Judgment and Sentence

F-2018-359

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-359, Antonio Tiwan Taylor appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, conspiracy to commit a felony, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. Taylor was found guilty of robbing a home along with two other men. During the robbery, they used guns and threatened the residents, forcing them to the floor and taking their belongings. After the robbery, one of the witnesses, Felicia Alvarado, identified Taylor as one of the robbers. Alvarado explained that even though Taylor wore a bandanna over his face, she saw his face clearly when it fell off for a moment. A couple of weeks later, the police found jewelry that had been taken during the crime in Taylor's possession. Another accomplice in the robbery, who had pleaded guilty, also testified against Taylor, naming him as a participant. Although that person changed his story during Taylor's trial, the court still considered his initial statement as evidence. Taylor raised multiple points in his appeal. He argued that the evidence wasn’t enough to prove he was guilty. The court disagreed, stating that the witness's strong identification of him and the jewelry found with him provided enough evidence. Taylor also argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury to be cautious about eyewitness testimony. The court ruled that since there was solid evidence, the instruction wasn't necessary. Next, Taylor claimed it was unfair to convict him for both robbery and gun possession since they were connected to the same crime. The court found no issue with this and explained that the laws allowed for separate convictions in these cases. Finally, Taylor argued that all these points together should lead to a new trial. However, since the court found no errors in the points raised, they denied this request as well. In conclusion, the court upheld the original sentences of thirty years for the robbery counts and ten years for the other charges.

Continue ReadingF-2018-359

F-2018-289

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-289, Anthony Douglass Crisel, Jr., appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Anthony Douglass Crisel, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for engaging in inappropriate conduct with a child. The jury decided that he should spend six years in prison, and he has to serve 85% of that time before he can ask for parole. Crisel claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly during the trial, which he believed went against his rights. He said his attorney made mistakes in three important areas: not opposing a witness’s testimony, not bringing in a witness who was related to the victim, and not challenging the qualifications of an expert witness who testified against him. The court looked closely at these claims and the complete record of what happened during the trial. They explained that to show his lawyer was ineffective, Crisel needed to prove that his lawyer didn’t do their job well and that this affected the outcome of the case. The judges noted that there is a strong assumption that a lawyer’s actions are based on good judgment. For the first claim, Crisel argued his lawyer should have stopped a witness from talking about some old accusations against him. However, the court found that the information the witness shared was already given to the jury through other evidence. Therefore, the lawyer's choice to not object was a reasonable decision. For the second claim, Crisel wanted his brother to testify but did not show how having his brother's testimony would have helped him win the case. The court stated that the lawyer's decision to not call the brother was likely a strategic choice and they won’t question that. Lastly, regarding the expert witness, the court found that the lawyer did question the qualifications of this expert, and since many lawyers might handle this differently, having a different strategy does not necessarily mean the lawyer did a bad job. After reviewing everything, the court concluded that Crisel’s lawyer did not act ineffectively. The judges affirmed the decision of the lower court, and the request for more evidence or hearing on this issue was denied.

Continue ReadingF-2018-289

F-2018-202

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-202, the appellant appealed her conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, conspiracy to commit a felony, kidnapping, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. The case involved Katherine Marie Houser, who was found guilty by a jury for several serious crimes. The jury gave her a variety of sentences, including five years for robbery, two years for possession of a firearm during a felony, and six months for kidnapping. Some of these sentences were set to run at the same time, which is called concurrent sentences. Katherine argued that her lawyer did not represent her well, especially by not challenging one of the counts against her (the possession of a firearm). Although this count was eventually dismissed by the state, she felt that just being tried for it affected the jury’s decisions on other counts. The court looked at this claim and decided that even if the lawyer made a mistake, it wouldn’t have changed the outcome. The evidence against her for the other charges was strong, and the jurors weren’t likely swayed by having one extra charge against her. In her second argument, Katherine said that a fine imposed on her should not count because the judge did not mention it during the sentencing, even though she hadn’t complained about it at that time. The court found that since she didn’t raise an issue at the right time, she had a harder time proving there was an error worth correcting. Ultimately, both of Katherine's arguments were denied, and the court decided to uphold her convictions and sentences.

