Guilty Plea Archives - Page 2 of 10

C-2018-1174

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 31, 2019
Post category:C

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA **Case No. C-2018-1174** **OCT 31, 2019** **STEVEN JOSEPH BEATY, Petitioner, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent.** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Steven Joseph Beaty entered guilty pleas to the following charges in the District Court of Grady County, Case No. CF-2018-115: **Count I** - Felony Domestic Assault and Battery, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies (21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644 (C)); **Count II** - Misdemeanor Violation of Protective Order (22 O.S.Supp.2012, § 60.6); **Count III** - Obstructing An Officer (21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 540). The Honorable Kory Kirkland accepted the pleas on October 16, 2018. The sentences imposed included the following: **Count I** - ten (10) years imprisonment with the last seven (7) years suspended and a $500.00 fine; **Count II** - one year imprisonment and a $200.00 fine; **Count III** - one year imprisonment and a $100.00 fine, with all sentences served concurrently and additional requirements such as costs, victim compensation assessments, and referral to the Batterer's Intervention Program. On October 25, 2018, Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. After a hearing on November 13, 2018, Judge Kirkland denied the motion. Petitioner now appeals this denial and raises the following propositions of error: 1. The lack of a factual basis for the plea renders it involuntary due to not being served with the Protective Order. 2. The trial judge failed to consider Petitioner’s ability to pay the victim compensation fee. 3. Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel during both the plea hearing and at the plea withdrawal hearing. **Analysis:** After thorough review of the petitions, records, and transcripts, the court finds no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. A plea is evaluated based on whether it was voluntary and intelligent, requiring the Petitioner to show it was entered inadvertently or without consideration. In his first two propositions, Petitioner alleges he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea due to inadequate factual basis and failure to inquire about ability to pay the compensation fee. However, these claims were not raised in the motion to withdraw nor in the certiorari petition, waiving their consideration on appeal. In Proposition III, relating to ineffective assistance of counsel at the withdrawal hearing, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable probability that such deficiencies would have altered the outcome. The court affirms that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and not coerced. The claim about the court’s failure to record considerations for the victim compensation assessment is acknowledged; thus, that part of the assessment is vacated, and the case is remanded for a hearing to address this requirement properly. **Conclusion:** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is **DENIED**. The Judgment of the District Court is **AFFIRMED**. The current victim compensation assessments are **VACATED**, and the case is **REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT** to consider all necessary factors for assessment under 22 O.S.2011, § 142.18(A). **OPINION BY**: LUMPKIN, J. **CONCUR**: LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. **COUNSEL FOR DEFENSE AT THE PLEA HEARING**: Bill Smith, P.O. Box 926, Norman, OK 73070 **COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER ON APPEAL**: Danny Joseph, Oklahoma City, OK **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE**: Jason M. Hicks, District Attorney, Kara Bacon, Assistant District Attorney, Chickasha, OK. [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-1174_1734227971.pdf)

C-2019-132

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 31, 2019
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2019 132, Brown appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court denied his petition for certiorari, stating his plea was voluntary and intelligent. One judge dissented. [occa_caption]

C-2019-227

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 31, 2019
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CYNTHIA ROWSHELL GAY,** Petitioner, **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Respondent. **Case No. C-2019-227** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **OCT 31 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** Petitioner Cynthia Rowshell Gay, represented by counsel, entered guilty pleas as part of a plea agreement with the State to the charges of Count 1, Driving While Under the Influence, a violation of 47 O.S.2011, § 11-902, and Count 2, Driving While Under Suspension, a violation of 47 O.S.2011, § 6-303(B), in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2019-369. The Honorable Kathryn R. Savage, Special Judge, accepted the pleas on February 19, 2019. The plea agreement included a five-year sentence on Count 1, with all but the first thirty days suspended, and a one-year suspended sentence on Count 2, with the sentences running concurrently. On March 1, 2019, Petitioner filed an Application to Withdraw Guilty Plea, and a hearing was held on March 21, 2019, which resulted in the denial of her application. Petitioner claims the following error: Ms. Gay did not knowingly and voluntarily enter her plea of guilty, and thus the District Court erred when it denied her Application to Withdraw her Guilty plea. Upon thorough review of the record, including original documents, transcripts, and briefs, we find no need for reversal or modification. Our evaluation of a guilty plea focuses on its voluntary and intelligent nature (Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-43, 1969; Ocampo v. State, 1989 OK CR 38, ¶ 3). We review the denial of a petitioner's motion to withdraw a plea for an abuse of discretion (Lewis v. State, 2009 OK CR 30, ¶ 5). Petitioner acknowledged signing the Plea of Guilty Summary of Facts form, which reflected her voluntary decision to plead guilty and accept a suspended sentence. With prior felony convictions, she was familiar with the process. Her motivations for signing the plea agreement, including a desire to expedite her release from jail, do not render the plea involuntary (United States v. Webb, 433 F.2d 400, 404 (1st Cir. 1970)). Petitioner’s change of heart after consulting relatives does not provide grounds for withdrawal, nor does disappointment with her sentence (Miles v. U.S., 385 F.2d 541, 544 (10th Cir. 1967); Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, ¶ 44). The trial court found her plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, and its findings during the hearing on the application to withdraw were credible. The record shows that Petitioner was fully informed of and understood the consequences of her plea. Her later claim regarding misunderstanding the conditions of her suspended sentence was deemed incredible by the trial court. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Therefore, the proposition is denied. **DECISION:** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court 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 to be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.** **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE KATHRYN R. SAVAGE, SPECIAL JUDGE** **APPEARANCES IN DISTRICT COURT:** NICOLE BURNS, ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER HALLIE E. BOVOS, ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER 320 ROBERT S. KERR, #400 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** RICKY LUTZ, ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 320 ROBERT S. KERR, #505 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **NO RESPONSE NECESSARY** **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **LEWIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** **ROWLAND, J.: Concur** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2019-227_1734232520.pdf)

