Fourteenth Amendment

F-2019-224

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the appeal of Joseph Eugene Dean. He was convicted in Muskogee County District Court for endangering others while eluding or attempting to elude a police officer after having two or more prior felonies. The jury sentenced him to twenty years in prison and a $2,500 fine. Although he was acquitted of possessing a stolen vehicle, Dean appealed the decision on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he argued his attorney failed to request a cautionary instruction regarding eyewitness identification. The court considered the appeal but found Dean's argument lacked relevant authority or sufficient legal backing. As a result, they deemed the issue forfeited for appellate review in compliance with court rules. Furthermore, the court addressed the merits of the claim, applying the Strickland v. Washington standard. This requires showing both deficient performance by counsel and resulting prejudice to the defense. The court found the cautionary instruction unnecessary due to the reliability of the eyewitness identification in the case and determined the counsel's actions did not constitute ineffective assistance. Consequently, the court affirmed Dean's conviction and sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2019-224

F-2019-224

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOSEPH EUGENE DEAN,** **Appellant,** **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. F-2019-224** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant, Joseph Eugene Dean, was tried and convicted by a jury in Muskogee County District Court, Case No. CF-2017-1030, of Endangering Others While Eluding or Attempting to Elude Police Officer, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies (Count 2), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 540(B). The jury recommended a sentence of twenty years imprisonment and a $2,500.00 fine. The Honorable Bret A. Smith, District Judge, presided at trial and sentenced Dean in accordance with the jury's verdict, including various costs and fees. The jury acquitted Appellant of Count 1 - Possession of a Stolen Vehicle. Dean appeals, raising the following proposition of error: **I. APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ART. II, §§ 7, AND 20, OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION.** After thorough consideration of the record, including transcripts and the parties' briefs, we find that no relief is warranted. **Proposition I:** Dean asserts that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request a cautionary eyewitness identification instruction (OUJI-CR (2d) 9-19). However, Dean fails to provide relevant authority or argument supporting his claim, thus forgoing appellate review of the issue as per Rule 3.5(C)(6) of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Moreover, we alternatively reject Dean's ineffectiveness claim on its merits. To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must demonstrate both that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). In this case, a cautionary eyewitness identification instruction was unwarranted as no serious question exist[ed] concerning the reliability of the [eyewitness's] identification[s] (Robinson v. State, 1995 OK CR 25, ¶ 56, 900 P.2d 389, 404). Counsel’s failure to request such instruction, therefore, was not ineffective since there was no merit to such a request (Logan v. State, 2013 OK CR 2, ¶ 11, 293 P.3d 969, 975). **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. **MANDATE** is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision, pursuant to Rule 3.15 of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. --- **APPEARANCES:** **AT TRIAL:** LARRY VICKERS 600 Emporia, Suite B Muskogee, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT **ON APPEAL:** DERECK J. HURT Oklahoma Indigent Defense System P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT SEAN WATERS Asst. District Attorney Muskogee District Attorney's Office 220 State Street Muskogee, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR KUEHN, V.P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR --- [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2019-224_1734779625.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2019-224

F-2018-1222

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding Larry Donelle Brown, Jr.'s appeal following his resentencing for a first-degree murder conviction. Here's a brief breakdown of the key points: 1. **Background**: - Larry Donelle Brown, Jr. was convicted of first-degree murder as a juvenile and initially sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. - This sentence was later challenged, and the Oklahoma Court granted post-conviction relief, allowing Brown to be resentenced. 2. **Resentencing**: - Upon resentencing by Judge Sharon K. Holmes, Brown received a life sentence with the possibility of parole, with credit for time served. 3. **Appeal**: - Brown's appeal argues that his life sentence effectively amounts to a life sentence without parole, violating his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. - He cites the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in *Miller v. Alabama* and *Graham v. Florida*, which assert that juveniles should have a meaningful opportunity for parole based on their maturity and rehabilitation. 4. **Court Findings**: - The court found no constitutional violation in Brown's sentence. - It reiterated previous rulings that a life sentence with the possibility of parole does not violate the standards set by the Supreme Court regarding juvenile offenders. - The court noted that Brown, having served over 21 years, appears eligible for parole consideration and affirmed that he had not been denied fair notice or opportunity in the parole process. 5. **Conclusion**: - The sentence was affirmed, indicating that the court found the sentencing to be constitutional and appropriate given the circumstances surrounding Brown's case. Overall, the Court concluded that Brown's concerns regarding parole and the juvenile sentencing principles established by prior Supreme Court rulings were sufficiently addressed by his current life sentence with the possibility of parole.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1222