Continue ReadingF-2018-202

F-2018-103

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-103, the appellant appealed his conviction for manslaughter in the first degree, heat of passion. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. David Wayne Ellis was charged with first degree murder, but the jury found him guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter in the first degree. This happened after a trial in which the jury decided on a sentence of life imprisonment. The judge took into account the time Ellis had already served in jail. Ellis raised several issues in his appeal: 1. He argued that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self-defense when he stabbed the victim. The court looked at the evidence and decided that the jury had enough information to find that Ellis was not acting in self-defense. The court noted that Ellis had confronted the victim with a knife and had made threats, showing he was the aggressor. 2. Ellis claimed that the prosecutor made a mistake by calling the decedent's death a murder during the trial. He believed this was wrong because it was up to the jury to decide on the nature of the death. However, the court found that since the jury had been instructed correctly and had not convicted him of murder but rather manslaughter, this was not a mistake that would affect the trial's fairness. 3. Ellis argued that he did not receive effective legal help during the trial. The court considered this argument but found that his lawyer’s performance did not fall below what is acceptable. Moreover, since there was no error established in the previous points of appeal, this claim also failed. 4. Finally, he objected to the admission of a photograph of the decedent that he felt was unfairly prejudicial. The court determined that the photo was allowed under the law because it provided context about the victim and was relevant to the trial. They did not find any error in allowing it. Overall, the court affirmed the conviction and determined that there were no significant mistakes made during the trial that would change the outcome.

Continue ReadingF-2018-103

F-2018-15

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-15, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of drugs causing great bodily injury, felony eluding, running a roadblock, and assault with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. The case involved Marcus Ray Smith, who was found guilty in a non-jury trial of several serious offenses related to a high-speed police chase. The judge sentenced Smith to ten years for some crimes and thirty years for others, but with some time suspended, allowing for parole. Smith appealed for multiple reasons. He argued that he was being punished too harshly for actions that were part of one event. According to the law, people usually can't be punished multiple times for the same act. However, the court found that the crimes he committed were separate incidents. For example, running a roadblock is recognized as a distinct crime, and his actions while fleeing from the police qualified as two separate acts that endangered others. Smith also claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he had intended to cause harm with his vehicle when he drove recklessly towards others. The court disagreed and stated that the way he drove clearly showed that he intended to hurt someone. Lastly, Smith said his lawyer didn't do a good job by not arguing about the double punishment issue during the trial. However, the court found that since his double punishment claim was not valid, there was no failure on his lawyer's part. In conclusion, the court upheld Smith's convictions, deciding he had received a fair trial and that his legal arguments were not strong enough to change the outcome.

Continue ReadingF-2018-15

C-2018-943

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. M 2018-0277, the appellant appealed his conviction for speeding (21-25 mph over the limit). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence from the District Court. One judge dissented. The appellant was found guilty after a non-jury trial in Texas County. He was fined $10.00 for speeding. During the appeal, the appellant claimed that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was indeed speeding. He argued that there was no rule in Oklahoma law that allowed a speeding conviction based solely on visual estimation. The State countered this claim by saying that Oklahoma law does not require a radar gun to show that someone was speeding. A trained Oklahoma State Trooper testified that he could visually estimate a vehicle's speed within 5 miles per hour of its real speed. He specifically said that he saw the appellant's vehicle speeding. The court reviewed the evidence to see if a reasonable person could find that the essential parts of the speeding crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court concluded that any logical juror could decide that there was enough proof of the speeding violation. In conclusion, the court upheld the appellant's conviction for speeding, stating that the evidence presented was sufficient.

Continue ReadingC-2018-943

F-2017-1098

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1098, Rodger Dale Stevens appealed his conviction for performing a lewd act in the presence of a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Stevens' conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Stevens was found guilty of a serious crime because he masturbated in front of a seven-year-old boy. The court looked closely at the evidence to see if it proved Stevens was doing this for sexual gratification. The victim testified and provided strong evidence that Stevens derived satisfaction from what he did. Even though Stevens argued that he was just trying to help the boy feel comfortable with his body, the jury did not believe him. Stevens also argued that his punishment was too harsh. Since he had previous felony convictions, his sentence was enhanced under a specific law that allows for harsher penalties for repeat offenders. Stevens said the law was applied wrongly and that he should have received a lighter sentence, but the court found that the jury was correctly instructed on the range of punishment. He raised several other issues, including claims that irrelevant and prejudicial evidence was admitted, and that his lawyer did not defend him properly. However, the court upheld that the lawyer's actions did not negatively impact the trial's outcome. Stevens argued that the life sentence he received was excessive, even claiming the situation was not severe enough for such a strong punishment. The court disagreed, noting the nature and seriousness of the crime and confirming that the sentence was within legal limits and did not shock the conscience. In summary, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence, ruling that the evidence supported the jury's decision and that the legal procedures followed were appropriate.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1098

