after the State filed applications for his removal from the Drug Court program due to non-compliance, a hearing was conducted on this matter. The judge ultimately decided to terminate Buxton from the program and impose the sentencing terms outlined in the plea agreement. --- **PROPOSITION OF ERROR:** Buxton asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in terminating him from the Drug Court program. --- **ANALYSIS:** 1. **Standard of Review:** The decision to revoke or terminate a Drug Court participant lies within the trial judge's discretion. An abuse of discretion is defined as a clearly erroneous conclusion. 2. **Contentions by Appellant:** - Buxton argues that the court did not assess whether disciplinary measures short of termination would suffice. - He also claims that removal for cheating on drug tests is against Drug Court laws. 3. **Court Findings:** - The court ruled that violations needed to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Buxton repeatedly violated the terms of his Drug Court contract despite receiving multiple jail sanctions. - The appellate court noted that termination was not an automatic consequence of drug test failures; the trial court considered all relevant factors before making its decision. 4. **Conclusion:** - The appellate court determined that the trial court’s decision was supported by the evidence and was not an abuse of discretion. Buxton's proposition of error was denied. --- **DECISION:** The order terminating Buxton from the Drug Court and proceeding with sentencing as per the plea agreement is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is to be issued immediately following the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** - **For Appellant:** Jarrod Stevenson and Jeremy Stillwell (Appellate Defense Counsel) - **For Appellee:** Brian Hermanson (District Attorney), Mike Hunter (Oklahoma Attorney General), Tessa L. Henry (Assistant Attorney General) --- **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** - **Concur:** Lewis, P.J.; Kuehn, V.P.J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. --- For further details, the complete opinion is available in PDF format: [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-945_1734875235.pdf).

F-2018-211

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 25, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-211, Lewis Long, III appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. No judge dissented. The case began when Lewis Long, III was tried and found guilty by a jury in Beckham County. He was convicted for trafficking in methamphetamine after having previous felony convictions. The jury recommended a sentence of twenty years in prison, which the judge followed. Long was found not guilty of a separate charge involving drug paraphernalia. Long raised a few concerns in his appeal. He argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because police entered a place without properly announcing themselves. He also felt the state did not provide enough evidence to prove he had control or possession of the methamphetamine. Lastly, he believed there wasn't enough evidence for him to go to trial for the drug trafficking charge. The court looked closely at the evidence and procedures from Long's trial. They first addressed the entry of police into the motel room. Even if not knocking and announcing was an error, the court decided that this did not impact the overall case because the evidence found was still valid. Next, the court evaluated whether the evidence presented during the trial was strong enough to support a verdict of guilty. They determined that there was enough evidence to show that Long had joint possession of the methamphetamine found at the motel. Lastly, the court examined whether Long should have been able to challenge the charges before his trial but concluded that he did not show any clear error that would affect the outcome of his case. Since the state showed enough probable cause for his charges at the preliminary hearing, they found no reason to reverse the decision. In conclusion, the court decided not to grant any relief for Long's appeal, confirming his conviction and the sentence imposed.

RE-2018-769

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant, Robert Kenneth Kramer, appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2015-100. On September 9, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere to Financial Exploitation by a Caregiver (21 O.S.2011, § 843.1) After Former Conviction of a Felony (21 O.S.Supp.2011, § 51.1). He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for ten years, with the final six years suspended. On May 31, 2017, the trial court modified the suspended portion of the sentence from six to eight years. On March 28, 2018, the State filed an application to revoke the suspended sentence, alleging that Appellant had committed new crimes: possessing a cell phone while incarcerated and knowingly concealing stolen property. A hearing on the application was held on July 11, 2018, before the Honorable Lawrence W. Parish, District Judge. Judge Parish granted the State's application and revoked the eight-year suspended sentence in full. **ANALYSIS** The standard for revocation of a suspended sentence requires a determination of whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated, which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. A trial court's decision to revoke should not be reversed unless there is an abuse of discretion. 1. **Proposition I: Violation of the 20-day Rule** Appellant claims the district court violated the 20-day Rule as stated in 22 O.S.Supp.2012, § 991b(A). Since Appellant did not raise this objection at the hearing, the review is for plain error. Appellant failed to demonstrate that any deviation affected his substantial rights, and he had previously waived his right to a hearing within the statutory time-frame. Therefore, this proposition is denied. 2. **Proposition II: Sufficiency of Evidence** Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conclusion that he possessed a cell phone while in jail. Testimony from Appellant's ex-wife indicated that she received text messages from a phone she associated with him. Additionally, a jailer testified about witnessing inmates, including Appellant, trying to destroy a cell phone. This evidence satisfies the preponderance standard. **DECISION** The order revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2015-100 is AFFIRMED. **APPEARANCES:** - Counsel for Appellant: Curt Allen, Jeremy Stillwell, Indigent Defense System - Counsel for State: Emily Mueller, Assistant District Attorney; Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma; Theodore Peeper, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.:** LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur in Results HUDSON, J.: Concur **[End of Summary Opinion]** For further details, you may view the full court opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-769_1734420410.pdf).