C-2018-1167

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the case of Ronald Fitzgerald Williams. Williams entered a negotiated guilty plea to multiple counts related to drug offenses and other violations. After sentencing, he filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted a writ of certiorari (a type of court order) and remanded the case for a new hearing on Williams' motion to withdraw his plea. The court found significant errors: 1. Williams was allegedly misadvised about his appellate rights, affecting the voluntariness of his plea. 2. The evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea was held in his absence without a valid waiver of his right to be present. 3. Williams asserted he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The court emphasized that due process requires a defendant's attendance at a hearing concerning the withdrawal of a plea unless there’s evidence of a waiver, which was not present in this case. The court reversed the trial court’s denial of the motion to withdraw the plea and ordered a new hearing to ensure due process is upheld. The document concludes with information about the attorneys involved in the case and instructions for further proceedings. For additional details or specific legal arguments, you can download the full opinion using the link provided.

Continue ReadingC-2018-1167

RE-2018-932

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ANTHONY CURTIS CREEK,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. RE-2018-932** **SUMMARY OPINION** **Filed January 23, 2020** ROWLAND, JUDGE: Anthony Curtis Creek, Appellant, entered a guilty plea on March 16, 2015, in Garfield County District Court Case No. CF-2013-393, to Count 1 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, a misdemeanor, and Count 2 - Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a misdemeanor. He received a sentence of one year in the County Jail on Count 1, with 90 days to be served and the remainder suspended; Count 2 was sentenced to one year suspended, with penalties running consecutively. He was also fined $500.00. On January 20, 2017, the State applied for the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence on Count 2, alleging violations: (1) possession or consumption of alcohol; (2) DUI-A, a misdemeanor; and (3) Defective Equipment, a misdemeanor, in Oklahoma County Case No. CM-2016-2776. During the revocation hearing on June 2, 2017, Appellant admitted to the first allegation. The trial judge, Honorable Dennis Hladik, determined that the State proved the other allegations and revoked six months of Appellant's suspended sentence. Appellant appeals this decision, raising several propositions of error: 1. **Abuse of Discretion:** The trial court allegedly utilized a strict liability standard, resulting in a cruel and excessive sentence. 2. **Prosecutorial Misconduct:** Claiming that Appellant was deprived of a fundamentally fair proceeding due to misconduct. 3. **Plain Error:** The trial court's finding on the State's evidence and the standard of proof was erroneous. 4. **Equal Protection Violation:** Appellant asserts he was denied equal protection under the law. 5. **Cumulative Error:** The accumulation of errors deprived Appellant of due process. Upon review, the Court affirms the District Court's order revoking six months of Appellant's suspended sentence. 1. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence is within the substantial discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. The evidence supported Judge Hladik’s decision to revoke only part of the sentence after considering a stipulation and witness testimonies. 2. The Court agrees with Appellant's counsel that prosecutorial misconduct is more appropriate for post-conviction matters. The record does not support claims of misleading behavior by the prosecutors. 3. The standard of proof for such violations is a preponderance of the evidence, adequately satisfied in Appellant's case. Revocation is valid with any proven violation. 4. The trial court's exclusion of evidence does not equate to an equal protection violation. The ruling was consistent and reasonable. 5. As there were no individual errors identified, the argument for cumulative error also fails. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Garfield County District Court Case No. CF-2013-393 is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is ordered to be issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** **David J. Batton** Counsel for Defendant **Tallena Hart** Carter Jennings Assistant District Attorney Counsel for the State **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J:** **LEWIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **LUMPKIN, J: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-932_1734358983.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-932

