Double Punishment

F-2021-211

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-211, Michael Ray Dawkins appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon, felon in possession of a firearm, and maiming. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon and felon in possession of a firearm but reversed the conviction for maiming and instructed to dismiss it. A dissenting opinion was not noted. The case involved a jury trial where Dawkins was found guilty on all counts after shooting a woman named Krystal Traylor. He received a sentence of 45 years for the assault and battery, 25 years for the firearm possession, and another 45 years for the maiming, with some sentences running concurrently and others consecutively. Dawkins raised several claims on appeal, including that his constitutional right to an attorney of his choice was violated, that he faced double punishment for the same act, and that there were errors in admitting certain evidence during his trial. Upon review, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Dawkins's request for a new attorney, as he did not provide valid reasons for wanting to change lawyers. It was also determined that Dawkins’s convictions for assault and battery and maiming stemmed from a single act, which should not result in multiple punishments. Therefore, the court reversed the maiming conviction. Further, the court found that the identification of Dawkins by the victim was correctly admitted as evidence, dismissing the hearsay claim. Dawkins's assertions about prior bad acts being admitted were also rejected, as they were deemed relevant and essential for establishing motive and intent. The court noted that a limiting instruction had been provided to jurors, mitigating concerns over the impact of these past acts. Finally, regarding Dawkins's claim for a speedy trial violation, the court found that the delays were mainly attributable to him or his defense strategies, concluding that he was not prejudiced by the delay. Overall, most of Dawkins's claims were denied, leading to the affirmation of his main convictions and the reversal of the maiming charge.

Continue ReadingF-2021-211

F-2019-82

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-82, Spencer Thomas Cato appealed his conviction for various crimes including possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm after a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed and dismissed one count against Cato. A judge dissented regarding the dismissal of that count. Cato had been found guilty of several offenses, including having a controlled substance and firearms while being a convicted felon. During the trial, the jury sentenced him to a total of several years in prison along with fines. The judge decided some of these sentences would be served at the same time, while others would be served one after the other. Cato appealed, arguing that his rights were violated because he was punished twice for what he saw as the same action. Specifically, he felt the charges of possessing a firearm after a felony and possessing a firearm while committing a felony were not separate. Cato believed that the law should prevent him from being punished for both crimes since they stemmed from the same act of possessing the same gun with no significant break in time between the two actions. Upon reviewing the case, the court agreed with Cato’s argument. They found that there was no new evidence that suggested he had used the firearm for a different purpose at different times. The trial revealed that Cato had the gun and drugs at the same time which led to the conclusion that punishing him for both counts was not appropriate. The court decided to reverse the lesser charge and direct that it be dismissed. In summary, while some of Cato's convictions and their sentences were confirmed, the court found that he could not be punished for both possessing a firearm after a felony and possessing it while committing another felony under the circumstances of his case. Hence, they instructed the lower court to dismiss the one charge.