F-2017-622

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-622, Dakota William Stewart appealed his conviction for two counts of First Degree Manslaughter and one count of Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Stewart's judgment and sentence. One member of the court dissented. Stewart was involved in a car accident where his vehicle collided with another, resulting in two deaths. He was critically injured and taken to the hospital, where, without a warrant or his consent, a nurse drew blood to test for drugs. The blood tests showed the presence of methamphetamine and marijuana. Stewart contested the legality of the blood draw, arguing it violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Initially, the district court denied his motion to suppress the blood evidence, citing Oklahoma law that permits blood draws without a warrant in severe vehicle accidents. The court referenced previous rulings that support this statute. However, the higher court reviewed these past decisions, particularly focusing on whether the law upheld constitutional protections. The decision highlighted that legal procedures must include an individualized assessment of probable cause by a neutral magistrate to justify warrantless searches. The court found that the law in question, while attempting to streamline procedures for serious accidents, created a blanket rule that bypassed this necessary step. Ultimately, the court ruled that even if the blood draw violated constitutional principles, the good faith reliance on the statute by law enforcement meant the results could still be admitted as evidence. Therefore, the court upheld Stewart's conviction, emphasizing the importance of proper procedure while acknowledging the complexities involved in such tragic incidents.

Continue ReadingF-2017-622

C-2018-225

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. C-2018-225** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Petitioner:** STEVEN LEON GRIMMETT **Respondent:** THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **Opinion by: LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Steven Leon Grimmett (Petitioner) was charged with multiple felony counts and entered a blind plea of no contest. After sentencing, he sought to withdraw his plea, claiming coercion and misunderstandings regarding his sentence. His motion was denied, and he appealed the decision, raising several propositions of error. 1. **Coercion and Voluntariness of Plea**: Petitioner claimed his plea was coerced and involuntary. The court evaluated whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently, emphasizing the importance of confirming that the plea was not the result of force or threats. The court concluded that evidence demonstrated the plea was voluntary. 2. **Advice on Sentencing Requirements**: The Petitioner contended he was not adequately informed about the 85% rule applicable to his sentence or the post-imprisonment supervision requirement. However, since these claims were not raised in his Motion to Withdraw Plea, the appellate court found he waived the right to contest these issues. 3. **Clerical Error Argument**: Petitioner argued there was a clerical error in the judgment regarding the requirement of post-imprisonment supervision. The court did not find this to be an obvious error but remanded the matter to the district court to address the claim. 4. **Effective Assistance of Counsel**: The court assessed his claims of ineffective assistance of both plea and withdrawal counsel using the Strickland test, which evaluates counsel's performance and whether any deficiencies prejudiced the defense. The court determined that Petitioner was sufficiently informed about his plea and that withdrawal counsel's performance did not constitute ineffective assistance. **DECISION**: The court affirmed the denial of the Motion to Withdraw Plea and remanded for the district court to address the clerical error regarding post-imprisonment supervision. **Counsel Information:** - **Counsel for Petitioner at Trial and Appeal**: Shelley Levisay, Kimberly D. Heinze - **Counsel for the State**: Adam Panter, Mike Hunter, David Hammer, Joshua Fanelli **Opinion filed: May 9, 2019** **Mandate ordered upon filing**. For full opinion documents, refer to [the PDF link here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-225_1734103367.pdf).

Continue ReadingC-2018-225

PC-2017-322

  • Post author:
  • Post category:CF

In OCCA case No. CF-2004-4488, the petitioner appealed his conviction for murder and shooting with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed the conviction, stating that his consecutive sentences do not violate constitutional protections against cruel punishment. One judge dissented on the reasoning. [occa_caption]

