Due Process of Law

F-2017-147

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BRIAN A. STALEY, Appellant,** **Case No. F-2017-147** **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA APR 25 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, JUDGE:** Appellant Brian A. Staley was convicted in Caddo County District Court for various drug-related offenses and possession of a firearm. He appealed, raising eleven propositions of error. **Propositions of Error:** 1. Denial of motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless search. 2. Admission of evidence concerning other controlled substances. 3. Conviction for an uncharged offense. 4. Insufficient evidence on acquiring proceeds from drug activity. 5. Insufficient evidence linking firearms to trafficking. 6. Prejudicial statements by a state trooper. 7. Improper prosecutorial arguments. 8. Insufficient evidence of knowing possession of marijuana. 9. Improper admission of irrelevant handwriting evidence. 10. Cumulative effect of errors denying a fair trial. 11. Excessive sentences. **Court Decision:** After reviewing the record, the Court affirmed Staley's convictions. **Key Findings:** - **Proposition I:** The traffic stop and subsequent consent to search were lawful, thus the motion to suppress was denied. - **Proposition II:** The evidence of other controlled substances was admissible as res gestae; hence, no abuse of discretion in its admission. - **Proposition III:** Any scrivener's error in statute citation for Count 2 did not affect substantial rights and was denied plain error review. - **Propositions IV, V, and VIII:** The evidence was sufficient for a conviction on all counts when viewed favorably to the prosecution. - **Propositions VI and VII:** Claims of evidentiary harassment and improper argument did not impede a fair trial; the trial court’s admonishments mitigated any potential prejudice. - **Proposition IX:** The handwritten note was relevant and supported the themes of trafficking and possession designed by the prosecution. - **Proposition X:** Cumulative error doctrine was not applicable as no significant errors occurred that affected the outcome. - **Proposition XI:** The sentences did not shock the conscience and were not excessive in light of the offenses committed. **Opinion of the Court:** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. --- **APPEARANCES:** - **For Appellant:** Albert Hoch, Norman, OK - **For Appellee:** Alan Rosenbaum, Caddo County District Attorney; Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma; William R. Holmes, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK **Opinion by:** Hudson, J. **Concurrences:** Lewis, P.J.; Kuehn, V.P.J. (concurring in part/dissenting in part); Lumpkin, J.; Rowland, J. **Concurring/Dissenting Opinion by Kuehn, V.P.J.:** While I agree with the majority on other claims, I dissent regarding the admission of evidence about extraneous controlled substances and the handwritten notes. I believe such evidence was improperly admitted and could have imparted an unfair prejudice. Nonetheless, this evidence did not materially affect the trial's outcome. For a detailed opinion and further reading, access the [full opinion here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2017-147_1734273240.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2017-147

F-2017-762

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-762, Kendell Paul Sparrow appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree (Malice Aforethought). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court, sentencing him to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. One judge dissented. Sparrow was convicted of a serious crime, and his appeal included two main issues. First, he argued that the trial should not have included the preliminary hearing testimony of a witness because he believed it went against his right to confront witnesses. Second, he contended that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction for murder. During the trial, the court allowed a witness’s earlier testimony to be used because that witness was unavailable to testify in person. Sparrow challenged this, claiming it violated his constitutional rights. However, the court found no error because the State had made reasonable efforts to bring the witness to trial. The court also determined that Sparrow had a chance to question the witness during the preliminary hearing. Therefore, the admission of the testimony was upheld. As for the evidence presented against Sparrow, the court examined whether the State proved he was guilty of murder. The law requires that to convict someone of first-degree murder, it must be shown they unlawfully caused the death of another with intent or malice. The court looked at all the evidence in favor of the State and concluded that reasonable jurors could find Sparrow guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Ultimately, the court decided that Sparrow's appeal did not provide grounds for reversing his conviction. Therefore, the original sentence of life imprisonment was affirmed.

Continue ReadingF-2017-762

F-2013-1129

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-1129, Aaron Mitchell Stigleman appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involves Aaron Stigleman, who shot and killed his mother in Elk City, Oklahoma, on February 13, 2013. At the time of the incident, he lived with his girlfriend and mother, both of whom had a history of drug use, specifically methamphetamine. Aaron was believed to be suffering from paranoia and hallucinations due to his drug use leading up to the shooting. Witnesses, including his girlfriend, testified that he accused them of trying to kill him before he shot his mother in the head. During his trial, Stigleman's attorneys failed to secure an expert witness to help argue that he was under the influence of methamphetamine and not in control of his actions at the time of the crime. They tried to get funding for an expert, but their requests were either late or not sufficiently justified. As a result, they could not present an argument related to his mental state or introduce expert testimony that could aid in the defense of insanity or diminished capacity. The court noted that Stigleman's behavior before, during, and after the incident indicated the possibility of a serious mental health issue caused by drug use, which warranted an expert’s evaluation. The silence of an expert on the mental health issues surrounding his drug use could have made a significant difference in the outcome. The court ruled that Stigleman’s attorneys did not adequately represent him by failing to present a complete defense. The decision emphasized that the right to present a complete defense is constitutionally guaranteed. Based on these findings, the court deemed it necessary to grant Stigleman a new trial to allow for proper evaluation of his mental state. While one judge expressed disagreement, arguing that the defense had not shown that the lack of expert testimony prejudiced Stigleman's case, the majority concluded that the claims and evidence presented merited a reversal and a new opportunity for a fair trial.

