Indigent Defense

C-2021-504

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2021-504, Starlyn Sean Hill appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including aggravated possession of child pornography and multiple counts of rape and sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his appeal, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented from the opinion. Hill had pleaded guilty to several counts, and upon sentencing, he received a lengthy prison term. After his plea, he filed a motion to withdraw it, arguing that he felt rushed into making his decision and that he was misinformed about the potential consequences. He also raised issues regarding the statute of limitations for some of the charges, claiming that ten of them should not have been prosecuted because they were filed too late. The court reviewed the case and found that the prosecution for some of the counts may indeed have been beyond the statute of limitations. They concluded there were errors in how Hill’s plea was accepted, particularly as he did not properly waive his right to challenge the statute of limitations on several counts. This led the court to determine that his guilty plea was not made voluntarily or intelligently. As a result, the court vacated Hill's judgment and sentence and instructed that he be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. The case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings that would not contradict this new decision.

Continue ReadingC-2021-504

F-2021-522

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-522, Trevor Leif Toppah appealed his conviction for Aggravated Assault and Battery, After Former Conviction of Three Felonies (Count 1), and Conspiracy to Commit Assault and Battery (Count 2). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court but modified the indigent defense fee. One judge dissented regarding the evidence for the conspiracy conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2021-522

RE-2020-501

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2020-501, Kaylen Harrison Rice appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but vacated the portion that required him to remain under supervision. One judge dissented. Kaylen Harrison Rice had previously been given suspended sentences for his crimes. He was supposed to follow certain rules instead of serving time in jail, but the rules changed to make his crime less serious. A new law stated that if someone is being revoked for a crime that is now seen as less serious, their punishment must follow the new law's limits. Kaylen argued that his one-year revocation was too long given the new law. However, the court found that the existing rules and his situation didn’t allow for the changes he suggested. During his revocation hearing, Kaylen raised concerns about being supervised after his jail time, saying that the law did not allow for that kind of supervision for his crime. The State acknowledged this point but later dropped the argument, which meant the court didn't consider it. The court decided that since the State had waived its right to challenge this part, it could not revisit it in Kaylen's appeal. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to revoke Kaylen's suspended sentences but overturned the requirement that he be supervised, which was not allowed under the new law.

Continue ReadingRE-2020-501

F-2020-510

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2020-510, Dewayne Shomo appealed his conviction for Possession of a Firearm, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented. Dewayne Shomo was found guilty during a non-jury trial and sentenced to eighteen months in prison. He argued that the state did not have the right to prosecute him because he is a member of the Choctaw Nation and the alleged crime happened within the Choctaw Reservation. The case's outcome was based on a ruling made in another case, McGirt v. Oklahoma, which established that certain crimes committed by or against Indians within Indian territory must be prosecuted in federal court, not state court. After reviewing his case, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed that Shomo’s crime was indeed committed within the boundaries of the Choctaw Nation, and he meets the criteria to be regarded as an Indian for jurisdiction purposes. As the state did not have the authority to prosecute him for this crime, his conviction was deemed invalid, and thus, the court instructed the lower court to dismiss the case against him.

