In OCCA case No. N 2014-153, Harris appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court affirmed the death sentence, finding sufficient evidence of his crime and rejecting claims of an incomplete trial record. One judge dissented. [occa_caption]
In OCCA case No. F-2018-294, Alen Dean O'Bryant appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. One member dissented. Alen Dean O'Bryant was found guilty by a jury on multiple counts of sexually abusing a child. The jury decided to give him a life sentence for each count along with fines. The court confirmed these sentences would be served one after another and counted his time spent in jail. O'Bryant argued several points in his appeal. He said he did not get good help from his lawyer, which he believed hurt his case. He also felt that the court made mistakes by letting in certain evidence and testimonies, claiming some of it shouldn’t have been allowed. He said the prosecution was unfair and called him a liar during the trial. O'Bryant even argued that a law allowing children's hearsay statements in court was against the Constitution. When looking at his first point about his lawyer not being effective, the court checked to see if his lawyer had fallen short of what was required in professional conduct. The court found that the lawyer's actions were indeed within acceptable standards. No new hearing was needed on this point. For the second point, O'Bryant argued that the court wrongly allowed hearsay evidence. The court found that the trial judge had the right to admit this evidence and did not make a mistake in doing so. In his third point, he claimed that witness testimonies wrongly supported the victim's credibility. However, because he did not object at the time during the trial, the court reviewed merely for obvious mistakes and found no error. O'Bryant claimed next that the prosecutor had acted improperly by suggesting the victim was truthful while labeling him a liar. The court discovered that the prosecutor’s comments were reasonable and a response to the defense's arguments, ruling that there was no significant error. O'Bryant also argued that the law that allowed children's hearsay statements was unconstitutional. The court noted that it had already ruled this law was constitutional in earlier cases and saw no reason to look at it again. Finally, O'Bryant stated that all the mistakes taken together meant he did not get a fair trial and that he should be given a new trial. However, since the court found no individual errors that affected him significantly, they also ruled out the idea of cumulative errors. The court ultimately decided to uphold O'Bryant's conviction and denied his request for a hearing about his lawyer’s performance. The opinion was finalized, and the decision was ordered.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AARON MARCUS SHORES,** **Petitioner,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-1119** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Petitioner Aaron Marcus Shores entered a negotiated plea of no contest in the District Court of LeFlore County to resolve his felony and misdemeanor charges in three cases. The charges included: 1. **Case No. CF-2018-239:** Failure to Notify Address Change of Sex Offender (felony). 2. **Case No. CM-2018-371:** Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (misdemeanor). 3. **Case No. CM-2018-373:** Malicious Injury to Property Under $1,000.00 (misdemeanor). Pursuant to the plea agreement, one count of Obstructing an Officer and one count of Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia were dismissed by the State. Judge Marion Fry subsequently sentenced Shores to four years of imprisonment on the felony count and one year in the county jail for each misdemeanor count, with all sentences running concurrently. He was also ordered one year of post-imprisonment supervision and awarded credit for time served. Shores filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, which was denied after a hearing. He appeals this denial, claiming: 1. The district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea as he did not receive the benefits of his plea bargain. 