District Court

F-2016-519

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-519, Kevin Bernell Warrior appealed his conviction for first degree murder and possession of a firearm after a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to grant him a new trial due to newly discovered evidence that could change the outcome of the original trial. One judge dissented. Kevin Warrior was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. The evidence used to convict him was mostly circumstantial, meaning it did not come from direct witnesses at the crime scene. At trial, it was believed that the weapon used in the murder was not found, and the state suggested that Warrior had a motive and opportunity to commit the crime, alongside some statements he made that seemed incriminating. After his conviction, Warrior learned while in jail that another man, Mikel Ball, had confessed to committing the murder during a robbery. This information came to Warrior from a fellow inmate, Marquez Goff, who had talked to Ball. Goff also found out that police had taken a gun from Ball shortly after his arrest, and that this gun matched the bullet from the murder victim. Warrior's lawyers filed a request for a new trial, arguing that this evidence was important and could not have been found before the trial. The court agreed that the evidence was new, could change the outcome of the first trial, and was not something that Warrior could have discovered in time for his original case. Thus, the court decided that Warrior should get a new trial because this new information showed a reasonable chance that he might not have been guilty of the crime he was convicted of.

Continue ReadingF-2016-519

F 2017-0031

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2017-0031, Heath Saxon Ford appealed his conviction for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and unauthorized use of a vehicle, both felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his termination from the Drug Court Program and remand the case for reinstatement into a Drug Court program, preferably in another county. No one dissented. Heath Saxon Ford was charged with multiple offenses in McCurtain County. He pleaded guilty to two of them and entered a Drug Court Program, agreeing to specific conditions. If he didn’t follow these conditions, he could be sentenced to twelve years in prison. The state wanted to kick him out of the Drug Court Program, saying he violated his agreement by having a bad drug test. At a hearing, a witness said something about the drug test results, but she didn’t perform the test herself nor was the actual test introduced as evidence. Ford argued that this was not fair and that they used hearsay, which is when someone talks about what another person said instead of providing direct evidence. The court agreed that the hearsay could not be the only reason for terminating Ford from the program and that they didn’t show strong enough evidence to prove he violated the terms. There were also concerns about how the Drug Court was being run, suggesting possible impropriety. Because of these issues, the court decided to reverse the decision to end Ford's participation in the Drug Court Program and ordered that he be reinstated, possibly in a different county's program.

Continue ReadingF 2017-0031

F-2016-994

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-994, the appellant, Phillip Eric Winbush III, appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Winbush's conviction, but modified the indigent defense fee to $1,000. No one dissented. Winbush had been convicted by a jury and was sentenced to eight years in prison due to his prior felony convictions. He raised several claims in his appeal. He first argued that there was prosecutorial misconduct during the trial, which he believed deprived him of a fair trial. However, the court found that while the prosecutor made comments during closing arguments that Winbush claimed were improper, they did not have enough impact to make the trial unfair. The prosecution's comments were taken in context, and the jury had strong evidence before it regarding Winbush's knowing possession of methamphetamine. Winbush also raised an issue about the indigent defense fee being too high. The law stated that the maximum fee should be $1,000, but the court had mistakenly assessed a $1,250 fee. The state acknowledged this error, and the court agreed to modify the fee to the correct amount. Lastly, Winbush claimed he did not receive effective assistance of counsel, but since the court already granted relief regarding the indigent defense fee, this argument was considered moot. In summary, the court upheld Winbush's conviction while correcting the fee he was charged for his defense, ensuring the amount was in line with the law.

Continue ReadingF-2016-994

F-2016-1181

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In summary, Stephen Charles Swanson, Jr. appealed the revocation of his suspended sentence in the District Court of Ottawa County after he stipulated to allegations of violating the conditions of his probation. The trial court had found that he committed multiple violations, including new criminal charges, failure to report, absconding, and failure to pay fines. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision, affirming that the revocation was not an abuse of discretion. The court noted that the revocation of a suspended sentence is at the discretion of the trial court and will only be reversed if there is a clear error in judgment against the evidence presented. The ruling was affirmed, and the mandate was ordered issued upon filing this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2016-1181

