In OCCA case No. F-2021-522, Trevor Leif Toppah appealed his conviction for Aggravated Assault and Battery, After Former Conviction of Three Felonies (Count 1), and Conspiracy to Commit Assault and Battery (Count 2). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court but modified the indigent defense fee. One judge dissented regarding the evidence for the conspiracy conviction.
In OCCA case No. RE-2020-501, Kaylen Harrison Rice appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but vacated the portion that required him to remain under supervision. One judge dissented. Kaylen Harrison Rice had previously been given suspended sentences for his crimes. He was supposed to follow certain rules instead of serving time in jail, but the rules changed to make his crime less serious. A new law stated that if someone is being revoked for a crime that is now seen as less serious, their punishment must follow the new law's limits. Kaylen argued that his one-year revocation was too long given the new law. However, the court found that the existing rules and his situation didn’t allow for the changes he suggested. During his revocation hearing, Kaylen raised concerns about being supervised after his jail time, saying that the law did not allow for that kind of supervision for his crime. The State acknowledged this point but later dropped the argument, which meant the court didn't consider it. The court decided that since the State had waived its right to challenge this part, it could not revisit it in Kaylen's appeal. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to revoke Kaylen's suspended sentences but overturned the requirement that he be supervised, which was not allowed under the new law.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-1263, Leatherwood appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree, Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Possession of a Firearm During Commission of a Felony, Maintaining a Place for Keeping/Selling Controlled Substances, and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. Travis Michael Leatherwood fatally shot Aaron Smith on Halloween night in 2017. They were once friends and worked together selling marijuana, but their friendship soured when Smith stole marijuana from Leatherwood. On the night of the shooting, Smith, upset by an exchange of insults with Leatherwood, went to confront him, unarmed. Leatherwood shot Smith with a rifle before he could say a word. Smith later died from the gunshot wound. After the shooting, police found a lot of evidence connecting Leatherwood to marijuana distribution at his home, including a rifle that he had used to shoot Smith and other drug-related items. Leatherwood argued in court that he acted in self-defense, but the jury did not agree. They concluded that he was the aggressor, especially since he called Smith a coward and provoked him. The jury found him guilty of first-degree murder, along with several drug-related charges. Leatherwood raised multiple issues on appeal, including claims that the state did not prove he acted outside of self-defense, that the court gave confusing jury instructions, allowed improper amendments to the charges, and that he had ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the court disagreed with all of his claims. In terms of self-defense, the court ruled that Leatherwood’s actions and words indicated he was not acting in self-defense but rather was the one who provoked the situation. He had armed himself before Smith arrived and shot him before any confrontation occurred. The court also discussed the jury instructions, concluding that the district court did not err by omitting instructions on a lesser charge of heat of passion manslaughter since there was no evidence to support that Smith's actions would provoke such a response from Leatherwood. As for the amendment of charges, the court determined that Leatherwood was sufficiently informed of the charges he faced and that he could defend against them adequately. The evidence showed that he had both the firearm and the controlled substances as part of his operations, fulfilling the requirements for his convictions. Leatherwood's claim that his lawyer was ineffective was also denied because the court found that the lawyer's strategies were reasonable given the overwhelming evidence against Leatherwood. The lawyer focused his arguments on the more serious murder charge rather than the drug offenses, which the jury could have easily decided against Leatherwood irrespective of those counts. Finally, the court ruled that Leatherwood's sentence was not excessive given the nature of the crime and his actions. The judge pointed out that the jury was aware of his age (20 at the time of the crime) and other circumstances, which did not make the sentence shockingly excessive. Ultimately, the court affirmed Leatherwood's convictions and ordered a separate hearing regarding the restitution amount, which needed to be calculated more accurately.
