Indigent Defense Fee

F-2021-512

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-512, Trevor Leif Toppah appealed his conviction for Burglary in the Second Degree and Obstructing an Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his judgment and sentence, except for modifying the fee assessed for his indigent defense. One judge dissented. Toppah was found guilty of second degree burglary and obstructing an officer by a district court. The burglary charge was based on the fact that he broke into a parked automobile with the intent to commit theft. During his trial, the judge considered if there was enough evidence to support the burglary conviction, focusing on whether Toppah used force to enter the vehicle and if he had the intention of stealing anything. The court reviewed the evidence and determined that it was enough for a reasonable person to believe Toppah was guilty of burglary. They noted that breaking into a car, even by just opening the door, is considered a form of breaking necessary for a burglary charge. The court also mentioned that proving intent could be done through either direct or indirect evidence, which they found sufficient in Toppah's case. Toppah raised some issues regarding money charged for his defense costs. He argued that the court charged him too much and that it should be less, as stated in the law. Although his lawyer didn’t object to this during the trial, the court noticed that they had made a mistake. They admitted that the fee should have been $250 instead of the $500 that was charged. Lastly, Toppah argued that a series of errors during his trial caused him not to receive a fair trial. However, the court found that the only error that needed correcting was the higher fee, and that this error did not affect the overall fairness of his trial. In summary, the court upheld Toppah's conviction for burglary but corrected the amount he had to pay for the public defense.

Continue ReadingF-2021-512

F-2019-369

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-369, Collins appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment but vacated and remanded the restitution and fees due to errors in their assessment. One judge dissented. Joseph Willis Collins was found guilty by a jury for committing assault with a dangerous weapon. He faced this trial in Comanche County where he was sentenced to spend twenty-five years in prison and was ordered to pay restitution and court costs. Collins claimed that several things went wrong during his trial that justified overturning his conviction. First, Collins argued that when he asked police if he could go back downstairs, it meant he wanted to stop talking to them, and police should have immediately respected that request. He believed this request was an important part of his rights, which should not have been pushed aside during the questioning. However, the court decided that even though admitting his statements without considering his right not to speak was a mistake, it was not significant enough to change the outcome of the case because there was a lot of clear evidence proving he was guilty. Next, Collins argued that some embarrassing information from his cellphone should not have been used against him during the trial. He thought that this evidence made it hard for him to get a fair trial because it focused on his relationships in a negative way. However, the court did not find this evidence to be unfairly prejudicial, as it was used to help explain details relevant to the case. Collins also believed that his lawyer did not competently defend him, especially regarding the use of the testimony linked to the cellphone and the earlier statements made to police after he asked to stop being questioned. The court looked at all these claims and found that there were no significant mistakes made by Collins’s lawyer that affected the trial's outcome. The other issues Collins raised were about financial matters from his sentencing. Collins was ordered to pay $7,504 in restitution for the victim’s losses, but the court admitted this amount wasn't properly justified, so they decided it should be determined again. The court also acknowledged a mistake in charging Collins a $1,500 indigent defense fee instead of the maximum allowed of $1,000. There was also a dispute about the juror fees that Collins thought were incorrectly calculated, but since he did not raise this objection during the trial, the court decided not to change this part of the decision. In the end, the court upheld the conviction and the lengthy sentence Collins received. They ordered the lower court to redo the calculations for restitution and the indigent defense fee to comply with the law and ensure a fair process. The judgment of conviction and the twenty-five-year prison sentence were upheld, while the restitution and indigent fees were vacated and remanded for further action.

Continue ReadingF-2019-369

F-2018-313

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-313, Juan Jose Nava-Guerra appealed his conviction for Aggravated Trafficking in Illegal Drugs and Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence but modified it to lower the fees assessed. One judge dissented. Nava-Guerra was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to a total of 105 years in prison for each count, which would run at the same time. He argued that his rights were violated during the trial due to several reasons. First, he claimed the trial court allowed hearsay statements that should not have been presented as evidence. However, the court found that since Nava-Guerra himself had introduced similar evidence in his defense, he could not claim there was an error in allowing the State's evidence. Second, he argued that the search of the vehicle he was in was unlawful, claiming that the officer did not have a valid reason to stop the car. The court reviewed the details of the stop and found that there was a valid reason based on the car following too closely behind another vehicle, which justified the officer's actions. Third, he contested the admission of a specific exhibit, which was a transcription of audio from the car. The court decided that, like the first issue, since he used nearly the same exhibit in his defense, he could not argue it was wrong for the State to use it. Finally, Nava-Guerra challenged the fee for his defense attorney, saying it was too high. The court agreed that the fee assessed was higher than allowed by law and modified it to the correct amount. In summary, the court found no significant errors in the trial except for the fees, which needed to be reduced. The final decision was to uphold the conviction but change the fees owed.

Continue ReadingF-2018-313

F-2017-851

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-851, Anthony Harold Warnick appealed his conviction for Possession of Child Pornography, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified the fee for his indigent defense. The dissenting opinion was not specified. Warnick was tried without a jury and found guilty, receiving a 35-year prison sentence. He argued several points in his appeal, claiming errors and issues with how his previous convictions were used to enhance his sentence. He stated that his earlier convictions should not have been considered because they were misdemeanors at the time of the offenses or were too old to count against him. The court reviewed specific claims regarding the earlier convictions and determined there were no plain errors in how they were assessed. They found that Warnick's previous convictions were appropriately used to enhance his sentence, as he did not successfully challenge their validity in previous appeals or post-conviction actions. One error was found concerning the fee for his defense representation, which was set too high at $500 instead of the legal limit of $250. The court corrected this fee to the legal amount and directed the trial court to make this change. Overall, the court concluded that no significant errors impacted Warnick's trial or his sentence, except for the mentioned fee correction. His appeal was mostly denied, reinforcing his conviction but providing a slight adjustment in the costs associated with his defense. The dissenting opinion on this case was not detailed in the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2017-851

F-2016-994

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-994, the appellant, Phillip Eric Winbush III, appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Winbush's conviction, but modified the indigent defense fee to $1,000. No one dissented. Winbush had been convicted by a jury and was sentenced to eight years in prison due to his prior felony convictions. He raised several claims in his appeal. He first argued that there was prosecutorial misconduct during the trial, which he believed deprived him of a fair trial. However, the court found that while the prosecutor made comments during closing arguments that Winbush claimed were improper, they did not have enough impact to make the trial unfair. The prosecution's comments were taken in context, and the jury had strong evidence before it regarding Winbush's knowing possession of methamphetamine. Winbush also raised an issue about the indigent defense fee being too high. The law stated that the maximum fee should be $1,000, but the court had mistakenly assessed a $1,250 fee. The state acknowledged this error, and the court agreed to modify the fee to the correct amount. Lastly, Winbush claimed he did not receive effective assistance of counsel, but since the court already granted relief regarding the indigent defense fee, this argument was considered moot. In summary, the court upheld Winbush's conviction while correcting the fee he was charged for his defense, ensuring the amount was in line with the law.

Continue ReadingF-2016-994