Drug Paraphernalia Archives

F-2021-49

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 18, 2022
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-49, the Appellant appealed his conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate intentional discharge of a weapon, assault and battery with a deadly weapon, and feloniously pointing a firearm. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate the discharge of a firearm and for pointing a firearm but reversed and remanded the conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented regarding the interpretation of the statutes involved.

F-2019-149

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 8, 2020
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-149, Kimberli Sue Dunham appealed her conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to terminate her from Drug Court and impose her sentences. One judge dissented. Dunham had been placed in the Delaware County Drug Court program after pleading guilty to several drug-related charges. The program was intended to help her recover from substance abuse. According to her agreement, if she was successful in the program, the charges would be dismissed. However, if she failed, she would face prison time. During her time in Drug Court, Dunham had several violations, including testing positive for methamphetamine. After admitting to more violations, the State sought her removal from the program. In a hearing, evidence of Dunham’s past violations was presented. The judge decided to terminate her from the program, leading to her appeal. In her appeal, Dunham claimed the termination was improper because she was sanctioned for previous violations. She also argued that the court did not follow proper procedures as required by the Oklahoma Drug Court Act, which aims to support individuals in recovery. Dunham claimed that a relapse should not automatically lead to termination and that the court should have used progressively increasing sanctions instead. The court reviewed these claims and found that Dunham had indeed admitted to new violations that justified her termination. Her request to consider her actions as mere relapses was denied, as the judge believed more severe action was necessary to maintain the integrity of the Drug Court program. Lastly, Dunham argued that she was misinformed about her rights to withdraw her guilty pleas. The court agreed that she should have been informed of her rights but ruled that her termination and conviction would still stand. The court upheld the trial court's decision but noted that it should have properly advised Dunham regarding her rights, allowing her the option to appeal her plea. Thus, while her conviction was confirmed, the case was remanded to correct the error about her rights.

RE-2019-522

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 13, 2020
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-522, Leslie Ford appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentences in both cases but also instructed the lower court to correct a written order error regarding the duration of the revocation. One member of the court dissented. Leslie Ford had previously been sentenced in two cases for stalking, with each sentence being five years long but suspended, meaning he would not have to go to prison if he followed certain rules. However, he was accused of breaking these rules. The state said he didn’t pay the required fees, didn’t go to treatment for domestic abusers, drank alcohol, and even got in trouble for more offenses. At a hearing, the judge found that Leslie did indeed break the rules, leading to the full revocation of his sentences. Leslie then appealed the decision, bringing up several reasons why he thought the revocation was unfair. He argued about his mental fitness during the process and claimed there were time limit violations concerning the hearings. The court explained that they could only focus on whether the revocation was valid and that the evidence showed he broke the rules. They also found that a confusion on how long he was sentenced was a mistake, which they ordered to be fixed. Overall, Leslie did not manage to successfully argue for the reversal of his revocation, except for the correction regarding the error in the time of imprisonment mentioned in the written order.

F-2018-901

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 13, 2020
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. F-2018-901** **NAJEE JAMALL COX, Appellant,** **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Najee Jamall Cox, appeals from the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2014-5486 in Oklahoma County, presided over by Judge Ray C. Elliott. On January 30, 2017, Cox entered a guilty plea to Burglary in the First Degree, and his judgment and sentencing were deferred for seven years, with probation conditions effective until January 29, 2024. On March 20, 2018, the State filed an application to accelerate the deferred sentence, citing multiple violations, including new criminal charges and failure to pay court costs. At the hearing on August 14, 2018, Judge Elliott denied Cox's request for a continuance to allow his co-defendant to testify, after which the hearing proceeded with the State's presentation of evidence from probation officers and law enforcement. **FINDINGS:** 1. **Evidence of Possession**: The court found sufficient evidence supporting that Cox had constructive possession of marijuana and related paraphernalia based on the circumstances surrounding the traffic stop and subsequent findings in his vehicle. 2. **Right to Present Testimony**: Cox was given the opportunity to present a defense but failed to secure the presence of his co-defendant through proper procedural channels. His claim of due process violation was denied due to lack of shown prejudice. 3. **Notice of Reimbursement Fee**: Sufficient evidence demonstrated that Cox was aware of his obligation to pay the District Attorney's fees. 4. **Judicial Notice**: The court's reference to Cox's counsel's reputation did not negatively impact his rights, as the violation found was supported by sufficient evidence regardless. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Cox did not demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient enough to have affected the outcome. Based on the analysis of these propositions, the order of acceleration issued by the District Court is **AFFIRMED**. **CONCLUSION**: The mandate will be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **Representatives:** - **Counsel for Appellant**: Matthew Tate Wise - **Counsel for State**: Kirk Martin, Mike Hunter **Decision by**: LEWIS, Presiding Judge **Concurrences**: KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. [Click here to download the full PDF of the opinion.](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-901_1735118825.pdf)

