First Degree Burglary

F-2017-635

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-635, Shaynna Lauren Sims appealed her conviction for several crimes, including knowingly concealing stolen property and first-degree burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgments and sentences against Sims, concluding that the State did not have jurisdiction to prosecute her. The situation involved a victim who was an enrolled member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and the crimes occurred within the Creek Nation's boundaries. Therefore, the case was remanded with instructions to dismiss the charges. One judge dissented, expressing a different opinion about the jurisdiction issues related to the case.

Continue ReadingF-2017-635

F-2019-37

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-37, Suggs appealed his conviction for first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial on that count due to an instructional error, while affirming the convictions on the other counts. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2019-37

F-2019-115

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-115, Beck appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including First Degree Burglary and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have the authority to prosecute him because he is recognized as an Indian and the crimes occurred in what is considered Indian Country. The result was that Beck's convictions were overturned, and the case was sent back with instructions to dismiss the charges. There was a dissenting opinion regarding the application of the law.

Continue ReadingF-2019-115

F-2018-830

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-830, Charles Michael Cooper appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder, First Degree Arson, First Degree Burglary, and Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Cooper because he is an enrolled member of the Chickasaw Nation and the crimes occurred within the boundaries of the Chickasaw Nation Reservation. The judgment and sentence were vacated, and the matter was remanded with instructions to dismiss the case. A Judge dissented regarding the conclusion about the Chickasaw Reservation's status.

Continue ReadingF-2018-830

F-2019-310

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-310, Kedrin Ray Dixon appealed his conviction for first-degree burglary, sexual battery, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for sexual battery to ten years imprisonment, making it consecutive to the other sentence, and otherwise affirmed the convictions. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence for sexual battery. Dixon was found guilty by a jury on multiple counts after a trial in the District Court of Washington County. The jury sentenced him to twenty years in prison for burglary and sexual battery, and one year for possession of a controlled substance. The trial judge ordered the sentences for burglary and sexual battery to be served back-to-back. Dixon then appealed, raising several points of error, including issues related to jury instructions and evidence. The first issue was about the trial judge not mentioning that he was presumed innocent in the instructions at the start of the trial. The court found this error was not significant since the final instructions did include the presumption of innocence. Next, Dixon claimed that the evidence was not strong enough for the first-degree burglary conviction. The court disagreed, stating that there was enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find him guilty. Dixon also argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence regarding his intoxication at the time of the crime. The court ruled that the trial judge had the right to refuse his request since the evidence did not clearly support intoxication as a defense. Another point of concern for Dixon was what he called evidentiary harpoons, which are when comments are made that suggest knowledge of other crimes. The court found that he did not object to these comments at the trial and they did not seriously affect the verdict. Dixon claimed that he was unfairly prevented from presenting a full defense regarding reports of his previous erratic behaviors. The court decided that these reports were not very relevant to his defense and that excluding them did not significantly harm his case. A notable issue was a mistake in how the jury was informed about the potential punishment for sexual battery. The trial judge incorrectly stated that it could be punished by twenty years, which was incorrect. The State agreed that this was an error. Instead of sending Dixon back for a new trial, the court decided to lower his sentence for sexual battery to ten years because of this error. Dixon stated that his total sentences were too harsh, but after reviewing the circumstances, the court determined that the sentences were acceptable even after the changes made to one of them. Lastly, Dixon argued that there were too many errors in the case that made it unfair for him. The court did acknowledge the instructional error but believed there were no other significant errors affecting the outcome of the trial. In summary, the court modified Dixon's sentence for sexual battery and kept the other parts of his conviction intact. The final decision still upheld his guilty verdicts on all counts.

