Due Process Archives - Page 3 of 14

F-2018-586

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 12, 2019
Post category:F

Here is a summary of the court's decision in the case of Traevon Dontyce Harbert: **Case Overview:** Traevon Dontyce Harbert was convicted by a jury in Oklahoma County for First Degree Murder (Count 1), Felon in Possession of a Firearm (Count 2), and Conspiracy to Commit Murder (Count 3). He received a life sentence for murder, two years for possession of a firearm, and four years for conspiracy, with sentences running consecutively. **Propositions of Error:** Harbert appealed his conviction, arguing two main points: 1. **Insufficient Evidence:** He contended that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish his identity as the shooter and that he had acted with malice. The court analyzed the evidence under the standard asserted in *Jackson v. Virginia*, determining that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. **Exclusion of Evidence:** Harbert argued that the trial court improperly excluded evidence regarding an arrest warrant for another suspect, which he felt was important for his defense. The court reviewed the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion, concluding that the trial court acted reasonably, as the excluded evidence was based on hearsay from witnesses rather than facts within the detective's personal knowledge. The court found that the defense was still able to effectively question the detective and present alternative theories. **Decision:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals denied both propositions, affirming the judgment and sentence against Harbert. The decision indicated that the evidence sufficiently supported the jury's conclusions and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings. **Opinion Author:** Judge Lumpkin. **Final Note:** The court's rulings underscore the importance of both the sufficiency of evidence required for a conviction and the adherence to procedural rules regarding evidence admission. For further details or to download the full opinion, visit [this link](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-586_1735313750.pdf).

F-2018-313

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 12, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-313, Juan Jose Nava-Guerra appealed his conviction for Aggravated Trafficking in Illegal Drugs and Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence but modified it to lower the fees assessed. One judge dissented. Nava-Guerra was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to a total of 105 years in prison for each count, which would run at the same time. He argued that his rights were violated during the trial due to several reasons. First, he claimed the trial court allowed hearsay statements that should not have been presented as evidence. However, the court found that since Nava-Guerra himself had introduced similar evidence in his defense, he could not claim there was an error in allowing the State's evidence. Second, he argued that the search of the vehicle he was in was unlawful, claiming that the officer did not have a valid reason to stop the car. The court reviewed the details of the stop and found that there was a valid reason based on the car following too closely behind another vehicle, which justified the officer's actions. Third, he contested the admission of a specific exhibit, which was a transcription of audio from the car. The court decided that, like the first issue, since he used nearly the same exhibit in his defense, he could not argue it was wrong for the State to use it. Finally, Nava-Guerra challenged the fee for his defense attorney, saying it was too high. The court agreed that the fee assessed was higher than allowed by law and modified it to the correct amount. In summary, the court found no significant errors in the trial except for the fees, which needed to be reduced. The final decision was to uphold the conviction but change the fees owed.

F-2018-309

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 12, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-309, Adrian Escajeda appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Adrian Escajeda was found guilty of first-degree murder by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. He was also convicted earlier of two drug possession charges, but those were not part of his appeal. During his trial, Escajeda claimed there were several errors that negatively impacted his case. First, he argued that it was wrong to have both his murder case and a separate child neglect case tried together in front of the same jury. He believed this made it hard for the jury to be fair. However, the court found that he didn't show how this joined trial actually harmed him because the jury had acquitted him of the child neglect charge. Additionally, the evidence against him for murder was very strong and unrelated to the child neglect, making the combined trial harmless. Escajeda also said his lawyer did not do a good job by not objecting to the charges being joined for trial. However, the court decided that his lawyer's performance wasn’t ineffective because there wasn’t any real prejudice; the outcome was not affected. The next point Escajeda raised was about some statements made during the trial. He believed hearsay was wrongly admitted, which violated his right to confront witnesses. The court looked into this and concluded that the statements in question were not hearsay, as they were used to explain the detective's investigation and did not assert the truth of those statements. Finally, Escajeda claimed that the prosecutor made unfair comments during the trial that made it hard for the jury to be impartial. The court examined these comments and found they were reasonable and based on the evidence presented. Since the comments did not create an unfair trial, the court dismissed this argument as well. In conclusion, the court reviewed all of Escajeda’s claims and found none of them warranted a change to his conviction or sentence. As a result, his conviction for first-degree murder remained in place, and he will serve the majority of his sentence in prison.