In OCCA case No. RE 2018-1288, Jose Santiago Hernandez appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and conspiracy to commit a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Hernandez had pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm and conspiracy in 2017, getting a ten-year sentence for each count, but only had to serve five years if he followed the rules set for his probation. The State accused him of perjury, claiming he lied during a court proceeding about his co-defendant's involvement in the crime. During a hearing in December 2018, the judge found enough evidence to revoke Hernandez’s suspended sentences because he did not truthfully testify. Hernandez argued that the State did not show he committed perjury, but the court explained that they only needed to prove the violation of his probation terms by presenting a greater weight of evidence. The court concluded that they had enough evidence to believe Hernandez had broken the rules. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision to revoke his suspended sentences, meaning he would have to serve the full ten years.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOHNNY W. WARD,** Appellant, v. **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2019-16** **FILED DEC 12 2019** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Appellant Johnny W. Ward was tried by jury and found guilty of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon (Count I) (21 O.S.2011, § 652) and Possession of a Firearm (Count II) (21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 1283), both counts After Former Conviction of A Felony, in the District Court of Muskogee County, Case No. CF-2017-1155. The jury recommended as punishment imprisonment for thirty (30) years in Count I and ten (10) years in Count II. The trial court sentenced accordingly, ordering the sentences to be served concurrently. It is from this judgment and sentence that Appellant appeals. Appellant must serve 85% of his sentence in Count I before becoming eligible for consideration for parole. 21 O.S.2011, § 13.1. **Appellant raises the following propositions of error in support of his appeal:** 1. The eyewitness identification of Appellant was based upon an overly suggestive, one-man show-up that violated Appellant's rights to due process and a fair trial. 2. The State's evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed the crimes of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony Conviction and his convictions must therefore be reversed with instructions to dismiss. 3. Appellant's sentence is excessive and should be modified. After thorough consideration of these propositions and the entire record, we have determined that under the law and the evidence no relief is warranted. **Proposition I:** Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress the in-court identification made by Ms. Davidson after an on-the-scene one person show-up. Appellant argues the pre-trial identification was unnecessarily suggestive and tainted the subsequent identification of Appellant at trial. A one man show-up is not necessarily unduly suggestive or improper. Young v. State, 2000 OK CR 17, ¶ 30, 12 P.3d 20, 34. Absent special elements of unfairness, prompt on-the-scene confrontations [between a victim and a suspect] do not entail due process violations.... Harrolle v. State, 1988 OK CR 223, ¶ 7, 763 P.2d 126, 128, quoting Russell v. United States, 408 F.2d 1280, 1284 (D.C.Cir.1969). The one person show-up in this case was not unduly suggestive or so improper as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress the identification. However, even if the show-up was unduly suggestive, the same would not automatically invalidate the subsequent in-court identification if that identification can be established as independently reliable under the totality of the circumstances. Young, 2000 OK CR 17, ¶ 31, 12 P.3d at 34. Under the circumstances of this case, we find the in-court identification reliable. As the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing into evidence the in-court identification of Appellant, this proposition of error is denied. **Proposition II:** Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. He argues the State failed to show he had anything to do with the alleged crimes. Appellant asserts that the State's evidence showed only that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, evidence showed that Appellant shot his victim in the knee and buttock as the victim begged for his life. Appellant then ran away from the scene, discarding the gun he used and a hoodie he was wearing. Reviewing Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Mitchell v. State, 2018 OK CR 24, ¶ 11, 424 P.3d 677, 682. Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is denied. **Proposition III:** Appellant argues that his sentence is excessive and should be modified. He asserts that while his sentence is technically within the range provided by law, it does not bear a direct relationship to the nature and circumstances of the offenses. However, Appellant's sentences were within the applicable statutory range (21 O.S.2011, §§ 652(A), 1284 and 51.1(C)). This Court will not modify a sentence within the statutory range unless, considering all the facts and circumstances, it shocks the conscience. Pullen v. State, 2016 OK CR 18, ¶ 16, 387 P.3d 922, 928. The evidence showed that despite having a prior robbery conviction, Appellant was in possession of a gun, which he used to shoot the victim multiple times as the victim begged for his life. Under these circumstances, the 30 year and 10 year sentences are not excessive. Therefore, modification of the sentences is not warranted and this proposition is denied. Accordingly, this appeal is denied. **DECISION** The JUDGMENT and SENTENCE is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MUSKOGEE COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE THOMAS H. ALFORD, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** BRIAN WATTS 222 N. 4TH ST. MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** NICOLLETTE BRANDT OKLA. INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **ORVIL LOGE** DISTRICT ATTORNEY TIM KING ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY MUSKOGEE CO. COURTHOUSE MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **MIKE HUNTER** ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA CAROLINE E.J. HUNT ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21ST ST. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur --- [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2019-16_1734781599.pdf)
The document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma regarding the case of Bryan Lee Guy, who was appealing his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. Below is a concise breakdown of the case and its outcome: ### Case Overview: - **Appellant**: Bryan Lee Guy - **Appellee**: The State of Oklahoma - **Court**: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma - **Original Jurisdiction**: District Court of Tulsa County - **Case Number**: F-2018-1083 - **Trial Judge**: Honorable Dawn Moody - **Sentence**: Thirty-seven years imprisonment (with a requirement to serve 85% before parole eligibility) ### Issues on Appeal: 1. **Instruction on Inconsistent Statements**: Guy argued that the jury was not properly instructed regarding the use of a victim's prior inconsistent statements. The court concluded this omission was not plain error and did not affect the trial's outcome. 2. **Conflicting Instructions**: Guy contended that jury instructions about the return of the verdict and lesser offenses were conflicting. The court found no plain error in these instructions, stating they did not misdirect the jury. 3. **Post-Imprisonment Supervision Instruction**: Guy challenged the inclusion of an instruction on mandatory post-imprisonment supervision, which the court acknowledged was given in error but did not constitute plain error affecting his rights. 4. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Guy claimed his attorney was ineffective on several grounds, including not reasserting a pretrial motion to dismiss and failing to take judicial notice of prior convictions. The court found no merit in these claims, concluding Guy could not show that these alleged deficiencies affected the trial outcome. ### Court's Decision: - The court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court. - Guy's request for an evidentiary hearing to further support his claim of ineffective assistance was denied. ### Conclusion: The appeal did not result in a reversal of the conviction or sentence, as the court found that the issues raised were either without merit or did not rise to the level of plain error that would impact the fairness of the trial.