Continue ReadingF-2019-82

F-2018-989

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ARNULFO CAMPOS GONZALES, Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-989** **File Date: January 2020** **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, JUDGE** Appellant Arnulfo Campos Gonzales appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Haskell County, Case No. CF-2017-197. He was convicted for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, Conspiracy to Traffic Methamphetamine, and Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine. His sentences included twenty-five years imprisonment for Count 1 and ten years each for Counts 2 and 3, ordered to be served consecutively. Gonzales raises several issues on appeal: 1. Denial of effective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest. 2. Double punishment for Counts 2 and 3. 3. Violation of the Fourth Amendment regarding the search of his car. 4. Deficient jury instructions on conspiracy. 5. Ineffective assistance of counsel due to failure to suppress and object to instructions. 6. Abuse of discretion in consecutive sentencing. **1. Conflict of Interest** Gonzales argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel due to defense counsel’s prior representation of a co-defendant, Samantha Johnson, who testified against him. The court examined whether an actual conflict arose during representation, determining that Gonzales failed to demonstrate that the former representation affected counsel's performance. The court found that Johnson’s testimony largely did not implicate Gonzales and that counsel's representation was sufficient. **2. Multiple Punishment** Gonzales contends that sentencing him for conspiracy to traffic and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine violates the prohibition against multiple punishments for the same act. The court found both counts stemmed from a single agreement concerning the same methamphetamine and that the convictions constituted a violation of Section 11. The court remanded the case for dismissal of Count 3. **3. Fourth Amendment** Gonzales did not properly contest the legality of the search of his car and thus the court reviewed this claim for plain error. The court concluded that Gonzales had not demonstrated that the timeline of events during the traffic stop violated his rights, as he consented to the search prior to its execution. **4. Jury Instructions** Gonzales argued that jury instructions were insufficient as they failed to name the conspirators. However, the court determined the instructions, when read as a whole, properly conveyed the necessary information. Gonzales did not establish any plain error regarding jury instructions. **5. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel** This claim was evaluated under the standard set by Strickland v. Washington. The court found no prejudice affecting the outcome as Gonzales could not demonstrate ineffective assistance. **6. Consecutive Sentences** Gonzales claims the district court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. The prosecutor’s remark about a presumed policy did not demonstrate that the district court failed to exercise discretion. The court affirmed its decision as the record supported the imposition of consecutive sentences. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED for Counts 1 and 2. Count 3 is DISMISSED. Gonzales’s Application for Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED. **APPEARANCES** *AT TRIAL* Roger Hilfiger, Counsel for Defendant *ON APPEAL* Ariel Parry, Appellate Counsel Christina Burns, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** **LEWIS, P.J., KUEHN, V.P.J., LUMPKIN, J., HUDSON, J.:** Concur. [PDF Download Link](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-989_1734871593.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-989

F-2018-1083

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2018-1083

F-2018-678

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The decision from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirms the conviction of Kenneth Oliver Ross for multiple offenses, including lewd molestation and human trafficking of a minor. The court meticulously addressed each of the twelve propositions of error raised by the appellant in their appeal. 1. **Double Punishment**: The court found no double jeopardy in the separate counts of lewd molestation, as they described distinct acts of abuse. 2. **Charge Appropriateness**: The court ruled that human trafficking was properly charged, as the prosecutor had discretion in choosing the relevant statutes. 3. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Both propositions regarding the sufficiency of evidence for human trafficking were denied, with the court stating that isolated incidents could constitute the crime. 4. **Jury Instructions**: The court upheld the jury instructions given, finding no error in how the law was communicated to the jury. 5. **Ex Post Facto Claims**: The court found no ex post facto violation, indicating that ignorance of the victim's age was not a defense to the charges. 6. **Lesser Included Offenses**: The court ruled that the lack of request for certain lesser-included offense instructions meant review would be under plain error, which the court did not find. 7. **Statutory Clarity**: Propositions regarding the constitutionality and vagueness of the human trafficking statute were denied, with the court upholding the statute's clarity and application. 8. **Sentence Severity**: The court concluded that the 50-year sentence for human trafficking was not shockingly excessive based on the evidence presented. 9. **Cumulative Error**: The final proposition regarding cumulative error was also denied as no individual errors were found. Overall, the appellate court found no merit in any of the propositions and affirmed the original sentence handed down by the district court. The case illustrates the court's rigorous examination of statutory interpretation, jury instructions, evidentiary sufficiency, and statutory vagueness concerns in criminal appeals.

Continue ReadingF-2018-678

F-2018-198

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-198, Ann Sykes appealed her conviction for Abuse by Caretaker (Neglect) and Abuse by Caretaker (Financial Exploitation). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Ann Sykes was found guilty of two types of abuse against her son, who is a vulnerable adult. The first conviction was for not providing him with basic needs like food and shelter. The second conviction was for mishandling his money. The court sentenced her to eight years in prison but suspended three years, meaning she would only serve five years in custody. Appellant raised several problems with the trial process. She claimed that hearsay evidence, which is when someone repeats what another person said outside of court, was used against her unfairly. However, the court found that much of the evidence was not considered hearsay because it was not meant to prove the truth of the statements, and any hearsay that was improperly admitted didn't impact the trial's outcome. Sykes also argued that witnesses were allowed to testify without personal knowledge of the information they shared. The court disagreed, stating that witnesses had information based on their own experiences or observations. Another point of appeal was about whether the trial court made mistakes by letting certain opinions into evidence. A social worker testified about how not getting enough nutrition could affect someone's mental state. The court decided that the social worker was qualified to give that information based on her experience. Sykes claimed her two convictions meant she was being punished twice for the same actions, which is called double punishment. The court found that the actions leading to the two charges were different enough to allow both charges to stand without violating the law. She also believed that the charges against her were not clearly stated in the official documents, but the court noted that she didn’t raise this issue during the trial, so it wasn’t considered on appeal. Another argument was that she was denied a right to have a lawyer appointed to help her during the trial. The court found that although there was a lack of a hearing on this, Sykes did have a lawyer who represented her during the trial. Sykes claimed her lawyer did not do a good enough job. The court noted that for a claim like this, Sykes needed to show both that her lawyer did not perform well and that this affected the trial's outcome. The court did not find evidence that the lawyer's actions changed the trial's result. Lastly, Sykes claimed that even with the errors made during her trial, they did not add up to deny her a fair trial overall. The court agreed, concluding that the errors did not require the reversal of her conviction. Overall, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence, meaning Sykes will continue to serve the time given by the lower court. The application to further review her claims about lawyer effectiveness was denied as well.

