District Judge

SR-2022-250

  • Post author:
  • Post category:SR

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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to dismiss the appeal.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

Continue ReadingSR-2022-250

RE-2019-80

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JODY LYNN BAILEY,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. RE-2019-80** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Appellant Jody Lynn Bailey appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2016-2879. On February 1, 2017, Appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas to four counts of Identity Theft (21 O.S.Supp.2011, § 1533.1) and two counts of Using a Computer with the Intent to Defraud (21 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1953(A)(2)). He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for fifteen years on each count with all but the first four years suspended. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. On November 1, 2018, the State filed an application to revoke the suspended sentences, alleging Appellant committed the new crime of robbery. A hearing on the application was held on January 22, 2019, before the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge. Judge Elliott granted the State's application and revoked Appellant's suspended sentences in full. On appeal, Appellant asserts the revocation was excessive. We disagree. **ANALYSIS** At the hearing where the State seeks revocation of a suspended sentence, the court must determine whether the suspended portion of the sentence should be executed based on whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated. A violation need be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, a trial court's decision to revoke a suspended sentence should not be overturned unless there is an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when there is an unreasonable or arbitrary action taken without proper consideration of the facts and law, or a clearly erroneous conclusion that goes against the logic and effect of the evidence presented. In this case, we find no abuse of discretion in Judge Elliott's decision to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences. The determination of witness credibility and the weight given to their testimony is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the trier of fact. Therefore, Judge Elliott's decision to revoke the suspended sentences has not been established as an abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended judgments and sentences in Case No. CF-2016-2879 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** **THOMAS P. HURLEY** ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE 611 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **HALLIE BOVOS** ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE 400 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **DAN POND** ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE 505 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR STATE **MIKE HUNTER** OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL **CAROLINE HUNT** ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21st STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** **LEVIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** **ROWLAND, J.: Concur** --- For further information, you may download the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2019-80_1734335833.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2019-80

RE-2019-683

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-683, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but modify it to be limited to six months. One member dissented. The case involved the appellant who had earlier been sentenced for multiple crimes, including possession of a controlled substance and driving under the influence. Initially, he was given a suspended sentence where he would serve time in jail only on weekends. However, he violated the terms of his probation several times by failing to report, pay fees, and complete required programs. After a while, he faced new charges for more serious crimes, which led to the state seeking to revoke his suspended sentence altogether. During the hearing for the revocation, the judge decided to revoke all five years of his suspended sentence. However, the court found later that this action was not appropriate. The court ruled that even though the appellant had committed technical violations, he could only be punished with a maximum of six months because the alleged new crimes occurred after his probation had expired. The court concluded that the trial judge had made a mistake when revoking the whole five years instead of just six months based on the technical violations proven. Thus, the revocation punishment was modified by the court to six months instead of five years.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-683

F-2018-336

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-336, Donnie Graham appealed his conviction for first degree rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to include three years of post-imprisonment community supervision but otherwise affirmed the conviction. One judge dissented. The case began when Donnie Graham was found guilty of first degree rape after a jury trial. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and a fine. The case was heard in the District Court of Comanche County. Graham's main argument was about his right to have effective legal help during his trial. He claimed that his lawyer did not investigate earlier rape claims made by the victim and did not present evidence that could have proved those claims were false. He insisted that because of his lawyer's mistakes, he did not get a fair trial. The court looked closely at this claim. They first checked if Graham’s lawyer did not do their job properly according to professional standards. They needed to see if the lawyer's performance was bad enough to have affected the trial's outcome. After reviewing everything, the court decided that Graham did not show enough proof that his lawyer was ineffective. They denied Graham's request for a hearing to further examine his claims. Overall, the court changed his sentence to include three years of supervision after his prison time but upheld the decision regarding his guilt.