Continue ReadingF-2019-310

J-2019-620

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

This document is a court opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of C.G., who was charged with First Degree Murder, First Degree Burglary, and Conspiracy to Commit Second Degree Burglary. The case revolves around the denial of C.G.'s motion to be certified as a juvenile or youthful offender, which would have allowed for a different legal treatment due to his age at the time of the offense (14 years old). Here is a summary of the key points: 1. **Background of the Case**: - C.G. was charged as an adult for serious crimes, and he filed a motion for certification as a juvenile or youthful offender. - The preliminary hearing and certification hearing took place, with conclusions drawn about C.G.'s amenability to treatment and public safety considerations. 2. **Court's Decision**: - The trial court denied C.G.'s request for certification, stating that the public could not be adequately protected if C.G. was treated as a youthful offender. - C.G. appealed this decision, raising several claims including abuse of discretion, evidentiary errors related to interrogation, and ineffective assistance of counsel. 3. **Ruling by the Court of Criminal Appeals**: - The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that there was no abuse of discretion. - It also found that certain evidentiary claims were not properly presented for appeal. 4. **Dissenting Opinions**: - Two judges dissented, arguing that the evidence did not support the trial court's conclusion about public safety. - They contended that C.G. was amenable to treatment and that the trial court could still have ensured public protection through existing safeguards while classifying him as a youthful offender. - The dissenters also criticized the majority's handling of evidentiary issues, arguing that the ability to challenge the decision not to certify C.G. should include a review of the evidence that influenced that decision. 5. **Final Notes**: - The decision underscores the complexities involving juveniles charged with serious crimes and the judicial considerations balancing public safety and the potential for rehabilitation. - It emphasizes the potential limitations in appealing certain evidentiary matters in the context of certification hearings for juvenile offenders. Overall, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, while dissenting opinions highlighted concerns regarding the treatment of juvenile defendants.

Continue ReadingJ-2019-620

F-2018-1160

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **RASHAUN HAASTROP,** **Appellant,** **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-1160** **FILED DEC - 5 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** *KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:* Appellant, Rashaun Haastrop, was charged in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2018-55, with First Degree Burglary, After Conviction of Two Felonies. He was convicted of the lesser related offense of Attempted First Degree Burglary, After Conviction of Two Felonies. On November 13, 2018, the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, sentenced him to twenty years imprisonment in accordance with the jury's recommendation. This appeal followed. Appellant raises one proposition of error in support of his appeal: **PROPOSITION:** The State introduced insufficient evidence to prove that Mr. Haastrop had prior convictions out of Illinois and therefore his sentence must be modified. After thorough consideration of this proposition, the briefs of the parties, and the record on appeal, we affirm. Appellant's sole complaint on appeal is that the State failed to sufficiently prove that he was the person named in two Illinois documents reflecting felony convictions for Rashaun Haastrup, or that those convictions were valid and final, i.e., that the defendant in those proceedings had the assistance of counsel and that the convictions had not been appealed. The two latter challenges were not raised below, so we review them only for plain error, as established in *Mathis v. State*, 2012 OK CR 1, ¶ 30, 271 P.3d 67, 78. Plain errors are those errors which are obvious in the record and affect the substantial rights of the defendant; that is, the error affects the outcome of the proceeding, as seen in *Daniels v. State*, 2016 OK CR 2, ¶ 3, 369 P.3d 381, 383. The State offered two certified documents reflecting convictions in Illinois for a Rashaun Haastrup. The chronological entries on these documents show that in each case, (1) Mr. Haastrup was represented by counsel, (2) his rights to appeal were explained to him, but (3) no appeals were taken. The documents were generated several years after the convictions were entered, and neither reveal any activity after formal sentencing. See *Bickerstaff v. State*, 1983 OK CR 116, ¶ 8, 669 P.2d 778, 780. On this record, the trial court's conclusion that the convictions were valid and final was not plainly erroneous. As for whether Appellant (Rashaun Haastrop) and the person named in the documents (Rashaun Haastrup) are the same person, the jury received testimony from a police officer who interviewed Appellant after his arrest. The officer testified that Appellant admitted serving time in Illinois for two different crimes, specifically a drug offense and a theft offense; the State's documents reflected convictions for a drug crime and a theft crime. With identifying information provided by Appellant, the officer retrieved the Illinois documents. Given the unusualness of both names, their similarity, and Appellant's own admissions, a rational juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the convictions were, in fact, Appellant's, as established by *Jackson v. Virginia*, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) and *Garcia v. State*, 1987 OK CR 49, ¶ 30, 734 P.2d 820, 825. As there is no error, his sole proposition is denied. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Oklahoma County 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 OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** **ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL** **BENJAMIN MUNDA** **ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER** **BONNIE BLUMERT** **ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER** **OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **320 ROBERT S. KERR AVE.** **SUITE 611** **OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73101** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL** **DANIEL GRIDLEY** **MIKE HUNTER** **DANIEL POND** **ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA.** **ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS** **TESSA L. HENRY** **ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL** **320 ROBERT S. KERR AVENUE** **SUITE 505** **OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102** **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1160_1734786705.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-1160