F-2018-801

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the case of **Jeremy Tyson Irvin v. The State of Oklahoma**, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the appeal of Irvin, who was convicted of First Degree Murder and sentenced to life in prison. The court considered several claims raised by Irvin, including ineffective assistance of counsel, denial of the right to present a complete defense, admission of prejudicial evidence, failure to instruct on flight evidence, and cumulative errors. ### Key Propositions and Findings: 1. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: - Irvin asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for multiple reasons, including failure to use evidence related to his traumatic brain injury and lack of investigation into the circumstances surrounding his police statement. - The court noted that there is a high presumption of reasonable performance by counsel under the Strickland standard. Irvin failed to demonstrate any deficient performance that prejudiced the outcome of his trial. - His application for an evidentiary hearing to support his claims of ineffective assistance was denied, as he did not provide clear and convincing evidence of ineffective representation. 2. **Right to Present a Complete Defense**: - The trial court limited certain character evidence related to the victim’s violent history. However, the court allowed substantial testimony regarding the victim's prior bad acts. - As the defense sufficiently conveyed the context of Irvin's fear of the victim, the court found no error in limiting additional evidence. 3. **Admission of Evidence Regarding Standoff**: - The court upheld the admission of evidence concerning a thirteen-hour standoff that Irvin had with police, finding it relevant to his consciousness of guilt. The probative value was not substantially outweighed by any potential prejudicial effect, particularly since no objection was raised by the defense. 4. **Failure to Instruct on Flight**: - The absence of a flight instruction was reviewed for plain error but deemed not to have adversely affected Irvin’s substantial rights. The court found that the evidence of guilt existed independently of the standoff details. 5. **Cumulative Error**: - Irvin claimed that the accumulated errors denied him a fair trial. However, since the court found no individual errors warranting relief, this argument was also denied. ### Conclusion: The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Irvin's conviction and sentence, concluding that he was not denied effective assistance of counsel nor was any prejudicial error made during the trial process. The application for an evidentiary hearing related to ineffective assistance claims was also denied. The judgment emphasizes the court's adherence to the standards of due process and the evaluation of evidence within the legal framework guiding criminal proceedings in Oklahoma.

Continue ReadingF-2018-801

F-2017-1215

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1215, Ganey Marques Fairley appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury and Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Fairley’s convictions but remanded the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Fairley was found guilty of abusing a child and neglecting them. The trial took place in Tulsa County, where the jury gave Fairley a long sentence. Fairley's appeal brought up several concerns about how the trial was conducted, particularly pointing out that the prosecutor acted inappropriately. The first issue was about the prosecutor’s behavior during the trial, which Fairley claimed made it impossible for him to have a fair trial. He believed the prosecutor mentioned past abuse claims related to him when questioning an expert witness and kept bringing it up during her closing statements. Fairley argued that this made the jury think he was guilty of past actions instead of focusing on the current case. The court found that the way the prosecutor questioned the expert did indeed go too far and included too much information that shouldn’t have been brought to the jury's attention. They agreed that this could have influenced the jury's decision and may have negatively affected the fairness of the trial. While the court believed that the evidence against Fairley was strong enough to still call him guilty, they recognized that the prosecutor's actions had created an unfair situation, especially during the part where the jury decided on the punishment. In conclusion, the court decided they would keep Fairley’s guilty verdict but would send the case back to be resentenced, as they felt the previous sentencing might have been tainted by the improper actions of the prosecutor. The dissenting judge thought that if the prosecutor's behavior was indeed so wrong, it should affect the conviction itself, not just the sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1215

F-2018-198

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-198, Ann Sykes appealed her conviction for Abuse by Caretaker (Neglect) and Abuse by Caretaker (Financial Exploitation). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Ann Sykes was found guilty of two types of abuse against her son, who is a vulnerable adult. The first conviction was for not providing him with basic needs like food and shelter. The second conviction was for mishandling his money. The court sentenced her to eight years in prison but suspended three years, meaning she would only serve five years in custody. Appellant raised several problems with the trial process. She claimed that hearsay evidence, which is when someone repeats what another person said outside of court, was used against her unfairly. However, the court found that much of the evidence was not considered hearsay because it was not meant to prove the truth of the statements, and any hearsay that was improperly admitted didn't impact the trial's outcome. Sykes also argued that witnesses were allowed to testify without personal knowledge of the information they shared. The court disagreed, stating that witnesses had information based on their own experiences or observations. Another point of appeal was about whether the trial court made mistakes by letting certain opinions into evidence. A social worker testified about how not getting enough nutrition could affect someone's mental state. The court decided that the social worker was qualified to give that information based on her experience. Sykes claimed her two convictions meant she was being punished twice for the same actions, which is called double punishment. The court found that the actions leading to the two charges were different enough to allow both charges to stand without violating the law. She also believed that the charges against her were not clearly stated in the official documents, but the court noted that she didn’t raise this issue during the trial, so it wasn’t considered on appeal. Another argument was that she was denied a right to have a lawyer appointed to help her during the trial. The court found that although there was a lack of a hearing on this, Sykes did have a lawyer who represented her during the trial. Sykes claimed her lawyer did not do a good enough job. The court noted that for a claim like this, Sykes needed to show both that her lawyer did not perform well and that this affected the trial's outcome. The court did not find evidence that the lawyer's actions changed the trial's result. Lastly, Sykes claimed that even with the errors made during her trial, they did not add up to deny her a fair trial overall. The court agreed, concluding that the errors did not require the reversal of her conviction. Overall, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence, meaning Sykes will continue to serve the time given by the lower court. The application to further review her claims about lawyer effectiveness was denied as well.