RE-2016-1101

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

This is a summary of a legal opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding Richard Leroy Felton's appeal following the revocation of his suspended sentences. Felton had previously entered guilty pleas to several misdemeanor charges, leading to consecutive suspended sentences of one year and six months. His probation was later revoked because he allegedly violated several probation conditions. Notably, he was accused of failing to pay supervision fees, maintaining employment, answering questions truthfully, and violating a protective order. During the revocation hearing, evidence was presented regarding Felton's threats against probation officers, his failure to report to them, and multiple documented violations of the protective order. The court concluded that even just his threats to the officers were sufficient grounds for revocation, thereby affirming the district court's decision. Felton raised five propositions of error on appeal, including claims of insufficient evidence for the state’s allegations, denial of due process, ineffective assistance of counsel, and abuse of discretion in revoking his sentences. The court found these arguments without merit, affirming the revocation on the basis that sufficient evidence supported the action taken by the district court. The court's ruling highlighted that violations of probation do not require the same standards as criminal prosecutions and that the existence of threats and failures to comply with probation conditions justified the decisions made at the lower court level. The order of revocation was thus upheld.

Continue ReadingRE-2016-1101

F-2016-997

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the case of Jimmie Lee Lovell, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed his convictions for First Degree Manslaughter and Driving Under the Influence. Lovell challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress blood test results, arguing he was not given an opportunity for independent testing as required by statute. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion, since Lovell did not request a sample for independent testing during the proper timeframe. Additionally, Lovell argued that the jury’s verdicts—guilty of First Degree Manslaughter and not guilty of Negligent Homicide—were inconsistent. The appeals court found that no objection had been raised regarding the verdict at trial, and therefore reviewed for plain error, concluding there was no actual error affecting his rights, as the jury’s intent was clear. The court noted a variance between the jury’s recommended punishment in Count II (Ten days and a $1,000 fine) and the subsequent sentence (one year in jail). The case was remanded for correction of this discrepancy. Overall, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence in Count I, affirmed the judgment in Count II, and ordered the trial court to correct the Judgment and Sentence in Count II in accordance with the jury's recommendation.

Continue ReadingF-2016-997

S-2016-1142

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-1142, Cody Ray Lord appealed his conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to suppress the blood test results. The trial court found that Lord was not capable of giving consent due to the effects of morphine he had received, which hindered his ability to make a decision regarding the blood test. The State had claimed there was no proof that Lord was unconscious and argued that the burden of proof should be on Lord, but the court found that sufficient evidence supported the trial court's conclusions. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2016-1142

M-2016-108

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2016-108, Marty Spence Duncan appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery and Assault. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Duncan's judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial because the record did not show that he had waived his right to a jury trial. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingM-2016-108

F-2016-549

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-549, Jerome Deshone Hopkins appealed his conviction for Placing Bodily Fluid on a Government Employee. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jerome deshone Hopkins was found guilty by a jury for a crime related to putting bodily fluid on a government employee. This happened in the District Court of Muskogee County. The jury said he should go to prison for ten years, and the court agreed to give him credit for time he already served. Hopkins didn't think the trial was fair, and he told the court why. He raised several reasons for his appeal. First, he believed the trial court didn’t help him understand how to represent himself. Second, he said there were irrelevant details brought up during the trial that hurt his chances of a fair decision. Third, he mentioned that some actions by the prosecutors were unfair and made the trial unjust for him. He also claimed that mentioning his past felonies using suspended sentences made it harder for him to have a fair trial. Additionally, Hopkins felt that wearing shorts made jurors see him in an unfavorable light, and that being restrained in court was also unfair because it could sway the jurors' opinions of him. He said he wasn’t allowed to have good representation during the trial and believed all these factors together made the trial unfair. The court looked carefully at everything that happened. They found that the trial judge didn’t properly explain to Hopkins what self-representation meant. The court agreed that there should have been a clear warning about the risks of representing oneself without a lawyer. Also, they acknowledged that Hopkins was restrained in a way that was visible to jurors, which could affect how they viewed him. Given these issues, the court decided that Hopkins’s conviction should not stand and that he should have a new trial with proper legal counsel or a better understanding of representing himself if he chooses to do so. The court emphasized that the mistakes made could not be brushed aside as harmless because the right to legal representation is very crucial in ensuring a fair trial.