2. He received ineffective assistance of counsel. **1. Denial of Motion to Withdraw Plea** Shores argues he did not receive the promised benefits of his plea bargain. The court evaluated this claim against the standard set forth in *Couch v. State*, noting that promises made in plea agreements must be fulfilled. While Shores did not specifically raise his current argument in his initial motion to withdraw, it was discussed during the evidentiary hearing. The appellate court reviews the denial for abuse of discretion and affirmatively holds that Shores received the benefits of his plea agreement. The district court's order confirmed that Shores's Oklahoma sentences would run concurrently with his sentences from Arkansas, fulfilling the terms agreed upon during the plea process. **2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel** Shores claims ineffective assistance from conflict counsel, who allegedly failed to preserve his claim regarding the benefits of the plea agreement. To prevail on such a claim, Shores must demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel's performance. The court found that conflict counsel adequately raised Shores's concerns at the withdrawal hearing, effectively preserving the issue for appeal. Therefore, Shores could not establish that his counsel's performance resulted in any prejudice. **CONCLUSION** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The district court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to withdraw plea is AFFIRMED. **MANDATE ordered to be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.** **Appearances:** - Doug Schmuck, Appellate Defense Counsel, for Petitioner. - Matt McBee, Counsel for Withdraw Motion. - Kevin Merritt and Margaret Nicholson, Assistant District Attorneys for the State. --- This summary is designed for clarity and understanding without retaining excessive legal jargon, while accurately reflecting the decisions and arguments presented in the original case summary.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** FILED JUN 27 2019 **Case No. C-2018-834** **TAMMERA RACHELLE BAKER,** Petitioner, vs. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Respondent. --- **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Tammera Rachelle Baker, Petitioner, entered a blind plea of guilty to first degree manslaughter, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 711, in the District Court of Delaware County, Case No. CF-2017-157. The Honorable Robert G. Haney, District Judge, found Petitioner guilty. The Honorable Barry V. Denny, Associate District Judge, later sentenced Appellant to thirty (30) years imprisonment, with ten (10) years suspended, and a $1,000.00 fine. Petitioner filed an application to withdraw the plea, which was denied. She now seeks a writ of certiorari in the following propositions of error: 1. The plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered into as Petitioner believed the court would not impose more than ten years and relied on misinformation from her attorney regarding witness testimony. 2. Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel during her plea proceedings. 3. The sentence imposed post-plea is shockingly excessive due to improper victim impact statements. Certiorari review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently before a competent jurisdiction, whether the sentence is excessive, whether counsel was constitutionally effective, and whether the State has the power to prosecute. The Court will not review issues not raised in the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. The trial court's ruling on a motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed for an abuse of discretion unless it involves statutory or constitutional interpretation, which is reviewed de novo. **Proposition One**: Petitioner argues her plea was involuntary due to reliance on her attorney's misinformation regarding sentencing expectations. The record refutes this argument, indicating that the plea was voluntary; therefore, no relief is warranted. **Proposition Two**: Petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel and requests an evidentiary hearing. Claims are assessed under the Strickland v. Washington test. Petitioner has not shown clear evidence to support a finding of ineffective assistance, thus this proposition and the request for a hearing are denied. **Proposition Three**: Petitioner claims her sentence is excessive. The Court will only disturb a sentence within statutory limits if it shocks the conscience. The facts of this case do not meet that threshold, so no relief is warranted. **DECISION**: The petition for the writ of certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES:** **TRIAL** Lee Griffin, Attorney for Appellant Kathy Baker, Attorney for Withdrawal **APPEAL** Katrina Conrad-Legler, Attorney for Appellant Nicholas P. Lelecas, Assistant District Attorney for the State **OPINION BY**: LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur --- For full ruling, [click here to download the PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-834_1734180202.pdf).