**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case Summary: Monte Dean Perry v. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No.: F-2018-760** **Judgment Date: December 5, 2019** **Overview:** Monte Dean Perry was convicted by a jury on charges of assault and battery with a deadly weapon and endeavoring to perform an act of violence. The court sentenced him to 30 years for the first count and 5 years for the second, with both sentences to run concurrently. **Legal Issue:** Perry appealed the conviction, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to prove he assaulted the victim with a knife, arguing that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. **Court's Review Standard:** The appellate court evaluated the evidence under the standard that favors the prosecution, determining if any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as per *Spuehler v. State*. **Decision:** The court upheld the jury's conviction, finding that the evidence was indeed sufficient to support the verdict. Perry's proposition of error was denied, and the judgment and sentence were affirmed. **Additional Notes:** - Perry must serve 85% of his sentence for Count 1 before being eligible for parole consideration. - The opinion was delivered by Presiding Judge Lewis, with concurrence from Judges Kuehn, Lumpkin, Hudson, and Rowland. For full text or additional details, refer to the official opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-760_1735216916.pdf).
In OCCA case No. F-2017-528, Darrien Hasmii Clark appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree and several other charges, including Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. Darrien Clark was found guilty by a jury of murdering a convenience store clerk after he shot the clerk multiple times during a robbery. The jury also convicted him on other charges involving a separate shooting incident. Clark was sentenced to life in prison without the chance of parole for the murder, and he received additional sentences for the other crimes, which will be served consecutively. During the trial, Clark's defense raised several issues. He argued that his murder case and the other cases should not have been tried together, but the court ruled that the similar nature of the crimes justified this decision. The evidence showed that both incidents involved the same weapon and occurred in a close time frame, which the court found relevant for judicial efficiency. Clark also tried to present evidence to suggest that someone else committed the murder, arguing that another man who was initially arrested should be considered a suspect. However, the court found that there wasn’t enough reliable evidence to support this claim. In addition, Clark claimed that the prosecution improperly introduced victim impact evidence during the trial. The court determined that the evidence was relevant to the case and did not constitute a plain error. Another argument made by Clark was that he acted in self-defense during the shooting of another man. The jury was instructed about self-defense laws, and the evidence presented suggested that Clark was the aggressor in that situation. The court concluded that any rational jury could determine that he did not act in self-defense. Lastly, Clark argued that the combination of errors throughout the trial denied him a fair trial. However, since the court found no significant errors, they denied this claim as well. The court ultimately decided to uphold the convictions and sentences issued by the lower court.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **OCT 17 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** --- **BOBBY DALE STOCKTON,** **Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-563** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant Bobby Dale Stockton appeals from the District Court of LeFlore County's order terminating him from Drug Court and sentencing him to seven years in prison, as per the Drug Court contract in Case No. CF-2016-380. On February 14, 2017, Appellant pled guilty to Count 1: Unlawful Possession of CDS - Methamphetamine after a former felony conviction, and Count 3: Resisting an Officer. He agreed to enter Drug Court with a conviction and sentencing of seven years on Count 1 and one year on Count 3, both running concurrently. Successful completion of Drug Court would lead to suspended sentences; failure would result in imprisonment. The State filed an application for termination on June 26, 2017, alleging Appellant's non-compliance—failing to report for intake, missing a urinalysis, and being absent without leave. During a hearing on September 26, 2017, evidence showed Appellant had not participated in the program. He explained his absence was due to caring for his ill mother. Although acknowledging he had not complied, he expressed a willingness to accept a strict ninety-day monitoring. However, Judge Fry found a violation of the Drug Court contract for non-appearance and initiated a no tolerance policy. Subsequently, on September 29, 2017, Appellant failed to attend Drug Court, resulting in an arrest warrant and bail revocation. The State filed a second termination application on April 30, 2018, citing similar violations. At the hearing on May 22, 2018, Appellant admitted to a third heart attack and acknowledged non-compliance without providing documentation on medical issues. Judge Fry noted past assurances of compliance had not been honored and ultimately terminated Appellant from the program, imposing the seven-year prison sentence. **PROPOSITION OF ERROR:** I. The trial court abused its discretion in terminating Mr. Stockton from Drug Court before he had the opportunity to work the program. **ANALYSIS:** Appellant contends hospitalization justified his failures to report. He further claims that, if drug issues were believed to have driven his failures, proper disciplinary measures should have been applied. The discretion to revoke or terminate participation in Drug Court rests with the trial court, and its decision will only