Judicial Discretion Archives - Page 2 of 5

RE-2018-30

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 6, 2019
Post category:RE

The case presented involves Marty Wayne Green, who appealed the termination of his participation in the Seminole County Anna McBride Court Program after a series of violations related to his plea agreement and mental health treatment. Here's a summary of the court's findings and rulings: 1. **Background**: Green pleaded guilty to Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation and was sentenced to a suspended seven-year prison term. He entered the Anna McBride Court Program as part of his sentence. 2. **Violation Allegations**: The State filed a motion to revoke his suspended sentence, alleging that Green had failed to comply with program requirements, including not attending counseling sessions, testing positive for substances, and committing new offenses. 3. **Hearing Outcome**: After hearing the motion, District Judge George W. Butner terminated Green's participation in the mental health court program based on these violations and sentenced him to the full term of imprisonment. 4. **Propositions on Appeal**: - **Proposition I**: Green argued he should be credited for time served. The court ruled against this, clarifying that since he was not sentenced under the Oklahoma Community Sentencing Act, he had no entitlement to such credit. - **Proposition II**: This proposition did not challenge the validity of the termination order and was deemed improperly before the court. It did not affect the legality of the termination itself. - **Proposition III**: Green contended that the trial court abused its discretion by not seeking lesser sanctions before terminating his participation. The court found that the judge had discretion to terminate the program due to Green's repeated violations and potential danger to himself and others. 5. **Conclusion**: The court affirmed the termination of Green's participation in the Anna McBride Court Program, ruling that the judge acted within his discretion based on the facts presented and the violations of the program. The final decision upheld the termination, emphasizing the importance of compliance with mental health treatment programs and the discretion of judges in such cases. The ruling highlights the responsibility of participants in such programs to adhere to established agreements and the potential consequences of failing to comply.

RE-2018-234

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JERRY WAYNE LANDS, NOT FOR PUBLICATION** **Appellant,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-234** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 30, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **KUEHN, VICE-PRESIDING JUDGE:** On March 7, 2008, Appellant Jerry Wayne Lands, represented by counsel, entered a negotiated plea of no contest to the charge of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) After Former Conviction of a Felony in Pittsburg County Case No. CF-2007-420. He was sentenced to ten (10) years, all suspended, subject to terms and conditions of probation. Between May 2008 and March 2009, at least five (5) applications to revoke his probation were filed. On December 5, 2008, Lands was charged with additional offenses and ultimately, on April 13, 2009, the district court revoked five years of his suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2007-420. Subsequent to Lands' guilty plea in Case No. CF-2008-526, where he received a ten-year sentence with five years suspended, the State filed multiple revocation applications in both cases. On October 26, 2017, the State filed another Application to Revoke Lands' suspended sentences, which culminated in a full revocation during a hearing held on July 11, 2017. **PROPOSITIONS OF ERROR:** 1. Lands contends that the trial judge abused his discretion by refusing to grant a continuance for him to hire counsel. 2. He argues there was no valid waiver of the twenty-day requirement, resulting in loss of jurisdiction to revoke his sentence. 3. He claims the evidence was insufficient to support the allegations in the revocation motions. 4. He asserts the revocation of his entire remaining sentences was excessive. **DECISION:** 1. **Continuance Denial:** The court found no abuse of discretion by Judge Hogan in denying the requested continuance, which was sought on the day of the hearing without prior notification of intent to hire private counsel. 2. **Waiver of the 20-Day Rule:** The waiver was valid despite Lands' claim that it was made without the representation of counsel, as the appellate record indicated he knowingly waived his right to a timely hearing. 3. **Sufficiency of Evidence:** The court ruled there was sufficient evidence to warrant revocation of Lands' suspended sentences. Violations of probation can be established by a preponderance of evidence, and the record supported the trial court's findings. 4. **Excessiveness of Revocation:** The court concluded that revocation of Lands' entire suspended sentences was not excessive, given his extensive history of probation violations. **RULING:** The order of the District Court of Pittsburg County revoking Appellant's suspended sentences is **AFFIRMED**. **COUNSEL:** *Appellant:* Wesley J. Cherry *Appellee:* Max E. Moss, Jr., Assistant District Attorney; Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. *LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR* *LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS* *HUDSON, J.: CONCUR* *ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR* **MANDATE ORDERED.** For a complete view and reference, [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-234_1734698244.pdf).