F-2018-446

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-446, Byron Craig Herd appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Byron Craig Herd was found guilty by a jury for breaking into someone's home. The court sentenced him to life in prison because he had a history of other convictions. During the trial, Herd's defense claimed that the prosecutor acted unfairly, which made it hard for him to get a fair trial. Herd argued two main points in his appeal. First, he said the prosecutor made the trial unfair by trying to make the jury feel sorry for the victims. The prosecutor did this by asking the jury about their feelings as potential victims of a burglary, which led to emotional comments during the trial. Secondly, Herd believed his life sentence was too harsh. The court looked carefully at the trial and the evidence. They noted that while some of the prosecutor's comments may have been too emotional, the evidence against Herd was very strong. There were recordings of him inside the victims' house, and he was caught shortly after the crime. The court concluded that, despite some mistakes made by the prosecutor, these did not significantly affect the fairness of the trial because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. They also determined that Herd's sentence was appropriate given his past crimes and the seriousness of his current crime. In the end, the court denied Herd’s appeal, meaning he would stay in prison for life.

Continue ReadingF-2018-446

F-2018-852

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the case of Donald Ray Morrow. The key points of the opinion are as follows: 1. **Case Background**: Donald Ray Morrow was convicted by a jury of first-degree burglary, second-degree burglary, and larceny of an automobile in Custer County. He received a concurrent sentencing of fifteen years for the first-degree burglary, four years for the second-degree burglary, and six years for larceny. 2. **Propositions of Error**: Morrow raised two main arguments on appeal: - **Proposition One**: He claimed the trial court erred by allowing a juror who had a social acquaintance with a prosecution witness to remain on the panel. Upon examination, the juror stated that she could set aside any prior knowledge and decide based solely on the evidence presented. The court found no actual bias or harm and denied the request for a mistrial. - **Proposition Two**: Morrow argued that his sentence did not properly reflect credit for time served. The court agreed that an order was necessary to ensure that the credit for time served is accurately recorded in the judgment. 3. **Decision**: The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Morrow's convictions but remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to correct the judgment to reflect that he is to receive credit for time served. 4. **Outcome**: The mandate was ordered to be issued upon the filing of the decision, and all participating judges concurred with the opinion. For those interested in the full legal document, a link to download the complete opinion in PDF format is provided.

