Hearing Transcript Archives

J-2019-2

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 20, 2019
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.

C-2009-48

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 31, 2009
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-48, Malissa Latoya Hamill appealed her conviction for First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her request and remand the case for a new hearing on her motion to withdraw her plea of no contest. One member of the court dissented. Malissa Hamill had entered her plea in the District Court of Bryan County and was given a ten-year suspended sentence along with a fine. Later, she wrote a letter to the court asking to withdraw her plea, claiming it was not made knowingly and voluntarily. The court held a hearing on her motion, during which she represented herself without a lawyer. The judge believed she had waived her right to have a lawyer assist her, but the court found that this waiver wasn't clear. During the appeal, the issues were whether Hamill knowingly gave up her right to have a lawyer present and whether her plea was truly made in an informed way. The court noted that a defendant has the right to attorney assistance when trying to withdraw a plea. If this right is denied, it can be considered an error unless it's clear that the defendant wouldn't have been able to withdraw their plea anyway. Hamill's claims of innocence and concerns about the validity of her plea could not be disregarded based on the existing records, which were incomplete. Because there was no proper record of what was discussed during her initial plea, the court decided that it couldn’t confirm whether Hamill had fully understood the punishment when she made her plea. This lack of clarity led the court to conclude that Hamill should have a new hearing where she could have legal help. Therefore, the court granted her request, stating that the lower court must hold a new hearing on her motion to withdraw her plea, this time making sure she has the assistance of a lawyer.

C 2002-1379

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2003
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2002-1379, the petitioner appealed his conviction for kidnapping. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the appeal and remand the case for a proper hearing on the petitioner's application to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. The case started when the petitioner entered a guilty plea to the crime of kidnapping. He was sentenced to seventeen years in prison as part of a plea agreement. However, shortly after, the petitioner wanted to withdraw his guilty plea. He filed a motion for this, but during the hearing, he was not present, even though he had the right to be there. His lawyer asked the court to move forward without him, believing it was best since the petitioner was already in custody. The court looked at whether the absence of the petitioner from this critical hearing was a serious mistake. The petitioner did not agree to waive his right to be present, which the court pointed out as important. The judges discussed that being absent from such a crucial part of the trial could lead to unfair treatment. While the State argued that the absence was not a big deal and didn't affect the outcome, the court disagreed. They emphasized that this hearing was meant to gather facts and needed the petitioner's presence. The court found that merely saying the absence was harmless was not enough in this case. The lawyer who represented the petitioner at the hearing did not provide evidence or firsthand statements from the petitioner, only mentioning a letter the petitioner had written earlier. The court raised concerns that the lawyer might not have properly consulted with the petitioner about not attending the hearing. Since the petitioner claimed he entered the plea without properly thinking it over and believed he had a valid defense, the case could not fall under rules that would let the court dismiss his request without consideration. The judges decided that the petitioner's right to a fair hearing had been violated because he was not there to fully participate and because his lawyer did not act effectively for him in this situation. Therefore, the court ruled that the case should go back to the district court to ensure the petitioner can have a complete hearing on his wish to withdraw his guilty plea.