In OCCA case No. M-2018-259, Apollo Gabriel Gonzalez appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. On July 12, 2016, Gonzalez was charged with domestic abuse in two separate cases that were later combined for a jury trial. The jury found him guilty of both charges, and the judge sentenced him to pay fines. Gonzalez argued that he did not get a fair trial. He said his lawyer did not use important evidence that could have helped him. He claimed this evidence would show that the person he was accused of hurting was actually the aggressor and that he acted in self-defense. However, the court noted that Gonzalez did not provide actual evidence to support his claims about his lawyer's performance. The court explained that to win an appeal on these grounds, Gonzalez needed to show that his lawyer made serious mistakes and that those mistakes affected the outcome of his trial. The judges ruled that even if his lawyer had made mistakes, Gonzalez could not show that the result of the trial would have been different. In his second argument, Gonzalez claimed that having both of his cases tried together was unfair. He referenced a previous decision where combining cases had led to issues. However, the court pointed out that in his case, the jury could decide each case separately, unlike the situation in the previous decision he cited. In the end, the court found no errors that would require reversing the conviction or changing the result. The judges upheld the earlier decisions, and Gonzalez's appeal was denied.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ORIE DANIEL HILL,** **Petitioner,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-685** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: **Background:** Orie Daniel Hill, Petitioner, entered a blind plea of nolo contendere to multiple charges including: first-degree rape (victim under age fourteen), rape by instrumentation, lewd or indecent acts to a child under sixteen, and child sexual abuse. The trial court sentenced him to thirty years imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently and mandated three years of post-imprisonment supervision. Hill later filed a motion to withdraw his plea, claiming it was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. **Issues Raised:** 1. The trial court abused its discretion in denying Hill's motion to withdraw his plea; 2. Hill was denied effective assistance of counsel. **Facts:** The case involved allegations against Hill related to inappropriate sexual behavior towards an 8-year-old girl, A.H. The investigation included statements from the victim and forensic evidence, including DNA linking Hill to the offenses. **Analysis:** The court's review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently, whether the sentence was excessive, and whether counsel was effective. The burden is on Hill to demonstrate that his counsel was ineffective or that he did not fully understand the plea agreement. 1. **Proposition One:** The court concluded that Hill knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his plea. He was informed of his rights and the potential consequences. Despite Hill's claim of feeling pressure and receiving poor legal advice, the court found no evidence supporting these assertions. 2. **Proposition Two:** Hill’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel did not meet the standard established in Strickland v. Washington, which requires showing both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. The court ruled that counsel’s advice was sound and appropriately reflected the realities of the situation, including the potential for harsher sentences if the case went to trial. **Conclusion:** The petition for a writ of certiorari is DENIED, and the judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. **MANDATE:** Ordered issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES:** - **For Appellant:** David R. Slane; Nicollette Brandt - **For the State:** Chris Anderson, Assistant District Attorney **OPINION BY:** Lewis, P.J. **Concur:** Kuehn, V.P.J.; Lumpkin, J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-685_1734175737.pdf)
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1031, a person appealed his conviction for first-degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One member of the court dissented. Dakota Joe Spainhower was found guilty of first-degree murder for killing his friend, who was a juvenile. The incident occurred after their shift at a local restaurant in July 2016. After receiving a ride home from the victim, Spainhower's mother noticed something strange outside and found a body next to a car, which belonged to the victim. Initially, Spainhower told his mother that the victim had tried to rob him and stabbed him first, prompting him to fight back and stab the victim multiple times. Evidence showed that Spainhower had blood on him and took the victim's keys after the incident. Spainhower's confession to the police was a crucial part of the trial. The court had to determine if this confession was made voluntarily and if he understood his rights when he waived them. There were questions regarding his mental health, education level, and the long duration of his questioning by police, all of which were argued to undermine the validity of his confession. However, the court found sufficient evidence that his confession was voluntary. The court also evaluated whether the evidence presented during the trial was enough to support the murder conviction. They determined that the evidence, including the victim's numerous injuries, was compelling enough for a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Spainhower was guilty of intent to kill. Spainhower raised concerns about prosecutorial misconduct, claiming that the prosecutor made improper statements during closing arguments. The court assessed these claims and found that any mistakes did not significantly affect the outcome of the trial. Additionally, Spainhower argued that he received ineffective assistance from his counsel. However, the court determined that his counsel acted adequately throughout the trial. Finally, Spainhower claimed that the combination of all the errors he identified deprived him of a fair trial. The court concluded that since no individual errors were found that warranted relief, the cumulative effect of claims also did not provide grounds for a new trial. Thus, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence against Spainhower, maintaining his conviction for first-degree murder with no opportunity for parole.