Equal Protection

F-2018-308

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-308, Deondrea Deshawn Thompson appealed his conviction for multiple counts related to robbery and possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Thompson was found guilty by a jury for several crimes, including robbery with a firearm, attempted robbery, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to a total of thirty-five years for the robbery counts and seven years for the other counts, with the sentences to run consecutively. Thompson raised multiple issues on appeal, including claims that he did not receive a fair trial because crucial evidence was kept from him, racial discrimination occurred during jury selection, and that the trial court made several errors in admitting evidence. The court addressed these issues one by one. It found that the trial court did not err in keeping the name of a confidential informant from Thompson since it was not shown to be necessary for his defense. The court also found that the State's reasons for excluding certain jurors were race-neutral and did not indicate discriminatory intent. Regarding the trial court's questioning of jurors, the court concluded that it did not improperly influence the jury. As for evidence related to cell phone records collected without a warrant, the court determined that the police acted in good faith based on laws that existed at the time. Thompson argued that other testimony during the trial unfairly presented him as having committed other bad acts, but the court found no abuse of discretion in how the trial was handled. The court also concluded that the trial court's decision not to give certain jury instructions on eyewitness identification was within its discretion since the identification was firm enough in this case. Thompson's claim about having multiple cases tried together was also rejected, as the court noted that the robberies were similar in nature and occurred close together in time. Finally, the court ruled that his separate firearm possession conviction did not violate double jeopardy laws. In summary, the court affirmed Thompson's conviction, saying that none of the claimed errors were significant enough to harm his case.

Continue ReadingF-2018-308

RE-2018-932

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

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

Continue ReadingRE-2018-932

F-2017-599

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingF-2017-599

F-2016-1094

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingF-2016-1094

F-2013-812

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-812, Alphie Phillip McKinney appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses, including Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some of his convictions but also reversed two of them. A dissenting opinion was provided on one of the points regarding multiple punishments. The case involved McKinney being found guilty by a jury of various drug crimes. The jury's recommended punishment included many years of imprisonment and fines. The trial court sentenced him accordingly. McKinney raised several arguments in his appeal, seeking to challenge the fairness of his trial and the legality of his sentences. One major point of contention was whether the prosecutor unfairly excluded certain jurors based on race, claiming violation of equal protection rights. The court decided that McKinney did not prove purposeful discrimination and upheld the decisions made by the trial court regarding jury selection. Another argument was about the prosecutor's questioning related to McKinney’s past drug possession case during the trial. The court found that since McKinney had already spoken about his past, the prosecutor's questions did not harm his case. McKinney’s attempt to argue that his multiple convictions for possession of different drugs should be treated as one was considered. The court found that having several drugs at once can still lead to multiple charges under the law. However, they also concluded that McKinney’s convictions for possession in some counts were in error because he could only be punished once for a single action of possession involving multiple drugs. The court further ruled on McKinney's claims that his punishments for different crimes related to the same act went against legal protections against being punished multiple times for the same behavior. The court agreed with some points raised by McKinney about this and decided to reverse two of his possession convictions. However, they maintained that his trafficking conviction and another possession charge did not violate those protections because they fell under different legal conditions. Lastly, McKinney argued that his attorney did not do a good job representing him during the trial. The court reviewed this claim but decided that he did not show that he had suffered any harm from his attorney’s actions and thus did not grant relief based on this argument. In summary, the judgments in Counts I, II, IV, and VI were upheld, while the judgments in Counts III and V were reversed and sent back with instructions to dismiss those charges. One judge agreed with most of the decision but disagreed on how some arguments about multiple punishments were handled. Another judge also showed support for the prosecution's handling of certain charges but felt differently regarding the evaluation of potential double punishments.

Continue ReadingF-2013-812

F-2010-1237

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-1237, James Lee Gilford, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery with a weapon, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, assault while masked or disguised, and first-degree burglary, each after prior felony convictions. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and assault while masked or disguised but affirmed his convictions for robbery with a weapon and first-degree burglary. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of one of the convictions. The case began when Gilford was tried by a jury and convicted on several counts. The jury decided that Gilford should spend life in prison for each count, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. Gilford appealed, raising several issues, including concerns about jury selection, due process, multiple punishments for the same act, and inaccuracies in his judgment and sentence. 1. **Jury Selection**: Gilford argued that the prosecutors unfairly removed minority jurors. The court found that the prosecutor had provided good reasons for these removals, and Gilford did not prove any discrimination occurred in the jury selection process. 2. **Due Process Rights**: Gilford claimed he was denied a fair trial because the state didn't share some important information about a key witness. However, the court determined that this did not affect the outcome of the trial significantly. 3. **Multiple Punishments**: The court analyzed whether Gilford's convictions were for separate crimes or for just one act. Gilford's robbery, where he stabbed the victim and took his things, was connected to assaults he committed during that event. The court decided that the assault and battery charges arose from the same action as the robbery and therefore fell under laws that prevent punishing someone twice for the same act. 4. **Judgment and Sentence Issues**: Since the court reversed the assault charges because they were multiple punishments for a single act, they found that any inaccuracies in the sentencing for those charges didn't matter anymore. The final decision was that Gilford's sentences for robbery with a weapon and first-degree burglary would stay, while the court ordered the other two charges to be dismissed due to legal protections against multiple punishments. There was a dissenting opinion by one judge who felt that the conviction for assault while masked should not have been reversed.