Continue ReadingF-2020-510

RE-2020-452

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2020-452, Katlin Maye Ford appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Katlin pled guilty to Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and received a ten-year sentence that was suspended. This means she did not have to go to prison right away but had to follow certain rules. One rule was that she needed to pay restitution, which is money that goes to the victim to help with their losses. In October 2018, the State of Oklahoma asked the court to end her suspended sentence because she had not paid the restitution. In November 2018, Katlin decided to represent herself in court, meaning she did not want a lawyer. She admitted that she had not paid the restitution as ordered. The court then allowed more time for her to get back on track with her payments. However, in June 2020, the court decided to take away three years of her suspended sentence because she still had not paid the restitution. Katlin thought this was unfair and appealed the decision, making some important claims: 1. She said she was not given proper legal help when she needed it. 2. She believed the court should have helped her get a lawyer for her hearing. 3. She argued that any failure to pay the restitution was not intentional. In examining her first claim, the court noted that people have the right to have a lawyer when their suspended sentences are being revoked. For someone to give up that right, they must do it knowingly, which means they understand what they are doing. The court found that there was no clear record showing that Katlin had enough information about self-representation or that she made her decision with full understanding of the consequences. Since the court did not make sure she understood everything about waiving her right to a lawyer, the appeal was successful. The original decision to revoke her suspended sentence was reversed, meaning Katlin would get another chance to address her restitution payments and have proper legal representation. Therefore, the court instructed for the case to go back to the lower court for further actions that are consistent with its opinion. One judge disagreed with the majority's decision.

Continue ReadingRE-2020-452

F-2019-82

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-82, Spencer Thomas Cato appealed his conviction for various crimes including possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm after a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed and dismissed one count against Cato. A judge dissented regarding the dismissal of that count. Cato had been found guilty of several offenses, including having a controlled substance and firearms while being a convicted felon. During the trial, the jury sentenced him to a total of several years in prison along with fines. The judge decided some of these sentences would be served at the same time, while others would be served one after the other. Cato appealed, arguing that his rights were violated because he was punished twice for what he saw as the same action. Specifically, he felt the charges of possessing a firearm after a felony and possessing a firearm while committing a felony were not separate. Cato believed that the law should prevent him from being punished for both crimes since they stemmed from the same act of possessing the same gun with no significant break in time between the two actions. Upon reviewing the case, the court agreed with Cato’s argument. They found that there was no new evidence that suggested he had used the firearm for a different purpose at different times. The trial revealed that Cato had the gun and drugs at the same time which led to the conclusion that punishing him for both counts was not appropriate. The court decided to reverse the lesser charge and direct that it be dismissed. In summary, while some of Cato's convictions and their sentences were confirmed, the court found that he could not be punished for both possessing a firearm after a felony and possessing it while committing another felony under the circumstances of his case. Hence, they instructed the lower court to dismiss the one charge.

Continue ReadingF-2019-82

F-2019-224

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOSEPH EUGENE DEAN,** **Appellant,** **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. F-2019-224** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant, Joseph Eugene Dean, was tried and convicted by a jury in Muskogee County District Court, Case No. CF-2017-1030, of Endangering Others While Eluding or Attempting to Elude Police Officer, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies (Count 2), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 540(B). The jury recommended a sentence of twenty years imprisonment and a $2,500.00 fine. The Honorable Bret A. Smith, District Judge, presided at trial and sentenced Dean in accordance with the jury's verdict, including various costs and fees. The jury acquitted Appellant of Count 1 - Possession of a Stolen Vehicle. Dean appeals, raising the following proposition of error: **I. APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ART. II, §§ 7, AND 20, OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION.** After thorough consideration of the record, including transcripts and the parties' briefs, we find that no relief is warranted. **Proposition I:** Dean asserts that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request a cautionary eyewitness identification instruction (OUJI-CR (2d) 9-19). However, Dean fails to provide relevant authority or argument supporting his claim, thus forgoing appellate review of the issue as per Rule 3.5(C)(6) of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Moreover, we alternatively reject Dean's ineffectiveness claim on its merits. To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must demonstrate both that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). In this case, a cautionary eyewitness identification instruction was unwarranted as no serious question exist[ed] concerning the reliability of the [eyewitness's] identification[s] (Robinson v. State, 1995 OK CR 25, ¶ 56, 900 P.2d 389, 404). Counsel’s failure to request such instruction, therefore, was not ineffective since there was no merit to such a request (Logan v. State, 2013 OK CR 2, ¶ 11, 293 P.3d 969, 975). **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. **MANDATE** is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision, pursuant to Rule 3.15 of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. --- **APPEARANCES:** **AT TRIAL:** LARRY VICKERS 600 Emporia, Suite B Muskogee, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT **ON APPEAL:** DERECK J. HURT Oklahoma Indigent Defense System P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT SEAN WATERS Asst. District Attorney Muskogee District Attorney's Office 220 State Street Muskogee, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR KUEHN, V.P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR --- [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2019-224_1734779625.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2019-224