Continue ReadingF-2018-336

S-2020-79

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2020-79, Stricker appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Desecration of a Human Corpse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling of the District Court that dismissed the alternative charge of First Degree Felony Murder during the commission of a kidnapping. None dissented. On April 17, 2019, Stricker was charged with serious crimes including First Degree Murder in Kingfisher County. Later, he faced an amended charge stating he could be guilty of First Degree Premediated Murder or First Degree Felony Murder related to kidnapping. During a hearing, the judge decided to dismiss the kidnapping charge based on insufficient evidence, which led the State to appeal the decision. The State argued that the judge’s decision was incorrect because they believed there was enough evidence to show that a crime occurred and that Stricker was involved. They said that at a preliminary hearing, it's essential to prove that probably a crime was committed and that the person involved might have done it. The judge ruled that although Stricker was in a position to manage his victim, there wasn't enough proof to suggest he intended to kidnap her. The second argument from the State was about the timing of Stricker's motion to quash the charges. They claimed the judge should not have considered this motion because it was filed after he pleaded not guilty. However, the court found that the judge did have the authority to hear the motion, even though the prosecution thought otherwise. Ultimately, the court found no error in the District Court's decision to dismiss the charge of First Degree Felony Murder related to kidnapping and decided to uphold that dismissal.

Continue ReadingS-2020-79

S-2019-242

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2019-242, the State of Oklahoma appealed Wesley Warren Peritt Weaver, II's conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child Under 12. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that denied the State's request to introduce evidence of the defendant's prior sexual offenses as propensity evidence. One judge dissented. This case started on January 5, 2017, when the defendant, Weaver, was charged with sexually abusing his daughter, A.W., from 2011 to 2016. During a preliminary hearing, A.W. claimed that her father abused her and shared this information with her mother. The case involved testimonies from both A.W.'s mother and a forensic interviewer who assessed A.W. The State later sought to present evidence of previous sexual offenses allegedly committed by Weaver against another child, A.A., to demonstrate a pattern of behavior. A.A. testified that Weaver had molested her several years earlier. However, during a hearing, the trial court decided not to allow this evidence, stating that its probative value was less than the potential for unfair prejudice against Weaver. The State of Oklahoma appealed this ruling. They argued that the trial court made an error in not permitting the sexual propensity evidence, which could provide context for Weaver's behavior in the current case. The appellate court looked closely at the details of the case and the rules surrounding the admissibility of such evidence. Ultimately, the appellate court ruled to affirm the trial court's decision, meaning that the prior offense evidence would not be allowed during the trial against Weaver. The court concluded that the trial court's decision was reasonable and did not abuse its discretion. They found solid reasoning in the trial court's assessment of the evidence's relevance versus its potential negative impact on the jury's perception. One judge disagreed with the majority opinion, believing that the trial court had not fully considered the nuances of the sexual propensity laws and had conflated different types of evidentiary standards. This dissenting opinion emphasized the importance of acknowledging the differences between types of evidence when it comes to sexual offenses. In short, the case involved serious allegations against Weaver regarding his daughter, and while the State attempted to build a strong case by including prior incidents, the court ultimately felt that allowing such evidence would not be appropriate during the trial.

Continue ReadingS-2019-242

C-2019-489

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2019-489, Taheerah Ayesha Ahmad appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery by means likely to produce death, Child Neglect, and Arson in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to deny her petition for a writ of certiorari and affirmed the District Court's judgment. However, the case was remanded to the District Court to correct errors in the judgment regarding the imposition of costs. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2019-489

F-2019-224

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the appeal of Joseph Eugene Dean. He was convicted in Muskogee County District Court for endangering others while eluding or attempting to elude a police officer after having two or more prior felonies. The jury sentenced him to twenty years in prison and a $2,500 fine. Although he was acquitted of possessing a stolen vehicle, Dean appealed the decision on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he argued his attorney failed to request a cautionary instruction regarding eyewitness identification. The court considered the appeal but found Dean's argument lacked relevant authority or sufficient legal backing. As a result, they deemed the issue forfeited for appellate review in compliance with court rules. Furthermore, the court addressed the merits of the claim, applying the Strickland v. Washington standard. This requires showing both deficient performance by counsel and resulting prejudice to the defense. The court found the cautionary instruction unnecessary due to the reliability of the eyewitness identification in the case and determined the counsel's actions did not constitute ineffective assistance. Consequently, the court affirmed Dean's conviction and sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2019-224

