Ex Post Facto

F-2018-678

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The decision from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirms the conviction of Kenneth Oliver Ross for multiple offenses, including lewd molestation and human trafficking of a minor. The court meticulously addressed each of the twelve propositions of error raised by the appellant in their appeal. 1. **Double Punishment**: The court found no double jeopardy in the separate counts of lewd molestation, as they described distinct acts of abuse. 2. **Charge Appropriateness**: The court ruled that human trafficking was properly charged, as the prosecutor had discretion in choosing the relevant statutes. 3. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Both propositions regarding the sufficiency of evidence for human trafficking were denied, with the court stating that isolated incidents could constitute the crime. 4. **Jury Instructions**: The court upheld the jury instructions given, finding no error in how the law was communicated to the jury. 5. **Ex Post Facto Claims**: The court found no ex post facto violation, indicating that ignorance of the victim's age was not a defense to the charges. 6. **Lesser Included Offenses**: The court ruled that the lack of request for certain lesser-included offense instructions meant review would be under plain error, which the court did not find. 7. **Statutory Clarity**: Propositions regarding the constitutionality and vagueness of the human trafficking statute were denied, with the court upholding the statute's clarity and application. 8. **Sentence Severity**: The court concluded that the 50-year sentence for human trafficking was not shockingly excessive based on the evidence presented. 9. **Cumulative Error**: The final proposition regarding cumulative error was also denied as no individual errors were found. Overall, the appellate court found no merit in any of the propositions and affirmed the original sentence handed down by the district court. The case illustrates the court's rigorous examination of statutory interpretation, jury instructions, evidentiary sufficiency, and statutory vagueness concerns in criminal appeals.

Continue ReadingF-2018-678

F-2013-11

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-11, James Earl Darton appealed his conviction for first degree murder, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, and domestic assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Darton's convictions and sentences while modifying the sentence for the domestic assault and battery charge. One judge dissented. Darton was found guilty of killing Kimberly Ragland, who was found shot in her car. Prior to her death, Ragland had a tumultuous relationship with Darton, which included a previous altercation that led her to seek a protective order against him. This protective order prohibited Darton from being near her, which he violated on the night of the murder. On that night, after a fight where Darton hit Ragland and used a stun gun on her, she was later taken away by Darton, where her murder occurred. Darton was arrested and claimed he had left with a different person. The jury found him guilty based on evidence presented during the trial, including his motive for killing Ragland due to financial loss from the protective order. In his appeal, Darton raised several issues. First, he argued that the sentence for domestic assault was improperly increased based on a law that was not applicable at the time of his offense. The court agreed that this was indeed an error and reduced his sentence for that charge. He also claimed evidence of his drug dealing should not have been allowed during the trial. However, the court found that this evidence was relevant to show Darton’s motive to murder Ragland since her protective order affected his ability to sell drugs. Lastly, Darton asserted that he did not have competent legal representation during his trial. The court reviewed his claims about his lawyer’s performance and ultimately decided that his attorney’s actions were part of a reasonable strategy and did not significantly harm Darton's case. Overall, the court affirmed most of the lower court's judgments but corrected the sentence related to the domestic assault charge.

Continue ReadingF-2013-11

M-2007-192

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2007-192, the appellant appealed his conviction for three counts of Threatening by Telephone or Other Electronic Communication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. The appellant, Robert Eugene Schwab, was found guilty by a jury in Creek County for sending threats through electronic communication. The jury decided his punishment would consist of a short jail time and fines. However, the case raised a significant legal question about whether the appellant's actions were considered a crime at the time he committed them. During the trial, it was discovered that the specific crime Schwab was convicted of was not defined as illegal when he sent the emails in question. After looking into this issue, the State acknowledged this error and agreed that the conviction should be reversed. The court decided that Schwab's actions did not fit into the law as it was understood at that earlier time, which led to the decision to dismiss the charges against him.

