Due Process Archives - Page 5 of 14

F-2017-902

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 15, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-902, Kaylin Mixon appealed his conviction for Second Degree Depraved Mind Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and uphold the sentence. One judge dissented. Kaylin Mixon was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to 30 years in prison, along with a $100 fine. Mixon argued that his trial was unfair for three reasons. First, he believed that the jury should have been individually asked about their verdict to ensure all members agreed. However, the court found that since no one complained during the trial, there was no clear error. They determined that the jury's agreement was evident enough without needing to poll each member individually. Second, Mixon contended that photos from the autopsy shown at trial were too upsetting and should not have been allowed as evidence, claiming they were not necessary since the cause of death was not disputed. The court ruled that the photos were relevant to the case and helped to explain the details of the crime, so the inclusion of the photos did not unfairly influence the jury. Lastly, Mixon challenged the $100 fine imposed by the judge, arguing that it wasn’t proper since the law didn’t specifically mention a fine for his type of conviction. However, the court referenced past rulings that allowed judges to impose fines in felony cases, concluding that the fine was valid. After reviewing these issues, the court found no substantial errors that would warrant a new trial or change in the sentence. Therefore, they affirmed the original decision and the appeal was denied.

C-2017-1044

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 8, 2018
Post category:C

The document appears to be a legal summary from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of Auntra Lawan Edmonds. The case revolves around Edmonds' appeal after being convicted of two counts of First Degree Manslaughter. Here’s a concise overview of the case and the court's decision: 1. **Background**: Auntra Lawan Edmonds was charged with two counts of First Degree Manslaughter in Greer County District Court. After entering a no contest plea and being sentenced to life imprisonment for each count (to run concurrently), he later sought to withdraw his plea, which the court denied. 2. **Propositions of Error**: - **Proposition I**: Edmonds argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea, claiming it was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The court found that the record sufficiently demonstrated that Edmonds was aware of his rights and the nature of the charges, thus affirming that his plea was valid. - **Proposition II**: He claimed ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea withdrawal hearing. The court concluded that this claim lacked merit, noting that Edmonds did not provide substantial evidence to support the claim of ineffective assistance. - **Proposition III**: Edmonds argued that his life sentences were excessive. The court reasoned that the sentences were factually substantiated and justified given the severity of the incident, including the presence of alcohol and prior criminal behavior. 3. **Court Decision**: The court denied Edmonds' petition for a writ of certiorari, affirming the judgment and sentence of the District Court. It upheld that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea. 4. **Final Note**: The opinion emphasizes the importance of properly presenting claims during the trial and highlights that a defendant's dissatisfaction with a sentence does not invalidate a plea agreement. This case serves as a reference point for issues regarding plea withdrawals, effective legal counsel, and the proportionality of sentences in criminal proceedings.

C-2017-1050

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 8, 2018
Post category:C

**Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma Summary Opinion** **David Neil Dunn v. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No. C-2017-1050** **Filed November 8, 2018** **Summary:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the case of David Neil Dunn, who sought to withdraw his no contest plea for various serious charges. Dunn appealed on the basis that he was denied his due process right to be present during the evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw the plea, and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. **Key Points:** 1. **Charges and Plea**: Dunn was charged with multiple felonies, including First Degree Robbery and Burglary. He entered a blind plea of no contest, which resulted in significant prison sentences. 2. **Motion to Withdraw Plea**: Dunn filed a motion to withdraw his plea shortly after sentencing, claiming various legal grounds, including concerns about the validity of his plea. An evidentiary hearing was held, but Dunn was not present as he had been transported to the Department of Corrections. 3. **Court's Ruling**: The Court found that Dunn had a due process right to be present during this critical stage of the proceedings. The absence of Dunn hindered a fair and just hearing, particularly concerning his claims about the voluntariness of his plea. 4. **Counsel’s Role**: The court clarified that defense counsel's belief that Dunn's presence was unnecessary does not equate to a valid waiver of his right to be present. The decision emphasized that Dunn's testimony was crucial for effectively contesting the plea's validity. 5. **Outcome**: The Court granted Dunn's petition for certiorari and remanded the case back to the District Court for a proper evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw the plea, ensuring he would be present. 6. **Dissenting Opinion**: One judge dissented, arguing that the absence of Dunn did not constitute a violation of his rights, noting that his counsel had effectively represented him at the hearing. It was contended that the procedural complexities of representation should not be interpreted as waivers of due process. **Conclusion**: The Court ruled in favor of Dunn, stressing the importance of a defendant's presence in legal proceedings, particularly when their rights and pleas are being challenged, which underscores the principles of fairness and due process within the judicial system. For a detailed reading, [click here to download the PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2017-1050_1733996496.pdf).