F-2018-893

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 26, 2019
Post category:F

The case presented involves D'Angelo Landon Burgess, who appealed the acceleration of his deferred sentence stemming from a guilty plea to Grand Larceny. The Oklahoma County District Court had originally awarded him a five-year deferred sentence in 2013. However, in 2017, the State sought to accelerate this sentence due to new offenses, including a high-speed chase and the resulting charges. The appeal centers around a claim of a lack of diligent prosecution by the State, which Burgess argued deprived him of his due process rights. However, the court determined that there was no plain error, meaning that the proceedings followed legal protocols adequately and Burgess had not demonstrated harm from the timing of the acceleration hearing. The court affirmed the district court's decision, stating that accelerations of deferred sentences do not require the same level of due process protections as full criminal proceedings. The decision also referenced a related case in which Burgess faced serious charges, including first-degree murder, which is currently under appeal. The court's opinion concluded with affirming the order of the district court to accelerate Burgess's deferred sentence. In conclusion, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the acceleration of Burgess's sentence, ruling there was no violation of due process and that the district court acted within its discretion.

RE-2018-426

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 19, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CALVIN TAYLOR HERRIEN,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-426** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 19 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Calvin Taylor Herrien, appeals from the revocation of four years of his twenty-five year suspended sentences in Case No. CF-2011-4693 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, presided over by the Honorable Cindy H. Truong. **Background:** On November 2, 2012, Appellant entered a guilty plea to two counts of Lewd Acts With a Child Under Sixteen, resulting in a twenty-five year sentence for each count, both suspended under specific probation conditions. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence on November 1, 2017, alleging Appellant violated probation by failing to reside in a lawfully approved residence and not truthfully answering inquiries from the DOC and law enforcement. A hearing commenced on November 21, 2017, where evidence was presented, including testimony from police chief Allen Lane, who testified regarding Appellant's residence proximity to a park and his notification to Appellant to relocate. Further testimony came from probation officer Daniel Straka, who reported Appellant's admission about the residence, discrepancies about probation requirements, and additional violations not included in the revocation application. Appellant testified on his own behalf, offering explanations but ultimately, after considering arguments, Judge Truong found that Appellant had committed the two breaches alleged in the application. Following a continuance, on December 1, 2017, Judge Truong revoked four years of the suspended sentence. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Inadequate Notice:** Appellant contends that the consideration of testimony regarding uncharged violations denied him adequate notice, which impeded his ability to prepare a defense. 2. **Right to Confront:** Appellant alleges deprivation of his right to confront witnesses and due process during the hearing. 3. **Excessive Sentence:** Appellant argues that the four-year revocation of his suspended sentence is excessive. **Analysis:** The evidence presented at the revocation proceedings clearly showed that Appellant violated the terms of his probation. Appellant does not contest the findings concerning the recognized violations. He does not argue that he was unaware of the specifics related to the alleged probation violations or that he lacked the opportunity to defend himself against those violations. In regards to Propositions I and II, while Appellant claims other violations were improperly admitted, the court's finding that he committed the alleged violations outlined in the application suffices to validate the revocation. Furthermore, due process entitles Appellant to argue mitigating circumstances, which was provided by Judge Truong. Concerning Proposition III, revocation decisions are primarily at the discretion of the trial court and will only be overturned in cases of demonstrable abuse of that discretion. Appellant has not shown that the four-year revocation was disproportionate relative to the violations committed. **Decision:** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking four years of Appellant's twenty-five year suspended sentences in Case No. CF-2011-4693 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** to be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **Appearances:** **For Appellant:** Joshua C. Smith Attorney at Law 217 N. Harvey, Ste. 108 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **For Appellee:** Ryan P. Stephenson Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma County 320 Robert S. Kerr, Ste. 505 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **CONCUR IN RESULTS:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. *Click Here To Download PDF*

F-2018-552

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 19, 2019
Post category:F

In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, Tommy Lynn Berry appealed the termination of his participation in Drug Court after admitting to violations. The court reviewed Berry's claims and ultimately affirmed the termination. 1. **Involuntary Stipulation**: Berry argued that his stipulation to the allegations was involuntary and that the trial court erred by accepting it without meeting the standard for a guilty plea. However, the court found that no legal precedent required the same standards for stipulations in Drug Court as for guilty pleas. The court established that Berry was aware of the consequences of his stipulation, which was made in exchange for the dismissal of additional charges. 2. **Abuse of Discretion in Termination**: Berry contended that the trial court should have imposed progressively increasing sanctions before terminating him. The court clarified that while graduated sanctions are generally preferred, the statute also allows for immediate termination if warranted. Since Berry had committed new offenses while participating in the program, the court found no abuse of discretion in his termination. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Berry claimed he did not receive effective representation. The appellate court utilized the Strickland standard to evaluate this claim, requiring proof of both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. The court noted that Berry's counsel had negotiated a favorable outcome—dismissing the new drug charges—thereby showing that the counsel's actions were reasonable and resulted in no detriment to Berry. Ultimately, the court concluded that Berry's termination from Drug Court was justified and affirmed the lower court's decision.

