In OCCA case No. F-2019-37, Suggs appealed his conviction for first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial on that count due to an instructional error, while affirming the convictions on the other counts. One judge dissented.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DEXTER JEROME BIGLOW,** Appellant, **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. RE-2018-1217** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA DEC 19 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** KUEHN, VICE-PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant Dexter Jerome Biglow appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2017-3262. On February 14, 2018, Appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas to Aggravated Attempting to Elude and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (marijuana). He was sentenced to five years of imprisonment on the eluding count and to one year of incarceration on the drug charge, to be served concurrently, with both sentences suspended. On November 6, 2018, the State filed an application to revoke the suspended sentences, alleging that Appellant had committed the new crimes of domestic abuse by strangulation and domestic abuse resulting in great bodily injury. A hearing on the application to revoke was held on November 27, 2018, before the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, who granted the State's application and revoked Appellant's suspended sentences in full. On appeal, Appellant contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the allegations contained in the application to revoke. We respectfully disagree. **ANALYSIS** At a revocation hearing, the focus is whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated, with the standard of proof being a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court's decision should not be overturned unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. In this case, both Officers Taylor and Mueggenborg testified at the hearing, having individually interviewed the alleged victim of the domestic abuse. The judge found their testimony had substantial guarantees of trustworthiness, which allowed the court to consider the victim's out-of-court statements. Notably, while the testimony was contradictory, the court did not abuse its discretion by finding the State adequately proved its case for revocation. The credibility of witnesses is a matter for the trial court, which may choose to believe or disbelieve any witness. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended judgments and sentences in Case No. CF-2017-3262 is therefore AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** Thomas P. Hurley - Assistant Public Defender Marva A. Banks - Assistant Public Defender Danielle Connolly - Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter - Oklahoma Attorney General Tessa L. Henry - Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J.: LEVIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1306, Rebecca Faith Clark appealed her conviction for four counts of Child Abuse by Injury and one count of First Degree Child Abuse Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. The case involves serious allegations against the appellant and her husband, who adopted two boys after they were removed from their biological parents due to neglect. The abuse came to light after the younger boy, Colton, went missing in 2006. An extensive search was conducted, but he was never found. During this time, the older brother, T.J.S., raised concerns about the treatment he and Colton were receiving at home. He reported incidents of physical abuse, including being beaten and isolated by the appellants. After several years, T.J.S. contacted law enforcement about the mistreatment and his brother's disappearance, which led to reopening Colton's case. The trial revealed chilling details about the life of the brothers in the appellants' care. T.J.S. provided testimony about the physical and emotional abuse they suffered, including beatings, emotional manipulation, and the traumatic events surrounding Colton's disappearance. In her defense, the appellant denied any wrongdoing and argued that the boys were troubled and often acted out. She claimed T.J.S. was the source of the injuries he reported, and she maintained that Colton had run away rather than suggesting any harm had come to him. The court examined various claims raised by the appellant, including ineffective assistance of counsel and improper admission of evidence. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction, indicating that the overwhelming evidence against the appellant affirmed the decision of the jury. The opinion emphasized the role of the older brother's testimony and the psychological and physical marks left from the alleged abusive environment. It highlighted the principles of joint representation and the appellant's decisions during the trial process. Given these factors, the appellate court found no compelling reason to reverse the lower court's decision. Overall, the OCCA concluded that the appellant received a fair trial, despite her arguments to the contrary, and affirmed the judgment and sentence. The dissenting opinion focused on specific aspects of the trial proceedings but ultimately shared the conclusion regarding the affirmance of the convictions.