Continue ReadingF-2018-198

F-2017-1176

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2017-1176

F-2018-322

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2018-322

F-2018-646

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the appeal of Ashley Dawn Bost. She was convicted of several offenses in LeFlore County District Court, including trafficking in illegal drugs and possession of a controlled substance, along with additional charges related to a firearm and drug paraphernalia. In her appeal, Bost raised a single proposition of error arguing that her convictions for trafficking in methamphetamine and possession of oxycodone violated the prohibition against multiple punishments for a single offense, as outlined in 21 O.S.2011, § 11. The court found that Bost did not preserve this argument for appeal as she failed to raise it during the trial, thus waiving her right to full review, except for considering it for plain error. The appellate court applied a three-part test for assessing plain error and determined that Bost did not demonstrate actual or plain error. The court explained that the analysis under Section 11 focuses on the relationship between the crimes and whether they require different proofs. Since the two charges involved different drugs and amounts required for trafficking and possession, the court concluded that they were indeed separate and distinct offenses and affirmed the trial court's judgments and sentences. The court's final decision was to affirm Bost's convictions and sentences, with the mandate ordered to be issued promptly. The opinion included a list of counsel for both the appellant and the appellee. For more information, a link to the full opinion is provided at the end of the summary.

Continue ReadingF-2018-646

J-2019-0092

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

**Summary of the Case: Jeremy Dwayne Lavorchek v. State of Oklahoma** **Court:** Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals **Case Number:** F-2018-263 **Decision Date:** June 13, 2019 **Overview:** Jeremy Dwayne Lavorchek was convicted by a jury in Garvin County for multiple crimes associated with an armed robbery at a pharmacy. The jury found him guilty on all counts, which included First Degree Robbery, Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony, Conspiracy to Commit a Felony, multiple counts of Kidnapping, and multiple counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. Following these convictions, the jury recommended life sentences on all counts. **Key Crimes Committed (Counts):** 1. First Degree Robbery 2. Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony 3. Conspiracy to Commit a Felony 4-6. Kidnapping (3 counts) 7-9. Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (3 counts) **Sentencing:** The trial court, upon sentencing, ordered the sentences for counts 2 through 9 to run concurrently but consecutively to Count 1, which meant that Lavorchek must serve 85% of the life sentence for the robbery before becoming eligible for parole. **Propositions of Error Raised on Appeal:** Lavorchek raised eight propositions, primarily focusing on claims of double punishment, denial of self-representation, ineffective assistance of counsel, errors in sentencing, and cumulative effect of errors. 1. **Double Punishment Allegations:** Lavorchek argued that his convictions for robbery and the various assaults and kidnappings constituted double punishment. The court rejected these claims, emphasizing that the crimes were distinct and occurred sequentially, and separate punishments were authorized. 2. **Self-Representation:** He contended he was denied the right to represent himself. However, the court upheld the trial judge's discretion, stating Lavorchek's request was made after the trial had already commenced, which could be seen as an abuse of the privilege. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Lavorchek claimed a continuance was wrongly denied, affecting his counsel's performance. The court found no constitutional deficiency as the counsel performed effectively under the circumstances. 4. **Fair Sentencing Hearing:** He alleged improper consideration of aggravating evidence at sentencing. The court found that the information presented was appropriate. 5. **Consecutive Sentencing:** Lavorchek argued the trial court abused its discretion by ordering consecutive sentences, but the court ruled this was within the judge's authority and not excessive. 6. **Cumulative Error:** The court ruled there was no error to accumulate since all propositions were denied. **Outcome:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment and sentence, indicating that Lavorchek received a fair trial and proper sentencing under the law. **Legal Principles Involved:** - Double jeopardy protections - Right to self-representation - Effective assistance of counsel - Sentencing discretion of trial courts - Cumulative error doctrine The case underscores the judicial principles guiding the implications of multiple charges arising from a single criminal event and the procedural safeguards in criminal trials. **Link:** For further reference, the full opinion can be found at [Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-0092_1734447399.pdf).

