Guilty Plea Archives - Page 3 of 10

C-2018-410

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

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEAN ALAN REYNOLDS,** Petitioner, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Respondent. **Case No. C-2018-410** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **APR 18 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- ### SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Petitioner Sean Alan Reynolds entered a negotiated plea of guilty in the District Court of LeFlore County, Case No. CF-2016-1365, to Soliciting Sexual Conduct or Communication with a Minor by Use of Technology (Count 1), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1040.13a, and Possession of Juvenile Pornography (Count 3), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2. On March 7, 2018, the Honorable Marion D. Fry, Associate District Judge, accepted Reynolds' guilty plea and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment on Count 1. On Count 3, Reynolds was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment with all but the first ten years suspended. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. Reynolds filed a timely motion to withdraw his plea, which was denied after a hearing. He now appeals the denial of that motion and raises the following issues: 1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying his plea withdrawal on the grounds that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered; 2. Whether the district court erred by failing to conduct the requested competency hearing; 3. Whether the special condition of probation restricting his internet use is overly broad and infringes upon his rights; 4. Whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel. **1. Denial of Motion to Withdraw Plea** Reynolds argues that his plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily, claiming the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw. The standard of review for such cases is whether there was an abuse of discretion. The district court's decision, based on testimony, demeanor, and the plea form, supports that Reynolds' plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plea withdrawal. **2. Competency Hearing** Reynolds contends that the trial court erred in not ordering a mental health evaluation before ruling on the plea withdrawal motion. However, the record reflects that the district court established Reynolds' competency when accepting his plea. There was no indication during the plea hearing of any mental incapacity, and therefore, the court acted within its discretion by not ordering further evaluation. **3. Condition of Probation** Reynolds challenges a condition of probation prohibiting internet usage for five years, arguing it's overly broad. However, this issue was not raised in his motion to withdraw the plea, leading to a waiver of appellate review on this matter. **4. Effective Assistance of Counsel** Finally, Reynolds argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. To succeed, he must demonstrate both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. He claims his counsel did not address his alleged mental health issues, but there was no evidence presented at the plea hearing to suggest incapacity. Additionally, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to cite non-binding cases. Therefore, Reynolds has failed to show he was denied effective assistance of counsel. ### DECISION The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is **DENIED**. The district court's denial of Petitioner's motion to withdraw plea is **AFFIRMED**. The MANDATE is ordered issued. --- **APPEARANCES IN THE DISTRICT COURT** **CYNTHIA VIOL** ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER **KIMBERLY D. HEINZE** PLEA COUNSEL **MATTHEW R. PRICE** MOTION TO WITHDRAW COUNSEL **MIKE HUNTER** ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA --- **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur in Results **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-410_1734106115.pdf)

C-2018-489

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2019
Post category:C

**SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Mario Donsheau Cherry entered blind pleas of guilty to multiple charges including First Degree Manslaughter, Causing an Accident Resulting in Great Bodily Injury, and Leaving the Scene of an Accident, among others, in the District Court of Oklahoma County. His pleas were accepted by the Honorable Bill Graves on February 23, 2018. After a sentencing hearing on April 5, 2018, Cherry was sentenced to life in prison on some counts, with additional sentences for other counts that ran concurrently. On April 12, 2018, he filed an application to withdraw his plea, which was denied on May 4, 2018. Cherry appeals this denial, raising the following issues: 1. **Denial of Withdrawal of Plea:** Cherry argues he should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming it was not entered knowingly and voluntarily partly because he was not adequately informed about waiving his right to appeal. 2. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** He claims his counsel did not sufficiently inform him about the consequences of waiving his appeal rights through his plea. 3. **Excessive Sentence:** Cherry contends that the imposed sentences are excessive and shock the conscience. After reviewing the case, including the original record and briefs, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cherry's motion to withdraw his plea. The court cited that the plea was determined to be knowing and voluntary as Cherry acknowledged understanding of the consequences including the nature and severity of the charges and the rights he was waiving. Regarding ineffective assistance, the court noted that this claim was not raised in the initial application to withdraw the plea or in the petition for certiorari, resulting in a waiver for appellate review. On the issue of sentencing, the court confirmed that the sentences were within statutory guidelines and that running some counts consecutively was within the trial court’s discretion. The court found no excessive or shocking elements in the imposed sentence in light of Cherry's guilty admissions and prior felony history. **DECISION** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