Continue ReadingPC-2017-322

M-2018-212

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

**COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Rodney Eugene Smith, Appellant,** **v.** **The State of Oklahoma, Appellee.** **Case No. M-2018-212** **Filed May 9, 2019** **Summary Opinion** **Presiding Judge: Lewis** **Judgment and Sentence Affirmed** **Facts:** Rodney Eugene Smith appeals his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery, a misdemeanor. The incident occurred on May 29, 2017, when Alexis Perkins alleged that Smith struck her. Witness Bridgett Downum testified to witnessing Smith slap Perkins during a heated argument at Downum's residence. The jury convicted Smith, resulting in a one-year county jail sentence and a $5,000.00 fine. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Insufficient Evidence of Dating Relationship:** Smith argues that the State failed to prove he was in a dating relationship with Perkins. The court found Perkins' testimony about their living and sexual relationship sufficient for a jury to reasonably conclude a dating relationship existed. 2. **Intent to Injury:** Smith contends the State did not prove he acted with intent to injure. The court found that his actions during the confrontation demonstrated sufficient intent to do harm, as viewed in light most favorable to the State. 3. **Failure to Instruct on Lesser Included Offense:** The court found no error in failing to instruct on simple assault and battery because the evidence supported the charge of domestic assault and battery. Smith's claims about the dating relationship were rejected. 4. **Self-Defense Instruction Denied:** The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Smith's self-defense instructions, as the evidence did not support his claim of self-defense. 5. **Jury Instructions on Specific Crime:** Smith's claim that the jury instructions were improper was denied as he did not object at trial, and the instructions sufficiently defined the offense. 6. **Insufficient Information:** The court ruled the Information provided adequate notice to Smith regarding the charges against him, as it included essential details about the crime. 7. **Cumulative Prosecutorial Misconduct:** Smith's claims of prosecutorial misconduct were rejected as the comments did not fundamentally undermine his trial's fairness. 8. **Improper Lay Opinion Testimony:** Downum's opinion testimony was not objected to at trial and, assuming it was improper, did not constitute plain error. 9. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Smith's trial counsel's performance did not result in prejudice, and he failed to show how the outcome would have differed had the objections been raised. 10. **Cumulative Errors:** The cumulative nature of alleged errors did not affect the trial outcome, and therefore, no relief is warranted. **Conclusion:** The court affirmed the judgment and sentence, concluding that Smith received a fair trial despite the raised propositions. **Opinion by: Lewis, P.J.** **Concurrences:** Kuehn, V.P.J.; Lumpkin, J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J.

Continue ReadingM-2018-212

F-2017-1240

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1240, Kevin Eugene Fowler appealed his conviction for five counts of Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Kevin Eugene Fowler was found guilty by a jury of neglecting his children, which included not providing them enough food and medical care. The jury recommended that he be sentenced to 30 years in prison for four of the counts and 10 years for the last count, with all sentences to be served one after the other, totaling 130 years. Fowler was required to serve 85% of his sentences before being eligible for parole. Fowler raised several points during his appeal, arguing that there were issues with how evidence was presented in court. He claimed that comments made by a police officer were unfair and that he did not receive a fair trial because of them. However, the court found that these comments were relevant and did not harm his case. Fowler also argued that he was wrongly punished multiple times for the same actions regarding his children, but the court ruled that his separate actions of failing to provide food and medical care could be treated as different crimes. He accused the State of misconduct during the trial, but the court concluded that the comments made were either allowed within the context of the trial or did not unfairly influence the jury. Another point raised was about his attorney not doing a good job. Fowler claimed his lawyer failed to object to improper arguments and was not sufficiently prepared. The court found that his lawyer's actions were not deficient and that there was no actual conflict of interest in defending both him and his co-defendant. Fowler believed that his lengthy sentences were excessive. Yet, the court determined that the sentences fell within the legal limits, and the trial judge had considered all relevant facts before deciding to make the sentences consecutive. Lastly, Fowler argued that all these issues combined made it impossible for him to get a fair trial, but since the court did not find any individual errors significant, they ruled against this claim as well. Overall, the court affirmed Fowler's multiple convictions and sentences, concluding that no errors were made that would warrant a new trial or a change in sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1240

F-2017-825

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-825, Ryan Paul Farr appealed his conviction for burglary in the second degree and possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences. There was one dissenting opinion. The case began when Farr was found guilty by a jury in Carter County. He faced two counts: one for burglary after having previous convictions, and another for having a firearm despite also having previous convictions. The jury decided that he should serve 25 years for the burglary and 15 years for the firearm possession, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. Farr raised many complaints in his appeal, mentioning problems he believed occurred during the trial. He argued that the trial court made mistakes when it allowed the case to be reopened for more witness testimony and that he did not get a fair trial due to evidence of other crimes being presented. He also expressed concern about the prosecutor’s comments, which he thought made it seem like he was guilty before the jury could decide. The court looked closely at each of Farr's points. For the first complaint, the court said that letting the State present more witness testimony was a reasonable choice and didn’t hurt Farr's case. About the evidence of other crimes, the court noted that Farr didn’t object at the time these details were shared, which meant he couldn’t complain later. Farr also had issues with how his prior convictions were brought up during the trial, but the court found no major errors there either. When it came to the prosecutor’s behavior, the court decided that while the prosecutor made some points during arguments, they did not sway the trial's fairness. Farr's claims about not having enough evidence supporting his burglary and firearm possession were rejected since the court believed the evidence presented was sufficient to prove his guilt. Lastly, although Farr thought his sentences were too long, the court reminded him that sentences are usually left to the discretion of the judge unless they are extremely unfair, which in this case they weren’t. Because the court found no errors in the trial process, they confirmed the decision made in the lower court. In conclusion, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence against Farr, stating that all of his arguments were without merit.