C-2018-415

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **TALISA NICOLE BANKS, Petitioner,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-415** **October 31, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION GRANTING CERTIORARI** Judge Hudson presiding: On November 8, 2016, Talisa Nicole Banks entered blind pleas of guilty to the following charges: Count 1 - Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance - Marijuana; Count 2 - Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug, Marijuana, With Intent to Distribute; and Count 3 - Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance - Methamphetamine in the District Court of Texas County, Case No. CF-2016-64. Sentencing occurred on February 28, 2018, resulting in a combined fifteen-year sentence with conditions on Counts 1, 2, and 3. After sentencing, on March 7, 2018, Banks filed a motion to withdraw her guilty pleas, which was supported by an additional pro se letter outlining her reasons. A hearing on this motion was held on April 4, 2018, but was denied by the Honorable Jon Parsley, District Judge. Banks appealed, arguing she faced multiple forms of conflict regarding her legal representation, which adversely affected her ability to receive effective assistance during her plea withdrawal hearing. This Court has previously established the right to effective counsel at plea withdrawal hearings. The arguments presented by Banks indicated an actual conflict of interest, as her counsel simultaneously represented conflicting interests regarding claims made against his own effectiveness. The evidence suggests Banks was denied the opportunity for conflict-free representation, and thus a new hearing is warranted for the motion to withdraw her guilty pleas. **DECISION** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. The case is REMANDED to the District Court for the appointment of new counsel for Banks’ motion to withdraw her guilty pleas and to conduct a new hearing regarding that motion. **Parties Appeared Below** - **Defense Counsel**: Robert H. Jaques - **Respondent Counsel**: Assistant District Attorney Buddy Leach; Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter **OPINION BY**: HUDSON, J. **CONCUR**: LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J. **[Download Full Decision](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-415_1734109426.pdf)**

Continue ReadingC-2018-415

F-2018-780

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-780, Rawson appealed his conviction for lewd or indecent acts to a child under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Rawson was found guilty by a jury for multiple counts of lewd acts against a child. The jury recommended life imprisonment for each count, and the trial court imposed the sentences to run one after the other. Rawson challenged his conviction, claiming that the jury was not adequately instructed on the specific acts he allegedly committed. He did not argue that the law was incorrectly stated, just that the instructions should have outlined the acts in more detail. The court explained that instructions for juries are meant to accurately convey applicable law, and in this case, they properly followed the Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions. The trial court had provided sufficient instructions, describing the necessary elements that the prosecution needed to prove for each count. Even though Rawson's defense wanted more specificity in the instructions, the court found that the jury was clearly informed about the nature of the charges against him. Since he did not dispute the proof of the allegations or claim that the law was wrongly applied, the court decided that there was no abuse of discretion and upheld the original decision. In conclusion, the court affirmed Rawson's conviction, and the case was officially closed with no errors found in the trial process.