Continue ReadingF-2018-198

F-2018-349

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-349, John Albert Broomhall appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence, but vacated the order of restitution and remanded the case for a restitution hearing. One judge dissented. Broomhall was found guilty by a jury, and he was sentenced to one year in jail and a fine of $5000. He raised several claims in his appeal. First, he argued that the State did not provide enough evidence to prove that he committed the crime, which involved using a baseball bat to hurt someone. The court found that the jury had enough evidence to believe he did commit the crime. Next, Broomhall claimed he acted in self-defense, but the court ruled that he did not meet the burden of proof needed to show that his actions were justified. He also accused the prosecutor of misconduct during the trial, but the court decided that nothing the prosecutor did affected the fairness of the trial. Broomhall argued that the jury was given incorrect instructions, but the court found the instructions were proper. He also believed that the trial court made a mistake in how it ordered restitution for the victim's losses. The court agreed that the restitution order was not done correctly and needed to be revisited. Broomhall claimed he had ineffective assistance from his attorney, but the court found no basis for this claim, stating that the actions of his counsel did not harm his case. Lastly, Broomhall contended that there were numerous errors that, together, made his trial unfair; however, the court concluded that the only issue needing correction was the restitution order. In summary, while the court upheld Broomhall's conviction, it sent the restitution issue back for further consideration.

Continue ReadingF-2018-349

F-2018-175

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-175, Charles Randall Hayes appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter while driving under the influence of drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for the misdemeanor driving under the influence charge but affirmed the convictions for first-degree manslaughter and driving left of center. One judge dissented. Mr. Hayes was found guilty of serious charges, including manslaughter, because he caused an accident while driving under the influence. The jury gave him a life sentence for this, along with fines for the other charges. He had multiple reasons for appealing his case, claiming that he didn’t get a fair trial, that his sentence was too harsh, that his lawyer didn’t help him enough, and that mistakes happened during the trial that made it unfair. The court looked at whether the charges against him were correct. They agreed that he couldn't be sentenced for both manslaughter and for the misdemeanor of driving under the influence at the same time because that would be unfair punishment for the same action. Mr. Hayes argued that the prosecution behaved badly during the trial, but the court found that there were no serious mistakes that changed the outcome. They believed that the prosecutor's actions did not make the trial unfair enough to change the results. When Mr. Hayes said his sentence was too harsh, the court decided that it was still within the legal limits. They only change sentences if they are shockingly unfair, which they did not find here. Mr. Hayes also claimed that his lawyer did not defend him well enough. However, since the court did not find that the prosecutor made major mistakes, they thought there was no reason to think that a different lawyer would have helped him more. Finally, Mr. Hayes felt that too many errors had happened to make the trial fair at all. The court disagreed and said that since they found none of the individual mistakes were harmful, they couldn’t consider them as a group. In conclusion, the appeal changed one of the misdemeanor charges but largely supported the main conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2018-175

F-2018-302

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-302, Jorge R. Medina appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child Under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Medina's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. The case involved Medina being found guilty by a jury of a serious crime against a young child. The court imposed a severe sentence of forty years imprisonment. Medina raised several arguments in his appeal, claiming he did not receive a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct, issues with his confession, introduction of evidence regarding his past behavior, and ineffective assistance of his attorney. First, Medina argued that the prosecutor made incorrect statements during the trial and suggested that the jury should assume certain things rather than find them to be true based on evidence. However, the court reviewed the prosecutor's comments and determined they did not misstate the law or unfairly influence the jury. Next, Medina claimed he did not fully understand his rights when he confessed, which should have meant that his confession was not valid. But the court found that Medina had waived this right and that the confession was given voluntarily after he understood his rights. Medina also contested the admission of evidence about his past bad acts. The court found that the prosecution had properly notified Medina of this evidence beforehand, so it was admissible. Regarding hearsay statements made by the victim, which were brought up as evidence at the trial, Medina’s team did not object to this during the trial. The court observed that since the defense had been aware of the basis for these statements and did not raise any objections, it affected their ability to contest them later. Moreover, Medina argued his attorney did not provide effective legal help because they did not object to issues during the trial. The court concluded that the alleged deficiencies of the attorney did not impact the outcome of the case due to the strength of the evidence against Medina. Finally, Medina claimed that the accumulation of errors throughout his trial added up to a denial of his rights. However, the court found that the trial did not have enough significant errors to justify this claim. In conclusion, the court upheld Medina's conviction and sentence, emphasizing that the errors he pointed out did not meet the threshold to alter the jury's decision.