be reversed upon a showing of abuse. Under Oklahoma law, judges may impose progressively increasing sanctions for relapses but can revoke participation if necessary. Appellant was given two opportunities to comply with the Program's requirements, both of which he failed. His second failure followed a promise to comply, and although medical conditions were noted, no evidence was presented to substantiate his claims. Therefore, termination was not an abuse of discretion. **DECISION:** The order of the District Court of LeFlore County, terminating Appellant from Drug Court and imposing a seven-year prison sentence, is AFFIRMED. **MANDATE:** Issued forthwith. --- **APPEARANCES:** **Matthew H. McBee** Counsel for Appellant P.O. Box 1303 Poteau, OK 74953 **Joe Watkins & Keeley L. Miller** Counsel for State Assistant District Attorney 100 S. Broadway St., Room 300 Poteau, OK 74953 Assistant Attorney General 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 **OPINION BY:** ROWLAND, J. LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur
In OCCA case No. F-2018-341, Anthony Kejuan Day appealed his conviction for several charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence against him. One judge dissented. Mr. Day was convicted of assault and battery on a police officer, conspiracy to cause violence, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, obstructing an officer, and resisting an officer. The trial court sentenced him to a total of twenty-five years for the first charge, with additional long sentences for the others. Mr. Day argued that the trial court made several mistakes. He claimed that the prosecution unfairly excluded African-American jurors, that changes to the charges against him were wrong, that he was punished too harshly for similar actions, and that his sentences should not have run one after the other but rather together. The court examined each argument. For the claim about jurors, it decided that the trial court acted properly and that there was no discrimination. Regarding the changes to the charges, the court found no clear mistakes that would have harmed Mr. Day's case. The court also rejected his argument about facing double punishment for similar offenses. Finally, it determined that the trial court was correct in allowing the sentences to be served consecutively. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision of the trial court and affirmed Mr. Day's convictions and sentences.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-358, Sean Daniel Simmons appealed his conviction for domestic abuse by strangulation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Sean Daniel Simmons was found guilty by a jury for hurting his girlfriend on three occasions during a long argument at their apartment. The girlfriend's twelve-year-old son was in a nearby room sleeping at the time. The girlfriend testified that he choked her until she lost consciousness three times. Once, when he called 911, he slapped her when she tried to take the phone. After the incidents, she sought medical help and was diagnosed with a throat injury, although there were no visible marks on her throat, and she didn’t suffer any serious long-term effects. Simmons argued in his first claim that the evidence against him was not enough to support the conviction. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that it was reasonable for the jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for domestic abuse by strangulation. In his second claim, Simmons believed the trial court should have explained what “great bodily harm” meant to the jury. He wanted a clear definition because he felt the term was too vague. However, the trial court used standard jury instructions that explained the elements of the crime, including how strangulation was defined. Ultimately, the court held that the trial court did not make a mistake when it refused to define “great bodily harm” more specifically. The decision to not elaborate on this term was appropriate, as the standard instructions already provided enough information to the jury for them to make an informed decision. The judgment was affirmed, and the judges agreed that the trial court acted correctly in these matters.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BRANDON LEE SHARP,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. RE-2018-657** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AUG 29 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant Brandon Lee Sharp appeals the revocation of his suspended sentences from the Delaware County District Court in Case Nos. CF-2012-441, CF-2013-145, and CF-2014-152. ### Background On October 8, 2013, Appellant pled guilty to Possession of a Firearm (21 O.S.2011, § 1283) and Bail Jumping (59 O.S.2011, § 1335), receiving a ten-year concurrent sentence in each case, suspended in full. On May 6, 2014, he faced new charges, including Endeavoring to Manufacture Methamphetamine, triggering petitions to revoke his suspended sentences based on these new allegations. He pled guilty to the new charges and stipulated to the petitions to revoke the earlier sentences, resulting in a life sentence in Case No. CF-2014-152, with the first 15 years suspended. After completing the Keys to Life Program, Appellant was released on February 4, 2016. However, on November 3, 2017, the State filed a second amended motion to revoke his suspended sentences based on new charges of Kidnapping and Escape from Arrest or Detention in Case No. CF-2017-330A, alongside allegations of failing to report to his probation officer. ### Issues on Appeal 1. **Multiple Violations**: Appellant argues the State did not prove specific claims regarding restitution and DA fees. However, only one violation needs to be established to revoke a suspended sentence. The State successfully proved multiple unrelated violations in the petition to revoke, so this argument is meritless. 