Continue ReadingJ-2019-0092

F-2018-15

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-15, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of drugs causing great bodily injury, felony eluding, running a roadblock, and assault with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. The case involved Marcus Ray Smith, who was found guilty in a non-jury trial of several serious offenses related to a high-speed police chase. The judge sentenced Smith to ten years for some crimes and thirty years for others, but with some time suspended, allowing for parole. Smith appealed for multiple reasons. He argued that he was being punished too harshly for actions that were part of one event. According to the law, people usually can't be punished multiple times for the same act. However, the court found that the crimes he committed were separate incidents. For example, running a roadblock is recognized as a distinct crime, and his actions while fleeing from the police qualified as two separate acts that endangered others. Smith also claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he had intended to cause harm with his vehicle when he drove recklessly towards others. The court disagreed and stated that the way he drove clearly showed that he intended to hurt someone. Lastly, Smith said his lawyer didn't do a good job by not arguing about the double punishment issue during the trial. However, the court found that since his double punishment claim was not valid, there was no failure on his lawyer's part. In conclusion, the court upheld Smith's convictions, deciding he had received a fair trial and that his legal arguments were not strong enough to change the outcome.

Continue ReadingF-2018-15

F-2017-1248

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1248, Aislyn Jonelle Miller appealed her conviction for five counts of Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Miller was found guilty by a jury of not taking care of her two young children, which included not providing them with enough food and not getting them the medical care they needed. The jury suggested that she be sentenced to thirty years in prison for four of the counts and ten years for one count, with the sentences to be served one after the other. Miller argued several points on appeal. First, she claimed that two of her convictions for neglecting one child should not count separately, as they were for the same offense – one for not feeding the child and the other for not getting medical care. She also made a similar claim regarding her neglect of her other child. However, the court found that failing to feed the children and failing to get medical care for them were different acts, so her separate convictions were valid. Miller’s next argument was that she did not have good legal representation during her trial. The court explained that to prove this, she needed to show that her lawyer made big mistakes and that these mistakes changed the outcome of her case. Since the court deemed her convictions valid, it concluded that any issues raised about her attorney’s performance would not matter since those objections would not have made a difference. Lastly, Miller claimed that the judge should have allowed her to serve her sentences at the same time instead of one after the other, which would have meant a shorter time in prison. The court pointed out that judges have the right to decide how to run sentences, and in this case, the judge acted reasonably and considered all the facts before deciding to run them consecutively. Overall, the court did not find any errors in the trial process that would have changed the outcome, and so they upheld the original sentence given to Miller.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1248

F-2017-1240

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1240, Kevin Eugene Fowler appealed his conviction for five counts of Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Kevin Eugene Fowler was found guilty by a jury of neglecting his children, which included not providing them enough food and medical care. The jury recommended that he be sentenced to 30 years in prison for four of the counts and 10 years for the last count, with all sentences to be served one after the other, totaling 130 years. Fowler was required to serve 85% of his sentences before being eligible for parole. Fowler raised several points during his appeal, arguing that there were issues with how evidence was presented in court. He claimed that comments made by a police officer were unfair and that he did not receive a fair trial because of them. However, the court found that these comments were relevant and did not harm his case. Fowler also argued that he was wrongly punished multiple times for the same actions regarding his children, but the court ruled that his separate actions of failing to provide food and medical care could be treated as different crimes. He accused the State of misconduct during the trial, but the court concluded that the comments made were either allowed within the context of the trial or did not unfairly influence the jury. Another point raised was about his attorney not doing a good job. Fowler claimed his lawyer failed to object to improper arguments and was not sufficiently prepared. The court found that his lawyer's actions were not deficient and that there was no actual conflict of interest in defending both him and his co-defendant. Fowler believed that his lengthy sentences were excessive. Yet, the court determined that the sentences fell within the legal limits, and the trial judge had considered all relevant facts before deciding to make the sentences consecutive. Lastly, Fowler argued that all these issues combined made it impossible for him to get a fair trial, but since the court did not find any individual errors significant, they ruled against this claim as well. Overall, the court affirmed Fowler's multiple convictions and sentences, concluding that no errors were made that would warrant a new trial or a change in sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1240