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-892, David Lee Seely appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. David Seely was found guilty of murdering Jackie Tyler Wesnidge during a fight that escalated in a car. Seely and Misty Dawn Benefield had left the house they were staying in after an argument between Wesnidge and Benefield. Seely, who had previously expressed strong feelings for Benefield, ended up stabbing Wesnidge seventeen times after a confrontation in the car. After the murder, Seely and Benefield crashed the car and tried to escape on foot. They were eventually found by the police. Seely claimed several errors during his trial, including the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on certain defenses, the exclusion of evidence he wanted to present, the admission of graphic photographs, and issues of prosecutorial misconduct. He also argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reviewed Seely's arguments and found that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on defenses like defense of another or voluntary intoxication, as there was no sufficient evidence to support those claims. It also determined that the evidence excluded by the court was not necessary for understanding the case, and that the photographs admitted were relevant to the crime. Prosecutorial misconduct claims were examined, yet the court concluded these did not significantly harm Seely's right to a fair trial. Finally, it ruled that his counsel performed adequately, and there were no grounds for claiming he received ineffective representation. The court affirmed Seely's conviction, finding all claims of error were without merit.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-289, Anthony Douglass Crisel, Jr., appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Anthony Douglass Crisel, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for engaging in inappropriate conduct with a child. The jury decided that he should spend six years in prison, and he has to serve 85% of that time before he can ask for parole. Crisel claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly during the trial, which he believed went against his rights. He said his attorney made mistakes in three important areas: not opposing a witness’s testimony, not bringing in a witness who was related to the victim, and not challenging the qualifications of an expert witness who testified against him. The court looked closely at these claims and the complete record of what happened during the trial. They explained that to show his lawyer was ineffective, Crisel needed to prove that his lawyer didn’t do their job well and that this affected the outcome of the case. The judges noted that there is a strong assumption that a lawyer’s actions are based on good judgment. For the first claim, Crisel argued his lawyer should have stopped a witness from talking about some old accusations against him. However, the court found that the information the witness shared was already given to the jury through other evidence. Therefore, the lawyer's choice to not object was a reasonable decision. For the second claim, Crisel wanted his brother to testify but did not show how having his brother's testimony would have helped him win the case. The court stated that the lawyer's decision to not call the brother was likely a strategic choice and they won’t question that. Lastly, regarding the expert witness, the court found that the lawyer did question the qualifications of this expert, and since many lawyers might handle this differently, having a different strategy does not necessarily mean the lawyer did a bad job. After reviewing everything, the court concluded that Crisel’s lawyer did not act ineffectively. The judges affirmed the decision of the lower court, and the request for more evidence or hearing on this issue was denied.
**COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. C-2018-225** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Petitioner:** STEVEN LEON GRIMMETT **Respondent:** THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **Opinion by: LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Steven Leon Grimmett (Petitioner) was charged with multiple felony counts and entered a blind plea of no contest. After sentencing, he sought to withdraw his plea, claiming coercion and misunderstandings regarding his sentence. His motion was denied, and he appealed the decision, raising several propositions of error. 1. **Coercion and Voluntariness of Plea**: Petitioner claimed his plea was coerced and involuntary. The court evaluated whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently, emphasizing the importance of confirming that the plea was not the result of force or threats. The court concluded that evidence demonstrated the plea was voluntary. 2. **Advice on Sentencing Requirements**: The Petitioner contended he was not adequately informed about the 85% rule applicable to his sentence or the post-imprisonment supervision requirement. However, since these claims were not raised in his Motion to Withdraw Plea, the appellate court found he waived the right to contest these issues. 3. **Clerical Error Argument**: Petitioner argued there was a clerical error in the judgment regarding the requirement of post-imprisonment supervision. The court did not find this to be an obvious error but remanded the matter to the district court to address the claim. 4. **Effective Assistance of Counsel**: The court assessed his claims of ineffective assistance of both plea and withdrawal counsel using the Strickland test, which evaluates counsel's performance and whether any deficiencies prejudiced the defense. The court determined that Petitioner was sufficiently informed about his plea and that withdrawal counsel's performance did not constitute ineffective assistance. **DECISION**: The court affirmed the denial of the Motion to Withdraw Plea and remanded for the district court to address the clerical error regarding post-imprisonment supervision. **Counsel Information:** - **Counsel for Petitioner at Trial and Appeal**: Shelley Levisay, Kimberly D. Heinze - **Counsel for the State**: Adam Panter, Mike Hunter, David Hammer, Joshua Fanelli **Opinion filed: May 9, 2019** **Mandate ordered upon filing**. For full opinion documents, refer to [the PDF link here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-225_1734103367.pdf).