F-2018-1144

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the case of William G. Epperly v. The State of Oklahoma (Case No. F-2018-1144), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court of Oklahoma County. The court found that the evidence presented during Epperly's trial was admissible, and his claims of error, including issues related to hearsay, relevance, and jury instructions, did not warrant reversal of his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. ### Key Points from the Court's Decision: 1. **Admission of Excited Utterance Evidence**: The court found that statements made by Tiffany Epperly (Epperly's spouse) to two witnesses fell under the excited utterance exception to hearsay, as she was under emotional stress when she reported witnessing the alleged abuse. 2. **Text Messages and Witness Testimony**: The court ruled that reading text messages sent by Sutphen to Tiffany Epperly was not hearsay because they were used to challenge Tiffany's credibility rather than to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Additionally, the testimony about Tiffany's changing demeanor was deemed relevant to the case. 3. **Witness Reading from Police Report**: Former Officer Richardson's reading from his police report, which included Tiffany Epperly's statements, was allowed because it served to impeach her trial testimony, not as hearsay. 4. **Internet Search Evidence**: The court deemed the evidence concerning Epperly's internet search about Oklahoma sex laws to be relevant, as it could suggest a consciousness of guilt. 5. **Judgment and Sentence Corrections**: The court noted that the issues regarding credit for time served and the $100 fine were resolved with an amended judgment, making that claim moot. 6. **Jury Instruction on Sex Offender Registration**: The court did not find that the failure to instruct the jury about sex offender registration constituted an error warranting relief, consistent with prior rulings. 7. **Cumulative Error Doctrine**: The court concluded that no individual errors occurred that would justify reversal and therefore found no merit in the cumulative error claim. ### Conclusion: The court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court, concluding that all claims raised by Epperly were without merit. The decision illustrates the court's adherence to evidentiary rules and its support for the discretion exercised by the trial judge in admitting evidence. For more detailed information, the full opinion can be accessed [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1144_1734787047.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-1144

F-2018-1188

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In this case summary, Alfonzo Lamonse Vineyard was convicted of multiple charges in the District Court of Tulsa County, including Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, First Degree Burglary, Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony, and several counts of Obstructing an Officer, among others. The jury found Vineyard guilty on all counts except one (Assault and Battery), and the court subsequently sentenced him to life imprisonment on the more serious counts, with concurrent and consecutive terms for other counts. Vineyard's appeal raised five main issues: 1. **Waiver of Right to Counsel**: The court found that Vineyard’s waiver of his right to counsel was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. He was adequately informed of the risks associated with self-representation. 2. **Right to Confrontation**: Vineyard argued that his right to confront witnesses was violated when the court allowed the reading of the victim's preliminary hearing testimony, as she did not appear at trial. The court found that the state had made sufficient efforts to locate the victim and that her unavailability was justified, thus upholding the admission of her prior testimony. 3. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Vineyard contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. The court determined that the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 4. **Lesser Included Offense Instruction**: Vineyard argued that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of Pointing a Firearm. While the court acknowledged that the lack of instruction was error, it did not affect the trial's outcome, and therefore did not warrant reversal. 5. **Cumulative Error**: Lastly, Vineyard claimed that the cumulative effect of errors warranted a new trial. The court found no individual errors that affected the trial's fairness, thus rejecting this claim. Ultimately, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence, concluding that none of the raised issues warranted relief. The decision highlighted the adherence to established legal standards regarding self-representation, confrontation rights, evidentiary sufficiency, jury instructions, and cumulative error analysis. [Download the full opinion here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1188_1734784723.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-1188