Continue ReadingF-2016-549

F-2016-461

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-461, Roy Dale Doshier appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacated a $250 attorney fee that had been assessed. One judge dissented. Doshier was found guilty after a jury trial and received a 30-year sentence, with the requirement to serve 85% of the term before being eligible for parole. He raised six points of error in his appeal, focusing on issues such as the admissibility of his statements, jury instructions regarding lesser offenses, the attorney fee, and the fairness of the proceedings. The court reviewed each issue. It found no error in admitting Doshier's statements, reasoning that the trial court had not abused its discretion in allowing them into evidence. On the question of jury instructions, the court concluded that the judge had not erred in not including instructions for lesser offenses, as no prejudice had been shown against Doshier. However, the court agreed to vacate the $250 fee for indigent defense because the attorney assigned to him did not actually represent him in court, which meant the fee was not valid. They also determined that Doshier's sentence was not excessive and did not require the jury to be informed about sex offender registration as part of the instructions. In the end, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence while vacating the fee, upholding the conviction due to a lack of legal errors. Overall, there was no indication that Doshier did not receive a fair trial, and the judges were satisfied with the outcome except for the singular point about the attorney fee.

Continue ReadingF-2016-461

RE 2016-0218

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2016-0218, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but instructed the lower court to remove the requirement for post-imprisonment supervision from the revocation order. One member of the court dissented.

Continue ReadingRE 2016-0218

M-2016-596

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2016-596, Lyndol Keith Nunley appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. The case began with a non-jury trial in which Nunley was found guilty of committing domestic abuse against someone he knew. The judge sentenced Nunley to pay a fine and to spend time in county jail. Initially, he was required to serve his jail time day for day, meaning he would serve the full year without any reductions. However, this requirement was later changed. Nunley appealed for three main reasons. First, he claimed his lawyer did not do a good job because there was no record of what happened during the trial, which made it hard for him to appeal. The court explained that to prove a lawyer was ineffective, a person must show how this caused them harm. Since Nunley did not give enough proof or show that any errors happened during the trial, his claim was not accepted. Second, Nunley argued that his sentence was too harsh. He believed the day for day term made his punishment excessive. However, since that requirement was removed after he filed his appeal, this argument was no longer valid. Lastly, Nunley pointed out that he received the maximum penalty allowed by law. The court noted that while it did impose the maximum jail time, his fine was much lower than what he could have received. The judges decided that Nunley did not show that his sentence was shocking or unfair, so they rejected his request to change it. In the end, the judges upheld the decision made in the lower court, meaning Nunley had to serve his sentence as it was decided.

Continue ReadingM-2016-596

M 2015-1099

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2015-1099, Phantirath appealed her conviction for engaging in prostitution and operating a place of prostitution. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse her convictions because she was not allowed to enter a guilty plea, which is a right for defendants. One judge dissented, stating that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the plea.

Continue ReadingM 2015-1099

C-2016-778

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-778, Donald Garra Patterson appealed his conviction for Abuse by Caretaker, Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body, and Obtaining a Controlled Substance by Forgery/Fraud. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions on most counts but modified the sentence for Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body due to it being greater than allowed by law. One judge dissented. Patterson had entered a plea of guilty to various charges and was sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment, including ten years for Abuse by Caretaker and seven years for each of the other charges. Afterward, he wanted to withdraw his plea, claiming he did not fully understand what he was pleading guilty to and felt his lawyer had not helped him properly. The main issues raised included whether his plea was made knowingly and if his lawyer had conflicts of interest or failed to give him correct information. The court found that Patterson didn't support his claims about not understanding the plea and concluded his sentence for the crime of Unlawful Removal had to be changed because it was wrongly set longer than the law allowed. The court also confirmed that the mistakes in advising Patterson were not enough to prove he was treated unfairly by his lawyer. Ultimately, the court decided to lower his sentence for Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body to the correct maximum of five years and instructed the lower court to fix some record-keeping errors regarding fees.