RE-2018-1039

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 12, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **FRANK REVILLA PAIZ, JR.,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. --- **Case No. RE-2018-1039** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 12 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** On January 4, 2017, Appellant Frank Revilla Paiz, Jr., represented by counsel, entered guilty pleas to multiple charges including Possession of CDS - Methamphetamine (Count 2), Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Count 4), Driving Without a Driver's License (Count 5), Failure to Maintain Insurance or Security (Count 6), and Failure to Pay Taxes Due to the State (Count 7) in Woodward County Case No. CF-2016-114. He received an eight-year sentence for Count 2 and a one-year sentence for Count 4, with all but the first year suspended, subject to probation conditions. Sentences were concurrent. On the same day, Paiz pleaded guilty in Woodward County Case No. CF-2016-117 to Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance - Methamphetamine (Count 1) and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Count 2), receiving similar sentences. On June 2, 2017, the State filed an Application to Revoke Paiz's suspended sentences in Cases CF-2016-114 and CF-2016-117, citing new charges for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance in Case No. CF-2017-142 and failure to pay court costs. Paiz pled guilty to the new offense, receiving a suspended sentence of ten years, contingent on completing a drug treatment program. The State filed another Application to Revoke on August 14, 2018, due to new charges of Carrying Weapons and violations of probation. Following a revocation hearing on September 28, 2018, Paiz stipulated to the allegations, leading to the revocation of approximately 2,495 days of suspended sentences by the District Court of Woodward County. Paiz appeals, arguing the revocation was excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion. He cites that simple possession became a misdemeanor effective July 1, 2017, and criticizes the court for not exploring alternate sanctions. The scope of review in a revocation appeal focuses on the validity of the revocation order. This Court has held that even a single violation justifies revocation. Paiz admitted to multiple violations and new criminal activity, justifying the District Court's actions. **DECISION**: The revocation of Paiz's suspended sentences in Woodward County Case Nos. CF-2016-114, CF-2016-117, and CF-2017-142 is **AFFIRMED**. **Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.** **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WOODWARD COUNTY, THE HONORABLE DON A. WORK, ASSOCIATE DISTRICT JUDGE** --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL:** **CURTIS BUSSETT, ATTORNEY AT LAW** P.O. BOX 1494 CLINTON, OK 73601 **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** **CHAD JOHNSON** P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** **SUSAN K. MEINDERS** **MIKE HUNTER** ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY WOODWARD COUNTY 1600 MAIN STREET WOODWARD, OK 73801 **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** **CAROLINE E.J. HUNT** ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21 ST STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE** **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-2018-1039_1734355896.pdf)

F-2018-892

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 5, 2019
Post category:F

**Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma** **Case Summary:** **Case Name:** David Andrew Sanders, Appellant, v. The State of Oklahoma, Appellee **Case Number:** F-2018-892 **Date Filed:** September 5, 2019 --- **Background:** David Andrew Sanders appeals the acceleration of his deferred sentencing resulting from finding evidence that he committed new offenses while on probation. On April 29, 2016, in **Case No. CF-2012-2326**, Appellant entered no contest pleas to Burglary in the First Degree and Pointing a Firearm at Another. In **Case No. CF-2016-1178**, he entered a guilty plea for Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer. His sentencing was deferred for ten years (Burglary), five years (Firearm charge), and 30 days (Larceny). All sentences were to run concurrently. On November 28, 2017, the State filed an Application to Accelerate the Deferred Sentence, alleging new offenses. At a hearing on August 21, 2018, the court found sufficient evidence of new offenses: possession of a firearm while on probation, possession of a controlled dangerous substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. **Facts of the Case:** On May 6, 2017, police found Sanders unconscious in an idling car with a handgun in his lap. During the arrest, officers discovered a glass pipe and methamphetamine in the car's console. Sanders argued that this evidence was the product of an unlawful search. **Legal Findings:** The district court ruled that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the acceleration proceeding, which is not akin to a full trial. The court found no evidence of egregious police misconduct. According to Oklahoma law (Richardson v. State), exclusion of evidence is only warranted in revocation hearings where there has been egregious misconduct. **Conclusion:** The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The discovery of the firearm, glass pipe, and methamphetamine did not violate Sanders' rights given the context of the proceedings. **Decision:** The order of the district court accelerating Sanders’ deferred judgment and sentencing is AFFIRMED. --- **Counsel on Appeal:** - For Appellant: Micah Sielert and Andrea Digilo Miller - For Appellee: Tiffany Noble, Mike Hunter, Tessa L. Henry **Opinion by:** Presiding Judge Lewis **Concurrences:** Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn, Judge Lumpkin, Judge Hudson, Judge Rowland --- For more details, you may [download the full PDF here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-892_1735120506.pdf).