F-2016-194

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 8, 2018
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DONTE LEMAR PAYTON,** Appellant, *Case No. F-2016-194* v. **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant, Donte Lemar Payton, was convicted in the Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2014-7586, of Manslaughter in the First Degree, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 711(3). The jury acquitted him of first-degree murder but found him guilty of the lesser-included offense. The Honorable Donald L. Deason sentenced him to life imprisonment, and Payton appeals, presenting six propositions of error: **I.** The trial court erred in failing to comply with statutory law regarding juror contact, violating Appellant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. **II.** The court's communication with the jury improperly suggested they could avoid their duty to assess punishment. **III.** Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel. **IV.** The life sentence imposed was excessive under the circumstances. **V.** The trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury on self-defense, violating Appellant's rights. **VI.** Cumulative errors deprived Appellant of due process. Upon thorough review, including the evidence and arguments presented, the Court finds no relief necessary. The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. ### Propositions I and II A presumption of prejudice arises from unauthorized judicial communications with a jury after they commence deliberations (Givens v. State, 1985 OK CR 104). In this case, the jury was informed by the bailiff about the trial court's potential to impose a sentence if they could not reach an agreement. This occurred after they had already found Appellant guilty. An evidentiary hearing confirmed that the communication, while improper, was addressed within the statutory framework (22 O.S.2011, § 927.1) regarding jury deadlock. The communication was limited and factual, and the jury was informed to continue deliberations, which ultimately established that they were deadlocked. Appellant failed to object to any of these proceedings or request an Allen charge, thus forfeiting those claims on appeal. The communication did not undermine the integrity of the proceedings, and therefore the presumption of prejudice was adequately overcome. Hence, we deny Propositions I and II. ### Proposition III To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant must show both deficient performance and resulting prejudice (Strickland v. Washington, 1984). In this case, the existing record did not support claims of ineffective assistance. Furthermore, there is no clear and convincing evidence suggesting that counsel's failure to present character witness statements at sentencing prejudiced the outcome. Accordingly, Proposition III is denied. ### Proposition IV Considering the complete context, we agree that Appellant's life sentence is not so excessive as to shock the conscience (Duclos v. State, 2017 OK CR 8). The nature of the crime was severe, further justifying the sentence based on the facts presented. ### Proposition V The trial court's decision to deny a self-defense instruction was within its discretion. The standard for prima facie evidence was not met since Appellant's testimony did not suggest a reasonable belief in imminent danger, thus precluding such an instruction (Davis v. State, 2011). ### Proposition VI Allegations of cumulative error must be based on actual determinations of error, which were not established here (Neloms v. State, 2012). Therefore, we deny Proposition VI as well. ### DECISION The judgment and sentence of the District Court are AFFIRMED. Appellant's Application for an Evidentiary Hearing on Sixth Amendment Claims is DENIED. **APPEARANCES:** * For Appellant: Stacy Smith, Attorney at Law * For Appellee: Mike Hunter, Attorney General; John Salmon, Assistant District Attorney; Matthew D. Haire, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. *LUMPKIN, P.J.: CONCUR* *LEWIS, V.P.J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS* *KUEHN, J.: CONCUR* *ROWLAND, J.: RECUSE* **NOTE**: The presence of procedural errors warrants caution, but in this instance, they did not materially affect the outcome. Trial courts should maintain vigilance regarding communications with jurors to avoid future complications.

RE-2017-706

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 8, 2018
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **THOMAS LYNN SPANN,** Appellant, **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. No. RE-2017-706 **FILED ** IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOV 8 2018 JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** In the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CF-2012-436A, Appellant, while represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty to the offense of Cruelty to Animals. On October 10, 2013, in accordance with a plea agreement, the Honorable Joe H. Enos, District Judge, sentenced Appellant to a $1,000.00 fine and to five (5) years imprisonment, with all but the first one (1) year of that term conditionally suspended under written rules of probation. On October 20, 2016, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence. The Motion alleged Appellant had violated his probation by: 1. Failing to provide verification of employment; 2. Being in $920.00 in arrears on supervision fees due to the Department of Corrections; 3. Failing to pay restitution of $152.44; 4. Failing to pay $75.00 per month beginning October 2015 towards costs, fines, and fees, resulting in arrears of $675.00. On November 10, 2016, the parties appeared before the Honorable Ken Graham, District Judge, regarding the Motion to Revoke. While represented by counsel, Appellant stipulated to the probation violations contained in that Motion. Further revocation proceedings regarding punishment were postponed for two months, allowing Appellant time to comply with his probation requirements. This period was later expanded twice, eventually leading to a hearing on June 22, 2017. At this June 22nd hearing, Appellant again appeared with counsel. The probation officer provided a Supplemental Report indicating that Appellant remained significantly delinquent in fulfilling payment obligations, although he had paid off the restitution. Additionally, the report noted that Appellant had not verified employment nor demonstrated compliance with job search requirements. There were also reports of unsigned traffic citations and evidence of an altered appointment slip presented by Appellant. After considering testimonies and evidence regarding Appellant's compliance, Judge Graham revoked Appellant's suspended sentence in full. Appellant now appeals that final order of revocation, asserting that the court denied due process and abused its discretion by revoking the remaining suspended sentence based on extra-application allegations. After careful review, we find no error warranting reversal. Appellant had stipulated to the probation violations, providing the State with the necessary grounds to prove the allegations. Consequently, the trial court had the authority to revoke the suspended sentence. Appellant failed to demonstrate significant compliance with probation requirements over an extended period, despite having opportunities to rectify the situation. The revocation order is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2018), MANDATE IS ORDERED ISSUED on the filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** **R. L. WILLIAMS** P.O. BOX 2095 LAWTON, OKLAHOMA 73502 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT **GREG STEWARD** ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY STEPHENS COUNTY COURTHOUSE 101 SOUTH 11TH STREET DUNCAN, OKLAHOMA 73533 ATTORNEY FOR STATE OF OKLA. --- **OPINION BY: HUDSON, J.** **LUMPKIN, P.J.: CONCUR** **LEWIS, V.P.J.: CONCUR** **KUEHN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** --- **KUEHN, JUDGE, CONCURRING IN RESULT:** I concur in the result. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in full. Appellant stipulated to the Application to Revoke, making only the issue before the trial court whether to revoke the suspended sentence in part or in full. While Appellant used this opportunity to pay restitution, he failed to comply with the rest of the conditions. The trial court reasonably considered Appellant's interim behavior, given the evidence of continued violations, leading to the conclusion to revoke. The failure to make a determination regarding Appellant’s ability to pay was error, but not dispositive as Appellant had already stipulated to the original allegations. The trial court properly considered the evidence presented in mitigation when deciding the final revocation of the sentence.

