Hearing

RE-2021-1290

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2021-1290, Vernon Shawn Miller, Jr. appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking Miller's suspended sentences but vacated the part of the order that imposed post-imprisonment supervision. One member of the court dissented. Vernon Shawn Miller, Jr. had a serious legal history. He pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including kidnapping and domestic assault, and was given a sentence but had part of it suspended after he completed a special drug program. However, in August 2021, the State filed a motion to revoke his suspended sentence because he broke the rules of his probation, which included failing to complete a required assessment and getting arrested for a new crime. The trial court held a hearing and decided to revoke all of Miller's suspended sentence. Miller argued against this decision, claiming it violated the rules because he should not serve more time than the sentence he was given. The court explained during the hearing that it intended to revoke all of the suspended time left on his sentence. Miller raised several arguments during his appeal. He thought the sentence should not exceed what he had left to serve and believed that the facts used to revoke his sentence came from an earlier trial rather than the hearing itself. Miller also said he did not get good help from his lawyer during the process. The court reviewed Miller's arguments closely. It confirmed that the judge's decision to revoke the entire suspended sentence was valid and within their rights. They found no specific errors in what the trial court did, except for the imposition of post-imprisonment supervision, which should not have been added since it was not part of the original sentence. In the end, the court upheld the revocation of Miller's suspended sentence but removed the part about post-imprisonment supervision, meaning Miller had to serve the time his sentence required without additional conditions.

Continue ReadingRE-2021-1290

RE-2021-1042

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2021-1042, Matthew Bryan Buttery appealed his conviction for a series of crimes including distribution of controlled substances and petit larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered that his new sentence run concurrently with a prior sentence from another case. One judge dissented on the issue of how the sentences should relate to one another. Matthew Buttery had previously pled guilty to several charges. He was given a ten-year suspended sentence, which means he didn't have to serve time in prison at that moment but had to follow certain rules. If he broke any rules, the court could take back that suspended sentence and send him to prison. The state claimed that Buttery did not report as required, did not pay his probation fees, and committed a new crime, for which they wanted to revoke his suspended sentence. During the hearing, the court found Buttery had violated the terms of his probation and revoked his suspended sentence. Buttery argued that the court made a mistake by not giving him credit for time he had already served and by ordering that his new sentence run after a different sentence from another county. The court explained that it had the right to revoke Buttery's suspended sentence because he violated the rules. They stated they didn't have to give him credit for time served because the suspended sentence is not changed by the violation. They also found that the judge improperly decided his new sentence would run after the one from the other county rather than at the same time. The judges clarified that when a sentence is revoked, it should not change how sentences from different cases affect each other. In the end, Buttery's appeal led to some changes. The court ordered that his new sentence should run concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time, rather than one after the other. However, the court upheld the overall decision to revoke his suspended sentence for breaking the rules of his probation. One judge agreed with the decision to affirm the revocation but disagreed with other parts of the analysis regarding the relationship between the sentences. So, to summarize, the main points from the case are that Matthew Bryan Buttery's suspension was revoked because he violated probation rules, but the court made a mistake when deciding how his new sentence should relate to an older sentence. He is to serve them at the same time now, according to the latest court ruling.

Continue ReadingRE-2021-1042

C-2021-218

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2021-218, the petitioner appealed her conviction for outraging public decency and violation of a protective order. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the appeal. The court agreed that her due process rights were violated when the district court denied her motions to withdraw her pleas while she was absent from the hearing. No one dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2021-218