F-2018-221

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 12, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-221, Kenneth Merle Hammick, II appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, burglary in the first degree, and larceny of an automobile. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Kenneth Hammick was convicted of serious crimes. The evidence showed that he broke into a house in Claremore, Oklahoma, on May 10, 2015. He threatened the people inside with a gun and stole a car from one of the victims to escape. He later tried to steal another car but took a pistol instead. The police found him hiding in some bushes the next day. During police questioning, Hammick made statements that suggested he was guilty, even though he initially denied doing anything wrong. After a while, he asked to speak to the police again and confessed to the robbery, even showing them where he had hidden the gun. Hammick's first argument was that the court should not have allowed his confession to be used against him because he had already asked for a lawyer. The court decided that since he started talking to the police again, his confession was valid, and he understood what he was doing. Next, Hammick claimed that the way the police identified him was unfair. He said that because he had a neck tattoo, he was easily recognizable in a photo lineup shown to the victims. However, the court found that the victims had a good opportunity to see him during the crime and provided reliable identifications. Lastly, Hammick argued that the court should not have allowed evidence of another crime he committed after the robbery. This was a theft of a gun. The court decided that this evidence was important to provide a complete picture of Hammick's actions and did not unfairly prejudice the jury against him. In the end, the court upheld Hammick's conviction and did not find any reason to change the original decision.

F-2018-194

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 12, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-194, the appellant appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child under twelve and child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. The appellant, William Harold Pittman, was convicted by a jury for serious crimes against children. The jury gave him a punishment of thirty years in prison for each crime, and both sentences were meant to be served one after the other. The judge who oversaw the trial also ordered the appellant to pay various costs and fees. Pittman appealed his conviction, claiming that the trial court made a mistake by allowing expert testimony about something called the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS). He argued that this evidence was not relevant and should not have been allowed, saying it was not proven to be reliable. The court explained that the decision to allow expert evidence is usually up to the trial judge. If a specific objection is made during the trial, then the appeal cannot rely on a different argument later. Pittman did not object during the trial to the CSAAS evidence based on its relevance or reliability, which made his chance for appeal more difficult. To win an appeal based on a plain error, the appellant needs to show three things: that there was a real error, that it was obvious, and that the error affected the case's outcome. The court found that Pittman could not prove any such errors in this case. The court stated that previously, CSAAS had been accepted as reliable evidence in prior cases. This evidence can help explain why some children might take a long time to talk about the abuse or might change their statements after initially making claims. In this case, the court confirmed that the CSAAS evidence was relevant to the victim's delay in talking about the abuse. Pittman also claimed that there wasn't enough data to prove CSAAS was reliable and asked the court to reconsider accepting it as reliable evidence. However, the court refused to change its stance, stating that it would not revisit this issue. Lastly, Pittman argued that the CSAAS testimony was too supportive of the victim's story and could not be considered harmless. The court pointed out that this evidence was permissible because it only served to support what the victim and other witnesses testified about. The court ultimately found no errors in the trial regarding the way CSAAS evidence was handled, and therefore affirmed the judgments and sentences against Pittman.

C-2018-1235

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 29, 2019
Post category:C

**COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AUGUST 29, 2019** **CASE NO. C-2018-1235** **ROY DEAN HARJO,** *Petitioner,* **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** *Respondent.* **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Roy Dean Harjo entered a blind plea to Counts I, Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, and Counts II-V, Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, after previous convictions for two or more felonies, in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Case No. CF-2017-665. Following a sentencing hearing, the Honorable John Canavan sentenced Harjo to life on each Count I-V, concurrent for Counts II-V but consecutive to Count I, requiring Harjo to serve 85% before parole eligibility. Harjo filed a motion to withdraw his pleas, which was denied after a hearing on November 28, 2018. Harjo then filed a timely Petition for Writ of Certiorari, asserting four propositions of error: I. Harjo should be allowed to withdraw his pleas for Counts II-V due to lack of factual basis. II. His plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was uninformed about sentencing ranges, violating his rights under the Constitution. III. His plea was not knowing and voluntary due to misinformation regarding sentencing. IV. He was denied effective assistance of counsel. **Decision:** After comprehensive review, we find the evidence does not warrant relief. Proposition I cannot be considered as it was not presented in the motion to withdraw or the certiorari petition. In Propositions II and III, we find the pleas were knowing and voluntary. Harjo's assertion that he believed he would receive a thirty-year maximum sentence is contradicted by the record, which shows he understood the plea form stating potential life sentences. Therefore, his claims regarding plea counsel’s advice lack merit. In Proposition IV, we determine that there was no ineffective assistance from either plea or conflict counsel. Harjo's claim regarding the factual basis for his plea is unsupported, as ample facts exist to justify the plea. Any assertion that conflict counsel was ineffective for not challenging plea counsel also fails, as no substantial claims could have been made given the determination of a solid factual basis. **Conclusion:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is therefore **DENIED**. Upon filing this decision, the **MANDATE is ORDERED issued.** **This decision is concurred by all Justices.** --- *To view the complete decision, click [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-1235_1734229271.pdf).*

