Due Diligence Archives - OCCA Opinions

F-2018-1188

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 9, 2020
Post category:F

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

RE-2007-850

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2008
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2007-850, Barbara Denise Sanders appealed her conviction for grand larceny and false declaration of ownership, as well as three counts of bail jumping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence for the grand larceny charge, but reversed the revocation of her bail jumping sentences, which means those were dismissed. One judge dissented. Barbara Sanders had pleaded guilty to her charges and received several sentences that were mostly suspended, meaning she wouldn't have to serve time if she followed certain rules. However, she did not follow these rules, which included not paying fees, failing to report to her probation officer, and leaving Oklahoma without permission. Because of these issues, the state tried to revoke her suspended sentences. At a hearing, Barbara admitted to the problems but argued the state had not acted quickly enough to bring her back to court for these issues. The judge did not agree with her and decided to revoke her sentences. On appeal, Barbara claimed that the state had not been diligent in prosecuting her case, and she also pointed out mistakes in the court's records. The court agreed that certain parts of her previous sentences had not been revoked properly and decided that the state had acted too late in one of her cases, which resulted in those charges being dismissed. In the end, the court kept the revocation for the grand larceny charge but said the revocation for the bail jumping charges was invalid because the state did not follow the rules in time.

S-2005-1067

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 18, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-1067, one person appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, Kidnapping, and Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that denied the State's request to use the transcript of a witness's preliminary hearing testimony during the trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Deangelo Favors and another person who were charged with serious crimes. During the preliminary hearing, a key witness, Roberta Verner, testified, but another potential witness, Lesha Huggins, was not allowed to testify even though the defense wanted to present her testimony, claiming it would prove Verner lied about the crimes. The judge decided that Verner was unavailable for the trial, which meant her earlier statements could not be used unless the defense had a chance to fully question her and present their case. The judge believed that not allowing Huggins to testify took away the defense's opportunity to question Verner properly. The State wanted to appeal the decision, saying it was wrong to not allow them to use Verner’s testimony. However, after looking closely at the facts and arguments from both sides, the court found that the trial judge acted correctly in not letting the State use Verner's earlier testimony. The court noted that it is important for defendants to have the right to question witnesses against them, and that this right was not met in the preliminary hearing because the defense could not call Huggins to support their case. In the end, the decision to deny the State's appeal was upheld, and the case was sent back to the lower court for more proceedings based on the ruling.

O-98-461

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 13, 1999
Post category:O

In OCCA case No. O-98-461, Johnnie Edward Romo appealed his conviction for False Declaration of Ownership and Embezzlement by Employee. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order and judgment that revoked his suspended sentences. No justices dissented. Johnnie Romo had originally pleaded guilty and received a suspended sentence for his crimes. However, the state later sought to revoke this suspended sentence after he did not comply with the rules of probation. The appeal focused on two main points: first, that the state took too long to act on the motion to revoke his sentence, and second, that there was a promise made regarding reducing sentences if he admitted to the allegations. The court reviewed the arguments and found that the state did not act quickly enough and allowed Romo's suspended sentences to expire without bringing him to court in a timely manner. As a result, the court reversed the decision to revoke the sentences and instructed that the case be dismissed.