Continue ReadingF-2018-780

F-2018-211

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-211, Lewis Long, III appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. No judge dissented. The case began when Lewis Long, III was tried and found guilty by a jury in Beckham County. He was convicted for trafficking in methamphetamine after having previous felony convictions. The jury recommended a sentence of twenty years in prison, which the judge followed. Long was found not guilty of a separate charge involving drug paraphernalia. Long raised a few concerns in his appeal. He argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because police entered a place without properly announcing themselves. He also felt the state did not provide enough evidence to prove he had control or possession of the methamphetamine. Lastly, he believed there wasn't enough evidence for him to go to trial for the drug trafficking charge. The court looked closely at the evidence and procedures from Long's trial. They first addressed the entry of police into the motel room. Even if not knocking and announcing was an error, the court decided that this did not impact the overall case because the evidence found was still valid. Next, the court evaluated whether the evidence presented during the trial was strong enough to support a verdict of guilty. They determined that there was enough evidence to show that Long had joint possession of the methamphetamine found at the motel. Lastly, the court examined whether Long should have been able to challenge the charges before his trial but concluded that he did not show any clear error that would affect the outcome of his case. Since the state showed enough probable cause for his charges at the preliminary hearing, they found no reason to reverse the decision. In conclusion, the court decided not to grant any relief for Long's appeal, confirming his conviction and the sentence imposed.

Continue ReadingF-2018-211

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

C-2018-861

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BOBBY RAY LEWIS,** **Petitioner,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-861** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA JUN 16 2019** --- **OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **JOHN D. HADDEN LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner, Bobby Ray Lewis, faced charges in two separate cases in the District Court of Okfuskee County. Case No. CF-2017-17 included charges of *Driving Under the Influence*, *Leaving the Scene of an Accident with Injury*, and *Failure to Report a Personal Injury Accident*. Case No. CF-2018-21 involved charges of *Assault and Battery on a Police Officer* and *Assault and Battery on an Emergency Medical Care Provider*. **I. Procedural Status of Appeal** The Court notes that the Petitioner's Petition For Writ of Certiorari is not properly before it. According to established law, appeals from judgments following a plea must proceed via a writ of certiorari. The relevant statutes and court rules state that a defendant must file an application to withdraw the plea within ten days of the judgment's pronouncement. In this case, the District Court pronounced judgment and sentence on June 27, 2018. The Petitioner failed to file a motion to withdraw his plea within the required ten-day window. As a result, the conviction became final, and the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case. The Petitioner’s motion, filed on July 17, 2018—twenty days post-judgment—was therefore untimely, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. Accordingly, since the Petitioner's petition is not properly before the Court, this appeal is dismissed. **DECISION** The Petitioner's Petition For Writ of Certiorari is dismissed as it is not properly before the Court. Pursuant to Rule 3.15 of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** Curt Allen, Indigent Defense System, Okmulgee, OK Arlan Bullard, Attorney at Law, Pauls Valley, OK **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** Robert W. Jackson, Indigent Defense System, Norman, OK Emily Mueller, Assistant District Attorney, Okemah, OK --- **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur --- **[Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-861_1734181193.pdf)**

Continue ReadingC-2018-861

RE-2018-925

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAREN GLENN SELLERS,** **Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. RE-2018-925** **Filed May 23, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Jaren Glenn Sellers appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Pontotoc County District Court Case No. CF-2012-390. On September 13, 2013, Appellant entered negotiated Alford pleas to First Degree Rape (21 O.S.2011, § 1114) (Count 1) and Forcible Sodomy (21 O.S.2011, § 888) (Count 2). He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for ten years on each count, all suspended, to be served concurrently. On January 16, 2018, the State filed an amended application to revoke the suspended sentences alleging that Appellant committed the new crime of Aggravated Assault and Battery. A revocation hearing was held on August 27, 2018, before the Honorable Gregory Pollard, Special Judge. Judge Pollard granted the State's application and revoked seven years of Appellant's ten-year suspended sentences. On appeal, Appellant asserts the revocation was excessive. **ANALYSIS** At a hearing where the State seeks revocation of a suspended sentence, the question is whether the suspended portion of the sentence should be executed. The court makes a factual determination as to whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated. The violation need be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. A trial court's decision to revoke a suspended sentence should not be overturned absent a finding of an abuse of discretion. We do not find the decision to revoke seven years of Appellant's suspended sentences to be an abuse of discretion. The credibility of witnesses and the weight given their testimony are within the exclusive province of the trier of fact, who may believe or disbelieve the witnesses as it desires. The decision of the trial court to revoke a suspended sentence, in whole or in part, is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof. Judge Pollard considered all evidence presented during the revocation hearing. His decision to partially revoke Appellant's suspended sentence cannot be considered an abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The order of the district court of Pontotoc County revoking a portion of Appellant's suspended judgments and sentences in Case No. CF-2012-390 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. --- **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF PONTOTOC COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE GREGORY POLLARD, SPECIAL JUDGE** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:** LLOYD B. PALMER 1609 ARLINGTON ADA, OK 74820 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:** MARK P. HOOVER INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE:** TARA M. PORTILLO ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY P.O. BOX 146 ADA, OK 74821 **ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL:** MIKE HUNTER JENNIFER B. MILLER COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE 313 N.E. 21st STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **HUDSON, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-925_1734359840.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-925