Continue ReadingM-2007-192

F-2006-1095

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1095, Terry Dewayne Wakefield appealed his conviction for kidnapping, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and assault and battery - domestic abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Wakefield's convictions for kidnapping and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. However, the sentence for assault and battery - domestic abuse was modified from ten years to one year in the county jail. One dissenting opinion was noted.

Continue ReadingF-2006-1095

F-2003-802

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-802, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes against minors. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one. One member of the court dissented regarding the sentences. The appellant was found guilty of many crimes, including possession of obscene material involving minors and various forms of sexual assault and exploitation. The jury decided on significant punishments, including life imprisonment for some counts and substantial fines. The sentences were ordered to run one after the other, meaning the appellant would serve a long time in prison without the chance to have some time overlap. The appellant raised several issues during the appeal. He argued that his trial was unfair for various reasons, such as hearsay evidence being allowed and prejudicial comments from the prosecutor. He also claimed that he was charged with crimes that were not consistent with the law at the time of the offenses, notably regarding the sexual exploitation charge. The court evaluated each point raised by the appellant. They found that while there were errors in how the trial was handled, not all of them affected the final outcome significantly. Some errors were considered harmless or did not warrant a change in the verdict. The court agreed that some charges were problematic, particularly that of sexual exploitation, which the court decided to reverse and dismiss. The court concluded that the appellant's conviction for the possession charge should reflect a different statute and that some sentences exceeded legal limits. The court modified these sentences appropriately and affirmed most of the other convictions. One judge did not agree with the decision to have all sentences run consecutively and believed they should run together instead, which would allow for a potentially shorter total time in prison. This disagreement highlights the differing opinions within the court regarding the severity and application of sentences. In summary, the case involved serious crimes with significant legal discussion around the fairness of the trial and the appropriateness of the resulting sentences.

Continue ReadingF-2003-802

HC 2001-0440

  • Post author:
  • Post category:HC

In OCCA case No. HC 2001-0440, the petitioner appealed his conviction for a sex offense. In a published decision, the court decided to grant extraordinary relief and remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The case began when the petitioner, who was in prison for serious crimes, requested that he be allowed to receive good time credits that he felt were unfairly taken away. These credits could reduce his prison sentence. The problem arose from a requirement by the Department of Corrections (DOC) that inmates convicted of sex offenses must attend a treatment program. To join this program, inmates need to admit their guilt and provide personal information which could lead to further legal trouble. The petitioner argued that forcing him to admit to crimes he disagreed with violated his constitutional rights, specifically the right not to self-incriminate. Initially, the district court rejected the petitioner’s request for relief, stating he could not prove he would be released even if the credits were restored. The court found that the requirement to participate in the program was not only mandatory but also fair considering the law at that time. Moreover, the court dismissed the petitioner’s concern that these requirements amounted to unfair punishment, calling his claims frivolous. However, the petitioner took his complaint to the appeals court, where he argued that his situation was similar to another case from Kansas, where the courts agreed that inmates should not be forced to incriminate themselves in order to receive treatment. The appeals court acknowledged the need to further investigate this claim and ordered a hearing to gather more facts. During the hearing, the judge found that the DOC policy indeed put significant pressure on inmates to admit guilt, which violated their Fifth Amendment rights. The judge noted that the program's requirement to disclose past crimes, especially with potential consequences for refusing to do so, placed the inmates in a tough spot. The treatment primarily relied on inmates being honest about their past, which was considered coercive. Ultimately, the appeals court sided with the findings of the district court judge. They stated that while the DOC has a right to rehabilitate inmates, the requirement for them to confess and disclose could not override their constitutional protections. Therefore, they ruled in favor of the petitioner, calling for necessary changes in the DOC's policy to ensure that inmates’ rights were not violated. Thus, the case highlighted a significant legal question about balancing the need for rehabilitation with protecting individual rights. The decision pointed out the necessity for the DOC to adjust its programs to eliminate any requirement that might force an inmate to self-incriminate, while still letting them work toward rehabilitation.

Continue ReadingHC 2001-0440