C-2018-1167

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 23, 2020
Post category:C

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the case of Ronald Fitzgerald Williams. Williams entered a negotiated guilty plea to multiple counts related to drug offenses and other violations. After sentencing, he filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted a writ of certiorari (a type of court order) and remanded the case for a new hearing on Williams' motion to withdraw his plea. The court found significant errors: 1. Williams was allegedly misadvised about his appellate rights, affecting the voluntariness of his plea. 2. The evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea was held in his absence without a valid waiver of his right to be present. 3. Williams asserted he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The court emphasized that due process requires a defendant's attendance at a hearing concerning the withdrawal of a plea unless there’s evidence of a waiver, which was not present in this case. The court reversed the trial court’s denial of the motion to withdraw the plea and ordered a new hearing to ensure due process is upheld. The document concludes with information about the attorneys involved in the case and instructions for further proceedings. For additional details or specific legal arguments, you can download the full opinion using the link provided.

RE-2018-932

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 23, 2020
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ANTHONY CURTIS CREEK,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. RE-2018-932** **SUMMARY OPINION** **Filed January 23, 2020** ROWLAND, JUDGE: Anthony Curtis Creek, Appellant, entered a guilty plea on March 16, 2015, in Garfield County District Court Case No. CF-2013-393, to Count 1 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, a misdemeanor, and Count 2 - Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a misdemeanor. He received a sentence of one year in the County Jail on Count 1, with 90 days to be served and the remainder suspended; Count 2 was sentenced to one year suspended, with penalties running consecutively. He was also fined $500.00. On January 20, 2017, the State applied for the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence on Count 2, alleging violations: (1) possession or consumption of alcohol; (2) DUI-A, a misdemeanor; and (3) Defective Equipment, a misdemeanor, in Oklahoma County Case No. CM-2016-2776. During the revocation hearing on June 2, 2017, Appellant admitted to the first allegation. The trial judge, Honorable Dennis Hladik, determined that the State proved the other allegations and revoked six months of Appellant's suspended sentence. Appellant appeals this decision, raising several propositions of error: 1. **Abuse of Discretion:** The trial court allegedly utilized a strict liability standard, resulting in a cruel and excessive sentence. 2. **Prosecutorial Misconduct:** Claiming that Appellant was deprived of a fundamentally fair proceeding due to misconduct. 3. **Plain Error:** The trial court's finding on the State's evidence and the standard of proof was erroneous. 4. **Equal Protection Violation:** Appellant asserts he was denied equal protection under the law. 5. **Cumulative Error:** The accumulation of errors deprived Appellant of due process. Upon review, the Court affirms the District Court's order revoking six months of Appellant's suspended sentence. 1. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence is within the substantial discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. The evidence supported Judge Hladik’s decision to revoke only part of the sentence after considering a stipulation and witness testimonies. 2. The Court agrees with Appellant's counsel that prosecutorial misconduct is more appropriate for post-conviction matters. The record does not support claims of misleading behavior by the prosecutors. 3. The standard of proof for such violations is a preponderance of the evidence, adequately satisfied in Appellant's case. Revocation is valid with any proven violation. 4. The trial court's exclusion of evidence does not equate to an equal protection violation. The ruling was consistent and reasonable. 5. As there were no individual errors identified, the argument for cumulative error also fails. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Garfield County District Court Case No. CF-2013-393 is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is ordered to be issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** **David J. Batton** Counsel for Defendant **Tallena Hart** Carter Jennings Assistant District Attorney Counsel for the State **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J:** **LEWIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **LUMPKIN, J: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-932_1734358983.pdf)