Continue ReadingF-2017-825

F-2017-356

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-356, Elizabeth A. Jennings appealed her conviction for Permitting Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed her conviction. One judge dissented. The case took place in Tulsa County, where Jennings was found guilty of allowing child sexual abuse to happen, which is against the law. The jury decided she should go to prison for 14 years. She was very unhappy about this and wanted to challenge the ruling. Jennings raised three big points in her appeal: 1. She said the prosecutor made a wrong hypothetical question during jury selection, which is called voir dire, and that this violated her rights. 2. She also argued that a lot of evidence was shown about her co-defendant's sexual misconduct, which she thought made it hard for her to get a fair sentence. 3. Lastly, she complained that the judge didn't tell the jury that she would have to register as a sex offender after her conviction, which she thought was an important piece of information. The court looked at everything carefully, including the evidence, the transcripts, and the arguments from both sides. It decided that Jennings did not deserve any relief from her conviction based on her arguments. For the first point, the court said that the prosecutor's question was okay. It was meant to see if jurors could be fair and follow the law without making decisions before hearing all the evidence. In the second point, the court agreed that the evidence about the co-defendant was relevant and helped to show Jennings' knowledge of the situation. The court found that this evidence was not unfairly hurtful to her case. On the third point, the court decided that it was not wrong for the judge to skip giving out the information about sex offender registration because it wasn't necessary for the case. In the end, the court upheld Jennings' sentence of 14 years in prison. The judges considered all the arguments but concluded that everything was handled correctly during the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2017-356

RE-2017-113

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In the case of Ruben Geraldo Velasquez v. The State of Oklahoma, the appellant appealed the revocation of his suspended sentences across multiple cases in the Caddo County District Court. The appeals were addressed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The appellant had pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including possession of a firearm after conviction, driving under the influence, and domestic assault. His sentences were imposed with significant portions suspended, and he was placed on probation. However, the State filed a petition to revoke his suspended sentences citing several violations, including failure to pay fees, failure to report, changes in address, and new criminal offenses. The trial court revoked the appellant's suspended sentences in full after a hearing, and the appellant raised several propositions of error on appeal. The court determined that the first two propositions, which challenged the validity of the original sentences, were not properly resolved through this appeal and needed to follow certiorari procedures instead. The court found that the amendment to the revocation order, which removed post-imprisonment supervision, rendered one of the propositions moot. Regarding claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated any deficiency in counsel's performance nor shown any resulting prejudice. The appellant's argument that the trial court abused its discretion by denying credit for time served was found to have no supporting legal authority, as the court indicated that there is no statutory requirement for such credit to be granted. Lastly, the court rejected the appellant's assertion that the revocation was excessive. The evidence presented to the trial court satisfied the standard necessary to revoke the suspended sentences, affirming that the burden of proof for violations is preponderance of the evidence, and that the decision to revoke is within the discretionary power of the trial court. Ultimately, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to revoke the appellant's suspended sentences across all cited cases, concluding that there was no abuse of discretion in the revocation. The mandates for this decision were ordered to be issued following the filing of the opinion. The decision is summarized as follows: **The revocation of Ruben Geraldo Velasquez's suspended sentences is AFFIRMED.**