RE-2018-1236

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

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

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1236

RE-2018-1071

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOSE ANGEL LOPEZ, ) Appellant, ) V. ) No. RE-2018-1071 THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) Appellee.** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 26 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** *KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:* Appellant, Jose Angel Lopez, pled guilty to Count 1 - Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Intentional Discharge of a Firearm, a felony, and Count 2 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, a misdemeanor, in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2010-3550. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment for Count 1 and one year imprisonment for Count 2. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, with all but the first five years suspended. Following a one-year Judicial Review hearing, Appellant’s sentence for Count 1 was modified to three years to serve and seven years suspended. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence, alleging Appellant violated the terms of his suspended sentence by failing to pay supervision fees, failing to report as directed, and committing the new crime of Possession of CDS, as alleged in Lincoln County Case No. CF-2014-343. The application to revoke was later amended to further allege Appellant committed the new crimes of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Felon in Possession of a Firearm, as alleged in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2017-4230. Following a revocation hearing before the Hon. Glenn M. Jones, District Judge, Appellant's suspended sentence was revoked in full. Appellant appeals the revocation of his suspended sentences, raising a sole proposition of error: the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Appellant's sentence based entirely upon hearsay evidence with no particularized guarantee of reliability. We affirm the order of the District Court revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in full. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence, in whole or in part, is within the sound discretion of the trial court and such decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof. Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, 10, 306 P.3d 554, 557. An 'abuse of discretion' is defined by this Court as a 'clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented in support of and against the application.' Walker v. State, 1989 OK CR 65, 5, 780 P.2d 1181, 1183. Alleged violations of conditions of a suspended sentence need be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. Tilden, 2013 OK CR 10, 5, 306 P.3d at 556. Judge Jones determined that the State showed, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Appellant committed the new crimes alleged in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2017-4230. This decision was reached after reviewing the preliminary hearing's transcript from Case No. CF-2017-4230, in which the victim testified Appellant entered his yard and shot him while he was sitting on his front porch. This Court has held that neither the relaxed due process standards nor the provisions of Section 991b are violated when a transcript of a previous judicial hearing is admitted into evidence at a revocation hearing so long as the defendant was allowed to confront and cross-examine the witnesses at the previous judicial hearing. Wortham v. State, 2008 OK CR 18, 15, 188 P.3d 201, 206. A review of the preliminary hearing transcript shows that Appellant’s trial counsel, who also represented him at the revocation hearing, cross-examined the State's only witness. The testimony of a witness about his personal knowledge of the events, under oath and subject to cross-examination, is not hearsay. Appellant has not shown an abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The District Court's revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2010-3550 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 GLENN M. JONES, DISTRICT JUDGE** APPEARANCES AT HEARING: LYDIA FIELDS ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT TIFFANY NOBLE ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OKLAHOMA COUNTY COUNSEL FOR THE STATE MIKE HUNTER ATTORNEY GENERAL CAROLINE E.J. HUNT ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J.: LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: RECUSE 005 [Download the PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-1071_1734355190.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1071

F-2018-940

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the case of LeJeanna Sue Chronister v. State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed several appeals raised by the appellant following her conviction for Aggravated Manufacture of a Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine) and her subsequent sentencing to twenty years in prison. The appellant raised three primary propositions of error: 1. **Violation of Rights Regarding the 85% Rule**: The appellant contended that her sentence was unconstitutional because she was not informed that the 85% Rule (requiring her to serve 85% of her sentence before becoming eligible for parole) applied to her case. The court concluded that this argument did not hold merit in a non-jury trial setting, stating that the judge, not a jury, was responsible for sentencing and presumed to know the law. The court found no plain error as the sentence was within the statutory range and was the minimum allowed. 2. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: The appellant claimed her counsel was ineffective for not informing her about the 85% Rule, impacting her decision-making during her trial. The court applied the Strickland standard to evaluate the ineffectiveness claim, concluding that the appellant did not demonstrate how the alleged deficiency in counsel's performance prejudiced her case or altered the outcome. 3. **Cumulative Error**: The appellant argued that the combination of errors denied her a fair trial. The court determined that since none of the individual claims of error warranted relief, the cumulative error argument also lacked merit. Ultimately, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court of LeFlore County, stating that the appellant had not demonstrated any error that would necessitate modifying the sentence or overturning the conviction. The ruling emphasizes the distinction between non-jury trials and jury trials concerning informing defendants about parole-related laws and the importance of counsel's performance under the criteria established by the Strickland case.