RE-2019-80

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JODY LYNN BAILEY,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. RE-2019-80** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Appellant Jody Lynn Bailey appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2016-2879. On February 1, 2017, Appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas to four counts of Identity Theft (21 O.S.Supp.2011, § 1533.1) and two counts of Using a Computer with the Intent to Defraud (21 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1953(A)(2)). He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for fifteen years on each count with all but the first four years suspended. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. On November 1, 2018, the State filed an application to revoke the suspended sentences, alleging Appellant committed the new crime of robbery. A hearing on the application was held on January 22, 2019, before the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge. Judge Elliott granted the State's application and revoked Appellant's suspended sentences in full. On appeal, Appellant asserts the revocation was excessive. We disagree. **ANALYSIS** At the hearing where the State seeks revocation of a suspended sentence, the court must determine whether the suspended portion of the sentence should be executed based on whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated. A violation need be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, a trial court's decision to revoke a suspended sentence should not be overturned unless there is an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when there is an unreasonable or arbitrary action taken without proper consideration of the facts and law, or a clearly erroneous conclusion that goes against the logic and effect of the evidence presented. In this case, we find no abuse of discretion in Judge Elliott's decision to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences. The determination of witness credibility and the weight given to their testimony is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the trier of fact. Therefore, Judge Elliott's decision to revoke the suspended sentences has not been established as an abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended judgments and sentences in Case No. CF-2016-2879 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 delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** **THOMAS P. HURLEY** ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE 611 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **HALLIE BOVOS** ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE 400 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **DAN POND** ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE 505 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR STATE **MIKE HUNTER** OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL **CAROLINE HUNT** ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21st STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** **LEVIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** **ROWLAND, J.: Concur** --- For further information, you may download the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2019-80_1734335833.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2019-80

RE-2019-850

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-850, Jade Christian Nichols appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking four years of Appellant's suspended judgment and sentence and remanded the case for a new hearing before a different judge. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-850

RE-2019-522

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-522, Leslie Ford appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentences in both cases but also instructed the lower court to correct a written order error regarding the duration of the revocation. One member of the court dissented. Leslie Ford had previously been sentenced in two cases for stalking, with each sentence being five years long but suspended, meaning he would not have to go to prison if he followed certain rules. However, he was accused of breaking these rules. The state said he didn’t pay the required fees, didn’t go to treatment for domestic abusers, drank alcohol, and even got in trouble for more offenses. At a hearing, the judge found that Leslie did indeed break the rules, leading to the full revocation of his sentences. Leslie then appealed the decision, bringing up several reasons why he thought the revocation was unfair. He argued about his mental fitness during the process and claimed there were time limit violations concerning the hearings. The court explained that they could only focus on whether the revocation was valid and that the evidence showed he broke the rules. They also found that a confusion on how long he was sentenced was a mistake, which they ordered to be fixed. Overall, Leslie did not manage to successfully argue for the reversal of his revocation, except for the correction regarding the error in the time of imprisonment mentioned in the written order.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-522

C-2019-329

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2019 329, Feeling appealed her conviction for Aggravated Assault and Battery and Assaulting a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to deny her appeal and affirm the lower court's decision. One judge dissented. [occa_caption]