This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of David Duane Albright, a petitioner who sought to withdraw his guilty pleas related to charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of a controlled substance, and maintaining a place for keeping/selling controlled substances. ### Key Points: 1. **Background**: - Albright was originally charged in Delaware County with multiple drug-related offenses in 2010. - He entered a guilty plea in December 2010 and was accepted into the Delaware County Drug Court Program. - After being terminated from the program for non-compliance, he was sentenced in September 2013 to life imprisonment on two counts and 20 years on another, with fines imposed. 2. **Procedural Posture**: - Albright filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas shortly after sentencing, which was denied. - He initially failed to appeal but was granted an appeal out of time in 2018. 3. **Claims on Appeal**: Albright raised several propositions of error: - **Proposition I**: He argued his plea lacked an adequate factual basis. - **Proposition II**: Claimed his pleas were not entered knowingly and voluntarily. - **Proposition III**: Contended the $50,000 fine was unauthorized by statute. - **Proposition IV**: Asserted he should have received credit for jail time, violating his due process. - **Proposition V**: Claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. 4. **Court's Analysis**: - **Proposition I and II**: The court found Albright waived appellate review by not raising these claims in his motion to withdraw his plea. - **Proposition III and IV**: These claims were also deemed waived for similar reasons, not raised in the motion to withdraw. - **Proposition V**: While the court reviewed the ineffective assistance of withdrawal counsel, they found no evidence of deficiency or that it prejudiced Albright's case. 5. **Decision**: - The court affirmed the lower court's denial of Albright's Motion to Withdraw Plea, concluding that he did not demonstrate a valid basis for the claims made. 6. **Concurring Opinion**: - Judge Rowland specially concurred, expressing concern regarding the adequacy of the factual basis for the plea related to maintaining a place for keeping/selling a controlled dangerous substance. While recognizing the issues, he noted that because the facts weren’t adequately challenged during the proceedings, the claims were not actionable in this appeal. ### Conclusion: The petitioner's appeal was denied, and the trial court's decision stands, allowing the guilty pleas to remain in effect due to procedural waivers and the lack of substantive evidence to support the claims raised on appeal. The opinion highlights the importance of raising issues timely and thoroughly in the proper forums to preserve them for review.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1231, Antonio Tiwan Taylor appealed his conviction for two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One member of the court dissented. Antonio Tiwan Taylor was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma for harming his girlfriend's seven-year-old daughter in December 2014. The girl talked about what happened to her, and the State also shared letters that Taylor wrote to the child's mother where he seemed to admit his actions and apologize. Furthermore, a young woman testified that Taylor had raped her before, which was included to show his tendency to commit such acts. Taylor appealed his conviction on several points. First, he argued the trial court should not have allowed the woman’s testimony, claiming it was more harmful than helpful to his case. The court reviewed this claim and found no error in allowing her testimony; they saw it as relevant and not unfairly prejudicial to Taylor. Second, during the trial, the woman who made the earlier accusation did not show up, and Taylor argued that her absence meant her prior testimony shouldn’t be used. The court decided she was unavailable and allowed her earlier testimony to be read to the jury. Taylor disagreed but the court believed the State made enough effort to locate her, and they maintained that her previous testimony was still valid and credible. Next, Taylor made a claim based on collateral estoppel. This is a legal principle that says if someone was found not guilty of a crime, they shouldn’t be tried again for the same issue. Taylor believed that because he was acquitted of raping the woman in question, her testimony should not have been used against him in this case. However, the court explained that an acquittal does not mean the person is innocent but that there was reasonable doubt about their guilt. Thus, they could still consider the facts of the earlier case for a different purpose. Lastly, Taylor argued that even if the trial had a few errors, they added up to a reason for a new trial. Since the court found no errors in the previous claims, this argument was also denied. The court ultimately affirmed the decisions made during the trial, meaning Taylor's convictions and sentences remained in place.