C-2013-254

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 18, 2019
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2013-254, Gina Diane Eslick appealed her conviction for multiple drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her petition for certiorari, meaning they agreed to look at her case closely. The court found that she did not have effective help from her lawyer when she tried to change her guilty plea, as her lawyer had a conflict of interest. The court ordered that her case be sent back to the District Court so she could have a new hearing with a lawyer who did not have a conflict. No one dissented in this decision.

F-2018-241

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

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

F-2018-892

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

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

S-2018-978

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

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

F-2018-945

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

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

S-2018-1026

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 11, 2019
Post category:S

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellant,** **V.** **NICHOLAS LOWELL TURNER,** **Appellee.** **Case No. S-2018-1026** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JUL 11 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** On April 4, 2018, Nicholas Lowell Turner was charged in Tulsa County with multiple drug offenses and related charges. After a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search warrant, the lower court initially denied the motion based on a good faith exception, but later reversed that decision, leading the State to appeal. The key issues before the Court were whether the trial court abused its discretion by ruling that the search warrant lacked probable cause and, if so, whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. **Background:** The case arose from evidence gained during the execution of a search warrant on Turner's residence, which led to the seizure of illegal drugs, firearms, and cash. The warrant was issued based on statements from an informant who had been arrested in possession of illegal drugs and had identified Turner as his supplier. Despite the affidavit's deficiencies in detailing direct observations of illegal activity at Turner's residence, the appellate court found there was a sufficient connection established between the residence and Turner's alleged criminal activity. Importantly, the court noted that the officers acted reasonably based on the magistrate's determination of probable cause, allowing for the good faith exception to apply. **Decision:** The Court found that the trial court had erred in not applying the good faith exception properly, stating that a properly issued search warrant, despite some lack of detail in the affidavit, should not have resulted in suppressed evidence. The appellate court ruled to reverse the trial court's decision and remand the case for further proceedings. **Concurring Opinion:** LEWIS, P.J., specially concurs, acknowledging the weaknesses in the affidavit but ultimately agreeing with the application of the good faith exception as the officers acted reasonably in executing the search warrant. --- For full details refer to the decision [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2018-1026_1734276181.pdf).

F-2018-375

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 13, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-375, Jones appealed his conviction for multiple offenses including possession of controlled substances and public intoxication. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of Jones from Drug Court and his sentencing, while also remanding a separate charge for correction regarding sentencing length for public intoxication. One judge dissented. Jones had multiple guilty pleas and was given the chance to participate in a Drug Court program with the understanding that if he successfully completed it, his charges would be dropped. However, if he failed, he would face prison time. Although he had some chances and was sanctioned when he did not adhere to the program, he repeatedly tested positive for drugs, which caused the state to move for his termination from the program. During the hearings, witnesses from the state presented evidence that showed Jones had a new arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol and had failed multiple drug tests. Jones's defense argued that he had made progress and changed for the better, but the judge decided to terminate him from the Drug Court program based on the evidence of his continued drug use and new charges. The court found that his actions justified the termination. Additionally, the court recognized an error in Jones's sentencing for public intoxication because it exceeded the maximum allowed by law. The court ordered that part of the case be sent back to correct the sentence. The final decision was to uphold the termination from Drug Court but allow a correction on the public intoxication charge's sentencing in a separate order.