RE-2018-662

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 29, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **RYAN MITCHELL CRONIC,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-662** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA AUG 29 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Ryan Mitchell Cronic, pleaded guilty to three felony counts of Concealing Stolen Property in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2013-2184. He was sentenced to five years suspended on each count and was ordered to pay restitution. Additionally, he pleaded guilty to one felony count of Concealing Stolen Property in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2015-580, which resulted in a five-year imprisonment sentence, also suspended in full and ordered to run concurrently with Case No. CF-2013-2184, with credit for time served. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence for each case, alleging Appellant failed to pay supervision fees and restitution. Appellant stipulated to these allegations and received a sentence of thirty days in the custody of the Oklahoma County Sheriff. The applications to revoke were later dismissed by the State's motion. A second Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence was filed alleging that Appellant again failed to pay supervision fees and restitution, as well as including new charges: Aggravated Attempting to Elude a Police Officer, Driving While Revoked, and Failure to Provide Proof of Security Verification. After a hearing, the Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge, ordered Appellant's suspended sentences revoked in full. Appellant appeals this revocation, claiming it was an abuse of discretion. We affirm the order of the District Court regarding the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences. The decision to revoke suspended sentences lies within the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed unless there is an abuse. An abuse of discretion is described by this Court as a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented. Appellant has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion in the present case. However, there is a discrepancy in the record regarding Appellant's sentences. The Judgment and Sentence for both cases states Appellant was given a ten-year suspended sentence, while all other documents refer to a suspended sentence of five years. Consequently, we remand this matter to the District Court to address this inconsistency. **DECISION** The District Court's revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2013-2184 and CF-2015-580 is **AFFIRMED**, but the case is **REMANDED** to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the **MANDATE is ORDERED** to be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY R. HENDERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT APPEAL REVOCATION HEARING** **RICHARD HULL** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **HALLIE E. BOVOS** **611 COUNTY OFFICE BLDG.** **OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102** **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** **KELLY COLLINS** **OKLAHOMA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY** **MIKE HUNTER** **ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA.** **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J.: **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR**

C-2018-698

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:C

The text you provided is a legal summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, regarding the case of Joe Saucedo Guerrero. The opinion details the background of the case, the pleas entered by the petitioner, the subsequent motion to withdraw those pleas, and the court's final decision denying the petitioner's request for relief. Here is a breakdown of the main points: 1. **Case Background**: - Joe Saucedo Guerrero pled guilty to multiple charges including Lewd or Indecent Proposal to a Child, Soliciting a Minor for Indecent Exposure/Photos, and Possession of Child Pornography. - He was sentenced to a total of twenty years for the first seven counts and five years for the eighth count, with all sentences running consecutively. 2. **Motion to Withdraw Plea**: - Guerrero filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas shortly after sentencing, claiming his pleas were not entered knowingly and voluntarily, misunderstanding of the charges, ineffective assistance from his counsel, and that the sentences were excessive. - The judge denied this motion after a hearing where Guerrero was the only witness. 3. **Propositions of Error**: - The court examined Guerrero's arguments which included claims of inadequate factual basis for the pleas, ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the sentences were excessive. - The court found that Guerrero had waived some claims due to failure to raise them properly in his motion or during the hearing. 4. **Court's Findings**: - The court held that Guerrero's pleas were entered knowingly and voluntarily, especially since he had been informed of all charges and had signed a plea form acknowledging them. - The court found no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel that warranted the withdrawal of his plea. - The court concluded that the sentences imposed were within statutory limits and not excessive. 5. **Final Decision**: - The court denied Guerrero's petition for certiorari and affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence. This summary captures the critical elements of the judicial opinion and reflects the legal reasoning utilized by the court in reaching its conclusion.

C-2018-1024

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:C

It appears that you have provided a court document from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals relating to the case of Larado James Smith, who entered a guilty plea to multiple counts of rape and sodomy. The document outlines the background of the case, the procedural history, and the court's decision to deny Smith's petition for a writ of certiorari. To summarize the key points: 1. **Background of the Case**: Larado James Smith entered a negotiated guilty plea to six counts of Second Degree Rape and three counts of Forcible Sodomy, resulting in a 15-year prison sentence. 2. **Motion to Withdraw Plea**: Smith later filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he had valid reasons for doing so, including alleged pressure from his counsel and stress from his incarceration. 3. **Court's Findings**: The trial court conducted a hearing on this motion and ultimately denied it, finding that Smith had entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily. This decision was based on the court's assessment of the circumstances and Smith's understanding of the plea. 4. **Appeal**: Smith appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw the plea. The appellate court reviewed the record and determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. It was concluded that Smith’s plea was made voluntarily, after a thorough understanding of the implications. 5. **Final Decision**: The Court of Criminal Appeals denied Smith's petition for certiorari, affirming the lower court's judgment and sentence. If you have specific questions about the case or need information on a particular aspect of the document, please let me know!