F-2017-1248

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1248, Aislyn Jonelle Miller appealed her conviction for five counts of Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Miller was found guilty by a jury of not taking care of her two young children, which included not providing them with enough food and not getting them the medical care they needed. The jury suggested that she be sentenced to thirty years in prison for four of the counts and ten years for one count, with the sentences to be served one after the other. Miller argued several points on appeal. First, she claimed that two of her convictions for neglecting one child should not count separately, as they were for the same offense – one for not feeding the child and the other for not getting medical care. She also made a similar claim regarding her neglect of her other child. However, the court found that failing to feed the children and failing to get medical care for them were different acts, so her separate convictions were valid. Miller’s next argument was that she did not have good legal representation during her trial. The court explained that to prove this, she needed to show that her lawyer made big mistakes and that these mistakes changed the outcome of her case. Since the court deemed her convictions valid, it concluded that any issues raised about her attorney’s performance would not matter since those objections would not have made a difference. Lastly, Miller claimed that the judge should have allowed her to serve her sentences at the same time instead of one after the other, which would have meant a shorter time in prison. The court pointed out that judges have the right to decide how to run sentences, and in this case, the judge acted reasonably and considered all the facts before deciding to run them consecutively. Overall, the court did not find any errors in the trial process that would have changed the outcome, and so they upheld the original sentence given to Miller.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1248

F-2017-639

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-639, Christopher Lantz Wildman appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided that his conviction would be upheld. One judge dissented. Christopher Wildman was found guilty by a jury of killing someone and was sentenced to 12 years in prison. He was awarded credit for the time he served before the trial. Wildman argued several points in his appeal, claiming that his rights were violated during the trial. First, he said the evidence didn’t prove he wasn’t acting in self-defense, which is an important legal argument in these cases. He believed that if the evidence did not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with wrongful intent, he should not have been convicted. However, the court found that there was enough evidence suggesting he did not act in self-defense. Wildman also claimed that his trial was unfair because some evidence showed bad character, and that the trial court did not properly instruct the jury on how to consider that evidence. The court reviewed this point and decided that the evidence presented was not overly prejudicial, so it allowed the trial to continue without a limiting instruction. He argued prosecutorial misconduct, which means he felt the prosecutor acted inappropriately during the trial. Wildman argued that remarks made by the prosecutor affected his right to a fair trial. The court noted that comments made by the prosecutor were not serious enough to change the outcome of the trial and were in response to claims made by Wildman. Wildman believed that his attorney did not perform well and that he should have had a better defense. The court examined this claim closely. It stated that for someone to prove their lawyer was ineffective, they need to show that their lawyer's performance was very poor and that it influenced the trial's outcome. The court found that Wildman's lawyer did not make serious mistakes. Additionally, he felt that some evidence about the victim’s habits was improperly allowed into the trial. However, since he did not object to this evidence during the trial, it made it harder for him to appeal this point later. Finally, Wildman argued that all these errors combined led to an unfair trial. The court did not find any significant errors, so they upheld the conviction. In conclusion, the court affirmed Wildman's conviction and sentence, stating that the original trial was fair and proper according to the evidence and legal standards.