C-2018-1002

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 13, 2019
Post category:C

**Summary of Case No. C-2018-1002: Carey James Buxton v. The State of Oklahoma** **Court:** Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals **Date Filed:** June 13, 2019 **Parties:** - **Petitioner:** Carey James Buxton - **Respondent:** The State of Oklahoma **Background:** Carey James Buxton entered a negotiated plea of no contest on multiple criminal charges across three cases in the District Court of Kay County. The charges included unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, second-degree burglary, and knowingly concealing stolen property. The plea agreement included entering a drug court program, which promised potential leniency upon completion. **Plea Agreement Details:** - **Successful Completion:** District Attorney would recommend dismissal of certain charges and suspended sentences. - **Failure:** Imposition of lengthy prison time. The State later filed a motion to terminate Buxton from the drug court program, which was granted after a hearing. Consequently, Buxton was sentenced according to the plea agreement. Attempting to contest this outcome, Buxton filed a motion to withdraw his plea, claiming it was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. **Issues on Appeal:** Buxton appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by not allowing him to withdraw due to the involuntariness of his plea. **Court Findings:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the district court's decision, determining that: 1. The review of the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea is for an abuse of discretion. 2. It is the petitioner's burden to prove that there was a defect in the plea process. 3. The district court based its ruling on a comprehensive review of the record, included plea forms, and Buxton's testimony. Ultimately, the appeal court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Buxton's request to withdraw his plea, affirming the decision. **Decision:** - The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. - The district court's denial of Buxton's Motion to Withdraw Plea is AFFIRMED. **Mandate:** The mandate will be issued following the filing of this decision as per the applicable court rules. **Opinion Author:** Judge Rowland **Concurring Judges:** Lewis, Kuehn, Lumpkin, Hudson

RE-2017-801

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

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case Summary** **Appellant:** Donald Antwan Mayberry **Appellee:** State of Oklahoma **Case No:** RE-2017-801 **Judges:** John D. Hudson (Chief Judge), Lewis, Kuehn (Vice Chief Judge), Lumpkin, Rowland (Judges) **Date Filed:** April 18, 2019 **Overview:** Donald Antwan Mayberry appealed the full revocation of his ten-year suspended sentences imposed by the District Court of Oklahoma County, presided over by Judge Timothy R. Henderson. Mayberry had previously pleaded guilty to two counts of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, which resulted in concurrent ten-year suspended sentences under probation. **Revocation Proceedings:** The State filed an application to revoke Mayberry's suspended sentences, alleging several violations, including: 1. Committing new crimes (including Manufacturing or Possessing an Explosive Device). 2. Using methamphetamine while on probation. 3. Failing to pay probation fees. 4. Driving while his license was suspended. At the revocation hearing, the State presented evidence from law enforcement officers and Mayberry’s probation officer. Notable testimony included: - Sergeant Anthony Lee described a traffic stop of Mayberry's vehicle, where he discovered drugs and an ammo box containing bomb components. - Scott Dawson, a bomb technician, testified about the nature of the device found, indicating it could function as an improvised explosive device (IED). - Probation officer Brooke LeFlore reported Mayberry’s positive drug test for methamphetamine. Mayberry did not present any evidence in his defense. Judge Henderson concluded that Mayberry violated probation terms by committing the new crimes and using drugs, leading to the full revocation of his suspended sentences. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Insufficient Evidence for Manufacturing an Explosive Device:** - Mayberry argued that the State failed to establish his intent to use the bomb or to send it to another person, as required by statute. - The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to infer intent to intimidate or unlawfully damage property, and that one proven violation of probation was enough to justify revocation. 2. **Abuse of Discretion in Revocation Decision:** - Mayberry contended that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his sentence in full, arguing that the punishment was excessive. - The court maintained that the presence of bomb-making materials and other violations substantiated the revocation decision. **Conclusion:** The Court affirmed the trial court's decision to revoke Mayberry's ten-year concurrent suspended sentences in full, finding that the evidence was adequate to support the conclusions of the trial judge. **Final Order:** Appellant's revocation of suspended sentences is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is ordered to be issued. **Counsel for Appellant:** Pierce Winters, Marva A. Banks (Oklahoma County Public Defender’s Office) **Counsel for Appellee:** Kelly Collins, Mike Hunter (assistant district attorneys); Theodore M. Peeper (assistant attorney general) **Opinion Issued By:** Judge Hudson **Concurrences:** Judges Lewis, Kuehn, Lumpkin, and Rowland each concurred with the decision. [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2017-801_1734709994.pdf)