Continue ReadingF-2018-852

RE-2018-858

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JEREMY LANCE LABBY,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-858** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AUG 15, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Jeremy Lance Labby appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Cherokee County District Court Case No. CF-2015-149. Labby was originally charged with Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, in violation of 47 O.S.2011, § 4-102. On December 15, 2016, Labby entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced to three years imprisonment, with all three years suspended. On June 20, 2018, the State filed a 2nd Amended Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence, alleging multiple violations of probation, including new crimes related to two counts of Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, Theft of Property in Benton County, Arkansas, and First Degree Burglary and Resisting Arrest in Cherokee County. Following a revocation hearing, Special Judge Gary Huggins revoked Labby's suspended sentence in full. In his sole proposition, Labby contends that the revocation of his suspended sentence was excessive and represents an abuse of discretion. He argues that despite his limited intellect and efforts to comply with probation requirements—such as being current on probation fees and meeting with probation officers—Judge Huggins’s decision to revoke his sentence in full was unwarranted. The Court finds Labby’s claims to be without merit. A suspended sentence is a matter of grace, and the State needs to establish only one violation of probation to revoke a suspended sentence in its entirety. The State successfully demonstrated that Labby committed multiple violations, including new felony offenses, while on probation. The determination to revoke a suspended sentence, either in whole or in part, rests within the trial court’s sound discretion, and such decisions are not to be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Although it is noted that Judge Huggins had the option to impose a lesser penalty, his discretion to choose full revocation is justified by the evidence presented, which established significant violations by Labby. **DECISION** The Court affirms the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Cherokee County District Court Case No. CF-2015-149. Pursuant to Rule 3.15 of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the Mandate is ordered issued upon the filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHEROKEE COUNTY, THE HONORABLE GARY HUGGINS, SPECIAL JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT REVOCATION** **CRYSTAL JACKSON** Counsel for Defendant 239 W. Keetoowah Tahlequah, OK 74464 **MARK HOOVER** Counsel for Appellant P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 **CODY BOWLIN** Counsel for State ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 213 W. Delaware Tahlequah, OK 74464 **MIKE HUNTER** Counsel for Appellee OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur **RA/F** *Click Here To Download PDF*

Continue ReadingRE-2018-858

C-2017-1050

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**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).

Continue ReadingC-2017-1050

RE-2018-357

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CASE NO. RE-2018-357** **JAMES MONROE JONES, Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** James Monroe Jones (Appellant) appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290, and CF-2013-6519, adjudicated by the Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge, in the District Court of Oklahoma County. On June 16, 2010, Appellant pled guilty in Cases CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, and CF-2010-290, receiving concurrent sentences with significant portions suspended. Specifically, in CF-2008-7440, he was convicted of two counts of Concealing Stolen Property and sentenced to fifteen years on each count, with the first five years served. Similar sentences were imposed for offenses stemming from the other cases. On May 1, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated nolo contendere plea in CF-2013-6519 for an amended count of Concealing Stolen Property, resulting in a ten-year sentence with the first year served. On August 26, 2016, the State filed applications to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences due to reported violations, including failure to report, change of address, and new criminal activity related to Domestic Assault and Battery. Enhanced allegations were added on March 7, 2018, encompassing additional crimes attributed to Appellant. A hearing was conducted on April 2, 2018. Appellant's counsel objected to the State's evidence, citing inadequate discovery. The trial court, however, noted Appellant had received relevant documents previously, and dismissed the objections after reviewing the evidence. Judge Henderson ultimately found Appellant had violated his probation through specific new criminal conduct and revoked his suspended sentences in full. Appellant presents two propositions of error on appeal: **PROPOSITION I:** The trial court violated Jones's right to due process and a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II § 7 of the Oklahoma State Constitution. **PROPOSITION II:** Defense counsel failed to prepare adequately for trial, resulting in ineffective assistance of counsel. **ANALYSIS** In addressing Proposition I, Appellant contends that the overruling of his objections regarding discovery violations deprived him of due process. It is established that defendants have minimal due process rights in revocation hearings, including evidence disclosure. However, since Appellant’s counsel did not request discovery prior to the hearing, the burden falls on them for preparation. The trial court did not deny Appellant the opportunity to defend—therefore, Proposition I is denied. Regarding Proposition II, Appellant asserts his counsel's ineffectiveness based on a lack of preparedness stemming from unrequested discovery. The Strickland standard evaluates ineffective assistance claims through performance deficiency and resultant prejudice. Appellant has not substantiated claims that better-prepared counsel would have altered the outcome, as evidence showed several violations were confirmed. Thus, Proposition II is also denied. **DECISION** The order from the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290, and CF-2013-6519 is **AFFIRMED**. --- **APPEARANCES:** **AT TRIAL** Katie Samples, Assistant Public Defender Marva A. Banks, Assistant Public Defender **ON APPEAL** David Nichols, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Attorney General Keeley L. Miller, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. **[Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-357_1734695459.pdf)**

Continue ReadingRE-2018-357

JS-2016-1062

  • Post author:
  • Post category:JS

In OCCA case No. JS-2016-1062, Z.N. appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that granted Z.N. certification as a juvenile. The State had claimed that the judge made a mistake in allowing Z.N. to be treated as a juvenile. However, the court found that the judge's decision was reasonable given the evidence and factors surrounding the case. The ruling included considerations of the nature of the crime, Z.N.'s background, and the potential for rehabilitation. No judge dissented.