F-2018-502

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 29, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-502, Randall Patrick Molloy appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Molloy's conviction. One justice dissented. Molloy was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for hurting a child, which is a serious crime. The jury decided he should go to prison for sixteen years and pay a fine of $5,000. However, the judge agreed to lessen his sentence by taking away three years, meaning he would only have to serve thirteen years in prison. Molloy raised two main problems with his trial. First, he argued that he didn't get a fair trial because the state didn't share an agreement with a co-defendant that might have helped his case. Second, he felt that instructions given to the jury were confusing and didn't help them understand the facts related to the co-defendant's earlier statements. The court reviewed all the evidence and listened to the arguments from both sides. They pointed out that for Molloy to get a new trial based on not receiving a fair trial, he had to show that there was a clear mistake that changed how the trial turned out. Ultimately, they found that there were no clear mistakes or errors in the trial. The court noted that the information about the co-defendant was known to Molloy's lawyer during the trial, and therefore, it did not affect the outcome negatively. Regarding the jury instructions, the court also concluded that those instructions did not clearly cause any problems that could change the trial's result. The jury had enough information to make a fair decision about Molloy's guilt based on the evidence presented. In summary, because the court found that there were no serious mistakes during the trial, they decided to uphold the original decision made against Molloy.

F-2018-77

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 29, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-77, Jose M. Diaz appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Diaz's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Diaz was tried by a jury in Tulsa County. The jury found him guilty of the crime and recommended he spend thirty years in prison. The trial was overseen by a district judge, who followed the jury's recommendation for sentencing. Three main points were raised by Diaz in his appeal. First, he argued that the court made a mistake by allowing certain testimony from victims' family members, which he believed unfairly impacted the jury's feelings about the case. Second, he claimed that the prosecutors made improper statements during their closing arguments that harmed his right to a fair trial. Lastly, he argued that the issues combined created a situation where he could not receive a fair trial. The court looked carefully at all the evidence from the trial and the records of the case. For the first point about the victim's family's testimony, the court decided that it was relevant to the case. It helped the jury understand the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the victim, which connected to the nature of the crime. The court found no mistake in allowing that testimony. In the second point about the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments, Diaz did not object to some of the comments during the first closing statement, which limited his ability to challenge them later. The court noted that most of what the prosecutor said was based on evidence presented during the trial. Although one comment about the victim not being able to have children was deemed inappropriate, the overall context did not make the trial unfair. For the last point on cumulative error, the court stated that there were no significant mistakes to consider together that would change the outcome of the trial. Ultimately, the court decided that Diaz received a fair trial and did not find any major errors in the way the trial was conducted. As a result, they upheld the original judgment and sentence given to him.

F-2018-290

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

In OCCA case No. F-2018-290, John Wesley Hart appealed his conviction for child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentences. One judge dissented. John Wesley Hart was found guilty by a jury on three counts of child sexual abuse that happened at different times. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, which means he will serve a total of sixty years. As part of the appeal, Hart argued that the jury did not receive proper instructions about what constitutes child sexual abuse, which he claimed violated his rights. Specifically, he believed the jury instructions on the definitions of lewd or indecent acts were confusing and could have led to non-unanimous verdicts. The court explained that the trial judge did instruct the jury correctly on the law and the acts that led to Hart's conviction. The judge pointed out that the acts Hart committed were clearly defined and separated by time, which meant they did not violate double jeopardy rights. The court also determined that it is not necessary for the jury to agree on every specific act as long as they are all considered part of the same crime of child sexual abuse. Hart also challenged the length of his sentence, claiming it was too harsh. However, the court noted that his sentences were justified based on the facts of the case and were within the limits of the law. The trial court had the discretion to make the sentences run one after another instead of at the same time, and the Court of Criminal Appeals found that there was no mistake in this decision. In conclusion, the court upheld Hart's conviction and the sentences given in the trial court.

F-2018-39

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

In OCCA case No. F-2018-39, Robert Ephriam Smith appealed his conviction for two counts of Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentencing of life imprisonment on both counts, which were to run consecutively. One judge dissented. Robert Ephriam Smith was found guilty by a jury for abusing two children. The jury suggested that he should spend his life in prison for the acts he committed. The trial judge agreed and stated that Smith would serve his sentences one after the other. Smith raised several points in his appeal. He claimed that the instructions given to the jury were confusing. He believed they did not clearly explain what the jury needed to decide for his charges. He also said that evidence presented against him was unfair because it included things that weren't related to the case and might have made the jury feel negatively toward him. The judge's comments during the trial were also a point of concern for Smith. He thought the judge showed support for the young witnesses, which might have influenced the jury’s opinion unfairly. Moreover, he argued that notes from the forensic examiner and testimonies from his former step-daughter, who said he abused her when she was young, should not have been allowed as they added to the unfairness of the trial. Smith also argued that the way the prosecutor spoke during the trial was not appropriate and might have made it harder for him to get a fair trial. He thought that these methods used by the prosecutor could have led the jury to make a decision out of anger instead of focusing only on the facts. When it came to his lawyer, Smith claimed that his defense was weak and did not raise objections when they should have. He thought this lack of action harmed his case. However, the court decided that since no major errors were found in the trial, his lawyer’s performance could not be considered ineffective. In the end, the court found no grounds to change the original decision. They determined that the trial was fair despite Smith's complaints, and his life sentences would remain. The mandate for this decision was ordered to be issued immediately.