Continue ReadingF-2017-639

C-2017-567

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingC-2017-567

J-2018-402

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2018-402, M. T. G. appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that sentenced him as an adult and remanded the case back to the District Court. One judge dissented. M. T. G. was charged as a juvenile for Trafficking illegal drugs when he was 17 years and 9 months old. The State, however, filed a motion to treat him as an adult. The court found that M. T. G. should have been charged as a youthful offender instead of a juvenile, which was the basis for the reversal.

Continue ReadingJ-2018-402

MA 2018-0296

  • Post author:
  • Post category:MA

In OCCA case No. MA 2018-0296, J.M.F. appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts with a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his application for a writ of mandamus and remand the matter to the District Court. The court found that J.M.F. was personally indigent and entitled to receive transcripts at public expense for his appeal, despite the trial court's earlier ruling about his parents' ability to pay. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingMA 2018-0296

F-2016-1181

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingF-2016-1181

F-2016-461

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingF-2016-461

F 2015-121

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2015-121, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the district court, but vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Erica Lashon Harrison, who was accused of murder but was convicted of the lesser charge of first-degree manslaughter. The jury sentenced her to 25 years in prison and a fine of $10,000. Harrison raised multiple issues on appeal. She argued that the state did not prove she was not acting in self-defense, that improper evidence was allowed, and that she did not have proper legal representation. The court reviewed the case and found that the evidence supported the jury's verdict. They determined Harrison's claim of self-defense could not stand as there was not enough evidence to show she was in danger. The court noted that while some incorrect evidence was introduced, it did not affect the conviction. However, they decided that the sentence should be vacated and the case sent back for resentencing due to the improper character evidence brought up during the trial. The judges concluded that this error needed to be addressed, even if the earlier convictions were proper. The opinion recognized that although some arguments made by Harrison were valid, overall, the court found her conviction was supported by overwhelming evidence. The dissenting judges believed the error did not have a significant impact on the jury's decision. They argued that the sentence should not be changed since the evidence clearly proved guilt, even if procedural mistakes were made during the trial. Overall, the court upholds the conviction but sends the case back for a new decision on sentencing. The judges agreed on the main decision, while differing on whether the sentence change was necessary.

Continue ReadingF 2015-121

F-2014-310

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-310, Jeffery Alan Patton appealed his conviction for Manufacture of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, but reversed the conviction for possession of a firearm after felony conviction. One judge dissented on the decision regarding the firearm convictions. Appellant Patton was found guilty by a jury of manufacturing methamphetamine and possessing firearms while committing a felony, as well as possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first charge, and ten years and two years for the other firearm charges, respectively. Patton argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough and that his lawyer did not effectively defend him. The court reviewed his claims that there was not enough proof that he manufactured methamphetamine and did not actually possess the firearms during the crime. However, the court found that there was enough evidence presented at trial, which could lead any reasonable person to believe he was involved in the crime. The first two propositions were denied, meaning they did not agree with Patton on those points. In regards to his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court found that his lawyer's actions during the trial did not fall below the necessary standards of proper legal representation. Therefore, this proposition was also denied. One of Patton's major contentions was about double jeopardy, saying he should not have been convicted for both firearm charges that arose from the same incident. The court agreed, recognizing that both convictions came from the same act, leading them to dismiss the second firearm possession conviction. As for Patton’s claim that his sentences were too harsh, the court concluded they were within legal limits and not excessively severe. They also noted that Patton didn’t ask for his sentences to run at the same time, leading them to decide there was no error in making his sentences consecutive. Patton also argued he should receive credit for time served before his sentencing; however, because he did not bring this up in court earlier, he could not successfully appeal this point. Lastly, he claimed the evidence should have been suppressed since the search was illegal, but the court determined that the deputies had a good reason for their actions due to public safety concerns. In summary, the court upheld most of Patton's convictions and sentences, highlighting the principle that sufficient evidence and procedural rules were followed during his trial, while reversing one conviction related to firearm possession.