2. **Notice of Violations**: Appellant contends that revocation for obstructing officers was inappropriate since it was not included in the initial petition. Nonetheless, obstructing was deemed a lesser included charge of the alleged Escape from Arrest or Detention, thus establishing adequate grounds for revocation. 3. **Timeliness of Revocation Hearing**: Appellant claims a violation of the 20-day rule for revocation hearings as stipulated by 22 O.S.Supp.2016, § 991b(A). However, the record indicates that he acquiesced to continuances within the 20-day window and agreed to postpone the hearing multiple times with counsel. ### Conclusion The trial court possessed the discretion to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentences, and no abuse of discretion is found considering the established violations. Therefore, the decision to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2012-441, CF-2013-145, and CF-2014-152 is hereby **AFFIRMED**. ### Issuance of Mandate Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE will be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** - **FOR APPELLANT**: Kathy Baker, Grove, OK - **FOR APPELLEE**: Nicholas Lelecas, Assistant District Attorney; Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma. **OPINION BY**: ROWLAND, J. **CONCUR**: LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J. **[Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-657_1734426402.pdf)**
In OCCA case No. F-2018-84, #1 appealed his conviction for #2 driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. In a (published) decision, the court decided #3 to affirm the trial court's order to terminate #1 from the Drug Court Program. #n issued a dissenting opinion. Summary: Carl David Wagnon was charged in 2015 with a serious crime for driving under the influence of alcohol after having previous felony convictions. He pleaded guilty and entered a Drug Court program, which was part of an agreement that allowed him to avoid a long prison sentence if he was successful. However, in 2017, he was accused of a new crime, which led to a hearing where the court decided to remove him from the Drug Court program. Wagnon argued that his removal was unfair for several reasons. He claimed that the court relied too much on secondhand information and did not give him a chance to challenge the evidence against him. He also said that his removal was based on a crime that was not formally charged and that he did not receive enough warnings or chances to correct his behavior before being expelled from the program. Lastly, he believed that the court did not clearly explain why he was being removed. The court looked at these arguments but found that Wagnon was treated fairly and that the decision to terminate him from the Drug Court program was appropriate. They stated that the judge had the right to make this decision and had done so correctly, so they upheld the lower court's ruling. The case was affirmed and Wagnon was sentenced to twenty years in prison.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-802, Jestin Tafolla appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and Carrying a Weapon Unlawfully. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Tafolla was sentenced to life imprisonment for the assault and thirty days in jail for the misdemeanor charge, with the sentences served at the same time. His appeal raised several issues, mainly about whether his trial was fair. He claimed that evidence of his gang affiliation unfairly influenced the jury, that introducing certain statements violated his rights, and that errors occurred during the trial process. The court discussed the details of the case where Tafolla assaulted a man following a traffic dispute. Detectives witnessed Tafolla hitting the victim and confiscated brass knuckles he discarded. Witness statements indicated that racial slurs were part of the altercation. The court found that the evidence of Tafolla's gang membership was relevant to understand the incident and the motivations behind it. It ruled that the testimony related to his affiliation did not violate his rights and was permissible to show motive and intent. They also addressed Tafolla's complaints about the admission of the victim's statements, concluding that these did not prevent a fair trial. The admission of prior convictions for cross-examination purposes was also deemed appropriate as it was relevant to the prosecution's case. In issues raised about the prosecutor's conduct and jury instructions, the court determined that no significant errors impacted the trial. The arguments made by the prosecution were within the acceptable realm of discussing the evidence. Overall, the court found no individual errors that would require a new trial and concluded that the accumulation of complaints did not undermine the fairness of the proceedings. Thus, the original judgment was upheld, and Tafolla’s appeal was denied.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1127, Jones appealed his conviction for robbery, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm after a previous felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Jones was found guilty of robbing someone with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, and having a gun after a felony conviction. He was sentenced to serve many years in prison for these crimes. Jones argued several points in his appeal. He believed it was wrong for him to stand trial for the gun possession charge when the earlier ruling had dismissed that part of his case. The court found that the process used to bring that charge back was okay. Jones also thought that statements he made after being arrested should not have been allowed in trial because he was scared and did not have a lawyer present. However, since he did not say this during the trial, the court looked at it carefully but decided it did not affect the trial in a serious way. Jones requested a special instruction for the jury about flight, meaning that if someone runs away from a situation, it might mean they are guilty. The court denied this request because Jones denied being at the crime scene, so the flight instruction was not needed. Finally, Jones claimed that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the closing arguments. The court concluded that while some comments might not have been ideal, they did not make the trial unfair. All in all, Jones's appeal did not lead to a change in his conviction or sentence.