Garvin County

J-2019-0092

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

**Summary of the Case: Jeremy Dwayne Lavorchek v. State of Oklahoma** **Court:** Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals **Case Number:** F-2018-263 **Decision Date:** June 13, 2019 **Overview:** Jeremy Dwayne Lavorchek was convicted by a jury in Garvin County for multiple crimes associated with an armed robbery at a pharmacy. The jury found him guilty on all counts, which included First Degree Robbery, Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony, Conspiracy to Commit a Felony, multiple counts of Kidnapping, and multiple counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. Following these convictions, the jury recommended life sentences on all counts. **Key Crimes Committed (Counts):** 1. First Degree Robbery 2. Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony 3. Conspiracy to Commit a Felony 4-6. Kidnapping (3 counts) 7-9. Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (3 counts) **Sentencing:** The trial court, upon sentencing, ordered the sentences for counts 2 through 9 to run concurrently but consecutively to Count 1, which meant that Lavorchek must serve 85% of the life sentence for the robbery before becoming eligible for parole. **Propositions of Error Raised on Appeal:** Lavorchek raised eight propositions, primarily focusing on claims of double punishment, denial of self-representation, ineffective assistance of counsel, errors in sentencing, and cumulative effect of errors. 1. **Double Punishment Allegations:** Lavorchek argued that his convictions for robbery and the various assaults and kidnappings constituted double punishment. The court rejected these claims, emphasizing that the crimes were distinct and occurred sequentially, and separate punishments were authorized. 2. **Self-Representation:** He contended he was denied the right to represent himself. However, the court upheld the trial judge's discretion, stating Lavorchek's request was made after the trial had already commenced, which could be seen as an abuse of the privilege. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Lavorchek claimed a continuance was wrongly denied, affecting his counsel's performance. The court found no constitutional deficiency as the counsel performed effectively under the circumstances. 4. **Fair Sentencing Hearing:** He alleged improper consideration of aggravating evidence at sentencing. The court found that the information presented was appropriate. 5. **Consecutive Sentencing:** Lavorchek argued the trial court abused its discretion by ordering consecutive sentences, but the court ruled this was within the judge's authority and not excessive. 6. **Cumulative Error:** The court ruled there was no error to accumulate since all propositions were denied. **Outcome:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment and sentence, indicating that Lavorchek received a fair trial and proper sentencing under the law. **Legal Principles Involved:** - Double jeopardy protections - Right to self-representation - Effective assistance of counsel - Sentencing discretion of trial courts - Cumulative error doctrine The case underscores the judicial principles guiding the implications of multiple charges arising from a single criminal event and the procedural safeguards in criminal trials. **Link:** For further reference, the full opinion can be found at [Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-0092_1734447399.pdf).

Continue ReadingJ-2019-0092

RE-2018-208

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DESMOND ZHUMONSHA SMITH,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-208** **Summary Opinion** **FILED MAY 16, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Desmond Zhumonsha Smith appeals the revocation of his suspended sentence from the Garvin County District Court, Case No. CF-2015-498, presided over by the Honorable Leah Edwards. On February 26, 2016, Smith entered a plea of nolo contendere to charges of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Falsely Personate Another to Create Liability. He was subsequently sentenced to twenty years imprisonment for each count. In his first proposition of error, Smith contends that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that he violated the conditions of his probation by engaging in new criminal behavior, specifically Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and Placing Bodily Fluid on a Government Employee. Upon review, this assertion lacks merit. The standard applicable in revocation hearings is a preponderance of the evidence, which requires the State to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the violations occurred (Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10). Testimony from Officer Cooper and Sheriff Rhodes sufficiently established the necessary proof of Smith's involvement in the new crimes. In his second proposition, Smith argues that the revocation of ten years of his twenty-year suspended sentence is excessive and asserts that it should be modified. The law stipulates that proving just one violation of probation is adequate for revocation (Tilden, 2013 OK CR 10). In this case, the State demonstrated multiple violations, including new charges from two counties. Furthermore, Judge Edwards did not fully revoke Smith's remaining sentence, affirming that such decisions fall under the trial court's discretion, which will not be overturned unless an abuse of that discretion is clearly shown (Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20). **DECISION:** The revocation of Desmond Zhumonsha Smith’s suspended sentence in Garvin County District Court Case No. CF-2015-498 is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is ordered to be issued upon the filing of this decision, pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. **APPEARANCES:** **For Defendant:** Arlan Bullard 110 N. Willow St., Ste. B Pauls Valley, OK 73075 **For Appellant:** Kristi Christopher P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 **For State:** Laura A. McClain Asst. District Attorney 201 W. Grant St., Room 15 Pauls Valley, OK 73075 Mike Hunter Attorney General of Oklahoma Theodore M. Peeper Asst. Attorney General 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 **OPINION BY:** Kuehn, V.P.J. **CONCUR:** Lewis, P.J., Lumpkin, J., Hudson, J. **CONCUR IN RESULTS:** Rowland, J. [**Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-208_1734702735.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-208

F-2014-46

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-46, Bradley appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine base) in the county jail. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the district court but modified Bradley's sentence from thirty years to twenty years. One judge dissented. Bradley was found guilty by a jury in Garvin County. The jury decided his punishment would be thirty years in prison because he had previously committed felonies. The judge in his case sentenced him accordingly and this new sentence would be served at the same time as sentences from other cases he had. Bradley raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that the district court should have allowed him more time to prepare for his trial, but the court did not agree. They believed he did not meet the requirements needed for a continuance. Second, he wanted a new trial because of new evidence, but the court found that the evidence wouldn’t change the trial's outcome. He also claimed that his lawyer did not help him as much as they should have. However, the court found that he could not show how this lack of assistance changed the trial result. Additionally, he argued that the state did not share important information before the trial, but the court ruled that the information was not crucial. Bradley was concerned about comments made by the prosecutor regarding his right to remain silent. The court found no serious mistakes in this regard. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct were also rejected since the comments made were considered harmless in the context of the trial. One key issue was about Bradley's past felony convictions. The state had shown more convictions than were necessary, which the court admitted was a mistake. The court concluded that the jury might have been influenced by the extra information about Bradley's past and decided to lessen his sentence to twenty years, believing this was a fair correction. The judgment of the district court was affirmed, indicating they found no major errors in the trial process that would affect fairness, except for the over-exposure to extraneous felony convictions which led to a reduced sentence. The dissenting judge argued that the error did not greatly affect Bradley's rights and believed the original thirty-year sentence was appropriate.

Continue ReadingF-2014-46

C-2006-693

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-693, Willeford appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Willeford's sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Willeford had pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and was sentenced to twenty years for each count, served one after the other, meaning he would spend a total of forty years in prison. He later wanted to take back his guilty plea and argued that he had not been properly informed about the 85% Rule. This rule states that a person must serve 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole. The court examined the record and found that Willeford was indeed not advised about this rule. This was a key issue because, based on a previous case, if a defendant isn’t informed about important rules affecting their freedom, it can make their plea involuntary and unfair. Instead of completely overturning Willeford's guilty plea and sending the case back for trial, the court decided to change the sentences so they would be served at the same time, reducing the total prison time he would face. In the dissent, one judge expressed disagreement, arguing that the plea should be overturned altogether if it was found to be involuntary. This judge believed that just changing the sentences wasn’t enough and that the entire process needed to be reviewed, suggesting that the original ruling should simply be kept as it was.

Continue ReadingC-2006-693