C-2018-372

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 29, 2019
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **LAVONTE ANTONIO JOHNSON,** **Petitioner,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-372** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI** **Filed May 39, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Lavonte Antonio Johnson, Petitioner, pled guilty to using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a firearm, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 652(B), in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2014-2033. The Honorable Susan K. Johnson, Special Judge, accepted the plea and deferred judgment for five (5) years, subject to rules and conditions of probation. The State later moved to accelerate the judgment, alleging that Petitioner violated the rules and conditions of probation by possessing a firearm and jumping bail. The Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, accelerated judgment and sentenced Petitioner to twenty-seven (27) years imprisonment. Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied. Petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari based on the following propositions of error: 1. Petitioner did not knowingly and voluntarily enter his plea of guilty, and the district court erred when it denied his application to withdraw the plea. 2. Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article II, §§ 7 and 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution. 3. Petitioner’s 27-year sentence is excessive under the Eighth Amendment and shocks the conscience. Certiorari review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently before a court of competent jurisdiction, whether the sentence is excessive, whether counsel was effective at either the plea hearing or the withdrawal hearing, and whether the State has the power to prosecute the defendant. ### Proposition One In this proposition, Petitioner claims that the record shows he did not voluntarily enter his plea, due to a notational error by his counsel regarding the 85% rule applicable to his sentence. The court points out that a valid plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among alternatives. The ruling on a motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The trial court concluded that despite the error, Petitioner was properly informed about the 85% crime classification, denying this proposition. ### Proposition Two Petitioner argues that his counsel failed to adequately advise him regarding the ramifications of the 85% rule, thus rendering his plea involuntary. The court reviews this claim under the two-pronged Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that Petitioner did not show that counsel's performance was deficient or that it prejudiced him, denying this proposition. ### Proposition Three Petitioner argues that his sentence is excessive. The court notes that a sentence within the statutory range will not be modified unless it shocks the court's conscience. Given that Petitioner violated probation for a violent felony by possessing a firearm and jumping bail, the court finds that the sentence does not shock the conscience, thus denying this proposition. ### Decision The petition for the writ of certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. **APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** ### APPEARANCES AT TRIAL **TONY COLEMAN** **ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER** ### APPEARANCES ON APPEAL **ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER** **ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER** **LORENZO BANKS** **THOMAS HURLEY** **ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT** **DANIEL POND** **ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE** **OPINION BY: LEWIS, P.J.** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **LUMPKIN, J.: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** **ROWLAND, J.: Concur** [**Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-372_1734105356.pdf)

PR 2018-1203

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 24, 2019
Post category:PR

OPINION ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF AND REMANDING MATTER TO DISTRICT COURT On November 29, 2018, Petitioner, by and through counsel Melissa A. French, filed an application for an…

PC 2017-755

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 24, 2019
Post category:PC

In OCCA case No. PC 2017-755, the petitioner appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the previous sentence and allow for resentencing with a jury. The dissenting opinions argued against the majority decision, indicating that the judge had the discretion to deny jury resentencing based on prior waivers. The case started when the petitioner was just seventeen years old and pleaded guilty to First Degree Murder in 2006. Originally, he was sentenced to life in prison without the chance for parole. After some time, he claimed that this sentence was unfair because he was a minor when he was sentenced. The court agreed and decided to let him be resentenced but had to deal with the issue of whether his resentencing should involve a jury. The petitioner argued that since he was seeking resentencing, he should be allowed a jury trial. However, the state disagreed, pointing out that he had waived his right to a jury trial when he originally pleaded guilty. The judge decided that because of this waiver, he didn’t have to give the petitioner a jury for resentencing. In this case, the court looked at previous decisions that said when a juvenile is sentenced to life without parole, they should have a jury trial unless they give up that right. The majority of the court found that the petitioner did not truly waive his right to a jury for the resentencing, as he was relying on new rules from recent important cases. Ultimately, the court decided that it was wrong for the judge to deny the jury resentencing. They chose to vacate that decision and said the case should go back to the lower court to figure out the right way to do the resentencing, with the ability to include a jury if the petitioner asked. The dissenting opinions argued that the judge had actually acted correctly by denying the request for a jury because the petitioner had already waived that right back when he pleaded guilty. They believed that the rules shouldn’t allow a person to change their mind long after the original decision. The court ordered that the petitioner’s guilty plea and conviction were still valid, but they needed to follow the correct process under the law for the new sentencing.