RE-2017-964

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2019
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)**

RE-2017-484

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JERMAINE THRASH,** Appellant, **VS** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2017-484** **Filed April 4, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Jermaine Thrash, appeals from the revocation of his ten-year suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2005-4341 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, by the Honorable Michelle D. McElwee, District Judge. On October 11, 2005, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 - Rape in the First Degree; and Count 2 - Forcible Oral Sodomy. He was sentenced to fifteen years for each count with the first five years to be served and the remaining ten years suspended, with the sentences running concurrently. On September 29, 2015, the State filed an application to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence, alleging multiple violations of probation: testing positive for illegal drugs, failure to pay supervision fees, failure to participate in a sex offender treatment program, and possession of pornographic material. Appellant waived the twenty-day hearing requirement, and the hearings were subsequently continued several times to allow him to comply with probation requirements. The revocation hearing took place on May 1, 2017, before Judge McElwee. The State's witness, Megan Hicks, Appellant's probation officer, testified about Appellant's consistent failures to complete his probation requirements. She noted his non-participation in court-ordered sex offender treatment and multiple positive drug tests, including methamphetamines and cocaine, spanning over several months between 2015 and 2017. Notably, Appellant admitted to using drugs even shortly before the hearing. Appellant offered mitigation, arguing that he used drugs to cope with his circumstances as a convicted felon and sex offender. However, the court found that his continued drug use and failure to adhere to his probation terms constituted substantial violations. On appeal, Appellant asserts that his violations were merely technical and therefore do not justify the full revocation of his sentence. However, the ruling emphasizes that continued drug use while on probation is not merely a technical violation. The court noted that Appellant had numerous opportunities to comply with the probation requirements, and the trial judge's discretion in revoking the suspended sentence was upheld. **DECISION:** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's ten-year suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2005-4341 is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** **FOR APPELLANT:** Kenda H. McIntosh Andrea Digilio Miller Oklahoma County Public Defender **FOR THE STATE:** Merydith Easter Mike Hunter Oklahoma County District Attorney Jennifer Miller Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J., LUMPKIN, J., HUDSON, J., ROWLAND, J. [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2017-484_1734711166.pdf)

F-2017-970

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-970, Angelica C. Coats appealed her conviction for several crimes including drug possession and obstruction of an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court’s decision to accelerate her deferred judgment and sentence because she had violated probation by failing to pay required fees. One judge dissented, arguing that she was not willfully failing to pay because she had been declared indigent in court and there was no inquiry into her ability to pay.

F-2017-911

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-911, the appellant appealed his conviction for various offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of the appellant from the Drug Court program. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, previously convicted of two counts of Second Degree Burglary, was sentenced to twenty-one years for each count but with most of that time suspended. While under supervision, the appellant was accused of violating the terms of his release due to new criminal charges. He later pleaded guilty to those new charges as well. To avoid serving the full sentences, the appellant entered a Drug Court program aimed at helping him overcome substance abuse issues. However, after several years in the program, he faced multiple sanctions for drug use and missed compliance with program rules. Eventually, the state moved to terminate him from Drug Court, asserting he had violated several agreements tied to his participation. During the hearing to decide whether he should be removed from the program, the trial judge ultimately decided that the appellant had not adequately followed the rules and terminated his participation. The appellant then argued that the judge should have considered giving him additional chances rather than terminating him outright. The court checked to see if the trial judge had abused his discretion, meaning if the judge made a choice that was unreasonable or did not follow the law. The records showed the appellant had been sanctioned several times over his three years in the program, but he continued to struggle with drug use. The court found no evidence that the judge had failed to weigh all the necessary factors before deciding to end the appellant's time in Drug Court. In the end, the court affirmed the decision to terminate the appellant from the Drug Court program, stating that the earlier judgments regarding his sentence also needed no changes since the mistakes made in paperwork were corrected. Therefore, the appeal was largely dismissed as moot.