F-2017-994

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 8, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-994, Holly Tegan Zuniga-Griffin appealed her conviction for Enabling Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction. One judge dissented. The case involved Holly Tegan Zuniga-Griffin, who was found guilty of enabling the abuse of her three-year-old son. The jury in Muskogee County decided she was guilty of this crime based on the evidence presented during the trial. She was sentenced to ten years in prison, following the jury's recommendation. Zuniga-Griffin raised several issues in her appeal. First, she argued that the law regarding child abuse was unclear and vague. However, the court found no reason to change its previous decisions on this issue and denied her claim. Next, she claimed there wasn't enough evidence to prove she understood her child was in danger when she left him with her 17-year-old boyfriend. The court disagreed, stating there was enough evidence to show she should have known her child was at risk. Zuniga-Griffin had made inconsistent statements about how her son got hurt, and medical evidence indicated he had been physically abused. She also said she was denied a fair trial because the judge didn't instruct the jury properly. The court acknowledged that some jury instructions could have been appropriate, but overall, they did not think this affected the trial's fairness. Another point she raised was about a nurse giving an opinion in court when she didn't have the right qualifications. The court found that the nurse did have enough training and experience to testify about the injuries on the child, so they disagreed with Zuniga-Griffin's claim. Zuniga-Griffin contended that the prosecution failed to provide important evidence that could have helped her case. However, the court concluded that she was aware of the photos in question during the trial and did not attempt to use them, dismissing her argument. She also claimed her lawyer did not do a good job representing her, which negatively impacted her trial. But the court found her lawyer's decisions were reasonable and did not affect the outcome. Zuniga-Griffin then argued that her ten-year sentence was excessively harsh. The court noted that her son had suffered serious injuries, and her sentence was within what the law allowed, so they did not find it shocking. Finally, she stated that all the errors combined during the trial made it unfair. The court determined that the errors she identified did not, either separately or together, undermine her right to a fair trial. In the end, the decision of the trial court was upheld, meaning Zuniga-Griffin would serve her sentence as originally decided.

F-2017-599

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 28, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-599, Christopher Michael Hildebrandt appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape of a Child under 14, Forcible Sodomy, and Abduction of a Person Under 15. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but vacated the assessment of prosecution reimbursement costs of $960.00. One judge dissented. The case involved a jury trial where Hildebrandt was found guilty of serious charges against a minor. The jury recommended sentences of 25 years for the first charge, 20 years for the second, and 5 years for the third, all of which were to be served one after the other. Hildebrandt raised several reasons for his appeal. He claimed that evidence from his car was obtained illegally because law enforcement acted outside their jurisdiction. However, the court determined that even if the car was seized unlawfully, the subsequent search conducted with a warrant made the evidence valid. He also argued that the jury selection was unfair because two minority jurors were removed based on race. The court found that the reasons given for their removal were valid and not racially biased. Furthermore, Hildebrandt pointed out that an emotional outburst from the victim's father during the trial could have influenced the jury. The court ruled that there was no need for the judge to inquire about the impact of the outburst because steps were taken to address the situation. He challenged the foundation for evidence presented at trial and whether he received proper notice of the charges. The court found that challenges to evidence would not have changed the outcome of the trial. Hildebrandt also asserted that his defense attorney did not help him adequately during the trial, but the court disagreed, noting that any objection his attorney might have made would have likely been denied. Lastly, he argued that his sentences were too harsh and should have been served concurrently instead of consecutively. The court upheld the sentences as appropriate given the serious nature of the crimes. However, they acknowledged that the assessment for reimbursement costs was incorrectly applied, leading to the decision to remove that specific charge. In conclusion, while the court found some merit in Hildebrandt's claims regarding prosecution reimbursement costs, they ruled that the convictions and the sentences were legally justified.