J-2018-1066

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

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case No. J-2018-1066** **Decided on: August 8, 2019** **A.O. (Appellant)** **v.** **The State of Oklahoma (Appellee)** **Opinion of the Court by Presiding Judge Lewis:** **Background:** The appellant, A.O., a minor, was charged as a juvenile with Sexual Battery per 21 O.S. Supp. 2017, § 1123(B) in McIntosh County District Court (Case No. JDL-2017-29). Subsequently, on February 26, 2018, an Amended Delinquent Petition was filed, charging him with Child Sexual Abuse under 21 O.S. Supp. 2014, § 843.5(E). Following a non-jury trial held on September 25, 2018, the court adjudicated A.O. as delinquent. **Issues on Appeal:** 1. A.O. contends he was never informed of his right to a jury trial, claiming a violation of due process. 2. He argues that the conduct in question—touching the victim's buttocks over clothing—does not constitute Child Sexual Abuse as intended by the legislature. 3. A.O. claims the prosecutor expressed an opinion on his guilt, violating his due process rights. **Rulings:** 1. **Proposition I**: The court found no merit in A.O.'s claim regarding his jury trial rights. The record demonstrated that both A.O. and his guardian were informed of the right to a jury trial and that they consciously waived this right. 2. **Proposition II**: On this issue, the court ruled in favor of A.O. The court determined that the state failed to prove each element of the underlying crime of Child Sexual Abuse. Specifically, the court stated that to convict under § 843.5(E), the state bears the burden of proving the elements of lewd acts, which were not sufficiently demonstrated in court. 3. **Proposition III**: The court found the prosecution's remarks during the trial did not constitute plain error, as the comments related to the evidence presented and did not deprive A.O. of a fair trial. **Final Decision:** The adjudicating order of Child Sexual Abuse was **REVERSED**. The matter is **REMANDED** to the district court to amend the adjudication to Assault and Battery under 21 O.S. 2011, § 644. The court affirmed the adjudication as modified. **Dissenting Opinion by Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn:** Judge Kuehn expressed concerns about the implications of the majority ruling, arguing that it effectively renders § 843.5(E) unconstitutional due to its vagueness and conflict with age-based elements in other statutes, which could lead to arbitrary enforcement. The dissent maintains that the elements of § 843.5(E) should not require additional instructions unless those elements are included in the Information—and calls for the conviction to be reversed entirely based on the statute's broad language, which might punish conduct that is arguably not criminal. In conclusion, the court's ruling finds resonance in the legislative intention behind the statutes governing Child Sexual Abuse and the need for clarity in legal definitions, especially concerning age restrictions in sexual offenses. **Links:** [Download PDF of the Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2018-1066_1734449875.pdf)

F-2018-482

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 1, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-482, Sumeika D. Byrd appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Sumeika D. Byrd was found guilty of killing Brendon Turner. The trial took place in Oklahoma County, where the jury decided that Byrd should spend life in prison. Byrd argued that there wasn't enough evidence to prove she killed Turner unlawfully and that her trial wasn't fair because the court gave a flight instruction. The first argument was about whether Byrd acted in self-defense. Under the law, if someone believes they are in danger, they may use force to protect themselves, but the belief has to be reasonable. The jury saw proof that Byrd stabbed Turner multiple times, and they had evidence showing that she intended to kill him. Some of the wounds were very serious, and evidence suggested Byrd's actions weren't justifiable self-defense. Instead, the jury believed she had the intention to kill. Byrd's second argument was about the flight instruction. This instruction tells the jury that if someone runs away after a crime, it might mean they have guilt. Byrd did leave the scene, and since she claimed self-defense, the court decided it was right to instruct the jury about her leaving. The court found that this instruction was appropriate and that the trial was fair. In summary, the court reviewed all the evidence and decided that Byrd's conviction should stand. The dissenting judge disagreed with the decision, but the majority of the court felt there was enough proof to affirm Byrd's sentence.