C-2018-834

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 27, 2019
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** FILED JUN 27 2019 **Case No. C-2018-834** **TAMMERA RACHELLE BAKER,** Petitioner, vs. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Respondent. --- **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Tammera Rachelle Baker, Petitioner, entered a blind plea of guilty to first degree manslaughter, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 711, in the District Court of Delaware County, Case No. CF-2017-157. The Honorable Robert G. Haney, District Judge, found Petitioner guilty. The Honorable Barry V. Denny, Associate District Judge, later sentenced Appellant to thirty (30) years imprisonment, with ten (10) years suspended, and a $1,000.00 fine. Petitioner filed an application to withdraw the plea, which was denied. She now seeks a writ of certiorari in the following propositions of error: 1. The plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered into as Petitioner believed the court would not impose more than ten years and relied on misinformation from her attorney regarding witness testimony. 2. Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel during her plea proceedings. 3. The sentence imposed post-plea is shockingly excessive due to improper victim impact statements. Certiorari review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently before a competent jurisdiction, whether the sentence is excessive, whether counsel was constitutionally effective, and whether the State has the power to prosecute. The Court will not review issues not raised in the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. The trial court's ruling on a motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed for an abuse of discretion unless it involves statutory or constitutional interpretation, which is reviewed de novo. **Proposition One**: Petitioner argues her plea was involuntary due to reliance on her attorney's misinformation regarding sentencing expectations. The record refutes this argument, indicating that the plea was voluntary; therefore, no relief is warranted. **Proposition Two**: Petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel and requests an evidentiary hearing. Claims are assessed under the Strickland v. Washington test. Petitioner has not shown clear evidence to support a finding of ineffective assistance, thus this proposition and the request for a hearing are denied. **Proposition Three**: Petitioner claims her sentence is excessive. The Court will only disturb a sentence within statutory limits if it shocks the conscience. The facts of this case do not meet that threshold, so no relief is warranted. **DECISION**: The petition for the writ of certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES:** **TRIAL** Lee Griffin, Attorney for Appellant Kathy Baker, Attorney for Withdrawal **APPEAL** Katrina Conrad-Legler, Attorney for Appellant Nicholas P. Lelecas, Assistant District Attorney for the State **OPINION BY**: LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur --- For full ruling, [click here to download the PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-834_1734180202.pdf).

RE-2018-425

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 13, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ROBERT JOSEPH CLARK, JR.,** **Appellant,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-425** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** On April 9, 2015, Appellant Clark, represented by counsel, entered a guilty plea to Count 1, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (CDS) (Methamphetamine), and Count 2, Possession of a CDS (Psilocybin) in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2014-8289. Sentencing was deferred for five (5) years, subject to terms and conditions of probation. On September 9, 2015, Clark's sentence in Case No. CF-2014-8289 was accelerated, and he was sentenced to eight (8) years each for Counts 1 and 2, all suspended, with terms and conditions of probation. That same date, Clark entered a guilty plea to Count 1, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Count 2, Possession of a CDS in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2015-3126. He was sentenced to eight (8) years for each count, all suspended, also subject to terms and conditions of probation. Clark's sentences in Case No. CF-2015-3126 were ordered to run concurrently with his sentences in Case No. CF-2014-8289. Additionally, Clark entered a guilty plea in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2015-3693 for Possession of a CDS, receiving a sentence of three (3) years, all suspended, which was ordered to be served consecutively to his sentence in Case No. CF-2015-3126. On March 24, 2017, the State filed an Application to Revoke Clark's suspended sentences in all three referenced cases, alleging the commission of new offenses in Oklahoma County Case Nos. CF-2016-7039 (possession of stolen property and possession of drug paraphernalia) and CM-2016-2833 (obstructing an officer and failing to wear a safety belt). Following a revocation hearing on April 17, 2018, the District Court of Oklahoma County, presided over by the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, revoked Clark's suspended sentences in full. Clark's sole proposition of error on appeal alleges an abuse of discretion in revoking his suspended sentences, claiming that the sentence is excessive. The revocation of Clark's suspended sentences is AFFIRMED. The scope of review in a revocation appeal is limited to the validity of the revocation order executing the previously imposed sentence. We examine the basis for the factual determination and assess whether there was an abuse of discretion. It is established that violation of even one condition of probation is sufficient to justify the revocation of a suspended sentence. Based on the appeal record, there appears to be no merit in Clark's contention that the full revocation of his suspended sentences is excessive, nor do we find an abuse of discretion in Judge Elliott's decision. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2014-8289, CF-2015-3126, and CF-2015-3693 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. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** **THOMAS HURLEY** **ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER** **OKLAHOMA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE** **611 COUNTY OFFICE BLDG.** **320 ROBERT S. KERR AVE.** **OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102** **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** **KIRK MARTIN** **ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY** **OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **320 ROBERT S. KERR SUITE 505** **OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102** **COUNSEL 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/RE-2018-425_1734692953.pdf)

C-2018-675

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 6, 2019
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.