J-2019-65

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:J

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **G.E.J., Appellant, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **No. J-2019-65** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA MAY 23, 2019 JOHN D. HADDEN ROWLAND, JUDGE** **SUMMARY OPINION** On August 27, 2018, G.E.J. was charged as a juvenile with (1) Soliciting for First Degree Murder and (2) Reckless Conduct with a Firearm in Rogers County District Court. A show cause hearing was held, resulting in probable cause for continued juvenile detention. G.E.J. eventually entered a no contest stipulation leading to adjudication as a delinquent on October 30, 2018. Following a hearing on January 17, 2019, the trial court denied his motion to withdraw the stipulation. G.E.J. raised several issues on appeal regarding the denial of due process, the voluntariness of his plea, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and the sufficiency of proceedings leading to his stipulation. The Court reviewed the claims in light of the record and hearings. The Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, emphasizing: 1. **Detention Period**: G.E.J. argued that he was detained for 24 days before charges were filed, which he claimed constituted a denial of due process. The Court found that he was represented by counsel during this period and had a bond set, distinguishing his case from precedent cases involving more severe delays without legal representation or bonding. 2. **Voluntariness of Plea**: G.E.J. contended that his plea was not knowing and voluntary, citing that he believed he would be released upon entering the stipulation. However, testimonial evidence indicated that his attorney’s statements were not misleading and that G.E.J. was adequately informed of the charges and the evidence against him. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Claims of ineffective assistance were examined under the Strickland standard, requiring a showing of deficient performance and resulting prejudice. The Court found no shown deficiency by his attorneys and ruled that even if there were lapses, they did not prejudice the outcome. 4. **Factual Basis for Stipulation**: The absence of a lengthy factual basis during the stipulation hearing did not undermine the sufficiency of the process; the Court noted adequate evidence existed to support the stipulation through prior hearings. The appeal was evaluated under the standards for an abuse of discretion, and the findings of the trial judge who observed G.E.J. throughout the proceedings were upheld. **DECISION**: The Court affirmed the decision of the Rogers County District Court, upholding the denial of G.E.J.’s motion to withdraw his stipulation. **Counsel for Juvenile**: Jeffrey Price **Counsel for Appellant**: Sarah MacNiven **Counsel for State**: Edith Singer **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** **LEWIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **LUMPKIN, J.: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-65_1734448303.pdf)

F-2017-1011

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1011, Johnny Ray Hopes appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute and two counts of Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. Johnny Ray Hopes was found guilty by a jury for having illegal drugs and for attacking police officers. The jury decided he should go to prison for four years for the drug crime and for thirteen months in jail with a $500 fine for each of the two assaults. The judge ordered that all of these punishments would happen one after the other, not at the same time. Hopes had a few reasons for his appeal. First, he said that the trial court did not properly explain what it meant to represent himself in court. He believed that because he was not fully informed, his choice to represent himself was not made knowingly or voluntarily. The court looked at the facts and found that Hopes was well informed about what it meant to represent himself. They agreed that he made a clear decision and understood the risks involved in not having a lawyer. Therefore, the court decided that he had made a valid choice to represent himself. Second, Hopes claimed that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing the jury to hear about a lesser crime called Resisting Arrest. The court explained that for a jury to receive instructions about a lesser crime, there must be enough evidence for a reasonable jury to be able to find the person guilty of that lesser crime instead of the more serious crime they were charged with. The court found that there wasn’t enough evidence to support a charge of Resisting Arrest because Hopes had attacked the officers rather than just resisting their attempts to arrest him. So, they decided the trial court did not make a mistake by not including that lesser charge. Lastly, Hopes argued that the trial court shouldn’t have made his punishments run consecutively. The court explained that there is no rule saying he must receive concurrent sentences, meaning they cannot run at the same time. They confirmed that the judge had the right to decide that Hopes should serve his time one after the other. The court found that there was no evidence showing that the judge didn't consider all the facts when making that decision. In conclusion, the court upheld Hopes’ convictions and punishments. The appeal did not change the earlier decision. One judge disagreed, believing there were reasons to reconsider the case.

F 2017-1074

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2017-1074, Brown appealed his conviction for Drug Court termination. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination, stating the trial court acted within its discretion. One judge dissented.