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1042, Vincent Ray Perosi appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. The case began when Perosi, who had recently divorced, was ordered to leave the house he had been living in by January 1, 2016. After that date, his ex-wife, Pamela Perosi, returned to the house with two friends to change the locks because he had not moved out. This led to a confrontation. Perosi shot and killed Pamela and another friend, Buddy Weber, while wounding Karen Priest, who was also present. Perosi claimed he shot in self-defense, saying he was scared of Weber. However, evidence showed that he had a history of threats against his ex-wife and evidence contradicted his version of events. The court ruled that he did not qualify for immunity under the Stand Your Ground law and denied his request for related jury instructions. In reviewing the evidence, the court found sufficient proof to support the convictions, rejecting Perosi's claims of self-defense and that shooting Pamela was accidental. Further, his videotaped confession was admitted as evidence, despite defense claims it was coerced; the court found it was voluntary. In addition, the court allowed testimony about Perosi's bad character and a victim impact statement from Pamela’s family. Ultimately, the court upheld the trial’s decisions and affirmed the conviction, denying any errors raised in the appeal.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1189, Lawrence Raymond Silver, Jr. appealed his conviction for Solicitation for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence from the district court. One judge dissented. The case started when Silver was tried and found guilty of trying to get someone to commit murder. The jury decided he should go to prison for thirty-seven years. During the trial, Silver raised several issues on appeal. First, he argued that the prosecutor said some unfair things that hurt his chances for a fair trial. However, the court found that these comments were not serious enough to make the trial unfair, and there was no error. Silver also thought that he should not have received three years of supervision after leaving prison since the law said this only applied to specific crimes. The court agreed that there was an error, but the trial judge later fixed it, reducing the supervision time to nine months to a year. Because this was corrected, Silver did not need any more relief on this issue. Additionally, Silver claimed that his lawyer did not help him well enough during the trial. The court explained that to show his lawyer was ineffective, Silver needed to prove that if the lawyer had done better, the result of the trial would have been different. Since the court didn't find any of the previous claims valid, they decided that his lawyer's work couldn't be judged as ineffective. Finally, Silver said that even if no single issue mattered on its own, the overall mistakes during the trial combined to deny him a fair trial. The court ruled that without any valid individual mistakes, his claim for cumulative errors was groundless. In conclusion, the court upheld the original judgment and sentence against Silver, and his request for further testing of his lawyer's assistance was denied.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1038, Zachary Craig Anderson appealed his conviction for Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Zachary Craig Anderson was found guilty after a trial for neglecting a child, which is against the law. The judge gave him a sentence of 20 years in prison but also gave him credit for the time he had already served. Anderson did not agree with his conviction and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to review the decision made in his original trial. Anderson claimed that his lawyer did not help him effectively by not challenging the statements he made to the police. He argued that his lawyer should have questioned whether those statements could be used against him in court because he was not read his rights, which are important for protecting people when they are being questioned by police. These rights are known as Miranda rights, and they are designed to help ensure that people are not forced to speak without understanding their rights. In the appeal, the court looked at whether Anderson's lawyer did a good job or not. To win this argument, Anderson had to show that his lawyer's performance was poor and that this hurt his chances of a fair trial. The court found that Anderson did not show evidence that his lawyer was ineffective. They said that Anderson actually voluntarily talked to the police and did not feel pressured or threatened. Since he cooperated, the court thought there was no reason for the lawyer to challenge his statements to the police. After looking at all the evidence and arguments, the court decided to keep Anderson's conviction and sentence as they were. They also denied his request for a hearing to discuss the effectiveness of his lawyer's help during the trial. In summary, Anderson's appeal did not lead to any changes in his conviction. The court agreed that the statements he made to the police were allowed and that his lawyer’s actions were reasonable in the situation.
