Fundamental Fairness

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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction.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

M-2018-335

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JULIUS LAMAR WRIGHT,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE 2018-0144** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JUL 11 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant Julius Lamar Wright entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2009-228, for Count 1 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute (Marijuana) and Count 2 - Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. On April 28, 2009, Appellant received a five-year deferred sentence on each count. On March 6, 2012, Appellant pled guilty to allegations in the application to accelerate his deferred sentences, resulting in a ten-year suspended sentence (first five years in custody) for Count 1, and one year in the Oklahoma County Jail for Count 2. These sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other and with CF-2011-1457. Appellant was charged with Domestic Abuse by Strangulation on December 9, 2015, in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2015-8860. He entered a no contest plea and was given a ten-year suspended sentence with probation conditions, which ran concurrently with the earlier cases and included credit for time served. The State's motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2009-228 due to the new charge and failure to pay restitution was dismissed on June 28, 2016, as part of the plea agreement in Case No. CF-2015-8860. On June 29, 2017, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in Cases CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860, alleging a new crime of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2017-2733. After a revocation hearing on January 31, 2018, Appellant's suspended sentences in both cases were revoked. Appellant appeals the revocation of his suspended sentences, raising two propositions of error: 1. The evidence presented during his revocation hearing should have been excluded as it was obtained through egregious police conduct violating his Fourth Amendment rights. 2. The trial court abused its discretion by revoking Appellant's sentences in full, constituting a violation of his due process rights and resulting in an excessive sentence. We affirm the District Court's decision to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in full. Appellant's first argument was not raised at the revocation hearing, leading us to review for plain error. To claim relief under the plain error doctrine, Appellant must prove: (1) an actual error occurred; (2) the error is clear and obvious; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights, impacting the outcome of the hearing. We find no plain error and conclude that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in finding Appellant violated the conditions of his suspended sentences. Regarding the second argument, the court has broad discretion in revoking suspended sentences, and this discretion will not be disturbed without showing an abuse thereof. Appellant has not demonstrated any such abuse. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860 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 filing of this decision. **REVOCATION APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS** **THOMAS HURLEY** **MARVA A. BANKS** Assistant Public Defender Oklahoma County Public Defender's Office 611 County Office Building 320 Robert S. Kerr Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for Defendant **KIRK MARTIN** Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma County 320 Robert S. Kerr Suite 505 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for the State **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur **[PDF VERSION AVAILABLE HERE](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/M-2018-335_1734421708.pdf)**

Continue ReadingM-2018-335

F-2017-1214

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1214, Marco Antonio Hernandez appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Methamphetamine) and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute (Marijuana & Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences as they were presented. A dissenting opinion noted disagreement with the majority's conclusions regarding lesser included offenses and related jurisprudence. Here’s a summary of the case events: Marco Hernandez was found guilty of serious drug offenses after police searched his motel room and discovered illegal drugs and paraphernalia. Specifically, the officers found marijuana, methamphetamine, cocaine, and various drug-related items. The police execution of the search warrant included forcing entry into his room when no one answered the door. During their search, they also found evidence suggesting Hernandez had been dealing drugs for a long time. Hernandez was sentenced to life in prison, with fines associated with his offenses. Throughout the trial, Hernandez confessed to drug possession and selling drugs, but he also tried to shift some of the blame to his girlfriend. The court faced challenges regarding whether the jury was correctly instructed on lesser included offenses, which could provide alternative verdict options for the jury beyond the heavier charges they faced. Hernandez’s appeals focused on the court's jury instructions and his attorney's effectiveness during the trial. The majority opinion found that the trial court did not err in not giving instructions about lesser included offenses since there was not sufficient evidence to support these lesser charges. Ultimately, the appeals court agreed with the trial court's decisions and upheld the convictions, despite dissenting opinions that argued for a need to reconsider how lesser offenses were treated in this case. The judgment and sentence were thus affirmed, meaning Hernandez's convictions and sentences stood as delivered by the lower court.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1214