Continue ReadingF-2018-302

F-2018-626

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the case of Carl Douglas Crick, Jr. v. The State of Oklahoma, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma reviewed Crick's appeal following a jury trial that found him guilty of multiple counts of sexual offenses, including first degree rape and lewd acts with a child. Crick received life sentences for certain counts, while others received lesser prison terms. The trial court ordered some sentences to run concurrently and others consecutively. Crick's main contention on appeal was that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically citing his attorney's failure to present certain witnesses and to object to improper testimony from a prosecution witness that allegedly vouched for the credibility of the victim. The court applied the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, which requires the appellant to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that this deficiency prejudiced the outcome of the trial. The court determined that the evidence presented by Crick did not clearly demonstrate a strong possibility that counsel’s performance fell below constitutional standards. As such, Crick's request for an evidentiary hearing to further explore these claims was denied. The court also assessed the claim concerning the prosecution witness's testimony. It concluded that the alleged vouching was not comparable to previous cases that warranted reversal, thus affirming that counsel's choice not to object did not amount to deficiency. Ultimately, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence of the trial court, indicating that Crick had not established a violation of his right to effective counsel. The decision was issued with a note for the mandate to be ordered upon delivery and filing of the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2018-626

C-2018-1235

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AUGUST 29, 2019** **CASE NO. C-2018-1235** **ROY DEAN HARJO,** *Petitioner,* **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** *Respondent.* **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Roy Dean Harjo entered a blind plea to Counts I, Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, and Counts II-V, Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, after previous convictions for two or more felonies, in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Case No. CF-2017-665. Following a sentencing hearing, the Honorable John Canavan sentenced Harjo to life on each Count I-V, concurrent for Counts II-V but consecutive to Count I, requiring Harjo to serve 85% before parole eligibility. Harjo filed a motion to withdraw his pleas, which was denied after a hearing on November 28, 2018. Harjo then filed a timely Petition for Writ of Certiorari, asserting four propositions of error: I. Harjo should be allowed to withdraw his pleas for Counts II-V due to lack of factual basis. II. His plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was uninformed about sentencing ranges, violating his rights under the Constitution. III. His plea was not knowing and voluntary due to misinformation regarding sentencing. IV. He was denied effective assistance of counsel. **Decision:** After comprehensive review, we find the evidence does not warrant relief. Proposition I cannot be considered as it was not presented in the motion to withdraw or the certiorari petition. In Propositions II and III, we find the pleas were knowing and voluntary. Harjo's assertion that he believed he would receive a thirty-year maximum sentence is contradicted by the record, which shows he understood the plea form stating potential life sentences. Therefore, his claims regarding plea counsel’s advice lack merit. In Proposition IV, we determine that there was no ineffective assistance from either plea or conflict counsel. Harjo's claim regarding the factual basis for his plea is unsupported, as ample facts exist to justify the plea. Any assertion that conflict counsel was ineffective for not challenging plea counsel also fails, as no substantial claims could have been made given the determination of a solid factual basis. **Conclusion:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is therefore **DENIED**. Upon filing this decision, the **MANDATE is ORDERED issued.** **This decision is concurred by all Justices.** --- *To view the complete decision, click [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-1235_1734229271.pdf).*