Continue ReadingF-2018-940

S-2018-978

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingS-2018-978

F-2017-1149

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1149, Moore appealed his conviction for Permitting Invitees Under 21 to Possess or Consume Alcohol, Child Neglect, and Transporting a Loaded Firearm in a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court. One judge dissented. Moore was convicted for crimes related to a party where a fifteen-year-old boy named N.F. drank too much alcohol and died from alcohol poisoning. The party took place at the home of a sixteen-year-old friend, and although Moore was not there, the court had to decide if he was responsible for what happened because he was in a relationship with the boy's mother, who lived at that house. The first major point in the case was whether there was enough evidence to support Moore’s convictions. The court found that there was, especially because Moore admitted he lived with the mother and his driver's license listed that address. This was important as the law stated that he could be held responsible for underage drinking and neglect if he was living there. Moore also argued that he didn’t get a fair trial because his lawyer did not do a good job. He mentioned that his lawyer failed to object to certain testimonies from a worker in child protective services. The court looked into this claim but concluded that it didn’t affect the fairness of the trial enough to change the outcome. They thought that defense counsel did present evidence to support Moore's case, showing he may not have lived at the home when N.F. died. Another issue was about evidence presented during the trial. Moore’s lawyer did not object to the testimony from the child protective services worker, which led to the question of whether this testimony hurt his case. The court found that while this testimony might have been improper, it did not significantly affect the trial's result since the jury could have made their decision based on other evidence presented. Moore also claimed he should get credit for the time spent in jail before his sentencing. However, the court said it was up to the judge to decide about giving credit for time served, not mandatory. They believed the judge made the right choice and affirmed the decision. In conclusion, the court upheld Moore's convictions and sentences, affirming that there was enough evidence against him and that his rights to a fair trial were not violated. Moore was denied the motion to have a hearing about his lawyer's effectiveness in defending him.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1149

F-2017-1142

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1142, Daniel Ryan Chadwell appealed his conviction for forty counts of Lewd Acts with a Child Under 16. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Chadwell's judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Chadwell was found guilty by a jury of many serious offenses. He was accused of committing inappropriate acts with children who were under the age of 16. The jury decided he should spend a very long time in prison, giving him a total of several hundred years in sentences. He did not get found guilty on two of the counts. Chadwell's appeal included two main arguments. First, he claimed the jury received wrong instructions about how to decide his punishment. Specifically, he argued that the instructions mentioned the punishment for crimes against children under 12, which was not applicable to his case since he was charged with acts involving children under 16. The court found that while the instructions did have an error, the mistake was not serious enough to change the outcome. They noted that all the child victims were proven to be under 12 at the time of the crimes, so the error was harmless. Second, Chadwell argued that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial, which made it impossible for him to have a fair chance. However, the court looked at what happened during the entire trial and found that these actions did not make the trial unfair either. In the end, the court decided that Chadwell's appeal did not provide enough reason to change the original decision. Therefore, his sentences remained as decided by the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1142

F-2018-595

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **GARRET TAYLOR MANKIN,** Appellant, Case No. F-2018-595 **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. --- **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, JUL 11 2019** John D. Hadden, Clerk --- ### SUMMARY OPINION **HUDSON, JUDGE:** **Background:** Garret Taylor Mankin was tried and convicted in a nonjury trial in Pontotoc County District Court (Case No. CF-2015-347) for two counts of Lewd Acts with a Child Under Twelve (Counts 1 and 3), violating 21 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1123(A)(2). He was sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment for each count, with the last five years of both sentences suspended. Originally charged with eleven counts, the trial court dismissed the majority by agreement of the parties. Mankin must serve eighty-five percent of his sentence before being eligible for parole. **Propositions of Error:** Mankin raises two propositions of error concerning the trial court's admission of hearsay statements from the alleged victims, P.M. and F.Y. 1. **Admittance of P.M.'s Hearsay Statements:** Mankin argues that the hearsay statements made by P.M. were not inherently trustworthy. The court found that the statements were admissible under 12 O.S.Supp.2013, § 2803.1, which allows for the admission of hearsay statements made by children under twelve regarding sexual contact against them if deemed reliable. Upon review: - P.M. disclosed the inappropriate touching to both her mother and a forensic interviewer, with consistent elements in her accounts. - Merely due to the nature of her disclosure or the method of questioning, the statements remained trustworthy. - The court determined that there was no abuse of discretion in this ruling. 2. **Admittance of F.Y.'s Hearsay Statements:** Mankin contends that F.Y.’s statements were not spontaneous or consistent, arguing similar points regarding terminologies used and that they lacked reliability. Upon review: - F.Y. made statements on the same day she was seen being inappropriately touched. - The mother’s questioning was open-ended and not leading. - F.Y.'s use of child-appropriate language (referring to the genitalia as a fat leg) supported the statement’s reliability. - The trial court's decision to admit the statements was upheld due to sufficient indicia of reliability. **Outcome:** After thorough consideration of the entire record and the propositions raised, the Court found no error that warranted relief. The judgments and sentences imposed by the District Court were affirmed. **Concurrences:** - Lewis, P.J. - Kuehn, V.P.J. - Lumpkin, J. - Rowland, J. **Opinion Filed:** Hudson, J. **Note**: For further details, you can download the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-595_1735312387.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-595