F-2017-1214

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 11, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1214, Marco Antonio Hernandez appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Methamphetamine) and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute (Marijuana & Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences as they were presented. A dissenting opinion noted disagreement with the majority's conclusions regarding lesser included offenses and related jurisprudence. Here’s a summary of the case events: Marco Hernandez was found guilty of serious drug offenses after police searched his motel room and discovered illegal drugs and paraphernalia. Specifically, the officers found marijuana, methamphetamine, cocaine, and various drug-related items. The police execution of the search warrant included forcing entry into his room when no one answered the door. During their search, they also found evidence suggesting Hernandez had been dealing drugs for a long time. Hernandez was sentenced to life in prison, with fines associated with his offenses. Throughout the trial, Hernandez confessed to drug possession and selling drugs, but he also tried to shift some of the blame to his girlfriend. The court faced challenges regarding whether the jury was correctly instructed on lesser included offenses, which could provide alternative verdict options for the jury beyond the heavier charges they faced. Hernandez’s appeals focused on the court's jury instructions and his attorney's effectiveness during the trial. The majority opinion found that the trial court did not err in not giving instructions about lesser included offenses since there was not sufficient evidence to support these lesser charges. Ultimately, the appeals court agreed with the trial court's decisions and upheld the convictions, despite dissenting opinions that argued for a need to reconsider how lesser offenses were treated in this case. The judgment and sentence were thus affirmed, meaning Hernandez's convictions and sentences stood as delivered by the lower court.

F-2017-970

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-970, Angelica C. Coats appealed her conviction for several crimes including drug possession and obstruction of an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court’s decision to accelerate her deferred judgment and sentence because she had violated probation by failing to pay required fees. One judge dissented, arguing that she was not willfully failing to pay because she had been declared indigent in court and there was no inquiry into her ability to pay.

C-2017-458

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 9, 2018
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. MAC-2017-458, Harris appealed her conviction for possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand for further proceedings, agreeing that Harris was denied her right to a proper evidentiary hearing to withdraw her guilty plea. One judge dissented, expressing concerns about the approach taken by the majority in requiring a hearing despite the lack of detailed reasoning in the motions to withdraw.

F 2015-738

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 8, 2016
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2015-738, Richard Jerrel Jackson appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses and driving with a suspended license. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss some of the charges while affirming the rest of the conviction. One judge dissented. Jackson was found guilty of possessing methamphetamine, marijuana, alprazolam, drug paraphernalia, and driving with a suspended license. His sentences included life imprisonment for the methamphetamine conviction and varying years for the other charges, all to be served consecutively. Jackson raised several arguments on appeal, mainly focusing on claims of double jeopardy, ineffective counsel, and evidence errors. The court found that it was wrong for Jackson to be convicted of possession of three drugs when they were all found together. The State agreed that this violated the rules against double punishment, leading to a reversal of the convictions related to the marijuana and alprazolam. For the other claims, including the effectiveness of Jackson's lawyer and various evidentiary issues, the court ruled largely in favor of the trial's findings, concluding that Jackson had not demonstrated any substantial harm or errors that affected his conviction significantly. This included affirming the use of prior felony convictions for sentencing enhancements and the handling of evidence during the trial. In summary, while the court dismissed two of the charges against Jackson, it upheld the others and determined that there were no significant errors in how the trial was conducted. The judges agreed on most aspects of the case, with one judge expressing a differing opinion on some points.

S-2016-29

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 21, 2016
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-29, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Jones for unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine) with intent to distribute and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to dismiss the appeal because the State did not file the required Petition in Error within the time limit. One judge dissented.