F-2017-559

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-559, Jonas Jorge Conroy-Perez appealed his conviction for Harboring a Fugitive From Justice. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing. One judge dissented. The case started when Conroy-Perez entered a guilty plea in 2015, which allowed him to avoid immediate penalties but required him to follow certain rules for two years. One of these rules involved paying fees. Later, the state claimed he violated these rules by not only missing payments but also due to new felony charges. In 2017, after a hearing, the judge decided that Conroy-Perez had violated his probation and increased his sentence to a 10-year term, with time suspended except for the first 90 days in jail. Conroy-Perez argued that he couldn’t pay the fees because he was unable to work after a vehicle accident and was receiving worker's compensation. The court looked into his arguments. On one hand, the court agreed that while the state proved he owed money, they should also have checked whether he was willfully not paying. The state did not show he could afford to pay the fees, thus the court ruled it was not right to increase his sentence based solely on that. Therefore, they sent the case back for further examination. On other points of appeal, the court found that there was no evidence his legal representation was inadequate and did not rule on the length of the new sentence since they had already reversed it. The dissenting judge noted concern about the implications of the ruling, emphasizing the importance of understanding a person’s ability to pay before increasing sentences for not paying fees.

C-2018-648

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 28, 2019
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2018-648, Denisa Dawn Duvall appealed her conviction for domestic assault and battery in the presence of a minor. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her request for a new hearing to withdraw her plea. One judge dissented. Duvall was charged with a misdemeanor and decided to enter a plea of no contest. The court accepted her plea and gave her a deferred sentence, which included supervision and counseling. Later, Duvall filed a request to withdraw her plea, saying she wanted an attorney to help her. However, when the court held a hearing, it was unclear if she was offered a lawyer or if she had decided to represent herself. Duvall claimed that she didn’t understand the charges or the meaning of her plea when she first entered it. The court didn’t allow her a lawyer during the hearing to withdraw her plea, which is against her rights under the Constitution. The court recognized that Duvall should have had legal help during that critical moment. The State agreed that Duvall didn’t receive a fair process because she was not represented by counsel. The court decided that they needed to redo the hearing where Duvall could have a lawyer present, and she should be allowed to explain why she wants to withdraw her plea. The court ordered that Duvall be given a new chance to file a motion for withdrawing her plea with her new lawyer and scheduled an evidentiary hearing on that motion. If her request to withdraw her plea is denied again, her lawyer must help her with an appeal. The decision from the court resulted in Duvall getting a new hearing, where she can properly address her plea's withdrawal with the support of an attorney.

F-2017-1166

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 14, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1166, the appellant appealed his conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of the appellant's deferred sentence. One judge dissented. The appellant, Kenneth Allen Day, was charged with two crimes: unauthorized use of a vehicle and concealing stolen property. He pleaded guilty to the first charge, and the second was dismissed. His sentence was postponed until 2021, with conditions he needed to follow during probation. However, the State later claimed he had not followed these conditions, including not reporting as he was supposed to and being involved in new criminal activity. During a hearing, it was found that he had indeed violated his probation rules. As a result, the court decided to move up the date for his sentencing, leading to a five-year prison term and a fine. The appellant argued that the court had made a mistake in this decision. However, the court found that the trial court acted within its rights and did not abuse its discretion. Thus, they confirmed the earlier decision about the appellant's sentence.

C-2017-567

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 27, 2018
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-567, the petitioner appealed her conviction for harboring a fugitive from justice. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant part of her request and said that she was wrongly denied her right to have a lawyer help her during important steps of her case. One judge disagreed with this decision. The case involves Teresa Lorena Altobella, who was charged with helping someone avoid the law. She pleaded guilty to the charge and was given a five-year prison sentence, which was suspended, meaning she wouldn’t go to jail if she followed certain rules, such as doing community service and completing a specific program. After her plea, she wanted to change her mind and asked the court to let her withdraw her guilty plea. The court had a hearing where Altobella tried to argue that she should be allowed to change her plea, but she did not have a lawyer to help her. She had trouble getting a lawyer before the hearing, and when she showed up without one, the judge did not allow her to have another lawyer during this important moment. Altobella argued that her guilty plea was not made correctly—she said she didn’t fully understand what she was doing when she pleaded guilty. The higher court looked at these points and agreed with Altobella when it came to the right to have a lawyer. The court said it is important for defendants to have legal help, especially during crucial parts of their cases like asking to withdraw a guilty plea. The court found that Altobella did not waive her right to a lawyer in a proper way, meaning that she should have been given a chance to have legal help. Because of this issue, the court decided to reverse the district court's decision that denied her request to withdraw her guilty plea. They sent the case back to the district court to make sure Altobella could have a lawyer help her figure out if she still wanted to withdraw her plea. The court's ruling on the pleas and other arguments was set aside because they believed it was essential to have proper legal representation in such cases. In summary, the court made it clear that every defendant has the right to legal assistance during important steps in their trial or when making significant legal decisions. This decision ensures that defendants have the support they need to navigate the legal system properly.