RE-2017-964

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case No. RE-2017-964** **Antonio Depew Rhone, Appellant** **State of Oklahoma, Appellee** **Filed: April 4, 2019** **Summary Opinion:** Judge Hudson delivers the opinion of the court, affirming the revocation of Rhone's suspended sentence. ### Background: - On May 19, 2004, Antonio Depew Rhone pleaded guilty to Robbery with a Firearm and Kidnapping. - He received a 20-year sentence for the robbery (12 years suspended) and a concurrent 10-year sentence for kidnapping. - In July 2016, the State filed a motion to revoke his suspended sentence due to multiple probation violations, including new criminal charges. - After a revocation hearing on July 10, 2017, the District Court revoked Rhone's suspended sentence in full. ### Propositions of Error: 1. **Denial of Counsel of Choice:** Rhone claimed the trial court erred by not allowing him to hire his chosen attorney and denied his motion for a continuance. The court found no abuse of discretion, noting that Rhone had ample time to secure counsel but did not do so and had not shown any conflict with the appointed counsel. 2. **First Amendment Rights:** Rhone argued that his Facebook posts, which included threats, constituted protected speech. The court noted that Rhone did not object to the evidence's admissibility at the hearing, limiting review to plain error. The court ruled the statements were threats and not constitutionally protected speech. 3. **Insufficient Evidence for Revocation:** Rhone asserted the evidence against him was insufficient to support his revocation based on new criminal charges and other alleged probation violations. The court found that the State only needed to prove violations by a preponderance of the evidence and was satisfied the evidence presented justified the revocation. 4. **Abuse of Discretion in Revocation Decision:** Rhone contended that completely revoking his suspended sentence was excessive. The court reiterated that even one violation can justify a full revocation and found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision. ### Decision: The court affirmed the District Court's decision to revoke Rhone's suspended sentence. **Concurring Opinion (Kuehn, V.P.J.):** Kuehn concurred with the result, emphasizing that the evidence for the new drug charge alone justified the revocation. The other propositions were deemed moot. Kuehn agreed with the majority's analysis regarding the First Amendment claim, concluding there was no error in charging Rhone for his statements. **Conclusion:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the revocation of Rhone’s suspended sentence, affirming the trial court's findings and rulings across all raised propositions. **[Download PDF of the full opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2017-964_1734708773.pdf)**

Continue ReadingRE-2017-964

F-2014-764

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-764, Hawks appealed her conviction for Murder in the First Degree, Burglary in the First Degree, and two counts of Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Count I, which was the murder conviction, but affirmed Counts II, III, and IV, which were the burglary and kidnapping convictions. One judge dissented on the reversal of the murder conviction. Hawks was accused of being involved in serious crimes, including murder, along with two other co-defendants. After being found guilty by a jury, Hawks was sentenced to a long prison term, with the murder sentence being life imprisonment. Hawks argued that the evidence against her was weak, claiming she didn’t participate in the crimes or know about them beforehand. She believed the jury wasn't given a fair chance to make their decision because the prosecution made mistakes in explaining the law regarding aiding and abetting. Aiding and abetting means that someone helped or supported a crime, even if they weren't the main person committing it. For Hawks to be found guilty, the evidence needed to show she had some knowledge or intent to support the crimes of her co-defendants, which involved planning and executing the murder and kidnappings. However, the court found that there were major issues with how the prosecutors explained the law, which misled the jury. The judges agreed that the jury may not have properly understood the law because the prosecutor repeatedly misstated it, even if the jury was given the correct instructions. As a result, the court agreed to give Hawks a new trial for the murder charge. For the kidnapping and burglary charges, the evidence seemed sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, so those were upheld. In conclusion, while Hawks' murder conviction was reversed for a new trial due to errors in how the law was presented to the jury, her other convictions were confirmed as valid. One judge disagreed with reversing the murder conviction, believing that the verdict was just and the evidence against Hawks clear.

