Insufficient Notice Archives

F-2017-599

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 28, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-599, Christopher Michael Hildebrandt appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape of a Child under 14, Forcible Sodomy, and Abduction of a Person Under 15. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but vacated the assessment of prosecution reimbursement costs of $960.00. One judge dissented. The case involved a jury trial where Hildebrandt was found guilty of serious charges against a minor. The jury recommended sentences of 25 years for the first charge, 20 years for the second, and 5 years for the third, all of which were to be served one after the other. Hildebrandt raised several reasons for his appeal. He claimed that evidence from his car was obtained illegally because law enforcement acted outside their jurisdiction. However, the court determined that even if the car was seized unlawfully, the subsequent search conducted with a warrant made the evidence valid. He also argued that the jury selection was unfair because two minority jurors were removed based on race. The court found that the reasons given for their removal were valid and not racially biased. Furthermore, Hildebrandt pointed out that an emotional outburst from the victim's father during the trial could have influenced the jury. The court ruled that there was no need for the judge to inquire about the impact of the outburst because steps were taken to address the situation. He challenged the foundation for evidence presented at trial and whether he received proper notice of the charges. The court found that challenges to evidence would not have changed the outcome of the trial. Hildebrandt also asserted that his defense attorney did not help him adequately during the trial, but the court disagreed, noting that any objection his attorney might have made would have likely been denied. Lastly, he argued that his sentences were too harsh and should have been served concurrently instead of consecutively. The court upheld the sentences as appropriate given the serious nature of the crimes. However, they acknowledged that the assessment for reimbursement costs was incorrectly applied, leading to the decision to remove that specific charge. In conclusion, while the court found some merit in Hildebrandt's claims regarding prosecution reimbursement costs, they ruled that the convictions and the sentences were legally justified.

RE-2004-614

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 22, 2005
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-614, the appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree rape by instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty to second-degree rape and was sentenced to a total of 10 years and 6 months of imprisonment. However, the judge suspended all but the first 6 months, allowing the appellant to serve that time in prison and then go on probation with specific rules. One of these rules, known as Rule 9, prohibited the appellant from using pornography or visiting places like adult bookstores and massage parlors. Later, the state accused the appellant of violating this rule. They claimed that he participated in a live sex show on the Internet, which was viewed by an undercover police officer. The officer discovered the show after receiving a tip about the appellant's activities. Following a hearing, the judge ruled that the appellant did indeed violate the conditions of his probation and revoked the remaining part of the suspended sentence. The appellant brought forth three main arguments in his appeal. First, he claimed that his right to a fair attorney was compromised because his lawyer had previously worked as a prosecutor in his original rape case. The court found that although an attorney representing both sides creates concerns, in this case, the attorney was no longer working for the prosecution at the time of the revocation hearing. Therefore, the court did not find this to be a reversible error. Second, the appellant argued that the state had not given him enough notice about the specific allegations against him. The court agreed that the notice was lacking but noted that the appellant had actual knowledge of the issues at hand and did not show any harm from the lack of notice. Lastly, the appellant asserted that revoking his entire suspended sentence was too harsh. The court recognized that the appellant had shown good behavior while on probation and that he had been actively working on his rehabilitation. The judge noted that the probation officer and treatment providers believed that a lesser sanction would have been appropriate instead of total revocation. Thus, the court decided to modify the revocation order so that the appellant would only serve the time he had already spent in confinement and would be returned to probation. The revised decision was a mix of affirming some parts of the original ruling while changing the overall outcome regarding the revocation of probation.