F-2017-1146

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1146, Scott Milton Donley appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold his convictions. One judge dissented. Scott Milton Donley was found guilty of two crimes during a bench trial: Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery. He received a sentence that included twenty years for the first crime and one year for the second crime, with both sentences running at the same time. Donley argued that he should not be punished for both crimes based on double jeopardy rules, meaning he shouldn’t be charged twice for what he claimed was the same act. The court examined whether there was proof for each crime that did not overlap. They found that Donley committed separate acts of pushing and slapping the victim before threatening her with a knife, which were seen as different offenses that required different evidence. Therefore, the court decided there was no double punishment. Donley also claimed there wasn't enough evidence to show he committed Assault with a Dangerous Weapon because he argued that the knife he used wasn't sharp. However, the court reviewed the evidence, including testimonies from him, the victim, and officers. They concluded that any reasonable person could find he intended to cause harm with the knife and that it was indeed a dangerous weapon. Lastly, Donley argued that he didn’t willingly give up his right to a jury trial. However, the court found clear proof that he had done so. The process was completed in court, and both he and the prosecutor waived the jury trial properly. In conclusion, the court affirmed the judgments and sentences against Donley, stating that all his claims were without merit.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1146

C-2016-877

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-877, Charles David Miller appealed his conviction for multiple charges including stalking and possession of a firearm during a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Miller’s petition in part. The court affirmed the judgments and sentences for some counts but reversed the sentence for Count 1 and dismissed Count 4 due to double punishment concerns. One judge dissented. The case began when Miller, facing serious charges, entered a guilty plea in December 2014, agreeing to certain terms. He was originally given deferred sentences, meaning he would not serve time in prison if he followed the terms of his probation. However, after a hearing in 2015, the court ruled to impose a harsher sentence because Miller did not comply with the terms, leading to his appeal. Throughout the appeal, Miller argued that his guilty plea should be withdrawn for several reasons. He claimed there was no factual reason for his plea, that he was not made aware of his rights, and expressed concerns about double punishment as well as the effectiveness of his lawyer. The court reviewed the details and concluded that Miller had not shown enough grounds for his claims because some issues were not raised earlier in court, making them not eligible for review. The court particularly focused on whether Miller's plea was voluntary and if he was properly informed. They found that while Miller's plea might have been motivated by a desire to get his car back, he did understand the consequences of his actions. The court upheld the judgment for some counts, but it noted that the sentence for Count 1 was illegal because it exceeded the maximum allowed by law. As a result, they ordered a new sentencing for that count and dismissed Count 4 entirely because of double punishment. In summary, the main points were that Miller wanted to reverse his guilty plea but the court found many of his arguments unsubstantiated. They decided to change his sentence on one charge while dismissing another, affirming the result on several others.

Continue ReadingC-2016-877

M-2016-483

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2016-483, Kermit Lee Brannon, Jr. appealed his conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Drugs and Unsafe Lane Use. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Drugs but reversed the Unsafe Lane Use conviction due to insufficient evidence. One member of the court dissented. Kermit Lee Brannon, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for two misdemeanors: driving while under the influence of drugs and unsafe lane use. He was sentenced to one year in jail and a fine for the first charge, and ten days in jail and a fine for the second charge. The sentences were meant to run one after the other. Brannon appealed his convictions, claiming that he was unfairly punished twice for the same incident, that the evidence didn't support his lane change conviction, that his sentence was too harsh, and that his lawyer didn't represent him well. The appeals court looked closely at what happened in the case and agreed with Brannon on the second charge. They found that there was not enough proof that he changed lanes without signaling or ensuring that it was safe to do so. Because of this, the court said they needed to cancel Brannon's Unsafe Lane Use conviction and send that part of the case back to be dismissed. Although they agreed with him on one point, Brannon's claims that he was unfairly punished multiple times and that he got a bad deal from his lawyer were not considered because they were connected to the Unsafe Lane Use conviction, which was overturned. The court also looked at the length of Brannon's sentences and decided that, given his past problems with drug charges, the punishment they gave him for driving under the influence was appropriate and not too harsh. In the end, the court decided to keep the conviction for Driving While Under the Influence and reversed the Unsafe Lane Use conviction, instructing the lower court to dismiss that charge.