Continue ReadingJS-2016-1062

C 2014-920

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2014-920, John Edward Oxford appealed his conviction for several serious crimes including robbery, burglary, and conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but also ordered a hearing to review the amount of restitution he was ordered to pay. Oxford was charged with multiple counts and, on July 10, 2014, he entered a blind plea, which means he pleaded guilty without negotiating a deal, to all the charges. The court sentenced him to a total of over 70 years in prison and ordered him to pay about $67,539 in restitution to the victims. After his sentencing, Oxford tried to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he did not understand the charges and was not fully informed about his rights. The trial court held a hearing on this and ultimately denied his request. Oxford then appealed this decision, arguing several points. First, he believed he should not have been sentenced for certain counts because it violated laws against double punishment. However, the court noted that his arguments about double jeopardy were not raised in the earlier stages and thus were not considered. Second, he argued there wasn't enough evidence to support the restitution amount, but again the court found this issue had not been raised before and rejected it. Oxford also claimed he did not receive effective legal help during his plea and the hearing to withdraw it. The court agreed that there were problems with how his attorney handled the restitution order, focusing mainly on the lack of detailed documentation justifying the restitution amount. This lack of evidence meant the restitution order was not valid. While the court found that Oxford's guilty plea was made voluntarily, it did acknowledge inadequate support for the restitution order. Therefore, it denied his appeal regarding the guilty plea but vacated the restitution order, sending the case back to the lower court for a proper review of how much compensation was truly owed to the victims. One judge dissented, noting that the case should have been looked at more closely regarding the earlier claims. So, in summary, the appeal was mainly denied except for the part about restitution, which was sent back to the lower court for further review.

Continue ReadingC 2014-920

C-2014-373

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-373, Jack Eugene Metzger appealed his conviction for multiple charges including First Degree Burglary, Larceny of an Automobile, Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (second offense), Eluding a Police Officer, Violation of Protective Order, and Driving Without a Driver's License. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Metzger could withdraw his guilty plea for certain counts but denied the request for others. One judge dissented. Metzger entered a guilty plea for several crimes and was sentenced to serve time in prison along with fines. After his plea, he asked to take it back, saying he hadn’t been fully informed. He raised several issues in his appeal, claiming his pleas were not voluntary, the sentences for some charges were illegal, and he didn’t get help from his lawyers when he needed it. The court looked at whether Metzger's pleas were made knowingly and voluntarily. It noted that mistakes were made when explaining the possible punishments for some of the charges. The court decided that while Metzger did understand a lot, there were significant errors in how he was informed about some counts. Since he didn’t receive the correct information on charges related to driving under the influence, eluding police, and violations of protective orders, his plea for those counts was not properly made. Therefore, he was allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas for those specific counts but not for the burglary or larceny charges. In summary, the court allowed Metzger to take back his guilty plea on the counts where he was not informed correctly about the punishment, but it did not agree with his claims regarding other counts.