RE-2018-231

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 6, 2019
Post category:RE

This summary opinion addresses the appeal of Latarsha Grant concerning the revocation of her suspended sentences in two criminal cases. Below is a concise breakdown of the key points from the opinion: ### Background - Latarsha Grant was convicted in 2007 for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (Case No. CF-2007-359) and sentenced to ten years with the sentence suspended. - In 2011, she was involved in new criminal activities leading to further actions against her suspended sentence. - By 2012, she had entered a guilty plea in a new case regarding drug distribution (Case No. CF-2011-269) with a concurrent ten-year suspended sentence after completing a rehabilitation program. - In 2017, a motion to revoke her suspended sentences was filed due to allegations of her involvement in a robbery, leading to the revocation hearing in 2018. ### Procedural History - The trial court, after hearing evidence, revoked her suspended sentences due to her involvement in the new crimes and appeared to find sufficient evidence against her. ### Appellate Claims Grant raised seven propositions of error, which the court proceeded to analyze: 1. **Competent Evidence**: The court found sufficient evidence that Grant had violated the terms of her suspended sentences. The evidence established her involvement in planning the robbery and her presence during the crime. 2. **Right to Confront Witnesses**: The court concluded that the hearsay issues raised were not applicable, as revocation procedures allow for such evidence. Furthermore, all relevant witnesses were available for cross-examination. 3. **Jurisdiction Concerns**: Grant's arguments relating to the trial court's jurisdiction or abuse of discretion regarding specific offenses were deemed misdirected, as they pertain to her original plea which she could challenge separately. 4. **Excessive Sentencing**: Grant claimed her overall sentence was excessive, but this is tied to the context of her behavior and criminal activities, which justified the trial court's decisions. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Similar to the above, claims surrounding the inadequacy of her representation in court were not appropriately addressed in this revocation context and would need separate proceedings. 6. **Nunc Pro Tunc Orders**: Grant sought to correct inaccuracies related to her plea and sentencing, which would also need to be handled through a different legal mechanism than this appeal. ### Conclusion The appellate court affirmed the decision of the District Court to revoke the suspended sentences, stating that the evidence supported the trial court's findings. The court dismissed all of Grant's claims based on their analysis of procedural and evidential standards, emphasizing the limitations of their review scope in revocation appeals. ### Decision Issued The order to revoke the concurrent suspended sentences was **AFFIRMED**. The court ordered the issuance of the mandate. ### Document Access A link to the full opinion is provided for those seeking detailed legal reasoning: [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-231_1734701780.pdf).

C-2018-927

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

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SAHIB QUIETMAN HENDERSON,** **Petitioner,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-927** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 30, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Sahib Quietman Henderson entered a blind plea of guilty to Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance within 2,000 feet of a School in the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CF-2016-393. The plea was accepted by the Honorable Ken J. Graham, District Judge, on April 30, 2018, with sentencing delayed until July 25, 2018. On that date, Petitioner was sentenced to thirty (30) years in prison, with the first fifteen (15) years to be served and the remaining fifteen (15) years suspended, alongside a fine of $2,500.00. On August 2, 2018, represented by counsel, Petitioner filed an Application to Withdraw Plea of Guilty. At hearings on August 20 and 22, 2018, Judge Graham denied the motion to withdraw. Petitioner appeals the denial and raises the following propositions of error: 1. Failure of the State and District Court to honor the promised consideration for Appellant's plea requires modification of his inflated sentence, or an opportunity to withdraw his plea. 2. The sentence is shockingly excessive given the circumstances of the case. 3. Ineffective assistance of counsel in identifying, presenting, and preserving issues for review. After thorough review of these propositions and the entirety of the record, including original record, transcripts, and briefs, we find that neither reversal nor modification is required. Our primary concern in evaluating the validity of a guilty plea is whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently. Petitioner carries the burden of proving his plea was entered unadvisedly, through influence, or without deliberation. Voluntariness is assessed through the entire record. In **Proposition I**, Petitioner claims that the plea lacked a knowing and voluntary nature due to non-fulfillment of a promise that he would be sentenced as a first-time offender and because of purported drug buys by his wife reducing his sentence. Contrary to this argument, the record shows Petitioner was treated as a first-time offender, with the court considering the mitigating factors at sentencing. His dissatisfaction with the resulting sentence does not provide grounds for withdrawal of the plea. In **Proposition II**, Petitioner contends the sentence is excessive. However, as he did not raise this claim in his Application to Withdraw Guilty Plea to the trial court, it is waived on appeal. In **Proposition III**, Petitioner argues ineffective assistance of counsel during both the plea and withdrawal hearings. A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is only established by showing that counsel's performance was deficient and that it resulted in prejudice to the defendant. The record does not support that withdrawal counsel's performance was deficient or that it affected the outcome—Petitioner maintained he did not wish to withdraw his plea but rather sought a sentence modification. **DECISION** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon this decision. --- **APPEARANCES IN DISTRICT COURT:** Grant D. Shepherd 601 S.W. C Ave., Ste. 201 Lawton, OK 73501 Counsel for the Defense **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** Kimberly D. Heinze P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 Counsel for Petitioner at the Plea Hearing Ronald L. Williams P.O. Box 2095 Lawton, OK 73502 Counsel for the Defense at the Withdrawal Hearing Jason M. Hicks District Attorney Cortnie Siess & Greg Steward Assistant District Attorneys Stephens Co. Courthouse 101 S. 11th St., Duncan, OK 73533 Counsel for the State **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur --- [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-927_1734182885.pdf)