In OCCA case No. C-2018-648, Denisa Dawn Duvall appealed her conviction for domestic assault and battery in the presence of a minor. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her request for a new hearing to withdraw her plea. One judge dissented. Duvall was charged with a misdemeanor and decided to enter a plea of no contest. The court accepted her plea and gave her a deferred sentence, which included supervision and counseling. Later, Duvall filed a request to withdraw her plea, saying she wanted an attorney to help her. However, when the court held a hearing, it was unclear if she was offered a lawyer or if she had decided to represent herself. Duvall claimed that she didn’t understand the charges or the meaning of her plea when she first entered it. The court didn’t allow her a lawyer during the hearing to withdraw her plea, which is against her rights under the Constitution. The court recognized that Duvall should have had legal help during that critical moment. The State agreed that Duvall didn’t receive a fair process because she was not represented by counsel. The court decided that they needed to redo the hearing where Duvall could have a lawyer present, and she should be allowed to explain why she wants to withdraw her plea. The court ordered that Duvall be given a new chance to file a motion for withdrawing her plea with her new lawyer and scheduled an evidentiary hearing on that motion. If her request to withdraw her plea is denied again, her lawyer must help her with an appeal. The decision from the court resulted in Duvall getting a new hearing, where she can properly address her plea's withdrawal with the support of an attorney.
In OCCA case No. C-2017-567, the petitioner appealed her conviction for harboring a fugitive from justice. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant part of her request and said that she was wrongly denied her right to have a lawyer help her during important steps of her case. One judge disagreed with this decision. The case involves Teresa Lorena Altobella, who was charged with helping someone avoid the law. She pleaded guilty to the charge and was given a five-year prison sentence, which was suspended, meaning she wouldn’t go to jail if she followed certain rules, such as doing community service and completing a specific program. After her plea, she wanted to change her mind and asked the court to let her withdraw her guilty plea. The court had a hearing where Altobella tried to argue that she should be allowed to change her plea, but she did not have a lawyer to help her. She had trouble getting a lawyer before the hearing, and when she showed up without one, the judge did not allow her to have another lawyer during this important moment. Altobella argued that her guilty plea was not made correctly—she said she didn’t fully understand what she was doing when she pleaded guilty. The higher court looked at these points and agreed with Altobella when it came to the right to have a lawyer. The court said it is important for defendants to have legal help, especially during crucial parts of their cases like asking to withdraw a guilty plea. The court found that Altobella did not waive her right to a lawyer in a proper way, meaning that she should have been given a chance to have legal help. Because of this issue, the court decided to reverse the district court's decision that denied her request to withdraw her guilty plea. They sent the case back to the district court to make sure Altobella could have a lawyer help her figure out if she still wanted to withdraw her plea. The court's ruling on the pleas and other arguments was set aside because they believed it was essential to have proper legal representation in such cases. In summary, the court made it clear that every defendant has the right to legal assistance during important steps in their trial or when making significant legal decisions. This decision ensures that defendants have the support they need to navigate the legal system properly.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-602, Kenneth Donald Knox appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Knox’s conviction and twenty-five-year prison sentence, but they modified the period of post-imprisonment supervision from three years to one year. One justice dissented. Knox was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for causing injuries to a four-month-old baby. The jury decided that he should spend twenty-five years in prison for this crime. Knox thought his lawyer didn’t help him properly, said there wasn’t enough proof for the conviction, and argued that the extra year of supervision after prison was not allowed by law. The court looked closely at all the facts and evidence in his case. They explained that to prove a lawyer didn’t do a good job, Knox had to show that it hurt his chances of winning the case. The court found that Knox didn’t provide enough proof to support his argument about his lawyer’s effectiveness. When it came to the conviction, the court reviewed whether there was enough evidence against Knox. They decided that there was enough proof to show that Knox harmed the baby. Lastly, about the extra supervision time after prison, they agreed that Knox should only have to do one year instead of three, as the law supports a shorter period in his case. In summary, Knox's conviction was upheld, he was given a long prison sentence, and the court changed the rules about his supervision time after he’s released.