Continue ReadingC-2014-373

F-2013-994

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-994, Horace Joe Bigmedicine appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court but vacated the order of restitution. One judge dissented. Bigmedicine was found guilty in a trial held in Blaine County and was sentenced to thirty years in prison. He raised two main issues in his appeal. First, he argued that misconduct by the prosecutor unfairly influenced the trial. The court stated that it would only grant relief for prosecutorial misconduct if it was very serious and made the trial unfair. The court found the prosecutor's comments were appropriate and did not make the trial unfair, so they did not grant relief on that issue. Second, Bigmedicine claimed that the court did not properly follow the rules when it ordered him to pay $2,000 in restitution. The court pointed out that Bigmedicine did not object to the restitution at the time, so he could not challenge it later unless there was a serious mistake. The law allows a trial court to require a defendant to pay restitution for the victim's financial losses, but these losses must be proven with reasonable certainty. In Bigmedicine’s case, the evidence about the victim’s financial loss was lacking because the victim did not testify about it, and the necessary documents were not presented in court. Therefore, the court ruled that the restitution order was arbitrary and that it had to be canceled. Ultimately, the court affirmed Bigmedicine's conviction but required that the issue of restitution be looked at again in the lower court to make sure it was handled correctly.

Continue ReadingF-2013-994

C-2013-730

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2013-730, Mon'tre Brown appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, First Degree Burglary, and Attempted Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and remand the case to the District Court. The dissenting opinion argued against the majority's decision. Mon'tre Brown was given several charges, including serious ones like murder and burglary. He pleaded guilty to all counts in April 2013 but later wanted to change his plea, claiming he didn’t understand what he was doing due to his mental condition. The trial court denied his request, leading to this appeal. During the initial plea hearing, there were concerns about Mon'tre's mental competency because of his low IQ, which was reported as around 65. His attorney was aware of his learning disabilities, but they appeared not to conduct a thorough investigation into his mental health before allowing him to plead guilty. Mon'tre claimed he felt pressured to plead guilty because his counsel had said he couldn’t win the case. At a later hearing, Mon'tre's family and mental health professionals testified that he struggle to understand the legal concepts involved in his case, which raised questions about his ability to make informed decisions. Some of the professionals stated he didn’t have a clear understanding of what his guilty plea meant or the consequences of waiving his right to trial. The court found that the attorney had not adequately assessed Mon'tre's competence or sought further evaluations that could have supported his claim of mental retardation. It decided that his attorney's failure to investigate his mental condition and present sufficient evidence during the plea process was ineffective assistance of counsel. Ultimately, the court believed that there’s a reasonable chance that had adequate evidence of Mon'tre's mental condition been presented early, it may have changed the outcome of his guilty plea. Thus, they ruled in favor of allowing Mon'tre to withdraw his guilty plea and directed for conflict-free counsel to represent him in further proceedings.

Continue ReadingC-2013-730

S-2013-694

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-694, Fred A. Green, Ronald Krushe, and Christopher Thornburg appealed their conviction for kidnapping and first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against them. One judge dissented. The case began when the three men, who were bail bondsmen, went to a home to arrest two individuals, Billy and Pam Jones, who were staying there. They knocked on the door, entered the home, and handcuffed the Joneses to take them into custody. The homeowner, Patrick Wills, and his wife were not happy about this and called the police. While Green and his employees thought they were legally allowed to arrest the Joneses because they had a valid bond, the State of Oklahoma disagreed and charged them with burglary and kidnapping. The trial court disagreed, stating that the bondsmen did have the right to make the arrests. The State argued that the men acted unlawfully because of certain statements made during the incident, but the court found that they were working within their rights as bail bondsmen. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision to dismiss the charges, stating there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in concluding that the bondsmen were acting legally.

Continue ReadingS-2013-694

S-2013-696

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-694, S-2013-695, S-2013-696, the defendants appealed their conviction for kidnapping and first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against the defendants. No one dissented. The case began when three bail bondsmen, Fred Green and his two employees, Ronald Krushe and Christopher Thornburg, were charged with kidnapping and burglary after they tried to arrest two people, Billy and Pam Jones, who had skipped out on their bail. They went to a home in Pawnee County where the Joneses were staying and entered without permission. They handcuffed the couple and attempted to take them to jail. However, the defendants argued that they had the legal right to arrest the Joneses because they had a valid bond with them. The court found that since they were acting within their legal authority when they arrested the couple, they did not commit kidnapping or burglary. The State disagreed, claiming that the defendants had intended to commit a crime. However, the court concluded that the defendants were within their rights and did not abuse their power. Therefore, the charges were dismissed, and the court upheld this dismissal in their ruling.