Continue ReadingF-2014-764

F-2011-1059

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-1059, Cristopher Lyn Kibbe appealed his conviction for various crimes, including Attempted Second Degree Burglary, Second Degree Burglary, Driving with a Revoked License, and Conspiracy to Commit Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence on the second and third counts, but modify the sentence on the attempted burglary to ten years. One judge dissented. Kibbe was found guilty by a jury and received a twenty-year sentence for each of the first two counts, while a fine of $100 was imposed for driving with a revoked license. His trial raised several issues related to judicial conduct and evidence. First, Kibbe argued that his trial was shaped unfairly by improper comments or testimonies from the prosecution. He claimed that a police officer made prejudicial remarks. However, the court found that the trial judge acted appropriately by not ordering a mistrial, as the errors cited were not fundamentally harmful to the fairness of the trial. Second, Kibbe contended that the evidence presented was not enough to support the jury's decision. The court determined that the testimony from his accomplice was properly corroborated and sufficient to justify the jury's verdicts. Kibbe also claimed that he was denied his right to present a full defense. Parts of his statements to police were not allowed into evidence. However, the court noted that many of Kibbe's exculpatory statements were presented before the jury, so it was unclear if additional statements would have made a difference. The appeal included complaints about evidence used during the sentencing phase. Kibbe's prior convictions were mentioned, and he argued that they should not have been because they were from similar transactions. The court upheld the trial judge’s decision to allow those convictions as proper evidence for sentencing enhancement. Kibbe's claims of prosecutorial misconduct were largely dismissed as well. Although he pointed out several alleged wrongdoings by the prosecutor, the court found that the arguments did not amount to significant error. Ultimately, the court modified Kibbe's sentence on one of the counts due to a clear legal error regarding the length of the sentence. The court reduced this sentence from twenty years to ten years, which adhered to statutory guidelines. The court did not find that the cumulative errors impacted Kibbe’s right to a fair trial, and therefore, most of his convictions and sentences were upheld. The decision was to confirm the judgment on Counts 2 and 3, and modify the sentence on Count 1.

Continue ReadingF-2011-1059

F 2005-603

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-603, Maurice Ladon Miller appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Maurice Ladon Miller was found guilty of serious crimes, including murder. The jury decided he should go to prison for life for the murder and for six years for conspiracy. The sentences were to be served at the same time and also added to a federal sentence he was already serving. After this, Miller appealed his case. Miller had two main arguments. First, he believed his confession to the police was not voluntary because he thought it was protected by an immunity agreement. Second, he felt he couldn’t present his defense because his lawyer was not allowed to show the jury a recording where a co-defendant said Miller was not involved in the murder. The court looked carefully at both of these arguments. They found that the confession was voluntary. Even though there was some confusion about the immunity agreement, the police had informed Miller that it did not protect him from state charges, and he waived his rights willingly. Therefore, they decided that there was no error in admitting his confession. For the second argument, the court examined the situation where Miller's lawyer recorded the co-defendant admitting to the crime but saying Miller was not involved. This recording was not allowed to be shown to the jury, which the court found to be a mistake. They explained that the recording could have been helpful for Miller's defense, as it contradicted the claim that he was involved in the murder. The absence of this evidence might have affected the trial. Ultimately, the court reversed Miller's convictions and ordered a new trial because they believed the exclusion of the co-defendant’s statement could have led to a different outcome. The dissenting judge felt the evidence against Miller was strong, and the trial court made the right choice in excluding the co-defendant's statement. Thus, the case will be retried to ensure that Miller has a chance to present all relevant evidence in his defense.

Continue ReadingF 2005-603

F 2001-171

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-171, Emily Dowdy appealed her conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree (DUI). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Emily Dowdy was found guilty of causing a death while driving under the influence of alcohol. Her trial took place in January 2001, and she was sentenced to 25 years in prison. After her conviction, she appealed, arguing ten different points about why her trial was unfair. First, she claimed that she should not have been tried again because of double jeopardy, which means a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice. However, the appellate court said that this was not the case here because the state did not purposefully try to get a mistrial. Second, Dowdy wanted to present a defense that she was involuntarily intoxicated, meaning she did not intend to be drunk, but the court ruled that she could not do this, which the appellate court found was a mistake. This mistake was very important and led to the decision to give her a new trial. The appellate court emphasized that everyone has the right to defend themselves and present their story in court, which Dowdy was not allowed to do. The other points raised by Dowdy, such as claims of unfair trial processes, bias from the judge, and other trial errors, were not addressed because the court believed that the preclusion of her intoxication defense was enough to warrant a new trial. In the end, the appellate court said Dowdy should have another opportunity to present her case to a jury where she could defend herself fully. The judge's decision not to allow her intoxication defense to be presented was seen as very serious and unfair, leading the court to reverse the earlier judgment and order a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2001-171