RE-2018-234

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

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JERRY WAYNE LANDS, NOT FOR PUBLICATION** **Appellant,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-234** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 30, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **KUEHN, VICE-PRESIDING JUDGE:** On March 7, 2008, Appellant Jerry Wayne Lands, represented by counsel, entered a negotiated plea of no contest to the charge of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) After Former Conviction of a Felony in Pittsburg County Case No. CF-2007-420. He was sentenced to ten (10) years, all suspended, subject to terms and conditions of probation. Between May 2008 and March 2009, at least five (5) applications to revoke his probation were filed. On December 5, 2008, Lands was charged with additional offenses and ultimately, on April 13, 2009, the district court revoked five years of his suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2007-420. Subsequent to Lands' guilty plea in Case No. CF-2008-526, where he received a ten-year sentence with five years suspended, the State filed multiple revocation applications in both cases. On October 26, 2017, the State filed another Application to Revoke Lands' suspended sentences, which culminated in a full revocation during a hearing held on July 11, 2017. **PROPOSITIONS OF ERROR:** 1. Lands contends that the trial judge abused his discretion by refusing to grant a continuance for him to hire counsel. 2. He argues there was no valid waiver of the twenty-day requirement, resulting in loss of jurisdiction to revoke his sentence. 3. He claims the evidence was insufficient to support the allegations in the revocation motions. 4. He asserts the revocation of his entire remaining sentences was excessive. **DECISION:** 1. **Continuance Denial:** The court found no abuse of discretion by Judge Hogan in denying the requested continuance, which was sought on the day of the hearing without prior notification of intent to hire private counsel. 2. **Waiver of the 20-Day Rule:** The waiver was valid despite Lands' claim that it was made without the representation of counsel, as the appellate record indicated he knowingly waived his right to a timely hearing. 3. **Sufficiency of Evidence:** The court ruled there was sufficient evidence to warrant revocation of Lands' suspended sentences. Violations of probation can be established by a preponderance of evidence, and the record supported the trial court's findings. 4. **Excessiveness of Revocation:** The court concluded that revocation of Lands' entire suspended sentences was not excessive, given his extensive history of probation violations. **RULING:** The order of the District Court of Pittsburg County revoking Appellant's suspended sentences is **AFFIRMED**. **COUNSEL:** *Appellant:* Wesley J. Cherry *Appellee:* Max E. Moss, Jr., Assistant District Attorney; Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. *LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR* *LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS* *HUDSON, J.: CONCUR* *ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR* **MANDATE ORDERED.** For a complete view and reference, [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-234_1734698244.pdf).

RE 2018-0118

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

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

C-2018-372

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

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

PR 2018-1203

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 24, 2019
Post category:PR

OPINION ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF AND REMANDING MATTER TO DISTRICT COURT On November 29, 2018, Petitioner, by and through counsel Melissa A. French, filed an application for an…

PC 2017-755

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 24, 2019
Post category:PC

In OCCA case No. PC 2017-755, the petitioner appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the previous sentence and allow for resentencing with a jury. The dissenting opinions argued against the majority decision, indicating that the judge had the discretion to deny jury resentencing based on prior waivers. The case started when the petitioner was just seventeen years old and pleaded guilty to First Degree Murder in 2006. Originally, he was sentenced to life in prison without the chance for parole. After some time, he claimed that this sentence was unfair because he was a minor when he was sentenced. The court agreed and decided to let him be resentenced but had to deal with the issue of whether his resentencing should involve a jury. The petitioner argued that since he was seeking resentencing, he should be allowed a jury trial. However, the state disagreed, pointing out that he had waived his right to a jury trial when he originally pleaded guilty. The judge decided that because of this waiver, he didn’t have to give the petitioner a jury for resentencing. In this case, the court looked at previous decisions that said when a juvenile is sentenced to life without parole, they should have a jury trial unless they give up that right. The majority of the court found that the petitioner did not truly waive his right to a jury for the resentencing, as he was relying on new rules from recent important cases. Ultimately, the court decided that it was wrong for the judge to deny the jury resentencing. They chose to vacate that decision and said the case should go back to the lower court to figure out the right way to do the resentencing, with the ability to include a jury if the petitioner asked. The dissenting opinions argued that the judge had actually acted correctly by denying the request for a jury because the petitioner had already waived that right back when he pleaded guilty. They believed that the rules shouldn’t allow a person to change their mind long after the original decision. The court ordered that the petitioner’s guilty plea and conviction were still valid, but they needed to follow the correct process under the law for the new sentencing.

C-2017-1036

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 23, 2019** **DANA MECHELE LANGLEY,** Petitioner, vs. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Respondent. **Case No. C-2017-1036** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Petitioner Dana Mechele Langley was charged in the Tulsa County District Court with multiple counts, including **Lewd Molestation**, **Enabling Child Sexual Abuse**, and **Child Sexual Abuse**. Langley entered a blind plea of guilty to these charges on June 19, 2017. Following a hearing, Judge Sharon K. Holmes sentenced her to significant prison terms. On September 6, 2017, Langley, through her counsel, filed an application to withdraw her guilty plea, which led to the appointment of conflict counsel. After a hearing, her request was denied. Langley then sought a writ of certiorari, raising three propositions of error: 1. The trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw her guilty plea was plain error and an abuse of discretion due to an inadequate factual basis. 2. Denial of effective assistance of counsel during both the plea hearing and the plea withdrawal hearing. 3. The sentences imposed were excessive given the circumstances. **DECISION:** After reviewing the complete record, including transcripts and exhibits, the Court found no grounds for relief. **Proposition I:** The claim regarding the factual basis for the lewd molestation counts was not raised at the withdrawal hearing; thus, it was procedurally defective and not properly before the Court. **Proposition II:** The ineffective assistance claim was similarly waived as it was not included in her motion to withdraw. Furthermore, the Court found sufficient evidence supporting the factual basis of her pleas, dismissing claims about the inadequacy of representation. **Proposition III:** The sentences were consistent with statutory ranges and did not shock the conscience of the Court. **CONCLUSION:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is **DENIED**, and the judgment and sentence from the district court are **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.** --- **Click Here To Download PDF** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2017-1036-1_1733900854.pdf)