Continue ReadingS-2013-696

F-2012-622

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-622, Dewayne Edward Kemp appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder and First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for First Degree Felony Murder but vacated the conviction for First Degree Burglary due to double jeopardy. One judge dissented. Kemp and two accomplices attempted to burglarize a home when the homeowner shot one of the accomplices fatally and injured Kemp. During his time in jail, Kemp made incriminating statements on recorded phone calls. Kemp's appeal included several arguments. He claimed that the state wrongly used hypothetical questions during jury selection, which he said made it difficult to have a fair trial. However, the court found these questions helpful for understanding the law and ruled against him. He also argued that he should have been allowed to present a statement made by a co-defendant, claiming that he was the one who planned the burglary. But since Kemp could not show that this statement would prove his innocence, the court upheld the trial court's decision to exclude it. Kemp raised concerns about the prosecutor's choice to strike some jurors, suggesting it was based on gender. The court reviewed the reasons given by the prosecutor for these strikes and concluded that they were valid, thus rejecting Kemp's argument. Kemp pointed out that being convicted of both felony murder and burglary for the same incident was unfair and violated his rights against double jeopardy. The court agreed with this claim and voided the burglary conviction, stating that the two charges were too closely related. In summary, the court maintained Kemp's felony murder conviction but removed the burglary charge as it conflicted with double jeopardy rules.

Continue ReadingF-2012-622

F-2012-112

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-112, Gene Freeman Price appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Gene Freeman Price was found guilty of breaking into a building with the intention of committing a crime. He was given a sentence of twelve years in prison. However, Price argued that he did not fully understand his rights before he decided to represent himself in court instead of having a lawyer help him. The court looked closely at the case. They believed the trial court did not do a good job explaining to Price the risks of going to court alone without a lawyer. This meant that Price could not have truly given up his right to a lawyer because he didn't really understand what that meant. The judges decided that because of this mistake, Price's right to have a lawyer was violated. Since this was such a serious error and affected the whole case, the court said they could not ignore it. They ruled that the earlier decision needed to be thrown out, and Price should get a new trial where he could have a lawyer help him.

Continue ReadingF-2012-112

F-2010-1237

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-1237, James Lee Gilford, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery with a weapon, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, assault while masked or disguised, and first-degree burglary, each after prior felony convictions. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and assault while masked or disguised but affirmed his convictions for robbery with a weapon and first-degree burglary. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of one of the convictions. The case began when Gilford was tried by a jury and convicted on several counts. The jury decided that Gilford should spend life in prison for each count, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. Gilford appealed, raising several issues, including concerns about jury selection, due process, multiple punishments for the same act, and inaccuracies in his judgment and sentence. 1. **Jury Selection**: Gilford argued that the prosecutors unfairly removed minority jurors. The court found that the prosecutor had provided good reasons for these removals, and Gilford did not prove any discrimination occurred in the jury selection process. 2. **Due Process Rights**: Gilford claimed he was denied a fair trial because the state didn't share some important information about a key witness. However, the court determined that this did not affect the outcome of the trial significantly. 3. **Multiple Punishments**: The court analyzed whether Gilford's convictions were for separate crimes or for just one act. Gilford's robbery, where he stabbed the victim and took his things, was connected to assaults he committed during that event. The court decided that the assault and battery charges arose from the same action as the robbery and therefore fell under laws that prevent punishing someone twice for the same act. 4. **Judgment and Sentence Issues**: Since the court reversed the assault charges because they were multiple punishments for a single act, they found that any inaccuracies in the sentencing for those charges didn't matter anymore. The final decision was that Gilford's sentences for robbery with a weapon and first-degree burglary would stay, while the court ordered the other two charges to be dismissed due to legal protections against multiple punishments. There was a dissenting opinion by one judge who felt that the conviction for assault while masked should not have been reversed.