Continue ReadingC-2019-329

F-2018-900

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ANGEL MUNOZ,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-900** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAN - 9 2020** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Angel Munoz, appeals from the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2016-701 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, by the Honorable Glenn M. Jones, District Judge. On March 7, 2018, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to Count 1: Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon, with sentencing deferred for a period of five years under probation conditions until March 6, 2023. On June 26, 2018, the State filed an application to accelerate Appellant's deferred judgment and sentencing, alleging he violated probation by committing the new crime of Possession of a Firearm after a prior felony conviction, as charged in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2018-2625. An amended application was filed on August 21, 2018. At the hearing on this application, the State called Appellant's probation officer, Tammera Saavedra. During a home visit on April 13, 2018, Officer Saavedra found a nine-millimeter semiautomatic pistol and ammunition in plain view in a garage where Appellant claimed to be staying. Additionally, personal items belonging to Appellant were found near the firearm, leading to his arrest for possessing the firearm. Appellant's brother-in-law, Arturo Plascencia, testified that Appellant did not live in the garage, stating that he had never stayed there. Appellant corroborated this, but both testimonies were contradicted by evidence showing Appellant's possession and control of the area where the gun was found. After hearing the evidence, Judge Jones found that Appellant violated his probation. Consequently, he accepted the State's recommendation and sentenced Appellant to a term of ten years. Appellant raises two propositions of error on appeal: 1. **Proposition I**: The trial court abused its discretion by accelerating Appellant's sentence when the State failed to provide sufficient competent evidence of the alleged new offense. 2. **Proposition II**: The acceleration judgment should reflect Appellant's conviction for Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon, rather than Assault and Battery With a Deadly Weapon. **ANALYSIS** In **Proposition I**, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish his knowledge of the firearm's presence. The standard for reviewing such claims requires that the court finds whether a rational trier of fact could have concluded the essential elements of the probation violation were met by a preponderance of the evidence. Evidence presented indicated Appellant's admission to living in the garage at the time the firearm was discovered. Testimony from Officer Saavedra and physical evidence reinforced the conclusion that Appellant had dominion and control over the area where the firearm was located. Conflicting testimonies regarding Appellant's residence and possession were matters for the court to evaluate. Thus, Appellant failed to substantiate that Judge Jones acted irrationally in his ruling. In **Proposition II**, Appellant argues for a correction of the accelerating judgment to accurately reflect his offense. The State agrees that this matter warrants attention. Therefore, it should be remanded to the District Court for the necessary correction. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County accelerating Appellant's deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2016-701 is AFFIRMED. However, the case is REMANDED to the District Court for a correction in accordance with Appellant's request. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2020), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** **For the Appellant:** Kenneth C. Watson, Nancy Walker-Johnson Attorney at Law 119 N. Robinson, Suite 640 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **For the State:** Tiffany Noble, Mike Hunter, Diane L. Slayton Assistant District Attorneys 505 County Office Building Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **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/F-2018-900_1735119586.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-900

RE-2018-1236

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Richard James Nunes, Appellant,** **-VS-** **The State of Oklahoma, Appellee.** **Case No. RE-2018-1236** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant, Richard James Nunes, appeals from the revocation of his eight-year suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2014-450 by the Honorable George Butner, District Judge, in the District Court of Seminole County. **Background:** On March 12, 2015, Nunes entered a guilty plea to Possession of a Stolen Vehicle (felony) and Altering License Plate/Decal (misdemeanor). He was sentenced to ten years on the felony, with the first two years to be served and the remainder suspended, and one year on the misdemeanor to be served concurrently. On December 27, 2017, the State filed a motion to revoke Nunes' suspended sentence, alleging probation violations. An initial appearance occurred on January 23, 2018, followed by the appointment of counsel on February 2, 2018. Nunes was released on bond on February 8, 2018 but failed to appear for a scheduled hearing on February 15, 2018. A hearing was ultimately held on November 26, 2018, where the probation officer testified that Nunes never reported after his release and was considered an absconder. Despite Nunes' testimony providing varying explanations for his actions, Judge Butner concluded that he violated probation and revoked the suspended sentence in full. **Proposition of Error:** Nunes asserts the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his suspended sentence because the revocation hearing was not timely. **Analysis:** According to 22 O.S.Supp.2016, § 991b(A), a revocation hearing must be held within twenty days following a plea of not guilty to the motion to revoke, unless waived. Nunes contends he never entered a plea and thus the hearing was untimely. However, as acknowledged by the State and Nunes himself, he never formally entered a plea of not guilty, meaning the twenty-day timeframe was never initiated. Moreover, the delay in the revocation hearing was primarily due to Nunes absconding and not fulfilling his responsibilities, further complicating the matter. **Decision:** The order of the District Court of Seminole County revoking Nunes' eight-year suspended sentence is therefore AFFIRMED. **OPINION BY: HUDSON, J.** **CONCUR: LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J. (CONCUR IN RESULTS); LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J.** --- For the full decision document, please visit the following link: [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-1236_1734353731.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1236

C-2018-1174

  • Post author:
  • 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)