C-2018-698

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

The text you provided is a legal summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, regarding the case of Joe Saucedo Guerrero. The opinion details the background of the case, the pleas entered by the petitioner, the subsequent motion to withdraw those pleas, and the court's final decision denying the petitioner's request for relief. Here is a breakdown of the main points: 1. **Case Background**: - Joe Saucedo Guerrero pled guilty to multiple charges including Lewd or Indecent Proposal to a Child, Soliciting a Minor for Indecent Exposure/Photos, and Possession of Child Pornography. - He was sentenced to a total of twenty years for the first seven counts and five years for the eighth count, with all sentences running consecutively. 2. **Motion to Withdraw Plea**: - Guerrero filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas shortly after sentencing, claiming his pleas were not entered knowingly and voluntarily, misunderstanding of the charges, ineffective assistance from his counsel, and that the sentences were excessive. - The judge denied this motion after a hearing where Guerrero was the only witness. 3. **Propositions of Error**: - The court examined Guerrero's arguments which included claims of inadequate factual basis for the pleas, ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the sentences were excessive. - The court found that Guerrero had waived some claims due to failure to raise them properly in his motion or during the hearing. 4. **Court's Findings**: - The court held that Guerrero's pleas were entered knowingly and voluntarily, especially since he had been informed of all charges and had signed a plea form acknowledging them. - The court found no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel that warranted the withdrawal of his plea. - The court concluded that the sentences imposed were within statutory limits and not excessive. 5. **Final Decision**: - The court denied Guerrero's petition for certiorari and affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence. This summary captures the critical elements of the judicial opinion and reflects the legal reasoning utilized by the court in reaching its conclusion.

F-2017-802

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-802, Jestin Tafolla appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and Carrying a Weapon Unlawfully. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Tafolla was sentenced to life imprisonment for the assault and thirty days in jail for the misdemeanor charge, with the sentences served at the same time. His appeal raised several issues, mainly about whether his trial was fair. He claimed that evidence of his gang affiliation unfairly influenced the jury, that introducing certain statements violated his rights, and that errors occurred during the trial process. The court discussed the details of the case where Tafolla assaulted a man following a traffic dispute. Detectives witnessed Tafolla hitting the victim and confiscated brass knuckles he discarded. Witness statements indicated that racial slurs were part of the altercation. The court found that the evidence of Tafolla's gang membership was relevant to understand the incident and the motivations behind it. It ruled that the testimony related to his affiliation did not violate his rights and was permissible to show motive and intent. They also addressed Tafolla's complaints about the admission of the victim's statements, concluding that these did not prevent a fair trial. The admission of prior convictions for cross-examination purposes was also deemed appropriate as it was relevant to the prosecution's case. In issues raised about the prosecutor's conduct and jury instructions, the court determined that no significant errors impacted the trial. The arguments made by the prosecution were within the acceptable realm of discussing the evidence. Overall, the court found no individual errors that would require a new trial and concluded that the accumulation of complaints did not undermine the fairness of the proceedings. Thus, the original judgment was upheld, and Tafolla’s appeal was denied.

F-2018-284

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

In OCCA case No. F-2018-284, Carl Wayne Gundrum, Jr. appealed his conviction for first-degree rape and lewd acts with a child under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Gundrum was found guilty by a jury in Cleveland County and received a 30-year sentence for the rape and a 20-year sentence for the lewd acts. Both sentences are to be served consecutively, meaning he must serve them one after the other. Before the appeal, he argued several things regarding his trial. First, he claimed that his right to a speedy trial was violated because there was a delay of about 21 months from his arrest to the trial. The court looked at four things to decide if his right was violated: how long the delay was, why it happened, whether he asked for a speedy trial, and whether he was hurt by the delay. The court found that the delay was not enough to violate his speedy trial rights. Second, Gundrum argued that the court made a mistake by allowing evidence of another child molestation case to be shown in his trial. His lawyer objected to this evidence being used, and the court said that it was appropriately admitted, so they found no error here. Third, Gundrum claimed there was bad behavior from the prosecutors that made his trial unfair. Many of these actions were not objected to during the trial, so the court only looked at the ones that were considered plain errors. They decided that the prosecutor's actions did not change the outcome of the trial significantly enough to cause an unfair result. Fourth, he argued that his lawyer did not do a good job by not objecting to the prosecutor's misconduct. The court reviewed this situation and found that Gundrum could not prove that he was harmed by this lack of action, so his claim did not work out. Finally, Gundrum sought relief by stating that all these errors together made his trial unfair. However, since the court found no individual errors, they concluded that there could not be an accumulation of errors either. In the end, the court affirmed Gundrum's conviction and stated that he must serve a significant portion of his sentences before he could be considered for parole.

