Hearing Evidence

RE-2018-426

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CALVIN TAYLOR HERRIEN,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-426** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 19 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Calvin Taylor Herrien, appeals from the revocation of four years of his twenty-five year suspended sentences in Case No. CF-2011-4693 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, presided over by the Honorable Cindy H. Truong. **Background:** On November 2, 2012, Appellant entered a guilty plea to two counts of Lewd Acts With a Child Under Sixteen, resulting in a twenty-five year sentence for each count, both suspended under specific probation conditions. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence on November 1, 2017, alleging Appellant violated probation by failing to reside in a lawfully approved residence and not truthfully answering inquiries from the DOC and law enforcement. A hearing commenced on November 21, 2017, where evidence was presented, including testimony from police chief Allen Lane, who testified regarding Appellant's residence proximity to a park and his notification to Appellant to relocate. Further testimony came from probation officer Daniel Straka, who reported Appellant's admission about the residence, discrepancies about probation requirements, and additional violations not included in the revocation application. Appellant testified on his own behalf, offering explanations but ultimately, after considering arguments, Judge Truong found that Appellant had committed the two breaches alleged in the application. Following a continuance, on December 1, 2017, Judge Truong revoked four years of the suspended sentence. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Inadequate Notice:** Appellant contends that the consideration of testimony regarding uncharged violations denied him adequate notice, which impeded his ability to prepare a defense. 2. **Right to Confront:** Appellant alleges deprivation of his right to confront witnesses and due process during the hearing. 3. **Excessive Sentence:** Appellant argues that the four-year revocation of his suspended sentence is excessive. **Analysis:** The evidence presented at the revocation proceedings clearly showed that Appellant violated the terms of his probation. Appellant does not contest the findings concerning the recognized violations. He does not argue that he was unaware of the specifics related to the alleged probation violations or that he lacked the opportunity to defend himself against those violations. In regards to Propositions I and II, while Appellant claims other violations were improperly admitted, the court's finding that he committed the alleged violations outlined in the application suffices to validate the revocation. Furthermore, due process entitles Appellant to argue mitigating circumstances, which was provided by Judge Truong. Concerning Proposition III, revocation decisions are primarily at the discretion of the trial court and will only be overturned in cases of demonstrable abuse of that discretion. Appellant has not shown that the four-year revocation was disproportionate relative to the violations committed. **Decision:** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking four years of Appellant's twenty-five year suspended sentences in Case No. CF-2011-4693 is **AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the **MANDATE is ORDERED** to be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **Appearances:** **For Appellant:** Joshua C. Smith Attorney at Law 217 N. Harvey, Ste. 108 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **For Appellee:** Ryan P. Stephenson Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma County 320 Robert S. Kerr, Ste. 505 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **CONCUR IN RESULTS:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. *Click Here To Download PDF*

Continue ReadingRE-2018-426

M-2018-335

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JULIUS LAMAR WRIGHT,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE 2018-0144** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JUL 11 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant Julius Lamar Wright entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2009-228, for Count 1 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute (Marijuana) and Count 2 - Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. On April 28, 2009, Appellant received a five-year deferred sentence on each count. On March 6, 2012, Appellant pled guilty to allegations in the application to accelerate his deferred sentences, resulting in a ten-year suspended sentence (first five years in custody) for Count 1, and one year in the Oklahoma County Jail for Count 2. These sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other and with CF-2011-1457. Appellant was charged with Domestic Abuse by Strangulation on December 9, 2015, in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2015-8860. He entered a no contest plea and was given a ten-year suspended sentence with probation conditions, which ran concurrently with the earlier cases and included credit for time served. The State's motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2009-228 due to the new charge and failure to pay restitution was dismissed on June 28, 2016, as part of the plea agreement in Case No. CF-2015-8860. On June 29, 2017, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in Cases CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860, alleging a new crime of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2017-2733. After a revocation hearing on January 31, 2018, Appellant's suspended sentences in both cases were revoked. Appellant appeals the revocation of his suspended sentences, raising two propositions of error: 1. The evidence presented during his revocation hearing should have been excluded as it was obtained through egregious police conduct violating his Fourth Amendment rights. 2. The trial court abused its discretion by revoking Appellant's sentences in full, constituting a violation of his due process rights and resulting in an excessive sentence. We affirm the District Court's decision to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in full. Appellant's first argument was not raised at the revocation hearing, leading us to review for plain error. To claim relief under the plain error doctrine, Appellant must prove: (1) an actual error occurred; (2) the error is clear and obvious; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights, impacting the outcome of the hearing. We find no plain error and conclude that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in finding Appellant violated the conditions of his suspended sentences. Regarding the second argument, the court has broad discretion in revoking suspended sentences, and this discretion will not be disturbed without showing an abuse thereof. Appellant has not demonstrated any such abuse. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **REVOCATION APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS** **THOMAS HURLEY** **MARVA A. BANKS** Assistant Public Defender Oklahoma County Public Defender's Office 611 County Office Building 320 Robert S. Kerr Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for Defendant **KIRK MARTIN** Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma County 320 Robert S. Kerr Suite 505 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for the State **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur **[PDF VERSION AVAILABLE HERE](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/M-2018-335_1734421708.pdf)**

Continue ReadingM-2018-335

J-2019-2

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

This document is a summary of a court case from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals involving an appeal by B.J.H., a youthful offender, contesting an order that allowed the State of Oklahoma to sentence him as an adult. The case centered around multiple charges, including Assault With a Deadly Weapon, and the court's decision on whether the public would be adequately protected if the appellant were sentenced as a youthful offender. **Key Points:** 1. **Background**: B.J.H. was charged as a youthful offender at the age of 16 for multiple violent offenses. The State filed a motion to sentence him as an adult under Oklahoma law. 2. **Court Proceedings**: Hearings were held to review the motion, where evidence included testimonies and psychological evaluations. The presiding judge, David A. Stephens, granted the State's motion based on findings that the public would not be adequately protected if B.J.H. were sentenced as a youthful offender. 3. **Appellant's Claims**: B.J.H. appealed the decision on four grounds, including claims of abuse of discretion regarding public safety findings, denial of due process, procedural issues related to preliminary hearings, and lack of service notice to his guardians. 4. **Court's Ruling**: The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion or merit in B.J.H.'s claims. The ruling stated that the evidence supported the conclusion regarding public safety. 5. **Dissenting Opinion**: Presiding Judge Lewis dissented, arguing that the overwhelming evidence presented at the hearing indicated that the public would be adequately protected if B.J.H. were sentenced as a youthful offender. He highlighted that the majority’s ruling contradicted the facts presented during the hearings. Overall, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the decision to sentence B.J.H. as an adult despite disagreements on the interpretation of evidence and procedural fairness.

Continue ReadingJ-2019-2