Continue ReadingF-2013-1129

F-2005-557

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-557, Larry Eugene Wright appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number while committing a felony, and obstructing an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number, and obstructing an officer, but reversed his conviction for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2005-557

F 2005-391

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-391, Steven Antonio Wooden appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Mr. Wooden's convictions, but modified his sentences from thirty years to twenty years each, and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Two judges dissented regarding the reduction of the sentences. Mr. Wooden was found guilty in two separate robbery cases after a jury trial held in Oklahoma County. The trial took place on January 11th and 12th, 2005, and the jury set his punishment at thirty years for each robbery. The judge ordered these sentences to be served one after the other, which made his total sentence more than fifty years. Mr. Wooden argued that his trial was unfair due to several errors, including the following points: 1. He believed that combining the two robbery cases into one trial hurt his chances for a fair trial. 2. He thought he was not tried by an unbiased judge, which he believed was a serious mistake and should grant him a new trial. 3. He said that evidence from phone calls he made from jail was unfair and did not help prove that he was guilty. 4. He argued that the police officer's comments about him being out of jail on the day of the robberies were misleading and not right. 5. He mentioned that it was wrong to bring up his silence after being arrested, which he said violated his rights. 6. He thought his jury should have been told about parole rules and how sentences are supposed to work. 7. Finally, he felt that all these problems together made his trial unfair. The court looked carefully at the whole case and all the arguments that Mr. Wooden made. They said that the joining of the two robbery cases did not harm his right to a fair trial. They noted that no significant prejudice from this decision had been proven. They also believed that the judge was not biased, but pointed out that the way the judge announced what would happen if Mr. Wooden chose a jury trial did not follow the rules properly. Specifically, the judge needed to think about whether Mr. Wooden should serve his sentences at the same time instead of one after the other. Though the court acknowledged that some errors occurred during the trial, they concluded that these mistakes did not change the outcome of the case significantly. They found the mistakes regarding the sentence structure were serious enough to modify Mr. Wooden's total prison time. However, they decided that the robbery convictions were correct and would not be changed. In summary, Mr. Wooden's convictions remained in place, but his total prison time was lessened and the sentences would now be served at the same time.

Continue ReadingF 2005-391

F-2005-366

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-366, Timothy Purcell Teafatiller appealed his conviction for Possession of Concealed Drug. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Teafatiller was found guilty by a jury for having a small amount of methamphetamine that was discovered in his wallet. He was sentenced to six years in prison. He raised seven main points in his appeal. The court mainly focused on one significant issue: the destruction of the evidence against him, which Teafatiller argued violated his rights. The drugs were received by a state bureau for testing and then sent back to the sheriff’s office for destruction without informing Teafatiller or his lawyer. This meant that Teafatiller could not have the chance to test the evidence that was being used against him. The court found that this action went against laws meant to protect the rights of individuals and ensure a fair trial. The judges concluded that the destruction of the evidence constituted a serious violation of Teafatiller's rights. While in previous similar cases, not having evidence might not have led to a reversible error, in this situation, the specific evidence that formed the basis of the charges was completely destroyed. Because there was no opportunity for Teafatiller to review or challenge the evidence, the court decided the only fair action was to reverse the conviction. As a result, the court mandated that the case be sent back for new proceedings where Teafatiller would have the chance to examine the evidence against him, ensuring his rights were upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2005-366

F 2003-196

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-196, Joe Dean Meadows appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One member of the court dissented. Joe Dean Meadows was tried for First Degree Murder after a jury found him guilty. The trial took place in Oklahoma County District Court, and the jury decided he should be sentenced to life in prison. After the trial, Meadows appealed the decision because he believed there had been many mistakes. He claimed several things went wrong during his trial: 1. Meadows argued that there was not enough proof to show he was guilty of First Degree Murder. 2. He said that his statements to the police should not have been allowed in court because they were taken after an illegal arrest, and he did not receive proper warnings about his rights. 3. He also believed he could not question his co-defendant's confession, which mentioned him as guilty. 4. He thought his lawyer did not do a good job defending him. 5. Finally, he claimed that all the mistakes together meant he did not get a fair trial. The court looked carefully at all the claims made by Meadows. They agreed that allowing his co-defendant's confession was wrong because it violated his right to confront the witness against him. A law called the Sixth Amendment gives people the right to question witnesses during their trial, and this was not respected in Meadows' case. The court also agreed that Meadows should have received warnings about his rights before speaking to the police. They found that the police did not follow proper procedures, so his statements should not have been used in the trial. The judges felt that the combination of these two mistakes could have affected the outcome of the trial and made it unfair. They decided that Meadows should get a new trial because these errors were serious. Since the court reversed the conviction, they did not consider the other arguments Meadows made. In conclusion, the court's decision meant Meadows would have another chance to prove his case in a new trial. The dissenting judge thought the trial court had correctly allowed Meadows' confession to be used, but agreed the co-defendant's statement was a problem that needed to be fixed.

Continue ReadingF 2003-196