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellant,** **V.** **NICHOLAS LOWELL TURNER,** **Appellee.** **Case No. S-2018-1026** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JUL 11 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** On April 4, 2018, Nicholas Lowell Turner was charged in Tulsa County with multiple drug offenses and related charges. After a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search warrant, the lower court initially denied the motion based on a good faith exception, but later reversed that decision, leading the State to appeal. The key issues before the Court were whether the trial court abused its discretion by ruling that the search warrant lacked probable cause and, if so, whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. **Background:** The case arose from evidence gained during the execution of a search warrant on Turner's residence, which led to the seizure of illegal drugs, firearms, and cash. The warrant was issued based on statements from an informant who had been arrested in possession of illegal drugs and had identified Turner as his supplier. Despite the affidavit's deficiencies in detailing direct observations of illegal activity at Turner's residence, the appellate court found there was a sufficient connection established between the residence and Turner's alleged criminal activity. Importantly, the court noted that the officers acted reasonably based on the magistrate's determination of probable cause, allowing for the good faith exception to apply. **Decision:** The Court found that the trial court had erred in not applying the good faith exception properly, stating that a properly issued search warrant, despite some lack of detail in the affidavit, should not have resulted in suppressed evidence. The appellate court ruled to reverse the trial court's decision and remand the case for further proceedings. **Concurring Opinion:** LEWIS, P.J., specially concurs, acknowledging the weaknesses in the affidavit but ultimately agreeing with the application of the good faith exception as the officers acted reasonably in executing the search warrant. --- For full details refer to the decision [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2018-1026_1734276181.pdf).
In OCCA case No. F-2018-326, #1 appealed his conviction for #stalking. In a (published) decision, the court decided #the State proved that the protective order was valid during the time of the incidents. #2 dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2017-1074, Brown appealed his conviction for Drug Court termination. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination, stating the trial court acted within its discretion. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-83, the appellant appealed his conviction for terminating his participation in a drug court program. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of the appellant's participation in the Kay County Drug Court Program. One judge dissented. The case began with the appellant being charged with domestic abuse, followed by several other charges which led to his participation in the drug court program. He had previous sentences but entered a plea agreement that allowed him to avoid immediate incarceration if he completed the program successfully. However, after multiple instances of non-compliance, the state requested to terminate him from the program. During a hearing, the judge evaluated whether the appellant had violated the terms of his performance contract in the drug court. The judge determined that he had. The appellant argued that the judge should have given him more chances to comply with the rules of the program, but the judge concluded that the appellant's actions warranted termination. The court ultimately agreed with the judge's decision, stating that he had not abused his discretion in terminating the appellant’s participation in the drug court program. The termination was deemed appropriate given the appellant's repeated violations.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-184, Juanita Martinez Gomez appealed her conviction for First Degree Malice Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction. One judge dissented. Juanita, a 49-year-old woman, was found guilty of killing her daughter, Geneva Gomez, who was 33 years old, in Oklahoma City. The events took place in August 2016 after a violent encounter at Juanita's home. Geneva had previously lived with her boyfriend but went to collect her belongings with her mother. The boyfriend later became worried when he could not communicate with Geneva. The trial revealed that when the boyfriend visited Juanita's home, he found Geneva's body. She had severe injuries on her head and signs that she had been beaten. Instead of asking for help, Juanita showed strange behavior, claiming that Geneva was possessed. Evidence showed that Juanita attempted to clean up the crime scene and tried to prevent her boyfriend from leaving. At trial, Juanita did not testify, and her lawyers claimed that her odd behavior and statements meant she did not kill her daughter with intent. The jury, however, found that the evidence showed a clear intention to kill, considering the violent nature of the attack and Juanita's actions afterward. Juanita raised multiple claims of error in her appeal, but the court found that she had not been denied a fair trial. Her statements to the police about her motive for killing Geneva were not allowed in court because they were considered hearsay. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that it was sufficient to support the conviction for malice murder, rejecting Juanita's claims for lesser charges or defenses. The court ultimately affirmed the judgment of the District Court.