RE-2018-249

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CAMERON CLEO GIVENS,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-249** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 16, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Appellant Cameron Cleo Givens appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2003-2422, overseen by Judge Glenn M. Jones. On February 2, 2005, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to multiple counts, including four counts of Rape in the Second Degree and three counts of Forcible Oral Sodomy. He was sentenced to prison terms, with most of the sentences suspended, leading to an effective agreement of concurrent sentences. On May 2, 2017, the State filed an Amended Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence, alleging several violations, including failure to report to his probation officer, non-compliance with the Sex Offender Registration Act, and new crimes committed in two other cases. After the revocation hearing, Judge Jones revoked Appellant's suspended sentence in full. **Proposition I:** Appellant contends he was denied adequate opportunity to request discovery regarding Officer O'Connor's testimony. However, he was given notice about Officer O'Connor's potential testimony and did not establish a right to further discovery. The proposition is deemed meritless. **Proposition II:** Appellant asserts that it was improper to admit and rely on the preliminary hearing transcript from Case No. CF-2016-9187 for the revocation. The standards of due process allow for such admission without requiring proof of a witness's unavailability when the defendant had the chance to confront the witness in prior hearings. His objections are similarly without merit, as the case law indicates that competent evidence supported the revocation independent of the contested transcript. **Conclusion:** A suspended sentence is a grace extended by the court. The State need only prove one violation to justify a full revocation of a suspended sentence. In this case, the trial court's decision was within its discretion and supported by competent evidence. **Decision:** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2003-2422 is **AFFIRMED**. ADDITIONAL NOTES: The opinion was filed by Judge Lumpkin, with concurrence from Presiding Judge Lewis, Vice-Presiding Judge Kuehn, and Judges Hudson and Rowland. **Mandate ordered upon filing.** **Counsel for Appellant:** Katie Samples and Johanna F. Roberts, Assistant Public Defenders, Oklahoma City, OK. **Counsel for Appellee:** Jessica Foster, Assistant District Attorney, and Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK. **For complete judicial proceedings, refer to the downloadable PDF.** [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-249_1734697863.pdf) --- *This document summarizes the judicial opinion concerning the revocation of Cameron Cleo Givens' suspended sentences following probation violations and provides insights on the legal rationale behind the court's decision.*

F 2017-1074

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2017-1074, Brown appealed his conviction for Drug Court termination. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination, stating the trial court acted within its discretion. One judge dissented.

C-2018-315

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 18, 2019
Post category:C

This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of David Duane Albright, a petitioner who sought to withdraw his guilty pleas related to charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of a controlled substance, and maintaining a place for keeping/selling controlled substances. ### Key Points: 1. **Background**: - Albright was originally charged in Delaware County with multiple drug-related offenses in 2010. - He entered a guilty plea in December 2010 and was accepted into the Delaware County Drug Court Program. - After being terminated from the program for non-compliance, he was sentenced in September 2013 to life imprisonment on two counts and 20 years on another, with fines imposed. 2. **Procedural Posture**: - Albright filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas shortly after sentencing, which was denied. - He initially failed to appeal but was granted an appeal out of time in 2018. 3. **Claims on Appeal**: Albright raised several propositions of error: - **Proposition I**: He argued his plea lacked an adequate factual basis. - **Proposition II**: Claimed his pleas were not entered knowingly and voluntarily. - **Proposition III**: Contended the $50,000 fine was unauthorized by statute. - **Proposition IV**: Asserted he should have received credit for jail time, violating his due process. - **Proposition V**: Claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. 4. **Court's Analysis**: - **Proposition I and II**: The court found Albright waived appellate review by not raising these claims in his motion to withdraw his plea. - **Proposition III and IV**: These claims were also deemed waived for similar reasons, not raised in the motion to withdraw. - **Proposition V**: While the court reviewed the ineffective assistance of withdrawal counsel, they found no evidence of deficiency or that it prejudiced Albright's case. 5. **Decision**: - The court affirmed the lower court's denial of Albright's Motion to Withdraw Plea, concluding that he did not demonstrate a valid basis for the claims made. 6. **Concurring Opinion**: - Judge Rowland specially concurred, expressing concern regarding the adequacy of the factual basis for the plea related to maintaining a place for keeping/selling a controlled dangerous substance. While recognizing the issues, he noted that because the facts weren’t adequately challenged during the proceedings, the claims were not actionable in this appeal. ### Conclusion: The petitioner's appeal was denied, and the trial court's decision stands, allowing the guilty pleas to remain in effect due to procedural waivers and the lack of substantive evidence to support the claims raised on appeal. The opinion highlights the importance of raising issues timely and thoroughly in the proper forums to preserve them for review.