Firearm Possession Archives

F-2018-547

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2019
Post category:F

**Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Summary Opinion: Carlos Antonio King v. State of Oklahoma** **Case No.:** F-2018-547 **Filed:** May 30, 2019 **Judges:** LUMPKIN, P.J., LEWIS, P.J., KUEHN, V.P.J., HUDSON, J., ROWLAND, J. **Facts of the Case:** Carlos Antonio King was convicted by a jury for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute (Methamphetamine and Marijuana) and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm After a Prior Felony Conviction in the District Court of Choctaw County. The jury sentenced him to 20 years each for the drug counts (concurrent) and 1 year in jail for the firearm count (consecutive). **Propositions of Error:** 1. Admission of other crimes evidence violated King's right to a fair trial. 2. Admission of evidence related to an alleged December 2015 buy and an existing arrest warrant violated his fair trial rights. 3. Evidence from an April 15 vehicle search should have been suppressed due to a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. 4. Prosecutorial misconduct due to the premature publication of unadmitted photographs. 5. Cumulative errors denied him a fair trial. 6. Insufficient evidence to convict him for Possession with Intent to Distribute. **Court's Analysis and Decision:** 1. **Proposition One:** The court upheld the trial court’s decision to admit evidence of other crimes, determining it was relevant to prove knowledge and intent, affirming that it did not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect. 2. **Proposition Two:** King’s argument regarding the December 2015 buy and arrest warrant was found forfeited due to lack of supporting argument or authority, hence denied. 3. **Proposition Three:** The court found that the search warrant adequately described the areas to be searched. The vehicle, parked on the premises described in the warrant, did not require an additional search warrant. No plain error was identified. 4. **Proposition Four:** While it was noted that the prosecutor used photographs in opening statements that hadn’t yet been admitted into evidence, this was not found to affect King's substantial rights, especially since the photographs were ultimately admitted without objection. 5. **Proposition Five:** The court denied the cumulative error claim, stating that no errors were identified during the trial. 6. **Proposition Six:** The court used the Jackson v. Virginia standard for evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, affirming that sufficient evidence existed that could lead a rational jury to conclude King's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. **Conclusion:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence of the District Court, finding no reversible errors in the trial proceedings. **Opinion by:** LUMPKIN, P.J. **Concurred by:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-547_1735318084.pdf)

RE 2018-0118

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2019
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-0118, Samuel Keith Carolina appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order of the District Court revoking his suspended sentence. One justice dissented. Samuel entered a guilty plea to burglary and was given a suspended sentence, which meant he would not serve his full sentence unless he broke the rules. However, after some time, the State accused him of committing new crimes, which led to the revocation hearing. The court found enough evidence to support the claims against him and revoked his suspended sentence. On appeal, Samuel argued that the evidence presented was not sufficient to prove he had committed the new crimes. However, the court explained that for revoking a suspended sentence, the state only needs to show that it is more likely than not (a preponderance of the evidence) that the person violated the terms. Since the court found that the state met this burden, they confirmed the decision to revoke Samuel's sentence.

C-2018-372

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 29, 2019
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **LAVONTE ANTONIO JOHNSON,** **Petitioner,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-372** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI** **Filed May 39, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Lavonte Antonio Johnson, Petitioner, pled guilty to using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a firearm, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 652(B), in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2014-2033. The Honorable Susan K. Johnson, Special Judge, accepted the plea and deferred judgment for five (5) years, subject to rules and conditions of probation. The State later moved to accelerate the judgment, alleging that Petitioner violated the rules and conditions of probation by possessing a firearm and jumping bail. The Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, accelerated judgment and sentenced Petitioner to twenty-seven (27) years imprisonment. Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied. Petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari based on the following propositions of error: 1. Petitioner did not knowingly and voluntarily enter his plea of guilty, and the district court erred when it denied his application to withdraw the plea. 2. Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article II, §§ 7 and 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution. 3. Petitioner’s 27-year sentence is excessive under the Eighth Amendment and shocks the conscience. Certiorari review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently before a court of competent jurisdiction, whether the sentence is excessive, whether counsel was effective at either the plea hearing or the withdrawal hearing, and whether the State has the power to prosecute the defendant. ### Proposition One In this proposition, Petitioner claims that the record shows he did not voluntarily enter his plea, due to a notational error by his counsel regarding the 85% rule applicable to his sentence. The court points out that a valid plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among alternatives. The ruling on a motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The trial court concluded that despite the error, Petitioner was properly informed about the 85% crime classification, denying this proposition. ### Proposition Two Petitioner argues that his counsel failed to adequately advise him regarding the ramifications of the 85% rule, thus rendering his plea involuntary. The court reviews this claim under the two-pronged Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that Petitioner did not show that counsel's performance was deficient or that it prejudiced him, denying this proposition. ### Proposition Three Petitioner argues that his sentence is excessive. The court notes that a sentence within the statutory range will not be modified unless it shocks the court's conscience. Given that Petitioner violated probation for a violent felony by possessing a firearm and jumping bail, the court finds that the sentence does not shock the conscience, thus denying this proposition. ### Decision The petition for the writ of certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. **APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** ### APPEARANCES AT TRIAL **TONY COLEMAN** **ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER** ### APPEARANCES ON APPEAL **ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER** **ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER** **LORENZO BANKS** **THOMAS HURLEY** **ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT** **DANIEL POND** **ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE** **OPINION BY: LEWIS, P.J.** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **LUMPKIN, J.: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** **ROWLAND, J.: Concur** [**Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-372_1734105356.pdf)

F-2006-1055

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 7, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1055, Jaumon Mondell Okyere appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for First Degree Murder but reversed the conviction for Child Neglect with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Jaumon Mondell Okyere was found guilty of killing Richard Briggs and neglecting Briggs’ infant child. The case began when Okyere, angry over Briggs’ relationship with his former partner, Melonie Totty, conspired to lure Briggs into a trap where he could harm him. On March 18, 2005, Okyere shot Briggs multiple times and left the baby in a cold car, which was later found unharmed. During the trial, Totty testified against Okyere, leading to his conviction. Okyere argued that his trial was unfair because of issues related to his legal representation, including an alleged conflict of interest where the public defender's office previously represented Totty. The court found that Okyere's right to effective counsel was not violated, stating that the trial court took appropriate steps to address potential conflicts. Okyere also raised objections over the trial court granting continuances for the prosecution without proper procedure, insufficiency of the evidence, and inadequate jury instructions on the Child Neglect charge. The court concluded that any errors did not significantly impact the trial's fairness. However, it did find that the jury was not properly instructed on the requirement of being responsible for the child's welfare, which led to the reversal of the Child Neglect conviction. Ultimately, while Okyere’s conviction for murder was upheld, the court instructed to dismiss the charges related to child neglect due to the instructional error. One judge disagreed with the dismissal, believing the matter warranted a new trial instead.