Continue ReadingC-2018-1235

F-2017-1099

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1099, Willie Donnell Jackson appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree-Victim Unconscious. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Jackson's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Willie Donnell Jackson was found guilty by a jury for a serious crime involving a victim who was unconscious. The jury suggested that he spend life in prison without the chance to get out, but the trial judge decided to give him a chance for parole after a long time instead. Jackson didn't agree with this decision and said there were errors made during the trial that affected his rights. Jackson raised five main arguments on appeal. First, he said that the prosecutor acted improperly during the trial, which made it unfair. He claimed this had a cumulative effect and harmed his chance for a fair trial. Second, he thought the judge didn't give the jury the right instructions, which was another error. The third point was about his lawyers not helping him enough, meaning that he didn't get the proper support he needed during the trial. Fourth, Jackson believed that the prosecutor's actions led to a sentence that was too harsh compared to what happened. Finally, his last argument was that all the mistakes added up to deny him a fair trial and the legal protections he should have received. After looking at everything presented during the appeal, the judges decided there were no significant errors that would change the outcome of the trial. They did not agree with Jackson's claims, concluding that his trial was fair. As a result, they upheld the original decision and affirmed his sentence, meaning Jackson must serve a long time in prison. The judges, in concise language, rejected all of Jackson's claims, confirming that he did not prove that any errors affected the fairness of his trial or the severity of his sentence, leading to the final ruling.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1099

F-2018-391

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-391, Zachary Troy King appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Zachary Troy King was found guilty by a jury in a case where he was accused of injuring a child. The jury decided that he had caused harm to the child, and he was sentenced to twenty years in prison, with the first fifteen years needing to be served. King argued four main points in his appeal. First, King said that the evidence presented in his trial was not strong enough to prove he committed child abuse. He claimed that the injuries to the child were not clearly caused by him, and he thought the jury should not have convicted him. However, the court believed that there was enough evidence for any reasonable person to conclude that King did injure the child. Second, King claimed that the judge made a mistake by not allowing a mistrial after the prosecution introduced certain evidence. He argued that this evidence was not important or added to the case in a meaningful way. Yet, the court felt that the testimony included by the prosecution was relevant to proving injuries were intentionally inflicted rather than accidental. Third, King accused the prosecutor of acting unfairly during the trial, which made it hard for him to get a fair trial. The court reviewed the prosecutors' actions and felt there were no significant errors that would have impacted the trial's fairness. Lastly, King argued that the collection of mistakes in his trial added up to take away his right to a fair hearing. But, since the court did not find any errors that would require a reversal of the conviction, the claim was also denied. In conclusion, the court upheld the jury's decision and the trial judge's actions, stating that King received a fair trial and that there was enough evidence to support the conviction. The judgment from the trial court was confirmed, and King will continue to serve his sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2018-391

F-2017-949

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-949, Montoyia Corbitt appealed her conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree-Heat of Passion. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Montoyia Corbitt was tried for a crime that involved the death of another person. During her trial, she claimed she acted in self-defense. However, the jury found her guilty, and she was given a six-year prison sentence. The law said she had to serve at least 85% of her sentence before she could be considered for parole. Corbitt made three main arguments in her appeal. First, she believed the evidence was not enough to prove she did not act in self-defense. The court explained that self-defense is a reason someone can use force, but it has to be reasonable. They found there was enough evidence that showed Corbitt's fear was not reasonable and, therefore, not justified in using deadly force. Second, Corbitt argued that a police officer’s opinion in her trial influenced the jury and was not fair. The court reviewed this matter and decided that the officer's testimony was allowed because it was based on what he observed during the investigation. They concluded that his statements helped clarify what happened during the incident without directing the jury toward a specific conclusion. Third, Corbitt was concerned about a photograph that showed her face during a police interview. She thought it was not relevant and unfairly prejudiced her case. The court ruled the photo was relevant because it helped support her claim of self-defense. They believed the image added to the understanding of the situation rather than just being harmful to her. Ultimately, after looking at all the arguments and evidence, the court agreed with the jury’s decision and affirmed her conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2017-949

C-2018-675

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

The summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals involves a case where Rayvon Latroy Johnson sought to withdraw his guilty plea for the charge of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. Johnson's plea was initially found untimely by one day, but that decision was based on an oversight regarding the observance of President's Day, a legal holiday when the courthouse was closed. The court agreed with Johnson, acknowledging that the deadline for filing his motion to withdraw the plea was extended to the next business day due to the holiday. Therefore, the initial decision by the district court was incorrect. Additionally, the court found that Johnson's counsel failed to provide effective assistance by not establishing the timeliness of the plea withdrawal motion, constituting a lapse in observing his rights under both the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions. As a result, the court granted Johnson's petition for a writ of certiorari and remanded the case to the District Court of Oklahoma County for a new hearing on the motion to withdraw his guilty plea. This outcome reflects careful consideration of procedural fairness and adherence to legal standards for filing deadlines and the right to effective legal counsel.