Continue ReadingC-2018-1174

F-2018-893

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingF-2018-893

F-2018-341

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-341, Anthony Kejuan Day appealed his conviction for several charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence against him. One judge dissented. Mr. Day was convicted of assault and battery on a police officer, conspiracy to cause violence, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, obstructing an officer, and resisting an officer. The trial court sentenced him to a total of twenty-five years for the first charge, with additional long sentences for the others. Mr. Day argued that the trial court made several mistakes. He claimed that the prosecution unfairly excluded African-American jurors, that changes to the charges against him were wrong, that he was punished too harshly for similar actions, and that his sentences should not have run one after the other but rather together. The court examined each argument. For the claim about jurors, it decided that the trial court acted properly and that there was no discrimination. Regarding the changes to the charges, the court found no clear mistakes that would have harmed Mr. Day's case. The court also rejected his argument about facing double punishment for similar offenses. Finally, it determined that the trial court was correct in allowing the sentences to be served consecutively. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision of the trial court and affirmed Mr. Day's convictions and sentences.

Continue ReadingF-2018-341

F-2018-36

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-36, Robert Eugene Brewer appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child Under 12. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Brewer's conviction. One judge dissented. Brewer was tried in Tulsa County for sexually abusing a child under the age of 12. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to seven years in prison. He was also ordered to serve three years of supervision after his prison term. Brewer appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court made a mistake by allowing evidence related to other crimes that he believed had not been proven. The court reviewed the evidence and arguments presented. The main issue was whether the trial court had the right to let in evidence that showed Brewer had a pattern of behavior related to sexual abuse. This type of evidence is sometimes called propensity evidence. Brewer argued that the trial court should have held a special hearing before allowing this evidence and should have required witnesses to testify in person. However, the court found that the trial judge had done a thorough job. The judge had held multiple hearings and considered the evidence carefully. The judge did not make a mistake by allowing the evidence because they had enough information to decide it was relevant and necessary for the case. Even though Brewer did not object to the evidence when it was presented during the trial, the court considered whether there was a serious mistake that affected the fairness of the trial. After reviewing everything, the court concluded that the trial judge acted correctly. In summary, the court believed that the evidence presented was acceptable and did not harm Brewer's case. Therefore, Brewer’s conviction was upheld, but the court also instructed the district court to make some corrections to its legal documents regarding the correct law that applied to Brewer's actions at the time of the crime. The decision was to keep Brewer's sentence in place while correcting the legal documentation properly.

Continue ReadingF-2018-36

F-2018-552

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingF-2018-552

F 2018-0812

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2018-0812, Cesar Jurado appealed his conviction for various drug-related offenses and weapon possession. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to accelerate Jurado's deferred sentences; he had previously entered guilty pleas to several felony charges. The State had applied to accelerate his deferred sentences based on new serious crimes he was alleged to have committed. Jurado argued that the evidence used to support this decision was based on unreliable testimony from a witness who did not appear in person. He claimed this was an abuse of discretion. The court found that the trial court acted within its rights and that there was enough evidence to support the acceleration of Jurado's sentences. It concluded that Jurado did not prove that there was any improper action taken by the trial court. Therefore, his appeal was denied, and the acceleration of his sentences was upheld. One justice dissented from this opinion.

