Federal Constitutional Rights Archives

F-2017-147

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 25, 2019
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BRIAN A. STALEY, Appellant,** **Case No. F-2017-147** **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA APR 25 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, JUDGE:** Appellant Brian A. Staley was convicted in Caddo County District Court for various drug-related offenses and possession of a firearm. He appealed, raising eleven propositions of error. **Propositions of Error:** 1. Denial of motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless search. 2. Admission of evidence concerning other controlled substances. 3. Conviction for an uncharged offense. 4. Insufficient evidence on acquiring proceeds from drug activity. 5. Insufficient evidence linking firearms to trafficking. 6. Prejudicial statements by a state trooper. 7. Improper prosecutorial arguments. 8. Insufficient evidence of knowing possession of marijuana. 9. Improper admission of irrelevant handwriting evidence. 10. Cumulative effect of errors denying a fair trial. 11. Excessive sentences. **Court Decision:** After reviewing the record, the Court affirmed Staley's convictions. **Key Findings:** - **Proposition I:** The traffic stop and subsequent consent to search were lawful, thus the motion to suppress was denied. - **Proposition II:** The evidence of other controlled substances was admissible as res gestae; hence, no abuse of discretion in its admission. - **Proposition III:** Any scrivener's error in statute citation for Count 2 did not affect substantial rights and was denied plain error review. - **Propositions IV, V, and VIII:** The evidence was sufficient for a conviction on all counts when viewed favorably to the prosecution. - **Propositions VI and VII:** Claims of evidentiary harassment and improper argument did not impede a fair trial; the trial court’s admonishments mitigated any potential prejudice. - **Proposition IX:** The handwritten note was relevant and supported the themes of trafficking and possession designed by the prosecution. - **Proposition X:** Cumulative error doctrine was not applicable as no significant errors occurred that affected the outcome. - **Proposition XI:** The sentences did not shock the conscience and were not excessive in light of the offenses committed. **Opinion of the Court:** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. --- **APPEARANCES:** - **For Appellant:** Albert Hoch, Norman, OK - **For Appellee:** Alan Rosenbaum, Caddo County District Attorney; Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma; William R. Holmes, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK **Opinion by:** Hudson, J. **Concurrences:** Lewis, P.J.; Kuehn, V.P.J. (concurring in part/dissenting in part); Lumpkin, J.; Rowland, J. **Concurring/Dissenting Opinion by Kuehn, V.P.J.:** While I agree with the majority on other claims, I dissent regarding the admission of evidence about extraneous controlled substances and the handwritten notes. I believe such evidence was improperly admitted and could have imparted an unfair prejudice. Nonetheless, this evidence did not materially affect the trial's outcome. For a detailed opinion and further reading, access the [full opinion here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2017-147_1734273240.pdf).

F-2015-715

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 31, 2016
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-715, Kevin Judd Lemons appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to seventeen years in prison and reduce his fine to $10,000.00. One judge dissented regarding how the sentence was amended. The case began with Lemons being charged for drug trafficking and related offenses. During the trial, he was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison and fined $25,000. He argued several points in his appeal, including that the search of his vehicle was illegal, and the evidence against him was insufficient. He also claimed that he received an excessive sentence and that his defense attorney did not represent him well. The court reviewed these arguments carefully. On the first point, the court found that the police did not act improperly during the traffic stop which led to the discovery of drugs and paraphernalia. The court explained that the officers were following the law during the search. Regarding the second point, the court noted that Lemons himself had admitted to his prior felony convictions, which relieved the State from having to further prove these convictions. This meant his claims about insufficient evidence for his previous felonies were not valid for the appeal. For the claim about his sentence being too harsh, the court agreed that Lemons had been sentenced incorrectly under the wrong punishment range. They adjusted the duration of his prison time downward to correct this mistake. They also ruled that the fine imposed was not appropriate under the law, which allowed them to reduce it to a lower amount. Lastly, Lemons contended that his lawyer failed to support him effectively. The court found that most of the points mentioned did not show a serious problem with the representation that would warrant further action. Overall, the court upheld Lemons' conviction but decided to make changes to both his prison time and the fine he had to pay. While most judges agreed, one judge thought that rather than changing the sentence directly, the case should be sent back for a new sentencing hearing.

F-2004-1229

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 11, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1229, Jesse Allen Cheshire appealed his conviction for two counts of Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jesse Allen Cheshire was found guilty by a jury of two charges of Child Sexual Abuse in a case from Bryan County. The jury decided that he should serve eight years in prison for each charge, and these sentences would be served one after the other. Cheshire argued that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he committed the crimes. He believed that the evidence was inconsistent and didn't clearly show he was guilty. He claimed this meant his constitutional rights were violated. He also stated that his rights were infringed because two witnesses were allowed to share what the alleged victims said without those children testifying in court. According to the law, he should have been able to confront his accusers directly, which he argued did not happen. Cheshire claimed that the state’s witnesses unfairly supported the credibility of the children’s accusations against him. He also mentioned that a letter from a doctor supporting his defense was wrongly kept out of trial, while other evidence was accepted. After looking at all the ideas presented by Cheshire and the details of the case, the court found that the issue regarding hearsay—where the children’s statements were allowed without them being present—was a serious error. They concluded that this error was not harmless and could have affected the outcome of the trial. They noted that there was some confusion during the case, including the children initially naming someone else as the abuser before changing their statements. Because of this significant issue, the court reversed Cheshire's convictions and ordered a new trial to take place.