C-2017-1311

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 4, 2018
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-1311, Heath Justin Wright appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including Second Degree Burglary, Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant relief to Wright, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial. One judge dissented. Wright entered a negotiated plea without legal counsel and was accepted into the Pontotoc County Drug Court program. His plea agreement stated that if he successfully completed the program, his charges would be dismissed. However, if he failed, he would receive a lengthy prison sentence for each charge. After the State sought to terminate him from the drug court program, Wright tried to withdraw his plea. The court denied his request and sentenced him to the agreed-upon prison terms. Wright claimed his attorney did not assist him properly. He argued that he was not warned about the risks of representing himself in court. The court found that this lack of advice affected his decision to plead guilty. Since it was clear that Wright’s attorney did not address this issue, the court decided he should be allowed to withdraw his plea and face trial for the charges. The ruling concluded that because the initial plea was handled improperly, Wright should get another chance to defend himself in court.

RE-2016-1049

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 30, 2018
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2016-1049, George appealed his conviction for violating the conditions of his probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence in one case and reversed the revocations in three other cases with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. George had a history of criminal activity, including a guilty plea to second-degree statutory rape. He received a sentence with parts suspended, allowing him to leave prison if he followed probation rules, including not having contact with minors. This became an issue when George was found to be in contact with his biological son, which he claimed was unconstitutional since he was not the victim of his previous crime. During a hearing, evidence showed that George was discovered with a child, and while he later claimed that it was his son, the court found that the state proved he violated his probation by having contact with a minor. The court affirmed the revocation in the case where this violation occurred, stating that a single violation is enough to revoke probation. However, George was also accused of failing to pay court costs in three other cases. The court decided that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he failed to pay, thus reversing the decision to revoke his probation in those cases. The court instructed the lower court to dismiss those revocations. This decision recognized the importance of proving probation violations with solid evidence, especially regarding financial obligations.

C-2017-684

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 31, 2018
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-684, Bryan Lee Guy appealed his conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle, driving while his license was under suspension, and affixing an unauthorized license plate. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal and remand the case to the District Court for a determination of whether he is a mentally ill person exempt from paying the costs of incarceration. One judge dissented. Bryan Guy was charged with three offenses and entered a guilty plea for all of them. He received a sentence that included time in prison and jail, plus post-imprisonment supervision. After a few days, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, saying he didn't fully understand what he was doing or that he wasn't well advised by his lawyer. The court held a hearing but decided not to allow him to withdraw his plea. In his appeal, Bryan raised three main issues. He argued that he should be allowed to take back his guilty plea because it wasn't made in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary way. He also complained about being charged for incarceration costs and claimed his lawyer didn't provide effective help. The court looked closely at Bryan’s arguments. It found that he didn’t prove that he didn’t understand his plea, concluding that the trial court acted fairly. Bryan's second point about the costs also didn't stand because he didn't raise it during the first hearing, which meant he could not bring it up later in his appeal. His claim about not getting good help from his lawyer was examined using a specific test. The court noted that Bryan claimed to have been misinformed about the minimum punishment for one of the offenses, but this did not affect the outcome since the misunderstanding was in his favor. Ultimately, the court found that there was a chance Bryan might be mentally ill, which means he might not have to pay for incarceration costs. This was a significant factor, leading to the decision to send the case back to the lower court for more examination of his mental health status. The final decision of the court was to deny the appeal for the first two issues but recognized the need to assess Bryan's mental health concerning the costs he was ordered to pay for incarceration. The case was remanded for that specific determination.