Continue ReadingC-2016-778

RE-2015-922

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-922, Palmer appealed his conviction for perjury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Palmer's suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Palmer had previously received a deferred sentence for a case in 2010. In 2015, he pleaded no contest to a perjury charge and got another suspended sentence that he was serving at the same time as the first one. Later, the State of Oklahoma filed to revoke his suspended sentences, claiming he had violated probation by not reporting, not paying court costs, and not completing a required program. They also added new charges of kidnapping and assault. During the revocation hearing, Palmer was removed from the courtroom because he was disruptive. He interrupted the judge repeatedly and was warned to stop, but he did not listen. The court found that because he was behaving disruptively, his absence from the hearing did not make the process unfair. Palmer also claimed that he wanted to represent himself but was forced to have a lawyer. The court determined he had not made any formal request to represent himself, so this claim was rejected. Additionally, Palmer argued that the court did not explain why his sentences were revoked. However, the court noted that there is no requirement to provide detailed reasons at a revocation hearing. Palmer's failure to follow even one condition of his probation was enough to justify the revocation of his sentences. Finally, Palmer thought the judge did not have the power to impose supervision following his imprisonment. However, the court found this issue was already resolved and was therefore moot. The court's overall ruling was to confirm that Palmer's suspended sentences were revoked, maintaining that proper procedures were followed during the revocation hearing.

Continue ReadingRE-2015-922

JS-2016-1062

  • Post author:
  • Post category:JS

In OCCA case No. JS-2016-1062, Z.N. appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that granted Z.N. certification as a juvenile. The State had claimed that the judge made a mistake in allowing Z.N. to be treated as a juvenile. However, the court found that the judge's decision was reasonable given the evidence and factors surrounding the case. The ruling included considerations of the nature of the crime, Z.N.'s background, and the potential for rehabilitation. No judge dissented.

Continue ReadingJS-2016-1062

S-2016-163

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-163, Stites appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse and Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which had dismissed one count of Child Sexual Abuse and amended another to Lewd Molestation. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2016-163

F-2015-720

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-720, Bobby Dewayne Ray appealed his conviction for second degree burglary and impersonating an officer. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the fine of $1,500.00 but affirmed the judgment and sentence otherwise. One judge dissented regarding the fine. Bobby Dewayne Ray was found guilty by a jury of two crimes: second degree burglary and impersonating an officer. The jury decided that he committed the burglary after he had already been convicted of two or more felonies. Because of this, he was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and fined $1,500 for the burglary, and was given one year in jail and fined $100 for impersonating an officer. Both sentences were to be served at the same time. On appeal, Ray raised two main arguments. First, he said that the way he was identified by the victim in court was unfair and not allowed under the law. He believed that an earlier identification using his photo was done in a way that could cause mistakes. He pointed out that his lawyer didn’t object to this identification during the trial, which meant he could only argue that it was clearly a mistake. The court looked at the situation and decided that even though the police used only one photo of him, the victim had a good view of him during the crime and was sure of her identification. So, they didn’t believe there was a big chance of making a mistake, thus they found no clear error in letting the victim identify him in court. In his second argument, Ray claimed that the instruction given to the jury about the fine was wrong. The judge told the jury that a fine was mandatory when it was actually optional. In a past case, the court recognized that giving such an instruction was a big mistake, but they also decided that in that case the mistake didn’t change the outcome because the jury gave the highest fine possible. In Ray’s case, they agreed that the $1,500 fine might indicate that the jury would have chosen a smaller amount if they had been told that giving a fine was not required. Therefore, they decided to cancel the fine, but they agreed that his conviction should stay. The court stated that their decision would be filed, and the mandate would be issued once the decision was recorded. One judge agreed with the result of the decision but disagreed about canceling the fine. They believed the jury probably intended to fine Ray because the amount was still significant enough, and the error shouldn't mean that the fine had to be thrown out. In summary, the court agreed to remove the fine but kept the convictions, while expressing that the mistake in jury instruction about the fine did not matter too much in the overall decision.