**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).
**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.
In OCCA case No. RE-2017-149, the appellant appealed his conviction for Escape from Arrest, Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, and Domestic Assault and Battery Against a Pregnant Woman. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking the appellant's suspended sentences but required the lower court to remove the post-imprisonment supervision from its orders. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, after entering guilty pleas to several charges, was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment, which was suspended under certain conditions including probation. However, he failed to follow the rules of his probation, leading to a motion by the State to revoke his suspended sentences. The hearing revealed that the appellant initially reported to his probation officer but stopped when he learned about potential violation reports. At the hearing, the appellant indicated he wanted help for his struggles with drugs and alcohol and had a job and place to live, which he thought should allow him another chance at probation. However, the judge found that the appellant had a history of not following rules in the past and thus decided to revoke his suspension entirely. The court determined that the judge had a valid reason based on the evidence to revoke the probation. However, the judge made an error by adding a provision for post-imprisonment supervision that was not part of the original sentence. The court ordered that this part be removed from the revocation orders but kept the decision to revoke the suspended sentences.
In OCCA case No. C-2017-684, Bryan Lee Guy appealed his conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle, driving while his license was under suspension, and affixing an unauthorized license plate. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal and remand the case to the District Court for a determination of whether he is a mentally ill person exempt from paying the costs of incarceration. One judge dissented. Bryan Guy was charged with three offenses and entered a guilty plea for all of them. He received a sentence that included time in prison and jail, plus post-imprisonment supervision. After a few days, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, saying he didn't fully understand what he was doing or that he wasn't well advised by his lawyer. The court held a hearing but decided not to allow him to withdraw his plea. In his appeal, Bryan raised three main issues. He argued that he should be allowed to take back his guilty plea because it wasn't made in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary way. He also complained about being charged for incarceration costs and claimed his lawyer didn't provide effective help. The court looked closely at Bryan’s arguments. It found that he didn’t prove that he didn’t understand his plea, concluding that the trial court acted fairly. Bryan's second point about the costs also didn't stand because he didn't raise it during the first hearing, which meant he could not bring it up later in his appeal. His claim about not getting good help from his lawyer was examined using a specific test. The court noted that Bryan claimed to have been misinformed about the minimum punishment for one of the offenses, but this did not affect the outcome since the misunderstanding was in his favor. Ultimately, the court found that there was a chance Bryan might be mentally ill, which means he might not have to pay for incarceration costs. This was a significant factor, leading to the decision to send the case back to the lower court for more examination of his mental health status. The final decision of the court was to deny the appeal for the first two issues but recognized the need to assess Bryan's mental health concerning the costs he was ordered to pay for incarceration. The case was remanded for that specific determination.
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.
In OCCA case No. MAC-2017-458, Harris appealed her conviction for possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand for further proceedings, agreeing that Harris was denied her right to a proper evidentiary hearing to withdraw her guilty plea. One judge dissented, expressing concerns about the approach taken by the majority in requiring a hearing despite the lack of detailed reasoning in the motions to withdraw.
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.