C-2017-33

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 24, 2018
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-33, a person appealed his conviction for manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to run concurrently with another sentence. One judge dissented. In this case, the person, who we'll refer to as the appellant, had entered a guilty plea to first degree manslaughter. He ended up being sentenced to twenty-three years in prison. After some time, the appellant decided he wanted to take back his guilty plea. He claimed he didn't fully understand the consequences of his plea when he entered it, and he felt he was pressured into making that choice. The court held three hearings to talk about the appellant’s request to withdraw his guilty plea. Ultimately, the judge denied his request, finding that his plea was made voluntarily and knowingly. The appellant raised two main arguments in his appeal. First, he argued that his plea was not given voluntarily or knowingly. Second, he said he did not get proper legal help from his attorney, which affected his case. The court looked closely at the entire record, including the hearings and the agreements made during the plea process. They found that even though the appellant felt he was pressured, he actually understood what he was doing when he entered his plea. They decided that the plea was valid and should not be withdrawn. However, the court also recognized that the state did not follow the agreement regarding a related case. The state had promised not to seek a revocation of the appellant's other suspended sentence, but after the appellant filed to withdraw his plea, the state moved to revoke that sentence anyway. The court determined that this was a significant breach of the plea agreement, which affected the fairness of the situation. Since the appellant was also facing the loss of additional years in prison because of the state's actions, the court decided to modify his sentence. Instead of having the two sentences run one after the other, the court ordered them to run at the same time. This way, the appellant would not be unfairly punished because of the state’s breach of their agreement. In conclusion, the court agreed the appellant’s plea was valid and was made knowingly and voluntarily. However, to correct the mistake made by the state regarding the plea agreement, they modified his sentence to ensure fairness. One judge disagreed with some parts of the decision.

M-2017-739

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 1, 2018
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2017-739, Jeremy L. Garza appealed his conviction for Driving under the Influence of Intoxicating Substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Garza to represent himself during the acceleration proceedings without him properly waiving his right to counsel. One judge dissented. Garza had initially entered a guilty plea to a DUI charge and was given eighteen months of probation. However, the State later accused him of not following the rules of his probation, such as failing to report and not paying fines. When Garza addressed the court without a lawyer during these acceleration proceedings, the court did not properly document that he understood his right to have a lawyer or that he chose to give up that right. The court's opinion stressed that anyone facing charges has the right to a lawyer and can only waive this right if they do so knowingly and intelligently. This means they need to understand the consequences of representing themselves. Since the court did not show that Garza waived his right to counsel properly, the decision to sentence him was reversed. The matter was sent back to the lower court, instructing them to vacate the judgment and hold further proceedings that follow this ruling.

RE-2017-57

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 19, 2018
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2017-57, Leslie Kay Mosby appealed her conviction for burglary and drug possession. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold her revocation from the mental health court program and the resulting sentences. One judge dissented. Leslie Kay Mosby was convicted for several crimes, including burglary and possession of a controlled substance. She was sentenced to seven years for two felony counts and one year for a lesser charge. She entered a plea agreement that allowed her to participate in a mental health court program, which meant that if she did well, her sentences would not need to be served in prison. However, if she failed in the program, her sentences would be enforced. During her time in the mental health court program, Mosby had many problems, including missing appointments and using drugs. The state noticed these issues and asked the court to take her out of the program. After a hearing, the court agreed that she had not followed the program rules and removed her from the program. This meant that she would now serve her sentences in prison. Mosby believed that the court was wrong to remove her from the mental health program without giving her proper chances to improve. She also argued that her sentences should run at the same time instead of one after the other. However, the court decided that the original agreement was not clear enough about the sentences running together and confirmed the judge’s decision to impose consecutive sentences. Lastly, Mosby pointed out that there was a mistake in the paperwork about the charge against her, but she did not follow the right steps to correct it. The court decided that the judge's rulings were mostly correct, but they would send the case back so the judge could ensure that the correct parts of the sentences were listed properly. Overall, the court affirmed the decision to revoke her from the mental health court program and ruled that her longer sentences would stand, with some corrections to the paperwork.

C-2017-458

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 9, 2018
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. MAC-2017-458, Harris appealed her conviction for possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand for further proceedings, agreeing that Harris was denied her right to a proper evidentiary hearing to withdraw her guilty plea. One judge dissented, expressing concerns about the approach taken by the majority in requiring a hearing despite the lack of detailed reasoning in the motions to withdraw.