Continue ReadingF-2015-720

C-2015-856

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-856, Misty Dawn Smith appealed her conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to deny Smith's petition for a writ of certiorari but modified her post-imprisonment supervision from two years to one year. One judge dissented. Smith was charged with having methamphetamine and entered a guilty plea in December 2012. She was supposed to complete a drug court program which could lead to a lighter sentence. If she did well, her sentence would be a five-year suspended sentence and a fine. If she didn't, she could face ten years in prison and a larger fine. She was taken to a treatment facility and started the drug court program in May 2013. However, in July 2015, the state asked to remove her from this program because she was not following the rules. A judge agreed, and Smith was sentenced to ten years in prison and a fine. Smith wanted to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing that she didn’t understand everything about her plea and the consequences of the drug court program. She also argued that her sentence was too harsh. The court looked at these claims but determined that there was no reason to allow her to change her plea. Her initial plea was considered to be made knowingly and voluntarily. The court found that Smith knew about the difficult nature of the drug court program and that she had many chances to follow the rules. They also stated that she didn’t raise her claim about the excessive sentence in the correct way, and therefore, it could not be considered. The court agreed that the two years of post-imprisonment supervision given to her was incorrect and lowered it to one year, which is what the law allows. The decision was made after reviewing all details and records of the case.

Continue ReadingC-2015-856

F-2016-30

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-30, Ladarius Burnell Kelly appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the fines associated with the charges. One judge dissented regarding the change in fines. Ladarius Burnell Kelly was charged and found guilty by a jury for committing robbery with a firearm and assault with a dangerous weapon. He received a punishment of 18 years in prison along with a $2,500 fine for the robbery and 2 years in prison with a $2,500 fine for the assault. The sentences were to be served one after the other. Kelly appealed, raising several issues. First, he argued that the witnesses who identified him were not reliable, which he believed violated his rights. However, the court found that the methods used for identification were not overly suggestive and did not mislead the jury. Therefore, his claim was denied. Next, Kelly challenged the evidence presented against him for the assault charge. The court looked at the evidence favorably for the prosecution and determined there was enough proof to support the conviction. The testimony showed that Kelly had threatened to shoot a victim, which the jury could reasonably interpret as an intent to harm, so this argument was also denied. He also argued that he had not received a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct. However, the court found that any alleged missteps by the prosecutor didn't significantly impact the fairness of the trial. Because of this, this claim was denied as well. Importantly, Kelly had a point regarding the fines. The court found that the jury was wrongly instructed about the mandatory fines for the charges. They decided to correct this by changing the fine for the assault count to $0 and reducing the fine for the robbery charge to $2,000. Kelly also believed that his lawyer did not do their job effectively, but the court ruled that his claims did not show that the outcome of the trial would have changed if his lawyer had acted differently. In summary, the court upheld Kelly's convictions and changed the financial penalties, showing that while he did not win the major points of his appeal, he was granted some relief on the fines imposed.

Continue ReadingF-2016-30

C-2016-140

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-140, Hiram Frank Mutters appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to grant him a new hearing. One judge dissented. Mutters pleaded no contest to Child Sexual Abuse on December 7, 2015, and was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and a fine. He later wanted to withdraw his plea, so he filed a motion. However, during the hearing for this motion, he was not present because he was taken to another facility. His lawyer thought Mutters would prefer to stay away from jail rather than return for the hearing. This decision meant that Mutters could not explain his reasons for wanting to withdraw his plea. The court found that it is very important for a person to be present during such hearings because their testimony is vital. Since Mutters was not there, the hearing did not meet the required standards for fairness. Thus, the court ruled that the case should go back for a new hearing where Mutters can be present to share his side of the story and explain why he thinks he should withdraw his plea.

Continue ReadingC-2016-140

RE-2016-401

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2016-401, a person appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and burglary in the second degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences. One member of the court dissented. The case began when the person entered a guilty plea on November 3, 2014, and was sentenced to eight years in prison, with three years to be served and the rest suspended. This means he would not have to serve the full eight years right away. However, problems arose when the State of Oklahoma wanted to revoke his suspended sentence on January 13, 2016. During the revocation hearing held on April 26, 2016, it was found that he had violated the terms of his suspended sentences. The important issue in the appeal was whether the court had the right to hold the hearing after a certain time. According to the law, a revocation hearing should happen within twenty days unless both sides agree to wait longer. In this case, the person pleaded not guilty on February 1, 2016. The hearing was originally set for February 29, 2016, which was already too late according to the rules. It was then moved to April 26, 2016, making it even later and not meeting the legal deadline. Because the court did not have the right to hold the hearing after so much time had passed, the higher court decided to reverse the earlier decision and send the case back for further action that follows the law.