Continue ReadingC-2018-675

F-2017-68

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This text appears to be a legal opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the case of Jonathan D. McKee, who was convicted of Child Abuse. The judgment affirms the conviction and address various propositions raised by the appellant concerning the conviction and the trial process. The summary of the opinion includes analysis of the following propositions: 1. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a rational juror to convict McKee of child abuse based on medical expert testimony. 2. **Evidentiary Rulings**: The court reviewed multiple evidentiary rulings that McKee argued were erroneous. They concluded that while McKee's refusal to speak with authorities could raise Fifth Amendment concerns, it did not constitute plain error affecting the trial’s outcome. Additionally, evidence concerning drug paraphernalia was found relevant to the case. 3. **Judicial Bias**: Appellant’s claim of judicial bias was rejected as the court found no evidence of actual bias or any violations affecting due process. 4. **Cumulative Error**: The court stated that because none of the individual propositions were sustained, the cumulative error argument had no merit. The opinion also includes concurring opinions from Judges Kuehn and Rowland. Judge Kuehn expressed some reservations about the relevance of mentions of a request for legal counsel, while Judge Rowland emphasized that McKee's conduct and refusal to speak were relevant in assessing guilty knowledge, even though they did not implicate any constitutional violations. The final decision affirmed the judgment and sentence, with the court ordering the mandate issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. For further details, one may refer to the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2017-68_1734271673.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2017-68

F-2018-547

  • Post author:
  • 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)

Continue ReadingF-2018-547

C-2018-372

  • Post author:
  • 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)

Continue ReadingC-2018-372

F-2018-289

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-289, Anthony Douglass Crisel, Jr., appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Anthony Douglass Crisel, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for engaging in inappropriate conduct with a child. The jury decided that he should spend six years in prison, and he has to serve 85% of that time before he can ask for parole. Crisel claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly during the trial, which he believed went against his rights. He said his attorney made mistakes in three important areas: not opposing a witness’s testimony, not bringing in a witness who was related to the victim, and not challenging the qualifications of an expert witness who testified against him. The court looked closely at these claims and the complete record of what happened during the trial. They explained that to show his lawyer was ineffective, Crisel needed to prove that his lawyer didn’t do their job well and that this affected the outcome of the case. The judges noted that there is a strong assumption that a lawyer’s actions are based on good judgment. For the first claim, Crisel argued his lawyer should have stopped a witness from talking about some old accusations against him. However, the court found that the information the witness shared was already given to the jury through other evidence. Therefore, the lawyer's choice to not object was a reasonable decision. For the second claim, Crisel wanted his brother to testify but did not show how having his brother's testimony would have helped him win the case. The court stated that the lawyer's decision to not call the brother was likely a strategic choice and they won’t question that. Lastly, regarding the expert witness, the court found that the lawyer did question the qualifications of this expert, and since many lawyers might handle this differently, having a different strategy does not necessarily mean the lawyer did a bad job. After reviewing everything, the court concluded that Crisel’s lawyer did not act ineffectively. The judges affirmed the decision of the lower court, and the request for more evidence or hearing on this issue was denied.

Continue ReadingF-2018-289

F-2017-356

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-356, Elizabeth A. Jennings appealed her conviction for Permitting Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed her conviction. One judge dissented. The case took place in Tulsa County, where Jennings was found guilty of allowing child sexual abuse to happen, which is against the law. The jury decided she should go to prison for 14 years. She was very unhappy about this and wanted to challenge the ruling. Jennings raised three big points in her appeal: 1. She said the prosecutor made a wrong hypothetical question during jury selection, which is called voir dire, and that this violated her rights. 2. She also argued that a lot of evidence was shown about her co-defendant's sexual misconduct, which she thought made it hard for her to get a fair sentence. 3. Lastly, she complained that the judge didn't tell the jury that she would have to register as a sex offender after her conviction, which she thought was an important piece of information. The court looked at everything carefully, including the evidence, the transcripts, and the arguments from both sides. It decided that Jennings did not deserve any relief from her conviction based on her arguments. For the first point, the court said that the prosecutor's question was okay. It was meant to see if jurors could be fair and follow the law without making decisions before hearing all the evidence. In the second point, the court agreed that the evidence about the co-defendant was relevant and helped to show Jennings' knowledge of the situation. The court found that this evidence was not unfairly hurtful to her case. On the third point, the court decided that it was not wrong for the judge to skip giving out the information about sex offender registration because it wasn't necessary for the case. In the end, the court upheld Jennings' sentence of 14 years in prison. The judges considered all the arguments but concluded that everything was handled correctly during the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2017-356