F-2017-189

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 24, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-189, William Todd Lewallen appealed his conviction for Child Neglect, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court. A dissenting opinion was not recorded. Lewallen was found guilty in a previous trial and sentenced to twenty-three years in prison. He appealed this sentence, and the court decided to change the sentence to fourteen years during a resentencing trial. Lewallen wanted to testify during this resentencing but was not allowed to do so by the trial court. This decision led to Lewallen's appeal. Lewallen claimed that not allowing him to testify was a serious mistake called structural error, which means it affected the fairness of the entire trial process. However, the court explained that most errors in trials can be harmless unless they are structural errors. The court ultimately found that Lewallen's case did not involve what would be classified as structural error. The court noted that while everyone has the right to present a defense and testify, this right has limits and must follow the rules of court. In Lewallen's case, his request to testify was denied because the court believed it didn't relate to the sentencing phase of his case. The court held that his testimony would not change the outcome of the sentencing because it was not relevant to the issues that the jury was deciding at that time. The decision emphasized that the resentencing was not a chance to revisit the guilt or innocence of Lewallen, as he was already found guilty. The new jury was only tasked with deciding how long his punishment should be based on what they learned from the original trial. In summary, the court affirmed Lewallen's new sentence and ruled that there were no errors that would affect the outcome of the case, including the denial of his request to testify.

C-2017-33

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 24, 2018
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-33, a person appealed his conviction for manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to run concurrently with another sentence. One judge dissented. In this case, the person, who we'll refer to as the appellant, had entered a guilty plea to first degree manslaughter. He ended up being sentenced to twenty-three years in prison. After some time, the appellant decided he wanted to take back his guilty plea. He claimed he didn't fully understand the consequences of his plea when he entered it, and he felt he was pressured into making that choice. The court held three hearings to talk about the appellant’s request to withdraw his guilty plea. Ultimately, the judge denied his request, finding that his plea was made voluntarily and knowingly. The appellant raised two main arguments in his appeal. First, he argued that his plea was not given voluntarily or knowingly. Second, he said he did not get proper legal help from his attorney, which affected his case. The court looked closely at the entire record, including the hearings and the agreements made during the plea process. They found that even though the appellant felt he was pressured, he actually understood what he was doing when he entered his plea. They decided that the plea was valid and should not be withdrawn. However, the court also recognized that the state did not follow the agreement regarding a related case. The state had promised not to seek a revocation of the appellant's other suspended sentence, but after the appellant filed to withdraw his plea, the state moved to revoke that sentence anyway. The court determined that this was a significant breach of the plea agreement, which affected the fairness of the situation. Since the appellant was also facing the loss of additional years in prison because of the state's actions, the court decided to modify his sentence. Instead of having the two sentences run one after the other, the court ordered them to run at the same time. This way, the appellant would not be unfairly punished because of the state’s breach of their agreement. In conclusion, the court agreed the appellant’s plea was valid and was made knowingly and voluntarily. However, to correct the mistake made by the state regarding the plea agreement, they modified his sentence to ensure fairness. One judge disagreed with some parts of the decision.

RE-2018-357

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 2, 2018
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CASE NO. RE-2018-357** **JAMES MONROE JONES, Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** James Monroe Jones (Appellant) appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290, and CF-2013-6519, adjudicated by the Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge, in the District Court of Oklahoma County. On June 16, 2010, Appellant pled guilty in Cases CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, and CF-2010-290, receiving concurrent sentences with significant portions suspended. Specifically, in CF-2008-7440, he was convicted of two counts of Concealing Stolen Property and sentenced to fifteen years on each count, with the first five years served. Similar sentences were imposed for offenses stemming from the other cases. On May 1, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated nolo contendere plea in CF-2013-6519 for an amended count of Concealing Stolen Property, resulting in a ten-year sentence with the first year served. On August 26, 2016, the State filed applications to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences due to reported violations, including failure to report, change of address, and new criminal activity related to Domestic Assault and Battery. Enhanced allegations were added on March 7, 2018, encompassing additional crimes attributed to Appellant. A hearing was conducted on April 2, 2018. Appellant's counsel objected to the State's evidence, citing inadequate discovery. The trial court, however, noted Appellant had received relevant documents previously, and dismissed the objections after reviewing the evidence. Judge Henderson ultimately found Appellant had violated his probation through specific new criminal conduct and revoked his suspended sentences in full. Appellant presents two propositions of error on appeal: **PROPOSITION I:** The trial court violated Jones's right to due process and a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II § 7 of the Oklahoma State Constitution. **PROPOSITION II:** Defense counsel failed to prepare adequately for trial, resulting in ineffective assistance of counsel. **ANALYSIS** In addressing Proposition I, Appellant contends that the overruling of his objections regarding discovery violations deprived him of due process. It is established that defendants have minimal due process rights in revocation hearings, including evidence disclosure. However, since Appellant’s counsel did not request discovery prior to the hearing, the burden falls on them for preparation. The trial court did not deny Appellant the opportunity to defend—therefore, Proposition I is denied. Regarding Proposition II, Appellant asserts his counsel's ineffectiveness based on a lack of preparedness stemming from unrequested discovery. The Strickland standard evaluates ineffective assistance claims through performance deficiency and resultant prejudice. Appellant has not substantiated claims that better-prepared counsel would have altered the outcome, as evidence showed several violations were confirmed. Thus, Proposition II is also denied. **DECISION** The order from the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290, and CF-2013-6519 is **AFFIRMED**. --- **APPEARANCES:** **AT TRIAL** Katie Samples, Assistant Public Defender Marva A. Banks, Assistant Public Defender **ON APPEAL** David Nichols, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Attorney General Keeley L. Miller, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. **[Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-357_1734695459.pdf)**

F-2016-1094

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 29, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-1094, Robert Lawrence Long appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder and Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Long's convictions but vacate the court costs imposed on the possession charge. No one dissented.