Continue ReadingRE-2017-113

M-2017-1021

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. M-2017-1021** *BYRIN CARR, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.* **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA APR 25 2019 JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** The Appellant, Byrin Carr, appeals from his misdemeanor Judgment and Sentence entered after a jury trial before the Honorable Timothy D. Haworth, Associate District Judge, in Case No. CM-2016-655 in the District Court of Garfield County. Appellant was convicted of Threaten to Perform Act of Violence, and was sentenced to a term of six months in the Garfield County Jail. **PROCEDURAL HISTORY** On June 28, 2016, Appellant was charged with Threaten to Perform Act of Violence, misdemeanor, 21 O.S.2011, § 1378(B), for threatening to kill Garfield County judges and prosecutors. Subsequently, the case was assigned to Judge Haworth who appointed a different District Attorney before the trial proceeded on September 19, 2017. **FACTS** At trial, Brian Dickson, a news photographer for KOCO-TV, testified about an incident on June 27, 2016, where Appellant approached him and his co-worker while they were parked at McDonald's. Appellant made threatening statements about harming local judges and prosecutors, leading to Dickson recording their conversation. The recording included Appellant’s comments about killing judges and district attorneys. After the incident, the news supervisors contacted local law enforcement. Appellant, in his defense, argued that he meant no harm and merely sought to share his grievances about local authorities. His defense included proposed jury instructions regarding subjective intent and political speech, which were denied by the court. **ANALYSIS** **PROPOSITION I:** The court addressed whether the denial of Appellant's requested jury instructions constituted error. The court held that the crime outlined in § 1378(B) does not necessitate proof of the threat being a true and credible threat and is a general intent crime. Therefore, the judge's refusal to give the requested instruction was not an error. **PROPOSITION II:** Appellant contested the jury instructions regarding the term willfully. The court affirmed that proof of general intent suffices under § 1378(B) and that the judge's definitions were proper and aligned with legal requirements. **PROPOSITION III:** Finally, Appellant argued that he was denied the right to present a defense, specifically regarding the characterization of his speech as political. The court reasoned that the threats made by Appellant fell outside the bounds of protected political speech and were not relevant to the presented case. **DECISION** The Appellant’s misdemeanor Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** JAMES L. HANKINS Attorney at Law Edmond, OK **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** BRIAN T. HERMANSON District Attorney, 8TH District Counsel for the State --- **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **CONCURRING:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. *(Refer to the official document for textual fidelity and details of legal references.)*

Continue ReadingM-2017-1021

F-2018-617

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of Douglas Edward Scott. Scott was convicted of Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation and Petit Larceny in a non-jury trial and was sentenced to eight years in prison for the first charge and six months in county jail for the second, with both sentences running concurrently. ### Key Points from the Opinion: 1. **Proposition I - Sufficiency of Evidence**: - Scott challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his domestic assault conviction. - The court reviewed the evidence favorably toward the prosecution and concluded that a rational trier of fact could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. - The trial court rejected Scott's claim of innocence, and the court affirmed that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. 2. **Proposition II - Sentence Excessiveness**: - Scott argued that his eight-year sentence was excessive. - The court noted that the sentence was within the statutory range and considered the facts of the case. - The court determined that the sentence did not shock its conscience and denied the proposition of excessive sentencing. ### Conclusion: - The court affirmed Scott's judgment and sentence, denying both of his propositions of error. - The mandate for the decision was ordered upon the delivery and filing of the opinion. ### Representations: - The trial representation included Charles Michael Thompson for the appellant and Richard Smothermon as the District Attorney for the State. - The opinion was written by Judge Lumpkin, with all other judges concurring. For more detailed information or legal context, you can download the full PDF of the opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-617_1735229379.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-617

F-2017-1191

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1191, Leroy Edward Gilbert, Jr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One justice dissented. The case involved the murder of Erma Jean Goodou, who was killed in 1994. For many years, the murderer remained unknown. Goodou was found dead in her home, showing signs of a violent struggle. There were indications that someone entered through a window, attacked her, and fled. Despite extensive investigation, her murder stayed unsolved for almost twenty years. In 2013, some of the evidence was retested, which produced DNA that identified Gilbert as the suspect. He had previously denied knowing Goodou despite having been a high school acquaintance. His fingerprints were also found at the crime scene. During the trial, Gilbert testified, claiming they had a secret relationship and tried to explain the presence of his DNA and prints, but the evidence was compelling against him. Appellant's arguments in the appeal included claims of improper jury instructions regarding the 85% Rule, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that while there were errors in jury instructions, specifically about the 85% Rule not being applicable to his case, these did not affect his substantial rights or the outcome. The comments made by the prosecutor during the trial were also deemed not to have harmed Gilbert's defense. Ultimately, despite a dissenting opinion regarding the impact of those errors, the court upheld the trial's decision, maintaining Gilbert's conviction for First Degree Murder and sentencing him to life without the possibility of parole.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1191