Continue ReadingF-2010-1237

C-2010-1179

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-1179, Donnell Devon Smith appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including robbery, sexual battery, and others. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal. One judge dissented. Smith was charged with various offenses in multiple cases and pleaded guilty to all charges on October 19, 2010. He received several sentences, some of which were life sentences, and others ranged from ten to twenty years. After entering his pleas, Smith requested to withdraw them, saying he felt coerced and that he had not been properly informed about the punishments he faced for his crimes. The court looked at three main points raised in Smith's appeal: 1. Smith argued he should be allowed to withdraw his plea for one count of attempted robbery because the ten-year sentence he received was too long. The court found that his sentence was actually five years too long and modified it to the correct five-year maximum. 2. Smith claimed he did not understand the range of sentences for some charges and that this lack of understanding meant his pleas were not voluntary. The court decided that while he had been misadvised, the pleas still appeared to be valid overall because he benefitted from how the sentences were set up to run concurrently. 3. He asserted that he was punished twice for some of the same actions and that some of his pleas lacked enough factual support. The court concluded that the evidence supported the different charges, and there were no double jeopardy issues. The court ultimately affirmed his convictions for all cases besides modifying the sentence that was too long and correcting a minor paperwork mistake regarding how sentences should run together. The court ruled that his plea was knowingly and voluntarily made despite the confusion around sentencing ranges. The decision closed by affirming the ruling of the lower court regarding Smith's attempt to withdraw his pleas, confirming most of the sentences while adjusting the one that exceeded the maximum allowed by law.

Continue ReadingC-2010-1179

F-2010-1123

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-1123, Chance appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Chance was found guilty of breaking into a building with the intent to commit a crime and also had illegal drug items in his possession. The jury decided his punishment: thirty years in prison for the burglary and one year in jail for the drug paraphernalia. The court added that these sentences would be served at the same time. Chance raised a few complaints. He argued the prosecutor made improper statements about probation and parole during the trial, which made it unfair for him. He also believed the procedures and instructions during his drug paraphernalia case were wrong and that the court didn't follow the right steps when deciding how much money he should pay back to the victim for restitution. After looking closely at the case, the court agreed that there were mistakes made. The court recognized that the references to probation and parole might have affected the jury's decision on sentencing. Because of this, they lowered Chance's prison sentence from thirty years to twenty years. For the drug paraphernalia charge, the jury was told the wrong information regarding potential punishment, which the court found to be a serious error. They changed Chance's sentence for this from one year in jail to thirty days instead. Lastly, the court agreed with Chance's complaint about the restitution process. They decided the original amount couldn’t stand and ordered the lower court to re-evaluate how much he needed to pay the victim. In summary, the court kept the guilty verdict but changed the length of Chance's sentences and ordered a new hearing for restitution amounts. One judge felt that the original prison sentence should not have been changed since there was no clear evidence of unfairness affecting the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2010-1123

C-2010-287

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-287, Juan Carlos Hernandez-Montanez appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Second Degree Burglary, Kidnapping, and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his ten-year sentence for Second Degree Burglary to seven years but upheld the rest of the convictions and sentencing. One judge dissented regarding the review process. Hernandez-Montanez was initially charged with many serious crimes but agreed to a plea deal that changed the charges. He pleaded guilty to the amended counts and was sentenced to serve a total of time in prison and jail. After a short period, he wanted to take back his guilty plea, claiming it wasn't done correctly. The case was reviewed, and the court looked closely at the reasons Hernandez-Montanez gave for wanting to withdraw his plea. He said his ten-year sentence was too long and that the court did not fully check if he understood his guilty plea. He also claimed he did not get proper help from his attorney during the process. After reviewing everything, the court found that Hernandez-Montanez's arguments did not hold up. They decided that there was a good reason to accept his guilty plea and that he understood what he was doing. The court modified one part of his sentence but left the rest as it was. The judges agreed on most points, but one judge had a different opinion about some legal processes.

Continue ReadingC-2010-287