Continue ReadingM-2016-483

F-2015-561

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2015-561

F-2015-933

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-933, Thompson appealed his conviction for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment on Counts 1 and 2 but reversed the judgment on Count 3 with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Thompson was found guilty of three crimes related to stolen property after a jury trial. He was sentenced to six years in prison for unauthorized use of a vehicle and eight years for each count of concealing stolen property. The sentences were arranged so that the two eight-year sentences would run together, while the six-year sentence would be added afterward. He was also fined $100 for each offense. Thompson raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that he should not have been convicted twice for concealing stolen property. He believed that since he acted only once when hiding the stolen items, charging him with two counts was unfair. The court agreed with him on this point and found that it was a mistake to have separate charges for items taken from different people. Next, Thompson questioned whether there was enough proof to find him guilty of unauthorized vehicle use and concealing stolen property. The court looked at all the evidence and decided there was enough to support his guilty verdict for unauthorized use of a vehicle, so that part of his conviction was upheld. Thompson also claimed that the prosecution made mistakes during the trial that harmed his chance for a fair judgment. However, the court did not find these errors serious enough to change the outcome of the trial. On the fines imposed by the trial court, Thompson argued that judges can't add fines unless the jury decides to. The court determined that the fines were allowed since the law permitted judges to impose them, even if the jury did not. Thompson felt that the judge shouldn't have made him serve the sentences for Counts 2 and 3 back-to-back after the first sentence. However, the court found that the judge's decision was within his rights and not an abuse of discretion. Overall, the court decided that none of the claimed errors were significant enough to change Thompson’s convictions except for the second count of concealing stolen property, which was dismissed. They confirmed that the remaining counts were properly upheld, leading to affirmation of most of Thompson's convictions.

Continue ReadingF-2015-933

F-2015-457

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-457, Christopher Wayne Goldman appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Rape by Instrumentation, Forcible Sodomy, and Incest. In a published decision, the court affirmed the convictions for the first three counts but reversed and dismissed the conviction for Incest. One member of the court dissented. Goldman was found guilty of serious crimes related to sexual offenses against his niece. The jury recommended prison sentences that ran together for counts related to rape, sodomy, and separately for the count of incest. Goldman raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove his guilt for some charges, that unfair evidence was presented, that the prosecutor acted improperly, and that he did not receive adequate help from his attorney during the trial. The court agreed that the incest conviction should be reversed because it was based on the same act as the rape, which is not allowed by law. This meant Goldman was improperly punished for two things for doing one act, which is unfair. However, the court found sufficient evidence to support the convictions for First Degree Rape and Forcible Sodomy, stating that a jury could reasonably decide he was guilty based on the evidence presented. Goldman's claims about the prosecution and defense lawyer's conduct were reviewed, but the court found that the lawyers acted within their rights. The evidence of Goldman’s behavior after he was accused, which included uncomfortable actions in a police room, was allowed in the trial since it showed his possible guilt. In conclusion, while Goldman did not get relief for all his claims, the court recognized an important mistake about the incest charge and fixed it by not allowing that conviction to stand.