F-2017-1140

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1140, Michael Harold Denham appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Michael Harold Denham was found guilty of a crime related to domestic abuse. The jury, which is a group of people that decides if someone is guilty or not, recommended that he be sentenced to three years in prison. The judge who oversaw the trial followed this recommendation and also ordered that Denham pay some fees and receive credit for the time he had already spent in jail before the trial. Denham's appeal claimed that several mistakes had occurred during his trial. He listed five main points where he believed the trial had not been fair: 1. The trial court allowed the state to have an expert witness testify about domestic abuse. Denham argued that this was a mistake. 2. He said that one of the witnesses who testified about domestic violence was not properly qualified to do so. 3. Denham claimed that some evidence was admitted that should not have been according to the rules of evidence. 4. He argued that the court did not let his defense team ask questions about one juror, which meant they could not see if the juror was biased. 5. Finally, he said that all these mistakes happened together and made the whole trial unfair. The court looked closely at Denham's claims and the evidence from the trial. They decided that the court did not make errors that were significant enough to change the outcome of the trial. For the first point about the expert witness, the court ruled that Denham did not show why his defense would have benefited from having his own expert witness. His claim of needing a continuance (more time) to prepare for the trial was not justified because he could not show how it would have helped his case. For the second point, the court decided that the qualifications of the expert witness were acceptable. The judge found that the officer had enough training and experience in domestic violence matters to testify. Regarding the third point, Denham did not follow the right procedure to complain about the late disclosure of the expert witness. As a result, the court found no major violations that would affect the trial's fairness. For the fourth point, the court reviewed how the trial judge handled questions for the jurors. They found that the process was fair because the juror had given no indication beforehand that she would be biased. Lastly, for the fifth point about the overall fairness of the trial, the court did not agree that the combined claims could show any level of unfairness. They found no cumulative error that would merit a different outcome. In conclusion, the court upheld Denham's conviction, deciding that he received a fair trial and that the claims of error did not have enough merit to change the verdict. The appeal was denied, and the conviction was confirmed, meaning Denham would serve his sentence as decided by the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1140

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

F-2018-184

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-184, Juanita Martinez Gomez appealed her conviction for First Degree Malice Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction. One judge dissented. Juanita, a 49-year-old woman, was found guilty of killing her daughter, Geneva Gomez, who was 33 years old, in Oklahoma City. The events took place in August 2016 after a violent encounter at Juanita's home. Geneva had previously lived with her boyfriend but went to collect her belongings with her mother. The boyfriend later became worried when he could not communicate with Geneva. The trial revealed that when the boyfriend visited Juanita's home, he found Geneva's body. She had severe injuries on her head and signs that she had been beaten. Instead of asking for help, Juanita showed strange behavior, claiming that Geneva was possessed. Evidence showed that Juanita attempted to clean up the crime scene and tried to prevent her boyfriend from leaving. At trial, Juanita did not testify, and her lawyers claimed that her odd behavior and statements meant she did not kill her daughter with intent. The jury, however, found that the evidence showed a clear intention to kill, considering the violent nature of the attack and Juanita's actions afterward. Juanita raised multiple claims of error in her appeal, but the court found that she had not been denied a fair trial. Her statements to the police about her motive for killing Geneva were not allowed in court because they were considered hearsay. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that it was sufficient to support the conviction for malice murder, rejecting Juanita's claims for lesser charges or defenses. The court ultimately affirmed the judgment of the District Court.

Continue ReadingF-2018-184

F-2017-1231

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1231, Antonio Tiwan Taylor appealed his conviction for two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One member of the court dissented. Antonio Tiwan Taylor was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma for harming his girlfriend's seven-year-old daughter in December 2014. The girl talked about what happened to her, and the State also shared letters that Taylor wrote to the child's mother where he seemed to admit his actions and apologize. Furthermore, a young woman testified that Taylor had raped her before, which was included to show his tendency to commit such acts. Taylor appealed his conviction on several points. First, he argued the trial court should not have allowed the woman’s testimony, claiming it was more harmful than helpful to his case. The court reviewed this claim and found no error in allowing her testimony; they saw it as relevant and not unfairly prejudicial to Taylor. Second, during the trial, the woman who made the earlier accusation did not show up, and Taylor argued that her absence meant her prior testimony shouldn’t be used. The court decided she was unavailable and allowed her earlier testimony to be read to the jury. Taylor disagreed but the court believed the State made enough effort to locate her, and they maintained that her previous testimony was still valid and credible. Next, Taylor made a claim based on collateral estoppel. This is a legal principle that says if someone was found not guilty of a crime, they shouldn’t be tried again for the same issue. Taylor believed that because he was acquitted of raping the woman in question, her testimony should not have been used against him in this case. However, the court explained that an acquittal does not mean the person is innocent but that there was reasonable doubt about their guilt. Thus, they could still consider the facts of the earlier case for a different purpose. Lastly, Taylor argued that even if the trial had a few errors, they added up to a reason for a new trial. Since the court found no errors in the previous claims, this argument was also denied. The court ultimately affirmed the decisions made during the trial, meaning Taylor's convictions and sentences remained in place.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1231