Continue ReadingF 2018-0812

RE-2018-868

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS / OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 12 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** --- **MISTY DAWN BARRETT,** **Appellant,** **V.** **No. RE-2018-868** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Misty Dawn Barrett appeals from the revocation of her suspended sentences in Muskogee County District Court Case Nos. CF-2016-439, CF-2017-126, CF-2017-127, and CF-2017-129. Appellant faced multiple charges across these cases, including Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Larceny of an Automobile, and Identity Theft, among others. After entering pleas and being convicted, she received several sentences which were subsequently suspended to be served concurrently. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence in all four cases, leading to a partial revocation of five years of her suspended sentences on October 25, 2017. A second Application to Revoke was filed on July 25, 2018, for new alleged crimes, leading to a revocation hearing where the trial court, presided over by Judge Mike Norman, revoked her remaining suspended sentences in full. In her appeal, Appellant argues that the full revocation was excessive, asserting that her past actions should have been anticipated due to her struggles with drug addiction, and claiming that incarceration is not an effective remedy for her situation. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence falls within the sound discretion of the trial court. A revocation will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion (Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, ¶ 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565). The State established sufficient grounds for revocation through competent evidence presented during the hearing. Appellant had previously benefited from leniency when only part of her suspended sentence was revoked. After reoffending post-incarceration, Appellant demonstrated that a suspended sentence is a privilege rather than a right (Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, ¶ 8, 990 P.2d 894, 897). **DECISION** The full revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Muskogee County District Court Case Nos. CF-2016-439, CF-2017-126, CF-2017-127, and CF-2017-129 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. --- **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MUSKOGEE COUNTY, THE HONORABLE MIKE NORMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT REVOCATION** **DANIEL MEDLOCK** 620 W. BROADWAY MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** **NICOLLETTE BRANDT** P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** **TIMOTHY KING** ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 220 STATE ST. MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 **COUNSEL FOR STATE** **MIKE HUNTER** OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL **CAROLINE HUNT** ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21st STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE** --- **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **HUDSON, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR RA/F --- [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-868_1734360560.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-868

F-2018-892

  • Post author:
  • 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).

Continue ReadingF-2018-892

RE-2018-662

  • Post author:
  • 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**

Continue ReadingRE-2018-662

RE-2018-611

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SHAZEL STEEL,** Appellant, v. **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-611** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, STATE OF OKLAHOMA AUG 15 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** On June 6, 2015, Appellant, Shazel Steel, pled guilty in three separate cases in Tulsa County. The details of these cases are summarized as follows: 1. **Case CF-2015-1948**: Appellant was convicted of Robbery in the First Degree and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment and fined $500.00. 2. **Case CF-2015-2091**: Appellant was convicted on Count 1 of Robbery with a Firearm and Count 2 of Burglary in the First Degree, receiving a twenty-year sentence and a fine of $100.00 for each count. (Count 3 was dismissed). 3. **Case CF-2015-2152**: For Count 1 (Robbery with a Firearm) and Count 2 (Kidnapping), Appellant received a twenty-year sentence each, while Count 3 (Assault with a Dangerous Weapon) led to a ten-year sentence and a fine of $100.00. (Count 4 was dismissed). All sentences were set to run concurrently, with a two-year judicial review period established. During the Judicial Review proceeding on June 5, 2017, Appellant's sentences were modified to be suspended in full. However, the State subsequently filed applications to revoke these suspended sentences based on allegations of violations related to ongoing criminal activity and non-compliance with probation conditions. The revocation hearing revealed that Appellant was in possession of a firearm while driving without a license, which was a violation of probation Rule #7 that prohibited being in a vehicle where firearms are located. Multiple other violations related to probation were also noted, leading to the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in full by the Honorable James M. Caputo. On appeal, Appellant challenges the revocation on the following grounds: 1. The evidence was insufficient to establish that he knowingly and willfully possessed a firearm. 2. The District Court abused its discretion in revoking the entire sentence. The Court addressed these propositions: **I.** The standard for revocation is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Given the evidence from Officer Terwilliger indicating that a loaded firearm was found in a car Appellant was operating, the Court deemed that the evidence sufficiently supported the revocation of the suspended sentences. **II.** As for the claim of abuse of discretion, the trial court’s decision to revoke the full suspended sentence was found to be reasonable given the multiple violations of probation. Thus, the Court affirmed the order granting the State's applications for revocation of the suspended sentences in all three Tulsa County District Court Cases. **DECISION:** The order revoking Appellant's suspended sentences is **AFFIRMED**. **APPEARANCES:** - **At Trial**: Kayla Cannon, Assistant Public Defender for Appellant; Sean Waters, Assistant District Attorney for the State. - **On Appeal**: Nicole Herron, Counsel for Appellant; Mike Hunter and Tessa L. Henry, Counsel for the State. **OPINION BY:** **LUMPKIN, J.:** **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur **[Download PDF of Full Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-611_1734429007.pdf)**

Continue ReadingRE-2018-611

C-2018-1024

  • Post author:
  • 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!