In the case of Darrin Wayne Culley v. The State of Oklahoma, the Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the appellant's appeal from the partial revocation of his suspended sentence. Culley had initially entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of Child Abuse and was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment, which was suspended. However, after a motion to revoke his suspended sentence was filed due to new charges of Domestic Abuse, Culley stipulated to the allegations against him and accepted a plea agreement. Culley raised two main propositions of error in his appeal: 1. He argued that the revocation hearing violated his due process rights because his stipulation was not made knowingly and voluntarily. He claimed that he felt rushed and pressured into making his stipulation and that he had not been adequately informed about potential defenses to the allegations against him. 2. He contended that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, resulting in a poor decision to stipulate to the State's revocation application. The court addressed both propositions together. They noted that Culley did not claim that he was deprived of the minimum due process rights established in Morrissey v. Brewer but instead argued that counsel’s actions made his stipulation invalid. The court emphasized that the trial judge had thoroughly questioned Culley regarding his stipulation, confirming that he was acting voluntarily and understood the implications of his decision. The court concluded that his stipulation was indeed made knowingly and voluntarily. Regarding the claim of ineffective assistance, the court applied the Strickland v. Washington standard, which requires showing that the lawyer's performance was deficient and that this deficiency prejudiced the defendant. The court found that Culley did not establish that his counsel's performance was objectively unreasonable or that he was prejudiced by his representation. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the partial revocation of Culley's suspended sentence, finding no merit in his claims. The ruling highlights the importance of thorough questioning and confirmation by the court to ensure that a defendant's rights are protected during such proceedings.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-358, Sean Daniel Simmons appealed his conviction for domestic abuse by strangulation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Sean Daniel Simmons was found guilty by a jury for hurting his girlfriend on three occasions during a long argument at their apartment. The girlfriend's twelve-year-old son was in a nearby room sleeping at the time. The girlfriend testified that he choked her until she lost consciousness three times. Once, when he called 911, he slapped her when she tried to take the phone. After the incidents, she sought medical help and was diagnosed with a throat injury, although there were no visible marks on her throat, and she didn’t suffer any serious long-term effects. Simmons argued in his first claim that the evidence against him was not enough to support the conviction. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that it was reasonable for the jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for domestic abuse by strangulation. In his second claim, Simmons believed the trial court should have explained what “great bodily harm” meant to the jury. He wanted a clear definition because he felt the term was too vague. However, the trial court used standard jury instructions that explained the elements of the crime, including how strangulation was defined. Ultimately, the court held that the trial court did not make a mistake when it refused to define “great bodily harm” more specifically. The decision to not elaborate on this term was appropriate, as the standard instructions already provided enough information to the jury for them to make an informed decision. The judgment was affirmed, and the judges agreed that the trial court acted correctly in these matters.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ROBERT AARON RODGERS,** **Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Summary Opinion** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** On January 17, 2017, Appellant was charged in Grady County District Court with Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(C) in Case No. CM-2017-36. Appellant was found guilty following a jury trial and the Honorable Timothy A. Brauer, Special Judge, sentenced him according to the jury's recommendation to a $1,000 fine. Appellant appeals. Appellant raises three propositions of error in support of his appeal: **I.** Mr. Rodgers was denied a fair trial because the trial court refused to instruct on his theories of defense. **II.** The admission of irrelevant and prejudicial expert testimony on domestic abuse was plain error entitling Mr. Rodgers to a new trial. **III.** The audio tape sponsored by Cindy Trapp failed to meet the requisites for admissibility. Admission of this evidence denied Mr. Rodgers a fair trial. After thorough consideration of the entire record before us, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits, and briefs, we find that the law and evidence do not require relief. **Proposition I**: Appellant argues he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court denied his request for jury instructions on defense of another and defense of property. Decisions denying requested jury instructions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Appellant fails to establish that any unlawful interference with his property occurred or was imminent. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying these instructions. **Proposition II**: Appellant contends that the testimony of Amanda Grayson, an expert on domestic violence, was irrelevant and prejudicial. Appellant did not object to the testimony at trial, waiving appellate review except for plain error. The expert testimony was relevant and provided insight into the victim's behavior and Appellant's intent. Thus, Proposition II is without merit. **Proposition III**: Appellant challenges the admission of a duplicate recording of a conversation based on the best evidence rule. Appellant objected on the basis of relevance rather than the best evidence rule, and thus has waived that issue. No genuine question regarding the authenticity of the duplicate was established, and the trial court took steps to ensure the jury was not misled by the recording. Therefore, Proposition III is denied. **Decision**: The Judgment and Sentence of the trial court is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** ED GEARY **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** DAVID AUTRY **COUNSEL FOR STATE** NATALIA LEVCHENKO MIKE HUNTER KATHERINE MORELLI **OPINION BY**: KUEHN, V.P.J. **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** **RA/F** --- This summary captures the key elements of the case involving Appellant Robert Aaron Rodgers, the propositions of error raised, and the court's analysis and decisions, providing a streamlined understanding of the court's ruling.