Continue ReadingF-2015-457

F-2015-187

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-187, Steven R. Jennings appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation and Domestic Assault and Battery Resulting in Great Bodily Injury. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Jennings’ conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery Resulting in Great Bodily Injury, while affirming the other conviction. One judge dissented. Jennings was found guilty by a jury for two serious crimes against a person in a domestic situation. The jury recommended a punishment of 25 years in prison for each crime, making a total of 50 years. Jennings thought this was unfair and argued several reasons that should change his situation. First, Jennings said both convictions were for one single action, meaning he shouldn't be punished twice for the same act. The court looked closely at whether the injuries were caused by separate actions or not. They decided that Jennings’ actions were connected and not separate incidents. Because of this, the court agreed with Jennings that he should not have been sentenced for both. Next, Jennings argued that the way the trial was conducted was not fair. He wanted the trial to be held in one stage, which would have simplified things. However, the court believed it was appropriate to have two stages so that the jury wouldn’t be overly influenced by his past convictions when deciding if he was guilty of the new charges. Therefore, they didn’t agree with his claim about this issue. Thirdly, Jennings felt that his lawyer did not help him enough, which meant he did not get a fair trial. The court looked at this claim and decided that Jennings did not show how having a different lawyer would have changed the outcome of his case. They found no clear mistakes made by his attorney that harmed his defense. Finally, Jennings felt that a 50-year sentence was too long. Since the court reversed one of his convictions, this concern became less relevant because his total sentence was reduced. In conclusion, the court affirmed one of Jennings’ convictions, it reversed the other, and decided that he should get a new sentence based on the remaining conviction. One judge disagreed and believed there should be a different outcome.

Continue ReadingF-2015-187

F-2014-931

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-931, Jeffrey Tallon appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Aggravated Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but reversed the sentences and ordered resentencing. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2014-931

C 2015-473

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2015-473, Johnny Allen Ross appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) and Possession of a Controlled and Dangerous Substance (Marijuana). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the appeal because Ross was denied effective assistance of counsel during the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC 2015-473

F-2015-374

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-374, Jerrell Otis Thomas appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, Robbery with a Weapon, and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and Possession of a Firearm, but to reverse the conviction for Robbery with a Weapon with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Jerrell Otis Thomas was found guilty by a jury for three serious crimes. The main issue was whether he was being punished too harshly for his actions. He argued that he should not have been convicted for both Shooting with Intent to Kill and Robbery with a Weapon because they were connected, like two parts of the same event. The court agreed with him on this point and felt that, under the law, he should not be punished twice for what they saw as one act. Thomas also claimed that he did not get a fair trial because the public was kept out of the courtroom while a key witness testified. The court looked into this and decided that the closure was justified due to threats made against the witness, ensuring their safety. He further claimed that his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial. After considering all the facts, the court found that his lawyer did their job okay, and there wasn't enough evidence to show he was harmed by their actions. Finally, the judge determined that the way Thomas's sentences were set to run (one after another) was acceptable, even though they reversed one of his convictions, meaning he would serve less time than originally planned for that charge. Overall, Thomas won on one point regarding his robbery conviction, meaning that part of the punishment was taken away, but his other convictions were upheld. The court’s decisions aimed to ensure no unfair punishment occurred while also maintaining the law's integrity.

Continue ReadingF-2015-374

F-2014-870

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-870, Ricco Dante Walters appealed his conviction for possession of a sawed-off shotgun, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for possession of a sawed-off shotgun and possession of drug paraphernalia but reversed the conviction for possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2014-870

F-2014-524

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-524, Robert Dewayne Cox appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, and public intoxication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Cox's conviction for misdemeanor possession of marijuana should be reversed, but the other convictions were affirmed. One judge dissented. Cox was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Bryan County. The jury recommended a ten-year prison sentence for the methamphetamine charge, one day in jail for marijuana possession, and five days for public intoxication. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Cox raised several claims in his appeal. He argued that having two convictions for different drug possessions from the same incident was unfair and violated his protections against double punishment. The court found this claim valid and indicated it was a plain error, meaning it was obvious even though it was not raised during the trial. Next, Cox argued the law enforcement did not properly prove that the drugs taken from him were the same ones tested by the crime lab. The court found that he did not show this as an error as there was enough evidence to link the substances to the case. Cox also stated that the jury was influenced by evidence of other bad acts that should not have been admitted. However, the court decided that this evidence was relevant to the case and did not count as an error. Cox claimed that his attorney did not do a good job of defending him, especially regarding the issues he raised in his appeal. The court concluded that since they found a plain error regarding the possession charge, the claim about ineffective assistance was not necessary to address. Finally, Cox argued that the mistakes in the trial added up to deny him a fair trial. The court determined that while there was a mistake in charging him for both drug possessions, it was an isolated incident and did not create a pattern of errors that would warrant a new trial. In summary, the court upheld Cox's convictions for possession of methamphetamine and public intoxication but reversed the conviction for possession of marijuana because he should not have been punished twice for the same action. The case was sent back to the lower court for necessary actions related to this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2014-524