F-2018-284

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-284, Carl Wayne Gundrum, Jr. appealed his conviction for first-degree rape and lewd acts with a child under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Gundrum was found guilty by a jury in Cleveland County and received a 30-year sentence for the rape and a 20-year sentence for the lewd acts. Both sentences are to be served consecutively, meaning he must serve them one after the other. Before the appeal, he argued several things regarding his trial. First, he claimed that his right to a speedy trial was violated because there was a delay of about 21 months from his arrest to the trial. The court looked at four things to decide if his right was violated: how long the delay was, why it happened, whether he asked for a speedy trial, and whether he was hurt by the delay. The court found that the delay was not enough to violate his speedy trial rights. Second, Gundrum argued that the court made a mistake by allowing evidence of another child molestation case to be shown in his trial. His lawyer objected to this evidence being used, and the court said that it was appropriately admitted, so they found no error here. Third, Gundrum claimed there was bad behavior from the prosecutors that made his trial unfair. Many of these actions were not objected to during the trial, so the court only looked at the ones that were considered plain errors. They decided that the prosecutor's actions did not change the outcome of the trial significantly enough to cause an unfair result. Fourth, he argued that his lawyer did not do a good job by not objecting to the prosecutor's misconduct. The court reviewed this situation and found that Gundrum could not prove that he was harmed by this lack of action, so his claim did not work out. Finally, Gundrum sought relief by stating that all these errors together made his trial unfair. However, since the court found no individual errors, they concluded that there could not be an accumulation of errors either. In the end, the court affirmed Gundrum's conviction and stated that he must serve a significant portion of his sentences before he could be considered for parole.

Continue ReadingF-2018-284

RE-2018-435

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOSE FIGUEROA MESTA,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-435** **FILED** IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA JUN 20 2019 JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK **SUMMARY OPINION** LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Appellant appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Texas County District Court Case No. CF-2015-1. On March 4, 2016, Appellant entered a plea of no contest to Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance Within 1,000 Feet of a Park, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2012, § 2-402(C)(1). The Honorable Jon Parsley, District Judge, convicted Appellant and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment, with all but the first eighty days suspended. On February 27, 2018, the State filed an Amended Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence alleging Appellant failed to submit probation reports; failed to report his arrest for public intoxication; moved back into Oklahoma without reporting it to the district court; and committed new crimes of Possession of a Controlled Drug, Marijuana, Within 2000 Feet of a School or Park, With Intent to Distribute (Count 1), and Possession of CDS Without a Tax Stamp Affixed (Count 2) as alleged in Texas County District Court Case No. CF-2018-58. Following a hearing, Judge Parsley revoked Appellant's remaining suspended sentence in full. **Proposition I:** Appellant alleges the trial court erred in assessing him attorney fees of $500, which he claims exceeds the amount allowed by statute. **Proposition II:** Appellant argues he cannot be assessed the costs of his incarceration because he is mentally ill. These claims are outside the scope of a revocation appeal. The consequence of judicial revocation is to execute a penalty previously imposed in the judgment and sentence. The scope of review in a revocation appeal is limited to the validity of the revocation order executing the previously imposed sentence. As noted on numerous occasions, arguments regarding attorney fees and incarceration costs are administrative and not properly presented as part of the appeal of an order revoking a suspended sentence. Thus, we deny Propositions I and II. **Proposition III:** Appellant objects to the inclusion of post-imprisonment supervision in the revocation order. The State concedes this point, arguing the issue is moot because Judge Parsley entered an amended revocation order on January 17, 2019, deleting post-imprisonment supervision from the revocation order. We agree that this proposition is moot. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence in whole or part is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof. Appellant has not established that Judge Parsley abused his discretion. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Texas County District Court Case No. CF-2015-1 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** AT REVOCATION **VONDA WILKINS** P.O. BOX 1486 GUYMON, OK 73492 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT ON APPEAL **LISBETH McCARTY** P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **TAOS SMITH** ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 319 N. MAIN GUYMON, OK 73942 COUNSEL FOR STATE **MIKE HUNTER** OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL KEELEY MILLER ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21st ST. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J:** Concur **ROWLAND, J:** Concur [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-435_1734691413.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-435