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JULIUS LAMAR WRIGHT,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE 2018-0144** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JUL 11 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant Julius Lamar Wright entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2009-228, for Count 1 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute (Marijuana) and Count 2 - Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. On April 28, 2009, Appellant received a five-year deferred sentence on each count. On March 6, 2012, Appellant pled guilty to allegations in the application to accelerate his deferred sentences, resulting in a ten-year suspended sentence (first five years in custody) for Count 1, and one year in the Oklahoma County Jail for Count 2. These sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other and with CF-2011-1457. Appellant was charged with Domestic Abuse by Strangulation on December 9, 2015, in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2015-8860. He entered a no contest plea and was given a ten-year suspended sentence with probation conditions, which ran concurrently with the earlier cases and included credit for time served. The State's motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2009-228 due to the new charge and failure to pay restitution was dismissed on June 28, 2016, as part of the plea agreement in Case No. CF-2015-8860. On June 29, 2017, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in Cases CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860, alleging a new crime of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2017-2733. After a revocation hearing on January 31, 2018, Appellant's suspended sentences in both cases were revoked. Appellant appeals the revocation of his suspended sentences, raising two propositions of error: 1. The evidence presented during his revocation hearing should have been excluded as it was obtained through egregious police conduct violating his Fourth Amendment rights. 2. The trial court abused its discretion by revoking Appellant's sentences in full, constituting a violation of his due process rights and resulting in an excessive sentence. We affirm the District Court's decision to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in full. Appellant's first argument was not raised at the revocation hearing, leading us to review for plain error. To claim relief under the plain error doctrine, Appellant must prove: (1) an actual error occurred; (2) the error is clear and obvious; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights, impacting the outcome of the hearing. We find no plain error and conclude that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in finding Appellant violated the conditions of his suspended sentences. Regarding the second argument, the court has broad discretion in revoking suspended sentences, and this discretion will not be disturbed without showing an abuse thereof. Appellant has not demonstrated any such abuse. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860 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 filing of this decision. **REVOCATION APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS** **THOMAS HURLEY** **MARVA A. BANKS** Assistant Public Defender Oklahoma County Public Defender's Office 611 County Office Building 320 Robert S. Kerr Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for Defendant **KIRK MARTIN** Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma County 320 Robert S. Kerr Suite 505 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for the State **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur **[PDF VERSION AVAILABLE HERE](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/M-2018-335_1734421708.pdf)**
In OCCA case No. M-2018-259, Apollo Gabriel Gonzalez appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. On July 12, 2016, Gonzalez was charged with domestic abuse in two separate cases that were later combined for a jury trial. The jury found him guilty of both charges, and the judge sentenced him to pay fines. Gonzalez argued that he did not get a fair trial. He said his lawyer did not use important evidence that could have helped him. He claimed this evidence would show that the person he was accused of hurting was actually the aggressor and that he acted in self-defense. However, the court noted that Gonzalez did not provide actual evidence to support his claims about his lawyer's performance. The court explained that to win an appeal on these grounds, Gonzalez needed to show that his lawyer made serious mistakes and that those mistakes affected the outcome of his trial. The judges ruled that even if his lawyer had made mistakes, Gonzalez could not show that the result of the trial would have been different. In his second argument, Gonzalez claimed that having both of his cases tried together was unfair. He referenced a previous decision where combining cases had led to issues. However, the court pointed out that in his case, the jury could decide each case separately, unlike the situation in the previous decision he cited. In the end, the court found no errors that would require reversing the conviction or changing the result. The judges upheld the earlier decisions, and Gonzalez's appeal was denied.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-83, the appellant appealed his conviction for terminating his participation in a drug court program. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of the appellant's participation in the Kay County Drug Court Program. One judge dissented. The case began with the appellant being charged with domestic abuse, followed by several other charges which led to his participation in the drug court program. He had previous sentences but entered a plea agreement that allowed him to avoid immediate incarceration if he completed the program successfully. However, after multiple instances of non-compliance, the state requested to terminate him from the program. During a hearing, the judge evaluated whether the appellant had violated the terms of his performance contract in the drug court. The judge determined that he had. The appellant argued that the judge should have given him more chances to comply with the rules of the program, but the judge concluded that the appellant's actions warranted termination. The court ultimately agreed with the judge's decision, stating that he had not abused his discretion in terminating the appellant’s participation in the drug court program. The termination was deemed appropriate given the appellant's repeated violations.