Continue ReadingC-2018-1024

RE-2018-769

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant, Robert Kenneth Kramer, appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2015-100. On September 9, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere to Financial Exploitation by a Caregiver (21 O.S.2011, § 843.1) After Former Conviction of a Felony (21 O.S.Supp.2011, § 51.1). He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for ten years, with the final six years suspended. On May 31, 2017, the trial court modified the suspended portion of the sentence from six to eight years. On March 28, 2018, the State filed an application to revoke the suspended sentence, alleging that Appellant had committed new crimes: possessing a cell phone while incarcerated and knowingly concealing stolen property. A hearing on the application was held on July 11, 2018, before the Honorable Lawrence W. Parish, District Judge. Judge Parish granted the State's application and revoked the eight-year suspended sentence in full. **ANALYSIS** The standard for revocation of a suspended sentence requires a determination of whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated, which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. A trial court's decision to revoke should not be reversed unless there is an abuse of discretion. 1. **Proposition I: Violation of the 20-day Rule** Appellant claims the district court violated the 20-day Rule as stated in 22 O.S.Supp.2012, § 991b(A). Since Appellant did not raise this objection at the hearing, the review is for plain error. Appellant failed to demonstrate that any deviation affected his substantial rights, and he had previously waived his right to a hearing within the statutory time-frame. Therefore, this proposition is denied. 2. **Proposition II: Sufficiency of Evidence** Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conclusion that he possessed a cell phone while in jail. Testimony from Appellant's ex-wife indicated that she received text messages from a phone she associated with him. Additionally, a jailer testified about witnessing inmates, including Appellant, trying to destroy a cell phone. This evidence satisfies the preponderance standard. **DECISION** The order revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2015-100 is AFFIRMED. **APPEARANCES:** - Counsel for Appellant: Curt Allen, Jeremy Stillwell, Indigent Defense System - Counsel for State: Emily Mueller, Assistant District Attorney; Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma; Theodore Peeper, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.:** LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur in Results HUDSON, J.: Concur **[End of Summary Opinion]** For further details, you may view the full court opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-769_1734420410.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-769

RE-2018-674

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **LEON DESHAWN WRIGHT,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. RE-2018-674** **Filed July 18, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** This case involves an appeal by Appellant Leon Deshawn Wright from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2014-1676. **Background:** On April 30, 2015, Wright entered a guilty plea to Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property after a previous felony conviction, for which he was sentenced to five years of imprisonment, all suspended. The State filed an application to revoke this sentence on May 9, 2016, citing multiple violations, including failure to obtain a mental health assessment, failure to report to a drug rehabilitation program, failure to pay supervision fees, and possession of marijuana. A hearing was conducted on August 27, 2018, overseen by the Honorable Bill Graves, where the judge granted the State's application for revocation, leading to the current appeal. **Analysis:** At a revocation hearing, the court determines if the terms of the probation have been violated, which should be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Revocation should not be overturned unless there's an abuse of discretion by the trial court. 1. **Possession of Marijuana:** Appellant argues insufficient evidence for this charge. The court agrees but finds sufficient evidence for the remaining violations. 2. **Failure to Pay Fees:** Appellant contends his failure to pay fees was not willful. The court finds it was Appellant's responsibility to demonstrate he was not willful in this failure. As Appellant did not provide evidence regarding his employment status or good-faith efforts to pay, the burden was not met. 3. **Full Revocation Justification:** Appellant argues that the violations do not justify full revocation. However, the court finds the failure to report alone is an adequate basis for revoking the suspended sentence. **Decision:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirms the District Court's order revoking the suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2014-1676. **Judges’ Concurrence:** - **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concurred in part/dissented in part, stating that while he agreed some violations justified revocation, he dissented concerning the failure to pay fines, emphasizing that Appellant's evidence of homelessness and unemployment should have been considered. He finds the court should demonstrate more clarity on when failure to pay fines due to indigence suffices to avoid revocation. For further details and the full legal opinion, you can [download the PDF here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-674_1734423903.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-674