F-2017-1167

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1167, Revival Aso Pogi appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Revival Aso Pogi was convicted of murdering Steven Qualls in Oklahoma City in April 2014. Qualls was found dead in his home, and the scene was very bloody. An autopsy showed he had been beaten and stabbed over fifty times. Pogi was arrested after his wallet and bloody handprints were found at the crime scene. During police questioning, Pogi initially denied any involvement but later admitted to killing Qualls, stating he acted in self-defense after being held captive. Pogi’s appeal raised several arguments. He claimed that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction and that the trial court made mistakes. He argued that the jury should have been given instructions on a lesser charge of manslaughter, that his statements to police were made under duress, and that evidence of the victim's past conduct was improperly excluded. Pogi also challenged the use of a graphic photograph of the victim and claimed that the cumulative impact of all errors warranted a new trial. The court rejected Pogi's claims. They found that the jury had enough evidence to conclude that Pogi intentionally killed Qualls and that his self-defense claim wasn’t justified. They ruled that the trial court made appropriate decisions about jury instructions and evidence. The court noted that even if there were errors, they were harmless and did not affect the outcome of the trial. Ultimately, the court upheld Pogi's conviction for First Degree Murder and confirmed the life sentence imposed by the trial judge.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1167

C-2018-489

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Mario Donsheau Cherry entered blind pleas of guilty to multiple charges including First Degree Manslaughter, Causing an Accident Resulting in Great Bodily Injury, and Leaving the Scene of an Accident, among others, in the District Court of Oklahoma County. His pleas were accepted by the Honorable Bill Graves on February 23, 2018. After a sentencing hearing on April 5, 2018, Cherry was sentenced to life in prison on some counts, with additional sentences for other counts that ran concurrently. On April 12, 2018, he filed an application to withdraw his plea, which was denied on May 4, 2018. Cherry appeals this denial, raising the following issues: 1. **Denial of Withdrawal of Plea:** Cherry argues he should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming it was not entered knowingly and voluntarily partly because he was not adequately informed about waiving his right to appeal. 2. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** He claims his counsel did not sufficiently inform him about the consequences of waiving his appeal rights through his plea. 3. **Excessive Sentence:** Cherry contends that the imposed sentences are excessive and shock the conscience. After reviewing the case, including the original record and briefs, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cherry's motion to withdraw his plea. The court cited that the plea was determined to be knowing and voluntary as Cherry acknowledged understanding of the consequences including the nature and severity of the charges and the rights he was waiving. Regarding ineffective assistance, the court noted that this claim was not raised in the initial application to withdraw the plea or in the petition for certiorari, resulting in a waiver for appellate review. On the issue of sentencing, the court confirmed that the sentences were within statutory guidelines and that running some counts consecutively was within the trial court’s discretion. The court found no excessive or shocking elements in the imposed sentence in light of Cherry's guilty admissions and prior felony history. **DECISION** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Continue ReadingC-2018-489

F-2017-1103

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1103, the appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One justice dissented. Jose Jonathan Rivera-Chavez was convicted of killing Wanda Cooper at a hotel. On December 27, 2016, Cooper went to the hotel office pleading for help while covered in blood. She collapsed shortly after and died from her injuries. Witnesses saw Rivera-Chavez trying to open car doors nearby after the incident. The police found him on the run and apprehended him with help from a police dog. Evidence showed blood on his clothes matched Cooper's. During the trial, Rivera-Chavez claimed he was under the influence of drugs and did not intend to kill Cooper. He admitted to stabbing her multiple times with a knife after becoming paranoid during a drug high. Despite his defense, the court noted that his actions and demeanor suggested he was not severely intoxicated. One key issue in the appeal was whether the court allowed evidence of Rivera-Chavez's silence after being read his rights, which he claimed violated his rights. The court found that this evidence was used properly to address his claim of voluntary intoxication and did not unfairly suggest guilt. The court concluded that even if there had been some error in admitting the evidence, it was harmless because ample evidence showed Rivera-Chavez's intent to kill. The judgment and sentence were ultimately upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1103