In OCCA case No. M-2017-954, Christian Wages appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his conviction to simple Assault and Battery and remanded the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Christian Wages was found guilty of Domestic Abuse in a trial without a jury. The judge sentenced him to one year in jail, with all but the first thirty days suspended, and a fine of $500. He was also required to attend counseling and was placed on probation. Wages appealed the decision, claiming three main errors in the trial. First, he believed the court wrongly allowed hearsay evidence that violated his right to confront witnesses. This hearsay was about R.S., the alleged victim, who did not testify at the trial. Second, he argued that the evidence wasn't enough to prove he battered R.S. because the witnesses did not clearly identify her. Lastly, he claimed that the errors in the trial added up to deny him a fair trial. The court reviewed the evidence and mentioned that while there was enough proof for a simple Assault and Battery charge, the evidence for the Domestic Abuse charge was based on inadmissible hearsay that stated R.S. lived with Wages. Since there wasn’t sufficient admissible evidence to prove the domestic relationship, Wages' conviction was modified to simple Assault and Battery. As for the last argument regarding cumulative errors, the court pointed out that it only found one significant error, meaning cumulative error could not be applied. In conclusion, the punishment was lessened from Domestic Abuse to simple Assault and Battery, and the court instructed to resentence Wages according to this new finding.
In OCCA case No. RE-2017-264, Damion Deshawn Polk appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse (Assault and Battery) After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the balance of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case started when Polk was given a ten-year sentence that was suspended, meaning he wouldn't have to go to prison right away. He had to follow certain rules, including paying fees, doing community service, and staying out of trouble. However, he did not follow these rules, and the State asked for his sentence to be revoked. At a hearing, Polk admitted to using drugs, which was one of the reasons his probation was being revoked. The judge gave him a punishment by sending him to jail for ninety days. After he served this time, he was supposed to report to a program but missed his next court date. Later, when the judge reviewed the case again, he revoked Polk's suspended sentence entirely. However, during the appeal, the court found that Polk had already been punished for his drug use and that the judge should not have fully revoked his sentence for that same violation. The appellate court decided that there should have been new violations presented for the full revocation. As a result, the court reversed the judge's decision to revoke Polk's suspended sentence completely. They noted that a suspended sentence can't be revoked for a reason that has already been punished. The appellate court ruled that since Polk had already faced penalties for his prior drug use, the judge should have considered that before taking away the rest of his suspended sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-724, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, burglary, domestic abuse, and violation of a protective order. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for most counts but dismissed one count due to double punishment concerns. One judge dissented.
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.
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.
In OCCA case No. C-2015-514, Hanks appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse and Malicious Injury to Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but remanded the case to determine if Hanks was mentally ill, which would affect the costs he was assessed. One judge dissented. Hanks had pleaded guilty to two counts of Domestic Abuse and one count of Malicious Injury to Property in a state court. The judge sentenced him to three months in jail for one charge and one year suspended for the other two. He was also required to pay fines and fees. After entering his plea, Hanks tried to withdraw it, claiming he did not understand what he was doing and that he had poor legal help. The court looked at whether Hanks had made his plea knowingly and voluntarily. They found that he understood what he was doing and that his mental issues did not prevent him from understanding his plea. The court also considered Hanks' claim that his lawyer did not help him properly during the process and found no evidence to support this. One important point in the decision focused on the costs Hanks had to pay related to his time in jail. The court noted that because he had a mental illness diagnosis, he might not have to pay these costs according to state law, which says that mentally ill people should be exempt from such fees. Because of this, the court sent the case back for further evaluation of Hanks' mental health status to see if he qualified for the exemption. Overall, the court upheld the original decision while allowing for further examination of Hanks' mental health to understand his financial obligations better.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-854, Cory James Leon Whiteside appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery and Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition, allowing him to withdraw his pleas. One member of the court dissented. Whiteside pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges involving domestic violence. The court sentenced him to one year in jail for each charge, with the sentences to run one after the other. Shortly after pleading guilty, Whiteside asked to change his plea from guilty to not guilty, stating he had not understood the consequences of his plea. His request to withdraw his plea was denied by the court. Whiteside then appealed this decision, arguing two main points. First, he claimed he did not knowingly and voluntarily give up his right to have an attorney represent him during the case. Second, he argued that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because he didn't fully understand what he was agreeing to. The court reviewed the entire record of the case. It found that Whiteside's waiver of his right to counsel was not made in a knowing and voluntary way, meaning there was no clear record showing that he understood what self-representation involved or that he had been advised of the risks of not having a lawyer. The state even agreed with this point. Because this error was significant, the court decided to let Whiteside withdraw his guilty pleas. Following this decision, the other issue Whiteside raised became unnecessary to address. Therefore, the court ordered that Whiteside be allowed to withdraw his pleas.