F-2017-1146

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1146, Scott Milton Donley appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold his convictions. One judge dissented. Scott Milton Donley was found guilty of two crimes during a bench trial: Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery. He received a sentence that included twenty years for the first crime and one year for the second crime, with both sentences running at the same time. Donley argued that he should not be punished for both crimes based on double jeopardy rules, meaning he shouldn’t be charged twice for what he claimed was the same act. The court examined whether there was proof for each crime that did not overlap. They found that Donley committed separate acts of pushing and slapping the victim before threatening her with a knife, which were seen as different offenses that required different evidence. Therefore, the court decided there was no double punishment. Donley also claimed there wasn't enough evidence to show he committed Assault with a Dangerous Weapon because he argued that the knife he used wasn't sharp. However, the court reviewed the evidence, including testimonies from him, the victim, and officers. They concluded that any reasonable person could find he intended to cause harm with the knife and that it was indeed a dangerous weapon. Lastly, Donley argued that he didn’t willingly give up his right to a jury trial. However, the court found clear proof that he had done so. The process was completed in court, and both he and the prosecutor waived the jury trial properly. In conclusion, the court affirmed the judgments and sentences against Donley, stating that all his claims were without merit.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1146

F-2017-639

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-639, Christopher Lantz Wildman appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided that his conviction would be upheld. One judge dissented. Christopher Wildman was found guilty by a jury of killing someone and was sentenced to 12 years in prison. He was awarded credit for the time he served before the trial. Wildman argued several points in his appeal, claiming that his rights were violated during the trial. First, he said the evidence didn’t prove he wasn’t acting in self-defense, which is an important legal argument in these cases. He believed that if the evidence did not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with wrongful intent, he should not have been convicted. However, the court found that there was enough evidence suggesting he did not act in self-defense. Wildman also claimed that his trial was unfair because some evidence showed bad character, and that the trial court did not properly instruct the jury on how to consider that evidence. The court reviewed this point and decided that the evidence presented was not overly prejudicial, so it allowed the trial to continue without a limiting instruction. He argued prosecutorial misconduct, which means he felt the prosecutor acted inappropriately during the trial. Wildman argued that remarks made by the prosecutor affected his right to a fair trial. The court noted that comments made by the prosecutor were not serious enough to change the outcome of the trial and were in response to claims made by Wildman. Wildman believed that his attorney did not perform well and that he should have had a better defense. The court examined this claim closely. It stated that for someone to prove their lawyer was ineffective, they need to show that their lawyer's performance was very poor and that it influenced the trial's outcome. The court found that Wildman's lawyer did not make serious mistakes. Additionally, he felt that some evidence about the victim’s habits was improperly allowed into the trial. However, since he did not object to this evidence during the trial, it made it harder for him to appeal this point later. Finally, Wildman argued that all these errors combined led to an unfair trial. The court did not find any significant errors, so they upheld the conviction. In conclusion, the court affirmed Wildman's conviction and sentence, stating that the original trial was fair and proper according to the evidence and legal standards.

Continue ReadingF-2017-639

F-2017-1103

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1103, the appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One justice dissented. Jose Jonathan Rivera-Chavez was convicted of killing Wanda Cooper at a hotel. On December 27, 2016, Cooper went to the hotel office pleading for help while covered in blood. She collapsed shortly after and died from her injuries. Witnesses saw Rivera-Chavez trying to open car doors nearby after the incident. The police found him on the run and apprehended him with help from a police dog. Evidence showed blood on his clothes matched Cooper's. During the trial, Rivera-Chavez claimed he was under the influence of drugs and did not intend to kill Cooper. He admitted to stabbing her multiple times with a knife after becoming paranoid during a drug high. Despite his defense, the court noted that his actions and demeanor suggested he was not severely intoxicated. One key issue in the appeal was whether the court allowed evidence of Rivera-Chavez's silence after being read his rights, which he claimed violated his rights. The court found that this evidence was used properly to address his claim of voluntary intoxication and did not unfairly suggest guilt. The court concluded that even if there had been some error in admitting the evidence, it was harmless because ample evidence showed Rivera-Chavez's intent to kill. The judgment and sentence were ultimately upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1103