J-2019-162

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **B.M.M., Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **Case No. J-2019-162** **FILED JUN 20 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** On August 12, 2016, a Youthful Offender Information was filed in Tulsa County District Court Case No. YO-2016-28, charging Appellant with multiple offenses including Robbery with a Firearm and Possession of a Stolen Vehicle. Appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas on November 28, 2016, receiving a ten-year sentence as a Youthful Offender, with sentences running concurrently. Following completion of the Youthful Offender Program, Appellant was paroled in February 2019. During a March 2019 hearing, mandated by 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-209, Judge Priddy transitioned Appellant to a seven-year deferred sentence under the Department of Corrections, a decision Appellant now appeals. This matter was decided on the Accelerated Docket with oral arguments heard on May 30, 2019. The district court’s bridging of Appellant to the supervision of the Department of Corrections is **AFFIRMED**. **Propositions of Error:** **1. No State Motion to Bridge:** Appellant contends the district court erred by bridging him to an adult sentence without a state motion. The court correctly followed 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-209, allowing placement on probation without a state motion. Appellant did not demonstrate an abuse of discretion based on performance in the program. **2. Knowingly Entered Pleas:** Appellant asserts his guilty pleas were not entered knowingly but does not seek to withdraw them. As such, this claim seeks advisory relief, which the Court denies. **3. Abuse of Discretion on Bridging Decision:** Appellant reasserts that the decision to bridge him was an abuse of discretion. Following the statutory guidelines, the Court finds no abuse of discretion has occurred. **Conclusion:** The Judgment and Sentence is **AFFIRMED**. MANDATE will issue upon filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE TRACY PRIDDY, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL:** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:** Kayla Cannon, Assistant Public Defender **COUNSEL FOR STATE:** Kevin Keller, Assistant District Attorney **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR IN RESULTS **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** CONCUR IN RESULTS **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR [Download PDF for full opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-162_1734446225.pdf)

Continue ReadingJ-2019-162

F-2017-949

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-949, Montoyia Corbitt appealed her conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree-Heat of Passion. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Montoyia Corbitt was tried for a crime that involved the death of another person. During her trial, she claimed she acted in self-defense. However, the jury found her guilty, and she was given a six-year prison sentence. The law said she had to serve at least 85% of her sentence before she could be considered for parole. Corbitt made three main arguments in her appeal. First, she believed the evidence was not enough to prove she did not act in self-defense. The court explained that self-defense is a reason someone can use force, but it has to be reasonable. They found there was enough evidence that showed Corbitt's fear was not reasonable and, therefore, not justified in using deadly force. Second, Corbitt argued that a police officer’s opinion in her trial influenced the jury and was not fair. The court reviewed this matter and decided that the officer's testimony was allowed because it was based on what he observed during the investigation. They concluded that his statements helped clarify what happened during the incident without directing the jury toward a specific conclusion. Third, Corbitt was concerned about a photograph that showed her face during a police interview. She thought it was not relevant and unfairly prejudiced her case. The court ruled the photo was relevant because it helped support her claim of self-defense. They believed the image added to the understanding of the situation rather than just being harmful to her. Ultimately, after looking at all the arguments and evidence, the court agreed with the jury’s decision and affirmed her conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2017-949