C-2017-271

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 14, 2017
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JUSTON DEAN COX,** *Petitioner,* **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** *Respondent.* **FILED** *DEC 14 2017* **SUMMARY OPINION GRANTING CERTIORARI IN PART AND REMANDING THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL** **LUMPKIN, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Petitioner Juston Dean Cox was charged in the District Court of McIntosh County on August 23, 2005, with Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies (Case No. CF-2005-152A). An Amended Information filed on November 28, 2005, added ten additional counts of Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. Petitioner was bound over for trial on five counts after the Preliminary Hearing on November 30, 2005, and trial was set for April 17, 2006. Subsequently, charges were filed against Petitioner for Escape from a County Jail and Destruction of a Public Building (Case No. CF-2005-172A) on September 19, 2005, followed by additional charges for Escape from a Penal Institution on January 5, 2006 (Case No. CF-2006-04) and January 26, 2006 (Case No. CF-2006-14). On January 26, 2006, Petitioner entered into negotiated guilty pleas for all four cases, resulting in concurrent sentences of thirty years. On February 6, 2006, Petitioner filed a request to withdraw his plea. A hearing was held on March 23, 2006, where the trial court denied his request. Petitioner filed Applications for Post-Conviction Relief on August 13, 2014, and June 9, 2016, leading to a hearing on December 1, 2016, where the trial court recommended allowing Petitioner an appeal out of time. This Court granted that request on January 6, 2017, and appointed counsel to represent the Petitioner. At the March 9, 2017, hearing to discuss the motion to withdraw, it was established that counsel had not prepared a formal motion for withdrawal. Petitioner was not actively represented during this critical hearing, as his plea counsel took no part in the proceedings despite being present. The court did not adequately address the lack of representation or question Petitioner regarding his rights to counsel. A criminal defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel at a motion to withdraw hearing (Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55). The court's failure to appoint conflict-free counsel and its allowance for Petitioner to proceed without adequate representation constituted a violation of his constitutional rights. Given that Petitioner raised claims regarding the voluntariness of his plea, the harmless error doctrine does not apply. Accordingly, we find marginal grounds to question the diligence of prior representations and affirm that this situation merits careful reconsideration. **DECISION** Certiorari is granted in part. The order of the district court denying Petitioner's motion to withdraw his guilty plea is *REVERSED* and the case is remanded to the District Court for *APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL* to evaluate whether to further pursue the withdrawal of the guilty pleas. *MANDATE to be issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.* **APPEARANCES IN DISTRICT COURT** **COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER:** Ariel Parry **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE:** Thomas C. Giulioni, Mike Hunter (Attorney General), O.R. Barris III, Gregory Stidham (Assistant District Attorneys), Jay Schniederjan (Assistant Attorney General) *OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, P.J. LEWIS, V.P.J.: Concur in Results HUDSON, J.: Concur KUEHN, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur* [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2017-271_1733992184.pdf)

F-2016-1181

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 14, 2017
Post category:F

In summary, Stephen Charles Swanson, Jr. appealed the revocation of his suspended sentence in the District Court of Ottawa County after he stipulated to allegations of violating the conditions of his probation. The trial court had found that he committed multiple violations, including new criminal charges, failure to report, absconding, and failure to pay fines. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision, affirming that the revocation was not an abuse of discretion. The court noted that the revocation of a suspended sentence is at the discretion of the trial court and will only be reversed if there is a clear error in judgment against the evidence presented. The ruling was affirmed, and the mandate was ordered issued upon filing this decision.

C-2016-877

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 7, 2017
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-877, Charles David Miller appealed his conviction for multiple charges including stalking and possession of a firearm during a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Miller’s petition in part. The court affirmed the judgments and sentences for some counts but reversed the sentence for Count 1 and dismissed Count 4 due to double punishment concerns. One judge dissented. The case began when Miller, facing serious charges, entered a guilty plea in December 2014, agreeing to certain terms. He was originally given deferred sentences, meaning he would not serve time in prison if he followed the terms of his probation. However, after a hearing in 2015, the court ruled to impose a harsher sentence because Miller did not comply with the terms, leading to his appeal. Throughout the appeal, Miller argued that his guilty plea should be withdrawn for several reasons. He claimed there was no factual reason for his plea, that he was not made aware of his rights, and expressed concerns about double punishment as well as the effectiveness of his lawyer. The court reviewed the details and concluded that Miller had not shown enough grounds for his claims because some issues were not raised earlier in court, making them not eligible for review. The court particularly focused on whether Miller's plea was voluntary and if he was properly informed. They found that while Miller's plea might have been motivated by a desire to get his car back, he did understand the consequences of his actions. The court upheld the judgment for some counts, but it noted that the sentence for Count 1 was illegal because it exceeded the maximum allowed by law. As a result, they ordered a new sentencing for that count and dismissed Count 4 entirely because of double punishment. In summary, the main points were that Miller wanted to reverse his guilty plea but the court found many of his arguments unsubstantiated. They decided to change his sentence on one charge while dismissing another, affirming the result on several others.