RE-2018-89

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 27, 2019
Post category:RE

In the case of Brandon Christopher Looney v. The State of Oklahoma, the Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the trial court's decision to revoke Looney's twenty-year suspended sentence based on multiple violations of probation. Looney had pled nolo contendere to assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, leading to a suspended sentence on the condition he comply with certain probation rules. The court reviewed allegations against Looney, including failing to report to his probation officer, changing his residence without notification, associating with convicted felons, failing a drug test, possessing weapons, and being charged with multiple offenses related to drug and firearm possession. At the revocation hearing, evidence was presented detailing these violations, including a deputy witnessing drug use and discovering firearms and drugs in the residence where Looney was staying. Looney argued that the judge erred in denying his demurrer regarding weapon-related allegations since the firearms were not found in his specific bedroom and there was no evidence he was aware of their presence. However, the court explained that as a convicted felon on probation, his residency rules prohibited him from firearms, regardless of awareness. The burden of proof for probation violations is a preponderance of evidence, and the trial judge's discretion to revoke the sentence was upheld. Looney also claimed that the judge did not consider lesser sentencing options and that the revocation was excessive. The court found no evidence that the judge neglected to consider alternatives and noted that Looney had repeatedly ignored probation requirements immediately after being placed on probation. Ultimately, the court denied all of Looney's propositions of error, concluding there were no abuses of discretion or violations of due process. Therefore, the order to revoke his suspended sentence was affirmed.

F-2017-1099

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 27, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1099, Willie Donnell Jackson appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree-Victim Unconscious. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Jackson's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Willie Donnell Jackson was found guilty by a jury for a serious crime involving a victim who was unconscious. The jury suggested that he spend life in prison without the chance to get out, but the trial judge decided to give him a chance for parole after a long time instead. Jackson didn't agree with this decision and said there were errors made during the trial that affected his rights. Jackson raised five main arguments on appeal. First, he said that the prosecutor acted improperly during the trial, which made it unfair. He claimed this had a cumulative effect and harmed his chance for a fair trial. Second, he thought the judge didn't give the jury the right instructions, which was another error. The third point was about his lawyers not helping him enough, meaning that he didn't get the proper support he needed during the trial. Fourth, Jackson believed that the prosecutor's actions led to a sentence that was too harsh compared to what happened. Finally, his last argument was that all the mistakes added up to deny him a fair trial and the legal protections he should have received. After looking at everything presented during the appeal, the judges decided there were no significant errors that would change the outcome of the trial. They did not agree with Jackson's claims, concluding that his trial was fair. As a result, they upheld the original decision and affirmed his sentence, meaning Jackson must serve a long time in prison. The judges, in concise language, rejected all of Jackson's claims, confirming that he did not prove that any errors affected the fairness of his trial or the severity of his sentence, leading to the final ruling.

F-2018-391

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 20, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-391, Zachary Troy King appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Zachary Troy King was found guilty by a jury in a case where he was accused of injuring a child. The jury decided that he had caused harm to the child, and he was sentenced to twenty years in prison, with the first fifteen years needing to be served. King argued four main points in his appeal. First, King said that the evidence presented in his trial was not strong enough to prove he committed child abuse. He claimed that the injuries to the child were not clearly caused by him, and he thought the jury should not have convicted him. However, the court believed that there was enough evidence for any reasonable person to conclude that King did injure the child. Second, King claimed that the judge made a mistake by not allowing a mistrial after the prosecution introduced certain evidence. He argued that this evidence was not important or added to the case in a meaningful way. Yet, the court felt that the testimony included by the prosecution was relevant to proving injuries were intentionally inflicted rather than accidental. Third, King accused the prosecutor of acting unfairly during the trial, which made it hard for him to get a fair trial. The court reviewed the prosecutors' actions and felt there were no significant errors that would have impacted the trial's fairness. Lastly, King argued that the collection of mistakes in his trial added up to take away his right to a fair hearing. But, since the court did not find any errors that would require a reversal of the conviction, the claim was also denied. In conclusion, the court upheld the jury's decision and the trial judge's actions, stating that King received a fair trial and that there was enough evidence to support the conviction. The judgment from the trial court was confirmed, and King will continue to serve his sentence.

J-2019-0092

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 13, 2019
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).

F-2018-531

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

In OCCA case No. F-2018-531, Joseph Green Stoker appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation (Count 1) and Lewd Molestation (Count 2). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court, meaning Stoker would serve ten years on each count, with the sentences served one after the other. One judge dissented. Stoker argued that he was not allowed to present a proper defense because his witnesses were not allowed to testify. The court found that the trial judge was correct in excluding the evidence because Stoker did not follow the proper legal steps to get those witnesses into the trial. Stoker also claimed that the prosecutor acted unfairly, which made it hard for him to have a fair trial. The court looked at previous cases and decided that what the prosecutor did was not harmful enough to change the outcome of Stoker's trial. Another point made by Stoker was that his lawyer did not do a good job defending him. However, the court said Stoker could not prove that this lack of help from his lawyer actually affected the outcome of the trial. Finally, Stoker complained that the trial court wrongly ordered him to pay some costs while he was still in prison. The court explained that there are laws that allow part of an inmate's earnings in prison to be used for paying court fees, so they found no error in the judge's decision. Overall, the court did not find any mistakes significant enough to affect Stoker's conviction or sentencing, so they upheld the original decision.