RE 2016-1019

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 23, 2018
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2016-1019, Jerry Lynn Clemons appealed his conviction for Home Repair Fraud and other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but directed the District Court to modify the orders so that the sentences would run concurrently. The dissenting opinion was not specified. Here's a simplified summary of what happened: Jerry Clemons was found guilty in two cases. He pleaded guilty to Home Repair Fraud in one case and robbery and property damage in another. He was given suspended sentences, meaning he would not go to prison if he followed rules and conditions of probation, like reporting to a probation officer and not changing his address without informing them. However, he did not follow these rules, which led the State to ask to revoke his suspended sentences. During a hearing, the judge decided to revoke Clemons' suspended sentences because he had failed to report as required and changed his address without telling his probation officer. Clemons argued that the State didn’t properly inform him about the reasons for the revocation and that they didn’t provide enough evidence to support their claims. He also said that the judge should not have revoked his sentence because the punishment was longer than what the law allowed for one of his charges. The court agreed with some of Clemons' points but stated that there was enough evidence to support the decision to revoke his suspended sentences. They found that he didn’t show how the judge made a wrong choice. However, they also recognized a mistake in how the sentences should be served. They ordered that all his sentences should run concurrently, meaning they would be served at the same time, rather than one after the other. In conclusion, Clemons' appeal was mostly not successful, but the court made important changes to ensure he would serve his time in a fair way according to the law.

F-2017-241

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 15, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-241, Joseph Tunley, Jr. appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and send the case back for a new trial. The court found that Tunley's original waiver of his right to a jury trial was not shown to be knowing, intelligent, or competent, which is required by law. The dissenting opinion was not specified, but it indicates that there may have been differing views on the matter.

C-2017-271

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 14, 2017
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JUSTON DEAN COX,** *Petitioner,* **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** *Respondent.* **FILED** *DEC 14 2017* **SUMMARY OPINION GRANTING CERTIORARI IN PART AND REMANDING THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL** **LUMPKIN, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Petitioner Juston Dean Cox was charged in the District Court of McIntosh County on August 23, 2005, with Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies (Case No. CF-2005-152A). An Amended Information filed on November 28, 2005, added ten additional counts of Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. Petitioner was bound over for trial on five counts after the Preliminary Hearing on November 30, 2005, and trial was set for April 17, 2006. Subsequently, charges were filed against Petitioner for Escape from a County Jail and Destruction of a Public Building (Case No. CF-2005-172A) on September 19, 2005, followed by additional charges for Escape from a Penal Institution on January 5, 2006 (Case No. CF-2006-04) and January 26, 2006 (Case No. CF-2006-14). On January 26, 2006, Petitioner entered into negotiated guilty pleas for all four cases, resulting in concurrent sentences of thirty years. On February 6, 2006, Petitioner filed a request to withdraw his plea. A hearing was held on March 23, 2006, where the trial court denied his request. Petitioner filed Applications for Post-Conviction Relief on August 13, 2014, and June 9, 2016, leading to a hearing on December 1, 2016, where the trial court recommended allowing Petitioner an appeal out of time. This Court granted that request on January 6, 2017, and appointed counsel to represent the Petitioner. At the March 9, 2017, hearing to discuss the motion to withdraw, it was established that counsel had not prepared a formal motion for withdrawal. Petitioner was not actively represented during this critical hearing, as his plea counsel took no part in the proceedings despite being present. The court did not adequately address the lack of representation or question Petitioner regarding his rights to counsel. A criminal defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel at a motion to withdraw hearing (Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55). The court's failure to appoint conflict-free counsel and its allowance for Petitioner to proceed without adequate representation constituted a violation of his constitutional rights. Given that Petitioner raised claims regarding the voluntariness of his plea, the harmless error doctrine does not apply. Accordingly, we find marginal grounds to question the diligence of prior representations and affirm that this situation merits careful reconsideration. **DECISION** Certiorari is granted in part. The order of the district court denying Petitioner's motion to withdraw his guilty plea is *REVERSED* and the case is remanded to the District Court for *APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL* to evaluate whether to further pursue the withdrawal of the guilty pleas. *MANDATE to be issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.* **APPEARANCES IN DISTRICT COURT** **COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER:** Ariel Parry **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE:** Thomas C. Giulioni, Mike Hunter (Attorney General), O.R. Barris III, Gregory Stidham (Assistant District Attorneys), Jay Schniederjan (Assistant Attorney General) *OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, P.J. LEWIS, V.P.J.: Concur in Results HUDSON, J.: Concur KUEHN, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur* [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2017-271_1733992184.pdf)