In OCCA case No. RE 2014-0777, Rogelio Solis, Jr. appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking his suspended sentence but found merit in his argument regarding post-imprisonment supervision and remanded the case to modify that part. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2014-575, Jason Duane Barnes appealed his conviction for violating his probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the decision to revoke his suspended sentences. The judges noted that the evidence was not enough to support the revocation because the prosecution failed to show that the judgment related to his new crime was final. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. M-2013-1049, Wilson appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Wilson was charged with Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery in 2012. In February 2013, after a trial without a jury, he was found guilty. The judge sentenced him to one year in jail, with thirty days to be served, and imposed a $500 fine. Wilson challenged his conviction by raising several issues, including that he was not properly informed about his right to a jury trial and that he did not knowingly waive that right. The court found that there was no valid waiver of Wilson's right to a jury trial in the court record. They explained that for a waiver to be valid, the defendant must clearly understand what they are giving up. Since there were no documents or transcripts showing that Wilson knew about his right to a jury trial or chose to waive it, the court ruled that there was fundamental error. The majority opinion concluded by reversing Wilson's conviction and ordering a new trial because of the issues surrounding the jury trial waiver. One judge disagreed and believed that the record showed Wilson had been properly informed about his rights and that he had made a competent choice to proceed with a bench trial. However, the majority decision carried the ruling, leading to a new trial for Wilson.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-1027, Justin Michael Jay appealed his conviction for Forgery in the Second Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for corrections. One judge dissented. Justin Michael Jay was in trouble with the law and had a suspended sentence, which means he wouldn’t have to serve time in jail if he followed the rules. He had pleaded guilty to forgery and was given a suspended sentence of five years, but he had to spend the first 30 days in jail. However, things changed when he was accused of breaking the rules of his probation. The State, which is the side that brings charges, said that Jay did not pay the money he owed for supervision, restitution (the money owed to victims), and court costs. They also noted that Jay was charged with more crimes: Domestic Abuse and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Because of these new charges and failures to pay, the State asked the court to revoke Jay's suspended sentence. The court held a hearing to discuss Jay's situation. After listening to the evidence and arguments, the judge decided to revoke the rest of Jay's suspended sentence. This meant that Jay would have to serve the time he had left, which was almost five years. Later, the court filed a document that said Jay was revoked for 4 years and 335 days, and that he would have to be supervised after getting out of jail. Jay appealed this decision, arguing two main points. First, he claimed that the amount of time the judge revoked was wrong because he should have received credit for more days served when he was part of a special program for youthful offenders. Both Jay and the State agreed on this point, saying he should have been credited for 183 days instead of just 30. Therefore, they asked to change the revocation time to 4 years and 182 days. The second point Jay argued was that the court did not have the authority to order him to be under supervision after finishing his time in jail because the law about that only applies to those who were sentenced after November 1, 2012. Since Jay's original guilty plea and sentencing were before that date, the judge should not have included that supervision requirement. In the end, the court agreed with Jay on both points. They reversed the judgment that included the incorrect time and the unnecessary supervision requirement. They ordered the lower court to make the corrections and update the documents accordingly.
