Evidence Presented

J-2019-578

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** S.M.W.B., Appellant, v. No. J-2019-578 THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee. **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAN - 2 2020** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant was charged as a youthful offender in Caddo County District Court Case No. YO-2019-1 on February 13, 2019, with five counts of Lewd or Indecent Acts to Child Under 12. On March 28, 2019, the State filed a Motion to Impose an Adult Sentence pursuant to 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-208. On April 3, 2019, Appellant filed a Motion for Certification to the Juvenile Justice System pursuant to 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-206. Following a hearing on these motions, Honorable David Stephens, Special Judge, denied Appellant's motion and granted the State's motion. From this order, Appellant appeals, raising the following issues: 1. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING CERTIFICATION OF S.M.W.B. AS A JUVENILE; and 2. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY GRANTING APPELLEE'S MOTION TO CERTIFY AS AN ADULT. Pursuant to Rule 11.2(A), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), this appeal was automatically assigned to the accelerated docket of this Court. Oral argument was held on November 21, 2019. After a review of the record and the arguments presented, we find no merit to the propositions of error raised by Appellant. The key issue before this Court is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for certification as a juvenile and granting the State's motion to impose adult sentencing. An abuse of discretion is defined as a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment that contradicts the logic and effect of the facts. The trial court's decision must be supported by the evidence presented, and our review is limited to the record. Judge Stephens appropriately considered the criteria mandated by Sections 2-5-206 and 2-5-208 of Title 10A, leading us to conclude that the record supports his decision. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Caddo County denying Appellant's motion for certification as a juvenile and granting the State’s motion for imposition of adult sentencing is **AFFIRMED**. The State's motion to file a properly verified response brief is **GRANTED**, and the Amended Response to Application for Accelerated Docket is ordered to be **FILED** by the Clerk of this Court. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE is **ORDERED** issued upon the filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CADDO COUNTY, THE HONORABLE DAVID STEPHENS, SPECIAL JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** **MARK OSBY** P.O. BOX 850126 YUKON, OK 73085 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** **ANDREW BENEDICT** CADDO CO. ASST. DIST. ATTY. 110 S.W. 2ND ST. ANADARKO, OK 73005 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR IN RESULTS **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-578_1734445561.pdf)

Continue ReadingJ-2019-578

F-2015-933

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-933, Thompson appealed his conviction for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment on Counts 1 and 2 but reversed the judgment on Count 3 with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Thompson was found guilty of three crimes related to stolen property after a jury trial. He was sentenced to six years in prison for unauthorized use of a vehicle and eight years for each count of concealing stolen property. The sentences were arranged so that the two eight-year sentences would run together, while the six-year sentence would be added afterward. He was also fined $100 for each offense. Thompson raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that he should not have been convicted twice for concealing stolen property. He believed that since he acted only once when hiding the stolen items, charging him with two counts was unfair. The court agreed with him on this point and found that it was a mistake to have separate charges for items taken from different people. Next, Thompson questioned whether there was enough proof to find him guilty of unauthorized vehicle use and concealing stolen property. The court looked at all the evidence and decided there was enough to support his guilty verdict for unauthorized use of a vehicle, so that part of his conviction was upheld. Thompson also claimed that the prosecution made mistakes during the trial that harmed his chance for a fair judgment. However, the court did not find these errors serious enough to change the outcome of the trial. On the fines imposed by the trial court, Thompson argued that judges can't add fines unless the jury decides to. The court determined that the fines were allowed since the law permitted judges to impose them, even if the jury did not. Thompson felt that the judge shouldn't have made him serve the sentences for Counts 2 and 3 back-to-back after the first sentence. However, the court found that the judge's decision was within his rights and not an abuse of discretion. Overall, the court decided that none of the claimed errors were significant enough to change Thompson’s convictions except for the second count of concealing stolen property, which was dismissed. They confirmed that the remaining counts were properly upheld, leading to affirmation of most of Thompson's convictions.

Continue ReadingF-2015-933

RE 2012-0601

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0601, Danyale Lamont McCollough appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences and remand for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Danyale McCollough had pleaded guilty to several charges over the years, which included possession of a firearm and robbery with a firearm. He was given suspended sentences, meaning he would not have to serve time in prison right away, but he had to follow certain rules. If he broke these rules, his suspended sentences could be revoked, and he could go to prison. Later, the State, which is the side that brings charges against people, said that McCollough had committed a new crime. This led to a hearing where a judge decided to revoke his suspended sentences. The judge used some evidence from a different trial to decide this, which McCollough argued was not fair. McCollough said it was wrong for the judge to use evidence from another case without proving it was final. The appeals court agreed with him. They said that the judge had made a mistake by not following the correct legal rules and taking evidence from another trial that was not about the same issues directly related to McCollough’s case. Because of this mistake, the court reversed the revocation of McCollough’s sentences and sent the case back for more review and another chance to prove if he had really violated his probation rules.

Continue ReadingRE 2012-0601

J-2008-800

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2008-800, M.H. appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the District Court's ruling that M.H. should be certified to stand trial as a Youthful Offender. The State of Oklahoma dissented. M.H. was charged with a serious crime when he was just shy of 15 years old. He wanted to be treated as a juvenile instead of as an adult. M.H.'s request was initially denied, but later, a judge decided that he could be treated as a Youthful Offender. The State disagreed and appealed the decision, arguing several points. The State thought the trial court should have given more importance to certain laws about how young people are treated in court. They also believed that M.H. didn't prove he could be helped in a juvenile system, and they claimed it was a mistake to put the burden of proof on them. In court, the judges looked at different kinds of evidence, including expert opinions that suggested M.H. could benefit from treatment that the Youthful Offender System offered. After reviewing everything, the judges decided that the trial court did not make a mistake, and they agreed that M.H. could be certified as a Youthful Offender. The final outcome was that M.H. would not automatically be treated as an adult for the serious crime he was accused of, and he was given a chance for treatment instead. This decision was seen as correct by the judges who agreed, while the dissenting opinion did not support this view.

Continue ReadingJ-2008-800

RE 2000-0392

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-0392, the accused appealed his conviction for lewd molestation and rape by force and fear. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the accused's suspended sentences, but modified the sentences for lewd molestation from thirty years to twenty years. One judge dissented from the decision regarding the modification of the sentence.

Continue ReadingRE 2000-0392

RE-2000-251

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-251, Appellant appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of Appellant's sentence to eight years rather than upholding the full revocation. Three judges dissented on the modification. Initially, the Appellant was given a deferred sentence and placed on probation with the requirement of attending sexual abuse counseling. After some time, his probation was revoked due to not following these rules. The court felt there was enough evidence to show he violated his probation rules. However, they believed the full revocation of his sentence was too harsh and modified it to only eight years, while still requiring him to follow the same probation rules set previously.

Continue ReadingRE-2000-251