F-2018-418

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-418, Ebrima Tamba appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Ebrima Tamba was sentenced to twenty years in prison for his involvement in trafficking illegal drugs, specifically marijuana. Tamba felt that this sentence was too harsh. He argued that it was unfair because it was longer than the minimum penalty for the crime and that he had less marijuana than what the law required for a more serious charge. He also mentioned that since his arrest, the laws in Oklahoma changed, allowing people with a medical marijuana license to use marijuana legally. However, the court explained that even if laws changed after Tamba's crime, the new laws did not apply to his case. They noted that he was given a sentence that followed the laws in place when he committed the crime, and his sentence was within the legal limits. Tamba also claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly during the trial. He believed his attorney should have challenged how police stopped him and questioned whether the evidence used against him was acceptable. However, the court found that Tamba did not prove that his lawyer's actions negatively affected the outcome of his trial. In conclusion, the court decided that Tamba's twenty-year sentence was appropriate and that his lawyer provided adequate help during his trial. Therefore, his appeal did not lead to any changes in his case.

Continue ReadingF-2018-418

RE-2018-644

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DUSTIN ARDELL CRUCE,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-644** **FILED APR 25 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** ROWLAND, JUDGE: This appeal arises from the revocation of Dustin Ardell Cruce’s suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2016-143, adjudicated by the Honorable Lawrence W. Parish. On February 22, 2017, Cruce entered a guilty plea to multiple charges, including Assault With a Dangerous Weapon and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, resulting in a total sentence of ten years for the most serious counts, suspended in part. On October 31, 2017, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence, citing Cruce's failure to pay ordered reimbursement fees and alleged new criminal activity. However, the State subsequently abandoned the new crime allegation as part of a plea agreement in a separate case, leaving only the failure to pay as the basis for revocation. At the revocation hearing on May 2, 2018, the trial court determined that Cruce had indeed violated his probation by failing to fulfill financial obligations. Despite Cruce's claims regarding his employment status and efforts to comply, he provided no evidence of bona fide attempts to make the required payments. The standard for revocation allows the State to meet its burden by a preponderance of the evidence, and one proven violation is sufficient to justify a full revocation of a suspended sentence. Judge Parish opted to revoke only half of Cruce's remaining suspended sentence, demonstrating leniency. Cruce’s appeal asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing revocation. However, as established in previous case law, including *Sparks v. State* and *Livingston v. State*, the court has broad discretion in these matters. The trial court was within its rights to revoke the suspension based on the stipulated violation of payment obligations. The decision of Judge Parish is affirmed, as Cruce has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2016-143 is AFFIRMED. **Legal Representation:** Counsel for Appellant: CURT ALLEN Counsel for Appellee: EMILY MUELLER, ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY **OPINION BY:** ROWLAND, J. **Concur:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J. (Concur in Results); LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.

Continue ReadingRE-2018-644

M-2017-137

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2017-137, Jerrad Sterling Nunamaker appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and speeding in excess of the lawful limit. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Nunamaker's fine for speeding to $20.00 and vacated the victim compensation assessment for that offense. One member of the court dissented.

Continue ReadingM-2017-137

MA-2018-987

  • Post author:
  • Post category:MA

In OCCA case No. MA-2018-987, Cox appealed his conviction for a criminal case that led to an accelerated sentence. In a published decision, the court decided that the District Court must prepare the appeal record and transcripts at public expense. The court noted that Cox was deemed indigent for the purpose of having an attorney appointed, but the District Court initially ruled that he had enough assets to pay for his transcripts. This created a problem because it delayed his appeal process. The court ultimately granted Cox's request for a writ of mandamus, which allowed him to move forward with his appeal without having to pay upfront for the transcripts. The decision was not unanimous, with some judges disagreeing.

Continue ReadingMA-2018-987