In OCCA case No. RE-2012-835, Lon Adam Smith appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, domestic abuse, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the sentences and send them back to the district court for changes. One judge dissented. The case involved three separate convictions against Lon Adam Smith, who had initially entered pleas of no contest to the charges. His sentences were suspended as long as he successfully completed certain rehabilitation programs. However, after some time, the state claimed Smith had not followed through with these programs, which led to a hearing where Smith admitted to the violations. During the revocation hearing, the judge revoked Smith's suspended sentences and imposed longer terms of imprisonment, which raised concerns about whether these new sentences were valid given the original ones. The main issue was that the original sentences had been improperly processed. The judge had not followed the correct procedures for delaying the imposition of sentences as required by law. The court found that Smith's original sentences were improperly extended due to the judge's actions at the revocation hearing. It was determined that since Smith's initial sentences were set on a specific date, any new sentences imposed could not exceed the original terms. Therefore, the court ruled that the revocation sentences needed to start from the date of the original sentences. In the end, the court reversed the judge's decision, which meant that Smith's sentences had to be adjusted to reflect the proper starting dates and terms. The court ordered the district court to amend the sentences accordingly. This decision helps ensure fairness in the legal process and clarifies how long someone can be sentenced for violations of probation.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-212, Alvin Lavan Johnson appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Johnson's revocation order and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. In 2003, Johnson was charged with the felony crime of domestic abuse. After pleading guilty in 2004, he received a suspended sentence of seven years. Years later, the State issued a warrant to revoke his suspension. Johnson was arrested and a revocation hearing took place with a judge and a prosecutor who had both been involved in the previous stages of his case. Johnson argued that this created an unfair situation. In his appeal, Johnson raised several points. He claimed that the delay in processing his case required dismissal. He also argued that it was unfair for the same attorney who had defended him to now be prosecuting him, and that the judge who revoked his sentence was involved in the original case. The State admitted errors but thought that a new hearing would be enough to fix the issues. The court agreed with Johnson on two of his claims, stating that the previous judge and prosecutor had conflicts of interest due to their past involvement in the case. Because of this, the court reversed the revocation order and sent the case back for further examination. Johnson will have a chance to present his arguments, including the claim about the delay, in front of a new and impartial judge. The court concluded that the other claims raised by Johnson didn’t need to be discussed at this time.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-914, Bradley Joe Raymond appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Domestic Abuse in the Presence of a Minor, and Domestic Abuse by Strangulation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for one count. One judge dissented. Raymond was found guilty of three serious crimes connected with domestic violence. After the trial in McCurtain County, the jury decided that he should spend life in prison for each count. However, the judge decided that Raymond's sentences for two of the counts would be served at the same time, while the sentence for the third count would be served after the first two. Raymond's appeal included questions about whether the jury received the correct instructions regarding his possible punishments given his past crimes and whether certain evidence presented during the trial might have harmed him. The court found that the jury instructions relating to his first and third counts were correct but that there was a mistake concerning the instructions for the second count of Domestic Abuse in the Presence of a Minor. For the second count, the law at the time stated that certain punishments were not allowed if the crime was a second or later offense. Since the sentencing guidelines given to the jury were incorrect, Raymond’s sentence for that count was changed from life in prison to five years in prison, while the sentences for the other counts remained the same. The appeals court also addressed a concern that some evidence presented during the trial might have caused unfair prejudice to Raymond. After reviewing the evidence, the court determined that it did not find any significant error as it did not affect the overall outcome of the case. The court ultimately confirmed the convictions for the first and third counts and changed the sentence for the second count, ensuring that Raymond would serve five years instead of life for that specific offense.
In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0259, the appellant, Samuel David Murich, appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In a published decision, the court decided that the revocation of Murich's suspended sentences was not valid because the State did not prove the finality of the conviction it used to revoke his probation. The court agreed with Murich’s argument and reversed the revocation. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-819, Joshua Dee Taylor appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Abuse-Assault and Battery in Presence of Minors. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of three years of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Joshua Dee Taylor was sentenced for two crimes: one serious and one misdemeanor. These were combined into a single sentence where he was supposed to serve time in prison but was allowed to stay out under certain rules, like not leaving Oklahoma without permission and taking his medication. However, he got into trouble after the state said he broke the rules of his probation. The state said Taylor didn’t report to his probation officer, left the state without permission, didn’t pay required fees, and had trouble with taking his medications. Because of these violations, the court held a hearing and decided that he had indeed violated the rules. The judge revoked part of his probation, taking away three years of his suspended sentence. In his appeal, Taylor claimed the judge made mistakes in deciding to revoke his probation. He argued that the written order did not match what the judge said in court and that the judge unfairly included conditions that were not agreed upon verbally. He also claimed the decision to revoke was unreasonable because his mental state made it hard for him to follow the instructions. Taylor said he could not pay the probation fees and that there were many errors made during his case. The court looked closely at his arguments. They noticed that there was an error in the written order compared to what was said in court and suggested the lower court fix this. However, they decided that even with this error, the other reasons for revoking his probation were valid, and he still broke the rules by not complying. Even though they acknowledged his points about medication and fees, they agreed that other violations were enough to support the judge’s decision to revoke his probation. They stated that he understood the rules but chose not to follow them. The appeal resulted in the court affirming the revocation while instructing the lower court to correct the paperwork.