F-2016-461

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 22, 2017
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-461, Roy Dale Doshier appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacated a $250 attorney fee that had been assessed. One judge dissented. Doshier was found guilty after a jury trial and received a 30-year sentence, with the requirement to serve 85% of the term before being eligible for parole. He raised six points of error in his appeal, focusing on issues such as the admissibility of his statements, jury instructions regarding lesser offenses, the attorney fee, and the fairness of the proceedings. The court reviewed each issue. It found no error in admitting Doshier's statements, reasoning that the trial court had not abused its discretion in allowing them into evidence. On the question of jury instructions, the court concluded that the judge had not erred in not including instructions for lesser offenses, as no prejudice had been shown against Doshier. However, the court agreed to vacate the $250 fee for indigent defense because the attorney assigned to him did not actually represent him in court, which meant the fee was not valid. They also determined that Doshier's sentence was not excessive and did not require the jury to be informed about sex offender registration as part of the instructions. In the end, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence while vacating the fee, upholding the conviction due to a lack of legal errors. Overall, there was no indication that Doshier did not receive a fair trial, and the judges were satisfied with the outcome except for the singular point about the attorney fee.

M 2015-1099

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 31, 2017
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2015-1099, Phantirath appealed her conviction for engaging in prostitution and operating a place of prostitution. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse her convictions because she was not allowed to enter a guilty plea, which is a right for defendants. One judge dissented, stating that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the plea.

C-2015-856

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 2, 2017
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-856, Misty Dawn Smith appealed her conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to deny Smith's petition for a writ of certiorari but modified her post-imprisonment supervision from two years to one year. One judge dissented. Smith was charged with having methamphetamine and entered a guilty plea in December 2012. She was supposed to complete a drug court program which could lead to a lighter sentence. If she did well, her sentence would be a five-year suspended sentence and a fine. If she didn't, she could face ten years in prison and a larger fine. She was taken to a treatment facility and started the drug court program in May 2013. However, in July 2015, the state asked to remove her from this program because she was not following the rules. A judge agreed, and Smith was sentenced to ten years in prison and a fine. Smith wanted to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing that she didn’t understand everything about her plea and the consequences of the drug court program. She also argued that her sentence was too harsh. The court looked at these claims but determined that there was no reason to allow her to change her plea. Her initial plea was considered to be made knowingly and voluntarily. The court found that Smith knew about the difficult nature of the drug court program and that she had many chances to follow the rules. They also stated that she didn’t raise her claim about the excessive sentence in the correct way, and therefore, it could not be considered. The court agreed that the two years of post-imprisonment supervision given to her was incorrect and lowered it to one year, which is what the law allows. The decision was made after reviewing all details and records of the case.

RE-2016-401

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 11, 2017
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2016-401, a person appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and burglary in the second degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences. One member of the court dissented. The case began when the person entered a guilty plea on November 3, 2014, and was sentenced to eight years in prison, with three years to be served and the rest suspended. This means he would not have to serve the full eight years right away. However, problems arose when the State of Oklahoma wanted to revoke his suspended sentence on January 13, 2016. During the revocation hearing held on April 26, 2016, it was found that he had violated the terms of his suspended sentences. The important issue in the appeal was whether the court had the right to hold the hearing after a certain time. According to the law, a revocation hearing should happen within twenty days unless both sides agree to wait longer. In this case, the person pleaded not guilty on February 1, 2016. The hearing was originally set for February 29, 2016, which was already too late according to the rules. It was then moved to April 26, 2016, making it even later and not meeting the legal deadline. Because the court did not have the right to hold the hearing after so much time had passed, the higher court decided to reverse the earlier decision and send the case back for further action that follows the law.

RE-2015-767

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 18, 2016
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-767, the appellant appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence but ordered the lower court to give her credit for time served in jail. The court also agreed that imposing nine months of supervision after her imprisonment was not appropriate. No judge dissented.