Continue ReadingF-2010-1237

F-2007-767

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-767, Walter Roundtree appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, kidnapping, first-degree rape, and forcible sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentences to run concurrently. One member of the court dissented. Walter Roundtree was charged with committing serious crimes, including robbery and rape. After a jury trial, he was found guilty and received various sentences that totaled quite a bit of time in prison. All of his sentences were set to run one after the other, which means he would have to serve them one at a time. Roundtree argued that the judge should have considered allowing his sentences to run at the same time instead. The law allows judges to decide whether sentences can be served concurrently or consecutively. However, the judge in this case had a rule that if someone chose a jury trial and lost, all their sentences would go one after the other. This policy was seen as potentially wrong because it might discourage people from exercising their right to have a jury trial. The court looked closely at this situation and decided that the judge had indeed abused his discretion by not even considering the option of concurrent sentences. Because of this, Roundtree's sentences were changed so that he would serve them at the same time instead of one after the other. The court also discussed some other issues Roundtree raised, such as not getting credit for the time he spent in jail waiting for his trial and the $500 fine that was added to one of his sentences. The court found that the trial didn't violate his rights in these areas, so they upheld the trial's decision regarding those matters. In the end, the court confirmed the conviction but made changes to the way the sentences were to be served, allowing them to be concurrent instead of consecutive.

Continue ReadingF-2007-767

F-2004-874

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-874, Pierson appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to thirty years of imprisonment. One judge dissented. Deitric Benard Pierson was found guilty of sexually abusing a twelve-year-old girl, referred to as L.H. The case started when L.H. told her mother that Pierson had done something inappropriate to her. She explained to her mother and grandmother that he had pulled her pants down and touched her with his private parts. There was also DNA evidence that connected Pierson to the abuse. During the trial, the girl did not testify herself, but her statements to her mother, grandmother, and a social worker were presented as evidence. Pierson argued that this was unfair because he could not cross-examine the girl, which is normally his right in court. The court decided that the girl's statements were reliable and allowed them to be presented. Pierson raised several points in his appeal. He claimed that the way jurors were chosen was unfair because some were removed based on race. He also argued that he should have been informed about how much time he needed to serve before being eligible for parole. Additionally, he felt that his sentence was too harsh and should be changed. After looking at all the issues, the court concluded that most of the problems Pierson pointed out were not strong enough to change the decision. They recognized that the failure to inform the jury about parole eligibility was a mistake and adjusted his sentence from life in prison to thirty years. However, one judge thought that changing the sentence was not correct because the jury had decided he should spend life in prison, and he felt that altering that decision disregarded the jury's authority. In summary, the court upheld the conviction but agreed to change the length of the sentence, allowing Pierson a chance for parole after serving thirty years instead of life in prison.

Continue ReadingF-2004-874

F-2005-392

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-638, Ray Lamont Hubbard appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided that the assessment of incarceration costs against him needed further review because the process used to determine those costs was not followed properly. The opinion noted that Hubbard's ability to pay was considered, but remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to correctly calculate the incarceration costs. In OCCA case No. F-2000-194, Troy Don Cape also appealed the assessment of incarceration costs after pleading guilty to Driving While Intoxicated. The court similarly decided to vacate the amount of costs assessed against him because the required procedure for determining the costs was not adequately followed. Both cases were sent back for hearings to determine appropriate incarceration costs. One judge dissented on the decision to vacate and remand, believing that the assessments were already supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial courts had acted within their discretion.

Continue ReadingF-2005-392

F 2000-1543

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-1543, James Rickey Ezell, III appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, Resisting an Officer, and Public Drunk. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Resisting an Officer and Public Drunk but modified the sentence for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs from seventy years to forty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Ezell was convicted after a jury trial where he faced three charges. The jury decided on tough punishments, including a long 70-year sentence for the drug charge. Ezell argued that his arrest was illegal and that various legal mistakes were made during the trial, including issues with how the jury was selected and his lawyer's performance. The court reviewed these points carefully. They found that Ezell's arrest was legal and that the jury selection did not violate his rights. The law under which he was charged for drug trafficking was also upheld as valid. However, the court agreed that his defense lawyer didn't do enough to investigate previous convictions that were used against Ezell during sentencing. Because of this lack of investigation, the court reduced his long sentence for drug trafficking but kept the other convictions intact. In the end, Ezell's hard punishment for drug trafficking was changed, but he still faced serious time for his actions.

Continue ReadingF 2000-1543