F-2016-843

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 14, 2017
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DAVID RUBLE, II,** **Appellant,** **VS.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2016-843** **FILED DEC 14 2017** **SUMMARY OPINION** *KUEHN, JUDGE:* David Ruble II was tried by jury and convicted of Count I, Felony Murder with the predicate Attempted Robbery by Firearm in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 701.7; and Count III, Conspiracy to Commit Robbery with a Firearm in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 421, in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2014-2691. Following the jury's recommendation, the Honorable William D. LaFortune sentenced Ruble to life imprisonment (Count I) and ten (10) years imprisonment (Count III), to run consecutively. Ruble appeals from these convictions and sentences. Ruble raises five propositions of error in support of his appeal: I. The trial court's erroneous rulings on challenges for cause deprived Appellant of his full complement of peremptory challenges to use at his discretion and prevented his ability to remove objectionable jurors. II. The cumulative effect of prosecutorial misconduct constituted plain error and deprived Appellant of a fair trial. III. The trial judge erred in not instructing the jury on lesser offenses. IV. Mr. Ruble was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. V. The accumulation of errors deprived Mr. Ruble of a fair trial and the due process of law secured to him. **DECISION:** After thorough consideration of the entire record, we deny Ruble's propositions of error. 1. **Proposition I:** The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ruble's challenges for cause. The record does not support that the jurors were biased, nor was there a showing that trial counsel properly preserved this issue. 2. **Proposition II:** Ruble's claims of prosecutorial misconduct were not substantiated. Many of his complaints were unobjected to and reviewed for plain error, which was not found. 3. **Proposition III:** There was no error in failing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses, as Ruble's defense was that he was not involved in the crime. 4. **Proposition IV:** Trial counsel's performance was not deficient. Ruble did not demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel's actions. 5. **Proposition V:** With no fundamental error established, the claim of cumulative error fails. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Tulsa County is AFFIRMED. **MANDATE:** Ordered issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL:** Michael Manning 624 South Denver, Ste. 201 Tulsa, OK 74119 **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL:** Rhiannon Sisk Homicide Direct Appeals Div. Oklahoma Indigent Defense System P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE:** Becky Johnson Mike Hunter Benjamin Fu 500 S. Denver, Ste. 900 Tulsa, OK 74103 **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, J.; LUMPKIN, P.J., CONCUR IN RESULTS; LEWIS, V.P.J., CONCUR; HUDSON, J., CONCUR; ROWLAND, J., CONCUR. **[Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2016-843_1734264868.pdf)**

RE-2016-1101

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 14, 2017
Post category:RE

This is a summary of a legal opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding Richard Leroy Felton's appeal following the revocation of his suspended sentences. Felton had previously entered guilty pleas to several misdemeanor charges, leading to consecutive suspended sentences of one year and six months. His probation was later revoked because he allegedly violated several probation conditions. Notably, he was accused of failing to pay supervision fees, maintaining employment, answering questions truthfully, and violating a protective order. During the revocation hearing, evidence was presented regarding Felton's threats against probation officers, his failure to report to them, and multiple documented violations of the protective order. The court concluded that even just his threats to the officers were sufficient grounds for revocation, thereby affirming the district court's decision. Felton raised five propositions of error on appeal, including claims of insufficient evidence for the state’s allegations, denial of due process, ineffective assistance of counsel, and abuse of discretion in revoking his sentences. The court found these arguments without merit, affirming the revocation on the basis that sufficient evidence supported the action taken by the district court. The court's ruling highlighted that violations of probation do not require the same standards as criminal prosecutions and that the existence of threats and failures to comply with probation conditions justified the decisions made at the lower court level. The order of revocation was thus upheld.

C-2016-877

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 7, 2017
Post category:C

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

F-2016-229

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 16, 2017
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-229, Marcus Stephon Miller appealed his conviction for murder and possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for possession of a firearm but vacated and remanded his convictions for second-degree murder for resentencing. One judge dissented from the decision to remand for resentencing. Miller was charged with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of possession of a firearm while under supervision. A jury convicted him of lesser charges of second-degree murder for the first two counts and of possession of a firearm for the third count. Miller received sentences of 25 years for each murder count and 5 years for the firearm count, with the sentences scheduled to run one after the other. Miller argued that errors were made during his trial. He claimed that the trial court did not follow the right procedures for splitting his trial into stages, which affected his right to a fair trial. He pointed out that the jury was not properly instructed and that misconduct happened from the prosecution's side. He also believed his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial and that the judge wrongly refused to give him credit for time served in jail before sentencing. After looking over the case, the court found that while the trial had some mistakes, they didn’t actually hurt Miller's case enough to impact the verdict for the possession charge. However, they agreed that the trial court made a significant mistake in how it handled sentencing for the murder counts, mainly because it allowed the jury to consider his previous convictions when they should not have. The court decided that the sentencing for the second-degree murders had to be thrown out and that Miller would need to be resentenced, but his conviction for possession would stay. In dissent, one judge noted that the errors made during trial did not affect Miller's rights since he received a relatively lenient sentence given the seriousness of the crimes he was convicted for. The judge believed that the mistakes did not warrant a new sentencing for the murder counts because the nature of the charges and the consequences indicated that the overall outcome would not change. In conclusion, while Miller's appeal was partly successful, with the court affirming his conviction on one count and ordering a new sentencing for the other two, the dissenting opinion felt that the original sentencing should stand.