**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case Summary** **Appellant:** Donald Antwan Mayberry **Appellee:** State of Oklahoma **Case No:** RE-2017-801 **Judges:** John D. Hudson (Chief Judge), Lewis, Kuehn (Vice Chief Judge), Lumpkin, Rowland (Judges) **Date Filed:** April 18, 2019 **Overview:** Donald Antwan Mayberry appealed the full revocation of his ten-year suspended sentences imposed by the District Court of Oklahoma County, presided over by Judge Timothy R. Henderson. Mayberry had previously pleaded guilty to two counts of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, which resulted in concurrent ten-year suspended sentences under probation. **Revocation Proceedings:** The State filed an application to revoke Mayberry's suspended sentences, alleging several violations, including: 1. Committing new crimes (including Manufacturing or Possessing an Explosive Device). 2. Using methamphetamine while on probation. 3. Failing to pay probation fees. 4. Driving while his license was suspended. At the revocation hearing, the State presented evidence from law enforcement officers and Mayberry’s probation officer. Notable testimony included: - Sergeant Anthony Lee described a traffic stop of Mayberry's vehicle, where he discovered drugs and an ammo box containing bomb components. - Scott Dawson, a bomb technician, testified about the nature of the device found, indicating it could function as an improvised explosive device (IED). - Probation officer Brooke LeFlore reported Mayberry’s positive drug test for methamphetamine. Mayberry did not present any evidence in his defense. Judge Henderson concluded that Mayberry violated probation terms by committing the new crimes and using drugs, leading to the full revocation of his suspended sentences. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Insufficient Evidence for Manufacturing an Explosive Device:** - Mayberry argued that the State failed to establish his intent to use the bomb or to send it to another person, as required by statute. - The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to infer intent to intimidate or unlawfully damage property, and that one proven violation of probation was enough to justify revocation. 2. **Abuse of Discretion in Revocation Decision:** - Mayberry contended that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his sentence in full, arguing that the punishment was excessive. - The court maintained that the presence of bomb-making materials and other violations substantiated the revocation decision. **Conclusion:** The Court affirmed the trial court's decision to revoke Mayberry's ten-year concurrent suspended sentences in full, finding that the evidence was adequate to support the conclusions of the trial judge. **Final Order:** Appellant's revocation of suspended sentences is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is ordered to be issued. **Counsel for Appellant:** Pierce Winters, Marva A. Banks (Oklahoma County Public Defender’s Office) **Counsel for Appellee:** Kelly Collins, Mike Hunter (assistant district attorneys); Theodore M. Peeper (assistant attorney general) **Opinion Issued By:** Judge Hudson **Concurrences:** Judges Lewis, Kuehn, Lumpkin, and Rowland each concurred with the decision. [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2017-801_1734709994.pdf)
The document appears to be a legal summary from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of Auntra Lawan Edmonds. The case revolves around Edmonds' appeal after being convicted of two counts of First Degree Manslaughter. Here’s a concise overview of the case and the court's decision: 1. **Background**: Auntra Lawan Edmonds was charged with two counts of First Degree Manslaughter in Greer County District Court. After entering a no contest plea and being sentenced to life imprisonment for each count (to run concurrently), he later sought to withdraw his plea, which the court denied. 2. **Propositions of Error**: - **Proposition I**: Edmonds argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea, claiming it was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The court found that the record sufficiently demonstrated that Edmonds was aware of his rights and the nature of the charges, thus affirming that his plea was valid. - **Proposition II**: He claimed ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea withdrawal hearing. The court concluded that this claim lacked merit, noting that Edmonds did not provide substantial evidence to support the claim of ineffective assistance. - **Proposition III**: Edmonds argued that his life sentences were excessive. The court reasoned that the sentences were factually substantiated and justified given the severity of the incident, including the presence of alcohol and prior criminal behavior. 3. **Court Decision**: The court denied Edmonds' petition for a writ of certiorari, affirming the judgment and sentence of the District Court. It upheld that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea. 4. **Final Note**: The opinion emphasizes the importance of properly presenting claims during the trial and highlights that a defendant's dissatisfaction with a sentence does not invalidate a plea agreement. This case serves as a reference point for issues regarding plea withdrawals, effective legal counsel, and the proportionality of sentences in criminal proceedings.