Continue ReadingRE-2016-401

F-2015-886

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-886, Russell Carl McCrillis appealed his conviction for two counts of Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the case for the trial court to assess a specific term of years for post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. McCrillis was convicted in a jury trial and received a twenty-year prison sentence and a $20,000 fine for each count of lewd molestation. The sentences were ordered to be served at the same time. McCrillis raised several issues in his appeal. He claimed that his statement to the police should not have been allowed at trial because it was not made freely and voluntarily. He also argued that the jury should have been instructed about the voluntariness of his statement. Additionally, he pointed out that the trial court could not change his sentence to an indefinite probation after prison. Finally, he believed his sentences were too harsh. The court looked closely at whether McCrillis's statement to the police was voluntary and found that he had waived his rights properly and given his statement willingly. This meant the trial court did not make a mistake when it allowed the statement to be presented during the trial. The court did notice that while the judge should have instructed the jury on the voluntary nature of his confession, the lack of instruction didn’t really have an impact on the trial's outcome, as there was strong enough evidence against McCrillis. Regarding the trial court's authority to modify the sentence, the court agreed that it should have set a clear term for post-imprisonment supervision, which means after McCrillis serves his time, he should be supervised for a set number of years. The law says people convicted of certain crimes, like lewd molestation, must have a period of supervision after serving time, usually between nine months and a year. However, there is also a specific law stating that in cases of sexual offenses, supervision could be longer. The court noted that the trial judge didn’t give a fixed duration for supervision, which was a mistake. In the end, while the court agreed with McCrillis on the need for a specified period of supervision upon release, it found that his twenty-year sentence was not too severe based on the details of the crimes committed. Therefore, the court upheld the conviction but sent the case back to have the trial court determine the proper length of post-imprisonment supervision.

Continue ReadingF-2015-886

C-2016-38

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-38, Charlie Franklin Roberts appealed his conviction for violation of a protective order, kidnapping, and domestic assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition and remand for a new hearing on the motion to withdraw plea. One judge dissented. Roberts had entered a no contest plea to the charges and was sentenced to one year in county jail for the misdemeanor and thirty years for each felony, with the felony sentences running at the same time but after the jail sentence. He later wanted to withdraw his plea, claiming he did not have the right help from his attorney during this process. The court looked into his claims and found that Roberts had not been given fair legal help when trying to withdraw his plea. Specifically, his attorney had conflicts of interest that affected his ability to represent Roberts properly. Because of these issues, the court allowed Roberts to have a new and better attorney who could help him file the motion. The court also ordered a hearing to figure out what Roberts would like to do about his plea within specific timelines.

Continue ReadingC-2016-38

F-2015-561

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-561, Walter LaCurtis Jones appealed his conviction for three crimes: Feloniously Pointing a Firearm, Possession of a Firearm After Former Felony Conviction, and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences for the first two counts but reversed and dismissed the conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. One judge dissented. Walter Jones was found guilty after a trial without a jury. He received seven years in prison for each of the first two counts, which would be served at the same time, and one year in county jail for the third count. The judge also ordered that he would have one year of supervision after his prison time. Jones raised several arguments in his appeal. He argued that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, claiming he did not use a dangerous weapon and had no intention to hurt anyone. The court agreed with him on this point and reversed that conviction. For the charge of Feloniously Pointing a Firearm, Jones argued that the gun he pointed at someone was not a real firearm because it was missing a part and could not shoot. However, the court found there was enough evidence to support that he pointed a gun designed to shoot, therefore, they upheld that conviction. In the case of Possession of a Firearm After Former Felony Conviction, Jones contended that the gun could not fire, so he should not have been found guilty. The court decided that it was unnecessary for the gun to be able to fire to prove he had possession of it as a felon, thereby upholding this conviction as well. Lastly, Jones claimed he was facing double punishment for the same crime, which the court did not accept because the two charges involved different actions and did not violate any laws regarding double punishment or double jeopardy. Thus, the court confirmed his sentences for the first two counts while reversing the count for Assault and Battery.

Continue ReadingF-2015-561