J-2019-162

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **B.M.M., Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **Case No. J-2019-162** **FILED JUN 20 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** On August 12, 2016, a Youthful Offender Information was filed in Tulsa County District Court Case No. YO-2016-28, charging Appellant with multiple offenses including Robbery with a Firearm and Possession of a Stolen Vehicle. Appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas on November 28, 2016, receiving a ten-year sentence as a Youthful Offender, with sentences running concurrently. Following completion of the Youthful Offender Program, Appellant was paroled in February 2019. During a March 2019 hearing, mandated by 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-209, Judge Priddy transitioned Appellant to a seven-year deferred sentence under the Department of Corrections, a decision Appellant now appeals. This matter was decided on the Accelerated Docket with oral arguments heard on May 30, 2019. The district court’s bridging of Appellant to the supervision of the Department of Corrections is **AFFIRMED**. **Propositions of Error:** **1. No State Motion to Bridge:** Appellant contends the district court erred by bridging him to an adult sentence without a state motion. The court correctly followed 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-209, allowing placement on probation without a state motion. Appellant did not demonstrate an abuse of discretion based on performance in the program. **2. Knowingly Entered Pleas:** Appellant asserts his guilty pleas were not entered knowingly but does not seek to withdraw them. As such, this claim seeks advisory relief, which the Court denies. **3. Abuse of Discretion on Bridging Decision:** Appellant reasserts that the decision to bridge him was an abuse of discretion. Following the statutory guidelines, the Court finds no abuse of discretion has occurred. **Conclusion:** The Judgment and Sentence is **AFFIRMED**. MANDATE will issue upon filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE TRACY PRIDDY, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL:** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:** Kayla Cannon, Assistant Public Defender **COUNSEL FOR STATE:** Kevin Keller, Assistant District Attorney **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR IN RESULTS **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** CONCUR IN RESULTS **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR [Download PDF for full opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-162_1734446225.pdf)

Continue ReadingJ-2019-162

C-2018-675

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

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

Continue ReadingC-2018-675

RE-2018-232

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case No. RE-2018-232** **Summary Opinion** **Appellant:** Courtney Quillen **Appellee:** The State of Oklahoma **Decided on:** May 30, 2019 **Judge:** Kuehn, Vice Presiding Judge **Background:** Courtney Quillen appealed the revocation of her concurrent seven-year suspended sentences issued by Judge Gregory D. Pollard. She had been convicted in two cases for several counts of Uttering a Forged Instrument. **Key Dates:** - **August 25, 2016:** Quillen entered nolo contendere pleas in two cases. - **March 3, 2017:** The State filed a motion to revoke her suspended sentences for failing to pay fees. - **February 26, 2018:** A revocation hearing was held, leading to the decision to revoke her sentences. **Charges and Allegations:** The State alleged that Quillen committed additional crimes (robbery and conspiracy) while on probation, which constituted violations of her probation terms. **Decision:** The court concluded that: - The alleged procedural errors regarding the twenty-day rule did not affect the court's ability to revoke the sentences from Case No. CF-2015-817 since it had jurisdiction over that case. - The evidence presented established that Quillen had participated in a robbery, thus justifying the revocation of her suspended sentences. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Jurisdiction challenge** - Denied; revocation in Case No. CF-2015-817 upheld. 2. **Validity of waiver regarding twenty-day rule** - Moot. 3. **Insufficient evidence for robbery** - Denied; evidence supported the involvement in robbery and conspiracy. 4. **Insufficient evidence for conspiracy** - Denied; Quillen was shown to have conspired with co-defendants. 5. **Ineffective assistance of counsel** - Moot due to affirming the revocation based on other factors. 6. **Abuse of discretion in revocation** - Denied; trial court acted within its discretion. **Final Order:** The Court affirmed the decision of the District Court of Pontotoc County to revoke Quillen’s concurrent suspended sentences. **Mandate Issued.** [Full opinion and details available here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-232_1734699237.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-232