Continue ReadingF-2014-310

F-2013-1129

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-1129, Aaron Mitchell Stigleman appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involves Aaron Stigleman, who shot and killed his mother in Elk City, Oklahoma, on February 13, 2013. At the time of the incident, he lived with his girlfriend and mother, both of whom had a history of drug use, specifically methamphetamine. Aaron was believed to be suffering from paranoia and hallucinations due to his drug use leading up to the shooting. Witnesses, including his girlfriend, testified that he accused them of trying to kill him before he shot his mother in the head. During his trial, Stigleman's attorneys failed to secure an expert witness to help argue that he was under the influence of methamphetamine and not in control of his actions at the time of the crime. They tried to get funding for an expert, but their requests were either late or not sufficiently justified. As a result, they could not present an argument related to his mental state or introduce expert testimony that could aid in the defense of insanity or diminished capacity. The court noted that Stigleman's behavior before, during, and after the incident indicated the possibility of a serious mental health issue caused by drug use, which warranted an expert’s evaluation. The silence of an expert on the mental health issues surrounding his drug use could have made a significant difference in the outcome. The court ruled that Stigleman’s attorneys did not adequately represent him by failing to present a complete defense. The decision emphasized that the right to present a complete defense is constitutionally guaranteed. Based on these findings, the court deemed it necessary to grant Stigleman a new trial to allow for proper evaluation of his mental state. While one judge expressed disagreement, arguing that the defense had not shown that the lack of expert testimony prejudiced Stigleman's case, the majority concluded that the claims and evidence presented merited a reversal and a new opportunity for a fair trial.

Continue ReadingF-2013-1129

RE-2013-848

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-848, a person appealed his conviction for attempting to make methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court did not have the authority to revoke the person's suspended sentence because the hearing on the revocation was not held within the required twenty days. The court reversed the revocation and sent the case back for further actions. One judge dissented from this opinion.

Continue ReadingRE-2013-848

M-2012-416

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2012-416, #1 Richard Allen House II appealed his conviction for #2 Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3 to reverse the conviction and send the case back for further proceedings. #4 One judge dissented. Richard Allen House II was found guilty after a trial without a jury. He was charged for having drug paraphernalia, which is against the law. The judge sentenced him to pay a fine of $250 and spend a year in jail, but he only had to serve 60 days in jail because the rest of his sentence was suspended as long as he followed certain rules. At the beginning of the case, Richard asked the court for a lawyer to help him, and the court agreed. However, later, his attorney wanted to stop helping Richard because they thought he could pay for a private lawyer. This happened after Richard posted bail and was said to be employed. But there was confusion because it was not clear whether the money was for this case or another case he had. Richard ended up representing himself, which means he did not have a lawyer to help him during the trial or the sentencing. After his trial, he asked for a lawyer to help with his appeal, but the judge did not appoint one, saying Richard had enough money to pay for a lawyer himself. This decision was questioned because there was no proper record showing that Richard understood he could still get a lawyer even though he had posted bail. Richard argued that it was wrong for his lawyer to leave and for him to have to represent himself without really understanding what that meant. The State, which is the side that brought the case against him, agreed that there was a problem because there was no formal record to show that Richard had given up his right to a lawyer. The court referred to earlier cases that showed it is important for defendants to have lawyers. If they can't pay for one, they must be given a lawyer unless they clearly waive that right. Since the proper steps weren't taken in Richard's case, the court decided his conviction should be reversed. They sent the case back to the lower court so they could decide if Richard still needed a lawyer or if he had given up that right properly. In summary, the decision noted that everyone deserves a fair chance to defend themselves with legal help, and if they can't afford a lawyer, they should still get one if they need it. The court made it clear that without the correct procedures being followed, they could not allow the conviction to stand.

Continue ReadingM-2012-416