F-2017-949

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

In OCCA case No. F-2017-949, Montoyia Corbitt appealed her conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree-Heat of Passion. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Montoyia Corbitt was tried for a crime that involved the death of another person. During her trial, she claimed she acted in self-defense. However, the jury found her guilty, and she was given a six-year prison sentence. The law said she had to serve at least 85% of her sentence before she could be considered for parole. Corbitt made three main arguments in her appeal. First, she believed the evidence was not enough to prove she did not act in self-defense. The court explained that self-defense is a reason someone can use force, but it has to be reasonable. They found there was enough evidence that showed Corbitt's fear was not reasonable and, therefore, not justified in using deadly force. Second, Corbitt argued that a police officer’s opinion in her trial influenced the jury and was not fair. The court reviewed this matter and decided that the officer's testimony was allowed because it was based on what he observed during the investigation. They concluded that his statements helped clarify what happened during the incident without directing the jury toward a specific conclusion. Third, Corbitt was concerned about a photograph that showed her face during a police interview. She thought it was not relevant and unfairly prejudiced her case. The court ruled the photo was relevant because it helped support her claim of self-defense. They believed the image added to the understanding of the situation rather than just being harmful to her. Ultimately, after looking at all the arguments and evidence, the court agreed with the jury’s decision and affirmed her conviction.

F-2017-710

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

In OCCA case No. F-2017-710, Alex Moore appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Alex Moore was accused of killing his cellmate, Todd Bush, in a prison. On the evening of March 6, 2014, while they were locked in their cell, an officer checked on them but did not enter the cell. Later, another officer found Moore with Bush on the floor and called for medical help. Despite efforts from medical staff, Bush was pronounced dead at the hospital. Moore claimed Bush had fallen while drinking, but the investigation revealed signs of a struggle and injuries that suggested he had been attacked. The medical examiner determined that Bush died from strangulation and that the injuries were not consistent with a fall. During the trial, the prosecution introduced evidence of Moore's previous assaults on other inmates as part of their case, arguing that these incidents showed he had a pattern of violent behavior. The defense argued that Bush's death could have been accidental. The trial court allowed photographs of the victim's injuries to be presented as evidence, despite Moore's objection that they were too gruesome. The court ruled that these images were relevant to the evidence and helped to prove how Bush died. Moore also raised concerns about the prosecution's statements during jury selection and whether he had been informed of his right to testify. The court ruled that the prosecutor's comments were within proper bounds and that there was no requirement for a formal acknowledgment of Moore's right to testify. Overall, the appeals court found no legal errors significant enough to reverse the trial court's decision, affirming Moore's conviction for murder.

RE-2018-231

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 6, 2019
Post category:RE

This summary opinion addresses the appeal of Latarsha Grant concerning the revocation of her suspended sentences in two criminal cases. Below is a concise breakdown of the key points from the opinion: ### Background - Latarsha Grant was convicted in 2007 for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (Case No. CF-2007-359) and sentenced to ten years with the sentence suspended. - In 2011, she was involved in new criminal activities leading to further actions against her suspended sentence. - By 2012, she had entered a guilty plea in a new case regarding drug distribution (Case No. CF-2011-269) with a concurrent ten-year suspended sentence after completing a rehabilitation program. - In 2017, a motion to revoke her suspended sentences was filed due to allegations of her involvement in a robbery, leading to the revocation hearing in 2018. ### Procedural History - The trial court, after hearing evidence, revoked her suspended sentences due to her involvement in the new crimes and appeared to find sufficient evidence against her. ### Appellate Claims Grant raised seven propositions of error, which the court proceeded to analyze: 1. **Competent Evidence**: The court found sufficient evidence that Grant had violated the terms of her suspended sentences. The evidence established her involvement in planning the robbery and her presence during the crime. 2. **Right to Confront Witnesses**: The court concluded that the hearsay issues raised were not applicable, as revocation procedures allow for such evidence. Furthermore, all relevant witnesses were available for cross-examination. 3. **Jurisdiction Concerns**: Grant's arguments relating to the trial court's jurisdiction or abuse of discretion regarding specific offenses were deemed misdirected, as they pertain to her original plea which she could challenge separately. 4. **Excessive Sentencing**: Grant claimed her overall sentence was excessive, but this is tied to the context of her behavior and criminal activities, which justified the trial court's decisions. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Similar to the above, claims surrounding the inadequacy of her representation in court were not appropriately addressed in this revocation context and would need separate proceedings. 6. **Nunc Pro Tunc Orders**: Grant sought to correct inaccuracies related to her plea and sentencing, which would also need to be handled through a different legal mechanism than this appeal. ### Conclusion The appellate court affirmed the decision of the District Court to revoke the suspended sentences, stating that the evidence supported the trial court's findings. The court dismissed all of Grant's claims based on their analysis of procedural and evidential standards, emphasizing the limitations of their review scope in revocation appeals. ### Decision Issued The order to revoke the concurrent suspended sentences was **AFFIRMED**. The court ordered the issuance of the mandate. ### Document Access A link to the full opinion is provided for those seeking detailed legal reasoning: [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-231_1734701780.pdf).