In OCCA case No. S-2015-771, the defendant appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower courts' rulings. One judge dissented. Carl Edward Prince, also known as Carl Edward Harper, was arrested for having marijuana and other related charges. He was charged with three main offenses regarding drug possession and use of a police radio. During the early stages of the trial, a magistrate judge decided there wasn't enough evidence for one of the charges, which was about maintaining a place used for selling drugs. The prosecution believed that this decision was wrong and appealed it. The appeal against the magistrate's decision went to another judge who agreed with the first judge, stating that the evidence given by the prosecution was not strong enough to prove that Prince had maintained a location where marijuana was kept with the intent to distribute it. Because of this, they could not prove that there was a pattern or habit of drug use or sales at the location. The case was taken to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The main issues raised by the prosecution were about whether the requirement for a pattern of activity (habitualness) should be considered a fact that needed to be proven and whether there was enough evidence to bring the case to a jury. The Appeals Court decided that the past decisions regarding drug cases required proof of more than just a single event of drug possession. They reasoned that a location must show a pattern of illegal drug activity or use before a person can be convicted under this law. The court looked carefully at what evidence was presented while considering the arguments from both sides. They concluded that there were no clear mistakes made by the lower courts. The evidence didn’t meet the standard needed to prove that Prince’s home was used primarily for drug activity. They upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which means that Prince was not found guilty of that charge. One judge disagreed with this final decision, feeling that the lower courts made a mistake in throwing out the charge about maintaining a place for drugs. This dissenting opinion argued that the law should allow for flexibility and not just rely on showing repeated actions or habits to prove the case. The dissenting judge expressed that the current interpretation of the law was too strict and made it difficult to prosecute based on the evidence presented. In summary, the Appeal Court confirmed that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge Prince with maintaining a place for drug distribution, leading to the upholding of his preliminary ruling.
In OCCA case No. F 2017-0031, Heath Saxon Ford appealed his conviction for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and unauthorized use of a vehicle, both felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his termination from the Drug Court Program and remand the case for reinstatement into a Drug Court program, preferably in another county. No one dissented. Heath Saxon Ford was charged with multiple offenses in McCurtain County. He pleaded guilty to two of them and entered a Drug Court Program, agreeing to specific conditions. If he didn’t follow these conditions, he could be sentenced to twelve years in prison. The state wanted to kick him out of the Drug Court Program, saying he violated his agreement by having a bad drug test. At a hearing, a witness said something about the drug test results, but she didn’t perform the test herself nor was the actual test introduced as evidence. Ford argued that this was not fair and that they used hearsay, which is when someone talks about what another person said instead of providing direct evidence. The court agreed that the hearsay could not be the only reason for terminating Ford from the program and that they didn’t show strong enough evidence to prove he violated the terms. There were also concerns about how the Drug Court was being run, suggesting possible impropriety. Because of these issues, the court decided to reverse the decision to end Ford's participation in the Drug Court Program and ordered that he be reinstated, possibly in a different county's program.
In OCCA case No. F-2016-562, Kadrian Daniels appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court, except that the fine imposed on the Possession count was vacated. One judge dissented. Daniels was found guilty by a jury and received a thirty-year sentence for the robbery and an additional eight years and a $10,000 fine for the illegal firearm possession. Daniels raised several concerns on appeal. He argued that the trial court made mistakes that affected his right to a fair trial. First, Daniels objected to a question asked by the prosecutor to a detective about the number of robberies that happened in Tulsa during the past year. He felt that this question could alarm the jury. However, the court decided that the question was allowed because it was relevant to the case and didn’t unfairly sway the jury. Next, Daniels claimed that the prosecutor behaved improperly during the closing arguments, which made his trial unfair. Some of the comments made by the prosecutor were challenged, but the court ruled that those comments were acceptable and did not harm the fairness of the trial. Additionally, Daniels complained about the jury being instructed that a $10,000 fine was mandatory if they convicted him of the firearm charge. Since Daniels’ lawyer did not object to this instruction during the trial, the court reviewed this issue only for plain error. The court found that the instruction was incorrect because the law does not require such a fine. This error was significant enough that the court decided to remove the fine. Moreover, Daniels argued that his attorney did not provide effective help during the trial, especially for not calling out the errors made by the prosecution or the judge. The court considered this but concluded that the issues raised by Daniels were not serious enough to have changed the outcome of the trial. The final decision affirmed the conviction but removed the unnecessary fine, ensuring that the legal process remained fair despite the mistakes noted during the trial.