F-2016-179

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 17, 2017
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-179, John Stanton Lewis appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and other related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Lewis's convictions for three counts and modify his conviction for one count from a felony to a misdemeanor, resulting in a shorter sentence. One judge dissented. Lewis was convicted in a district court for several counts involving drugs and a firearm. The jury sentenced him to different terms, including 15 years for possession of methamphetamine after previous felonies, 2 years for firearm possession, 4 years for marijuana possession, and 90 days for drug paraphernalia. The court made these sentences consecutive and gave him credit for time served. Lewis raised four main arguments on appeal: 1. **Illegal Search**: He argued that evidence against him should not have been used because it was obtained through an illegal search. The court found that the initial entry into his mobile home by law enforcement was legal since it was during a fire incident and they were investigating. Therefore, this argument was denied. 2. **Jury Instructions**: Lewis contended that the jury was not properly instructed on the possible punishments for his offenses, particularly about the enhancement of his charges due to prior convictions. The court agreed that there was a plain error concerning the instruction for the marijuana possession charge, modifying it to reflect a misdemeanor instead of a felony. His sentence for that charge was reduced from four years to one year. 3. **Evidence for Firearm Charge**: He claimed the evidence was insufficient to convict him for possession of a firearm because the state did not prove the firearm he had was capable of firing. The court found that it is not necessary to prove whether the gun could fire for a conviction under the law, so this argument was denied. 4. **Ineffective Counsel**: Lewis argued that his lawyer did not do a good job representing him. The court noted that proving ineffective counsel requires showing that the lawyer's mistakes affected the outcome of the trial. Lewis couldn't prove his lawyer was ineffective in this case because the range of punishment given was correct, and therefore, this claim was denied. Ultimately, the court affirmed the convictions for several charges, but modified the marijuana possession conviction to reflect a misdemeanor resulting in a shorter sentence. The judgments overall were mostly upheld.

F-2015-963

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 13, 2017
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-963, Daniel Bryan Kelley appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation and Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Assault and Battery but reversed the conviction for Rape by Instrumentation and remanded for resentencing. One judge dissented. Kelley was found guilty by a jury of committing rape and an assault. The crimes occurred in Tulsa County. The jury recommended a sentence of 20 years for the rape and a 90-day sentence for the assault, which would happen at the same time as the longer sentence. Kelley appealed for several reasons. Firstly, Kelley argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence that the victim had previously said the crime happened somewhere else. The court found this request did not violate his rights. The court also ruled that other evidence, including statements from witnesses, was presented correctly according to the law. Kelley further claimed that the detective’s testimony included hearsay and should not have been allowed. The court disagreed, stating that the testimony did not qualify as hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter. He also objected to the admission of a Kansas judgment that concerns his past criminal record. The court found that the state failed to prove that this past conviction should be used to increase his sentence as a felony under Oklahoma law, which was a significant factor in the decision to remand for resentencing. Kelley argued that the prosecutor made mistakes during his closing arguments, but the court didn’t find enough errors to affect his right to a fair trial. On the matter of whether Kelley received effective help from his lawyer, the court determined that no deficiencies were present that impacted his case. The final summary was that while Kelley’s conviction for Assault and Battery remained intact, the conviction for Rape by Instrumentation was reversed due to a lack of sufficient evidence regarding his previous crime, leading to a mandate for resentencing.

F-2015-720

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 28, 2017
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-720, Bobby Dewayne Ray appealed his conviction for second degree burglary and impersonating an officer. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the fine of $1,500.00 but affirmed the judgment and sentence otherwise. One judge dissented regarding the fine. Bobby Dewayne Ray was found guilty by a jury of two crimes: second degree burglary and impersonating an officer. The jury decided that he committed the burglary after he had already been convicted of two or more felonies. Because of this, he was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and fined $1,500 for the burglary, and was given one year in jail and fined $100 for impersonating an officer. Both sentences were to be served at the same time. On appeal, Ray raised two main arguments. First, he said that the way he was identified by the victim in court was unfair and not allowed under the law. He believed that an earlier identification using his photo was done in a way that could cause mistakes. He pointed out that his lawyer didn’t object to this identification during the trial, which meant he could only argue that it was clearly a mistake. The court looked at the situation and decided that even though the police used only one photo of him, the victim had a good view of him during the crime and was sure of her identification. So, they didn’t believe there was a big chance of making a mistake, thus they found no clear error in letting the victim identify him in court. In his second argument, Ray claimed that the instruction given to the jury about the fine was wrong. The judge told the jury that a fine was mandatory when it was actually optional. In a past case, the court recognized that giving such an instruction was a big mistake, but they also decided that in that case the mistake didn’t change the outcome because the jury gave the highest fine possible. In Ray’s case, they agreed that the $1,500 fine might indicate that the jury would have chosen a smaller amount if they had been told that giving a fine was not required. Therefore, they decided to cancel the fine, but they agreed that his conviction should stay. The court stated that their decision would be filed, and the mandate would be issued once the decision was recorded. One judge agreed with the result of the decision but disagreed about canceling the fine. They believed the jury probably intended to fine Ray because the amount was still significant enough, and the error shouldn't mean that the fine had to be thrown out. In summary, the court agreed to remove the fine but kept the convictions, while expressing that the mistake in jury instruction about the fine did not matter too much in the overall decision.