C-2018-927

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2019
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SAHIB QUIETMAN HENDERSON,** **Petitioner,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-927** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 30, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Sahib Quietman Henderson entered a blind plea of guilty to Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance within 2,000 feet of a School in the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CF-2016-393. The plea was accepted by the Honorable Ken J. Graham, District Judge, on April 30, 2018, with sentencing delayed until July 25, 2018. On that date, Petitioner was sentenced to thirty (30) years in prison, with the first fifteen (15) years to be served and the remaining fifteen (15) years suspended, alongside a fine of $2,500.00. On August 2, 2018, represented by counsel, Petitioner filed an Application to Withdraw Plea of Guilty. At hearings on August 20 and 22, 2018, Judge Graham denied the motion to withdraw. Petitioner appeals the denial and raises the following propositions of error: 1. Failure of the State and District Court to honor the promised consideration for Appellant's plea requires modification of his inflated sentence, or an opportunity to withdraw his plea. 2. The sentence is shockingly excessive given the circumstances of the case. 3. Ineffective assistance of counsel in identifying, presenting, and preserving issues for review. After thorough review of these propositions and the entirety of the record, including original record, transcripts, and briefs, we find that neither reversal nor modification is required. Our primary concern in evaluating the validity of a guilty plea is whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently. Petitioner carries the burden of proving his plea was entered unadvisedly, through influence, or without deliberation. Voluntariness is assessed through the entire record. In **Proposition I**, Petitioner claims that the plea lacked a knowing and voluntary nature due to non-fulfillment of a promise that he would be sentenced as a first-time offender and because of purported drug buys by his wife reducing his sentence. Contrary to this argument, the record shows Petitioner was treated as a first-time offender, with the court considering the mitigating factors at sentencing. His dissatisfaction with the resulting sentence does not provide grounds for withdrawal of the plea. In **Proposition II**, Petitioner contends the sentence is excessive. However, as he did not raise this claim in his Application to Withdraw Guilty Plea to the trial court, it is waived on appeal. In **Proposition III**, Petitioner argues ineffective assistance of counsel during both the plea and withdrawal hearings. A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is only established by showing that counsel's performance was deficient and that it resulted in prejudice to the defendant. The record does not support that withdrawal counsel's performance was deficient or that it affected the outcome—Petitioner maintained he did not wish to withdraw his plea but rather sought a sentence modification. **DECISION** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon this decision. --- **APPEARANCES IN DISTRICT COURT:** Grant D. Shepherd 601 S.W. C Ave., Ste. 201 Lawton, OK 73501 Counsel for the Defense **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** Kimberly D. Heinze P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 Counsel for Petitioner at the Plea Hearing Ronald L. Williams P.O. Box 2095 Lawton, OK 73502 Counsel for the Defense at the Withdrawal Hearing Jason M. Hicks District Attorney Cortnie Siess & Greg Steward Assistant District Attorneys Stephens Co. Courthouse 101 S. 11th St., Duncan, OK 73533 Counsel for the State **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur --- [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-927_1734182885.pdf)

F-2017-68

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2019
Post category:F

This text appears to be a legal opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the case of Jonathan D. McKee, who was convicted of Child Abuse. The judgment affirms the conviction and address various propositions raised by the appellant concerning the conviction and the trial process. The summary of the opinion includes analysis of the following propositions: 1. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a rational juror to convict McKee of child abuse based on medical expert testimony. 2. **Evidentiary Rulings**: The court reviewed multiple evidentiary rulings that McKee argued were erroneous. They concluded that while McKee's refusal to speak with authorities could raise Fifth Amendment concerns, it did not constitute plain error affecting the trial’s outcome. Additionally, evidence concerning drug paraphernalia was found relevant to the case. 3. **Judicial Bias**: Appellant’s claim of judicial bias was rejected as the court found no evidence of actual bias or any violations affecting due process. 4. **Cumulative Error**: The court stated that because none of the individual propositions were sustained, the cumulative error argument had no merit. The opinion also includes concurring opinions from Judges Kuehn and Rowland. Judge Kuehn expressed some reservations about the relevance of mentions of a request for legal counsel, while Judge Rowland emphasized that McKee's conduct and refusal to speak were relevant in assessing guilty knowledge, even though they did not implicate any constitutional violations. The final decision affirmed the judgment and sentence, with the court ordering the mandate issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. For further details, one may refer to the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2017-68_1734271673.pdf).