S-2015-446

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 8, 2015
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-446, James Leonard Martinez appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and operating without mud flaps. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the District Court's ruling that suppressed evidence in the case. One judge dissented. The case began when Officer Porter stopped Martinez's vehicle because he believed it lacked the required mud flaps, which the officer thought was a violation of the law. However, the trial court found that Martinez's car had fenders, and according to the statute, if a vehicle has fenders, it does not need mud flaps. Thus, the officer's stop was not justified. The State argued that even if the law did not apply to Martinez's vehicle, Officer Porter had a reasonable but mistaken belief about the law when he stopped Martinez. However, the trial court ruled that the officer's misunderstanding of the law was not reasonable because the law's language was clear. The court reviewed the officer's actions and concluded that he made a mistake of law, which means he misunderstood the actual law regarding mud flaps. Because of this, the court agreed with the trial court's decision to suppress evidence gathered during the stop and to dismiss the case against Martinez. Ultimately, the court confirmed that the stop was not lawful and upheld the trial court's ruling.

S-2014-759

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 31, 2015
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2014-759, #x appealed his conviction for #y. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court’s dismissal of the case. #n dissented. In this case, the State of Oklahoma charged Chad Allan Lunsford with serious drug crimes. The police found a large amount of methamphetamine and other drug-related items in a car after they stopped the driver for a traffic violation. The driver, Gloria Caffey, was arrested, and Lunsford was also taken into custody after the police found the drugs. Lunsford said the case should be thrown out because the State didn’t prove that he owned or knew about the drugs. He argued that just being in the car wasn’t enough to show that he controlled the drugs. The judge in the district court agreed with Lunsford and dismissed the case, saying there wasn’t enough evidence to show that he had control over the drugs. The court explained that just being near drugs doesn’t mean someone is guilty. There has to be more proof, showing that the person really knew the drugs were there and had control over them. For example, in this case, the drugs were found in a bottle with Caffey's name on it, and she admitted they were hers. Also, there was no clear evidence that Lunsford was trying to hide anything, and he didn’t try to run away when he could. When the State appealed the judge’s decision, the higher court looked at the facts carefully. They reviewed whether the lower court made a mistake in its decision. The higher court found that the lower court was correct in dismissing the case because they didn’t have the right evidence to show Lunsford was guilty. Thus, they agreed to keep the lower court's dismissal. However, one judge did not agree with the decision. This dissenting judge thought that the trial court made a mistake by not considering some evidence that could connect Lunsford to the drugs. They felt that there were enough signs showing Lunsford might have had knowledge and control over the drugs, and the matters should have been decided by a jury. Ultimately, the court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the case against Lunsford, agreeing that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he was guilty of the drug charges.

F-2014-889

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 17, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-889, Klayton Jordan Kitchens appealed his conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substances, specifically methamphetamine and marijuana, as well as unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of the convictions related to marijuana possession but affirmed the other convictions. The events leading to the case began when the police served a search warrant at Kitchens' home in Lawton, Oklahoma, and found methamphetamine and marijuana. They initially found meth but returned later with a new warrant, where they found both drugs and drug paraphernalia in his room. Kitchens argued that having two convictions for possession of different controlled substances violated the law against double jeopardy, which means a person cannot be punished for the same offense twice. The court agreed, stating that both drugs were found as part of one act—meaning one violation of the law. Therefore, he should not have been punished twice for the two different drugs since they were found in the same piece of furniture. On the other hand, Kitchens also argued that the judge made a mistake by making his sentences run consecutively, rather than concurrently. The court disagreed, saying that it was within the judge's authority to decide how the sentences should be served, and there wasn't enough reason to change this decision. In summary, the court reversed the conviction for possession of marijuana since it felt that Kitchens should not be punished twice for the same action, but it upheld the decision on the other drug offenses. The case was sent back to the lower court just for that change.

RE-2014-238

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 21, 2015
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-238, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance within the presence of a minor child, driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and failure to carry an insurance verification form. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the one year of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented.

RE-2013-1027

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 8, 2015
Post category:RE

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.