C-2016-140

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 12, 2017
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-140, Hiram Frank Mutters appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to grant him a new hearing. One judge dissented. Mutters pleaded no contest to Child Sexual Abuse on December 7, 2015, and was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and a fine. He later wanted to withdraw his plea, so he filed a motion. However, during the hearing for this motion, he was not present because he was taken to another facility. His lawyer thought Mutters would prefer to stay away from jail rather than return for the hearing. This decision meant that Mutters could not explain his reasons for wanting to withdraw his plea. The court found that it is very important for a person to be present during such hearings because their testimony is vital. Since Mutters was not there, the hearing did not meet the required standards for fairness. Thus, the court ruled that the case should go back for a new hearing where Mutters can be present to share his side of the story and explain why he thinks he should withdraw his plea.

F-2015-886

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 14, 2016
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-886, Russell Carl McCrillis appealed his conviction for two counts of Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the case for the trial court to assess a specific term of years for post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. McCrillis was convicted in a jury trial and received a twenty-year prison sentence and a $20,000 fine for each count of lewd molestation. The sentences were ordered to be served at the same time. McCrillis raised several issues in his appeal. He claimed that his statement to the police should not have been allowed at trial because it was not made freely and voluntarily. He also argued that the jury should have been instructed about the voluntariness of his statement. Additionally, he pointed out that the trial court could not change his sentence to an indefinite probation after prison. Finally, he believed his sentences were too harsh. The court looked closely at whether McCrillis's statement to the police was voluntary and found that he had waived his rights properly and given his statement willingly. This meant the trial court did not make a mistake when it allowed the statement to be presented during the trial. The court did notice that while the judge should have instructed the jury on the voluntary nature of his confession, the lack of instruction didn’t really have an impact on the trial's outcome, as there was strong enough evidence against McCrillis. Regarding the trial court's authority to modify the sentence, the court agreed that it should have set a clear term for post-imprisonment supervision, which means after McCrillis serves his time, he should be supervised for a set number of years. The law says people convicted of certain crimes, like lewd molestation, must have a period of supervision after serving time, usually between nine months and a year. However, there is also a specific law stating that in cases of sexual offenses, supervision could be longer. The court noted that the trial judge didn’t give a fixed duration for supervision, which was a mistake. In the end, while the court agreed with McCrillis on the need for a specified period of supervision upon release, it found that his twenty-year sentence was not too severe based on the details of the crimes committed. Therefore, the court upheld the conviction but sent the case back to have the trial court determine the proper length of post-imprisonment supervision.

RE-2015-765

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 11, 2016
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-765, Jimmy Lee Fields appealed his conviction for sexually abusing a minor child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Fields' suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Fields, in 2000, pleaded guilty to sexually abusing a child. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, but all but five years were suspended. This meant he would not have to serve the full sentence if he followed the rules. In 2001, his sentence was modified to fourteen years and the execution of that sentence was also suspended with conditions he had to follow while on probation. In 2015, the state accused Fields of breaking the rules of his probation by committing more serious crimes, including child sexual abuse. After a hearing, the court revoked his suspended sentence completely, meaning he had to serve time in prison. Fields disagreed with this decision, claiming the court made errors. Fields presented two main arguments for his appeal. First, he argued that the court was wrong to impose post-imprisonment supervision at the time of revocation, which was not part of the original sentence. Second, he believed the court acted unfairly when it revoked his entire sentence because he had mitigating circumstances like health issues and past good behavior. The court reviewed his claims but found no errors in the decision to revoke the suspension. It highlighted that committing new crimes while on probation justified the revocation. Therefore, the court upheld the revocation but instructed to correct the official written order to remove the additional supervision requirement that was added later. Overall, the court affirmed the decision to revoke his probation with the clarification needed for the written records.

F-2015-531

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

In OCCA case No. F-2015-53, Dennis Ray Runnels appealed his conviction for Unlawful Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Runnels was convicted after a jury trial, where he was found guilty of distributing meth. The trial court sentenced him to 19 years imprisonment, with one year of post-imprisonment supervision, and ordered him to pay a fee for a court-appointed attorney and other costs. Runnels raised several issues in his appeal. First, he claimed that the state did not show a complete chain of custody for the meth. The court found that there was enough evidence for the jury to decide that Runnels was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also determined that Runnels had not shown any plain error regarding this issue. Second, Runnels argued that the state did not provide enough evidence to support his conviction. However, the court ruled there was sufficient evidence, including testimony and recordings from a controlled buy, for the jury to reach their conclusion. Third, he claimed the state failed to provide evidence that could have helped his case. He said the prosecutor did not correct a witness’s false testimony about prior convictions. The court found no wrongdoing by the state and ruled that Runnels had not shown how this affected the trial's outcome. In his fourth claim, Runnels argued that the jury was incorrectly instructed on punishment. The court agreed and found it was a plain error, which required modification of his sentence. Runnels also claimed the jury was led to think about probation and parole during the trial, but since the punishment was modified based on the previous claim, this point became moot. Regarding the claim that his sentence was excessive, the court agreed that it should be modified due to the instructional error and reduced it to 10 years with the same supervision and fees. Runnels also said his attorney was ineffective in several ways. However, the court found that these claims were moot because of the prior decision to modify his sentence. Lastly, Runnels asked the court to look at the overall errors during his trial to see if they denied him a fair outcome. The court determined that since they did not find any sustained errors, this request was denied. In conclusion, Runnels's conviction was upheld, but his sentence was reduced to 10 years in prison with supervision, and he will still pay the attorney fees and costs.