Judge Denney Archives - OCCA Opinions

F-2019-149

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 8, 2020
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-149, Kimberli Sue Dunham appealed her conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to terminate her from Drug Court and impose her sentences. One judge dissented. Dunham had been placed in the Delaware County Drug Court program after pleading guilty to several drug-related charges. The program was intended to help her recover from substance abuse. According to her agreement, if she was successful in the program, the charges would be dismissed. However, if she failed, she would face prison time. During her time in Drug Court, Dunham had several violations, including testing positive for methamphetamine. After admitting to more violations, the State sought her removal from the program. In a hearing, evidence of Dunham’s past violations was presented. The judge decided to terminate her from the program, leading to her appeal. In her appeal, Dunham claimed the termination was improper because she was sanctioned for previous violations. She also argued that the court did not follow proper procedures as required by the Oklahoma Drug Court Act, which aims to support individuals in recovery. Dunham claimed that a relapse should not automatically lead to termination and that the court should have used progressively increasing sanctions instead. The court reviewed these claims and found that Dunham had indeed admitted to new violations that justified her termination. Her request to consider her actions as mere relapses was denied, as the judge believed more severe action was necessary to maintain the integrity of the Drug Court program. Lastly, Dunham argued that she was misinformed about her rights to withdraw her guilty pleas. The court agreed that she should have been informed of her rights but ruled that her termination and conviction would still stand. The court upheld the trial court's decision but noted that it should have properly advised Dunham regarding her rights, allowing her the option to appeal her plea. Thus, while her conviction was confirmed, the case was remanded to correct the error about her rights.

S-2016-332

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 5, 2017
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-332, the defendants appealed their conviction for conspiracy to deliver a narcotic controlled dangerous substance and first degree murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which indicated that the defendants were not part of the conspiracy at the time of the victim's death. One judge dissented. The case began when a grand jury accused several people, including the defendants, of being involved in a conspiracy to sell drugs, which ultimately led to the death of Jennifer McNulty. She died from an overdose of oxycodone. After a preliminary hearing, a judge decided that two defendants, Miers and Gregoire, should not be charged with murder because they had withdrawn from the conspiracy before McNulty’s death. The state did not agree with this decision and appealed. They argued that the judge made a mistake in saying Miers and Gregoire had ended their part in the conspiracy. However, the court reviewed the evidence and found that both defendants had indeed separated themselves from the drug conspiracy before the incident occurred, so they couldn’t be held responsible for the murder. The court confirmed that Gregoire was removed from the drug operation because of her problems with addiction, causing others not to want her in the conspiracy anymore. Also, Miers had moved to another state and had stopped working with the main person involved in drug sales before the death happened. After considering everything, the court decided that the earlier ruling was fair and didn't show an abuse of discretion. In conclusion, the court affirmed that Miers and Gregoire could not be charged with first degree murder because they had taken themselves out of the conspiracy before the victim's death. The dissenting judge felt that the court made an error and that the defendants should still face charges.