RE-2018-342

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOSHUA ERIC ARMSTRONG,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. No. RE-2018-342 **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY - 9 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant Joshua Eric Armstrong appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence from the Woodward County District Court Case No. CF-2017-5, overseen by the Honorable David A. Work, Associate District Judge. ### Background On March 31, 2017, Appellant pled no contest to the charge of Possession/Concealing Stolen Property, leading to a five-year sentence, with all but the first two months suspended. On March 8, 2018, the State sought to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence on various grounds: failure to report, providing a false address, testing positive for methamphetamine, failing to pay court costs, prosecution reimbursement fees, restitution, and committing Grand Larceny (Case No. CF-2018-11). At the March 27, 2018, hearing, Judge Work revoked four years of Armstrong's suspended sentence. ### Appellant's Claims 1. **Proposition I**: Judge Work’s pronouncements were insufficient regarding the alleged probation violations. - **Finding**: No statutory requirement exists for detailed findings at revocation. The petition sufficiently informed Appellant of the grounds. 2. **Propositions II, III, and V**: The State did not prove certain alleged violations. - **Finding**: The State proved other violations; only one is necessary for revocation. 3. **Proposition IV**: Insufficient evidence to prove a false address. - **Finding**: Evidence indicated Appellant likely provided a false address. 4. **Proposition VI**: Improper revocation for unemployment not alleged in the petition. - **Finding**: Appellant failed to object during the hearing, waiving the issue for all but plain error review, which he did not establish. 5. **Proposition VII**: The trial court abused discretion in revoking part of the suspended sentence instead of requiring treatment. - **Finding**: Evidence supported the violations alleged in the petition, and there was no abuse of discretion. ### Decision The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Woodward County District Court Case No. CF-2017-5 is **AFFIRMED**. Mandate to be issued upon filing of this decision. **Appearances**: **Counsel for Defendant**: Ryan D. Recker **Counsel for Appellant**: Sarah MacNiven **Counsel for the State**: Kate Loughlin, Mike Hunter, Keeley L. Miller **OPINION BY**: HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.**: CONCUR **KUEHN, V.P.J.**: CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.**: CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.**: CONCUR [Download PDF of Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-342_1734697264.pdf)

F-2018-272

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-272, Lavonte Antonio Johnson appealed his conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of his deferred sentence to 27 years in prison. One judge dissented. Lavonte Johnson entered a guilty plea in 2014, which was followed by a five-year deferred sentence. However, in 2018, the state sought to accelerate this sentence, claiming Johnson had violated probation by possessing a firearm and committing bail jumping. During a traffic stop, police found Johnson could not provide a driver's license and that he had a gun with him. Johnson argued that the police had to give him a Miranda warning before asking about the gun, as he believed it was a custodial interrogation. The court found that because this was a routine traffic stop, the police were not required to issue a Miranda warning. Johnson's statements about the gun were deemed admissible. The court reviewed the decision to accelerate Johnson's sentence and found no abuse of discretion. Therefore, Johnson’s appeal was denied, and the original sentence was upheld.

F-2016-375

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 25, 2019
Post category:F

This document is the opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the appeal of James Stanford Poore from his convictions of four counts of First Degree Murder and two counts of Robbery with a Firearm, which occurred in Tulsa County District Court. The jury recommended sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder convictions and life imprisonment for the robbery charges. The opinion outlines the factual background of the case, including the brutal murders of four victims during a robbery and the subsequent evidence linking Appellant Poore and his brother Cedric Poore to the crime. Key pieces of evidence included witness testimonies, DNA analysis, and ballistic evidence connecting the Poores to both the murders and an earlier robbery. The appellate court addressed several propositions raised by Poore, reviewing the admission of expert testimony, the exclusion of certain third-party perpetrator evidence, the relevance of other crimes evidence, the legality of the search warrant executed at Poore's mother's residence, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. After careful consideration, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence or denying Poore's requests for different evidence and upheld the sufficiency of the search warrant. The court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court, providing a detailed legal rationale for its decisions. The final decision includes an order for the mandate to be issued upon the filing of this opinion. The judgment for both the defendant and the state was documented, with all judges concurring in the decision. For those interested in viewing or downloading the original document, a link is provided at the end of the summary.

C-2018-410

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 18, 2019
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEAN ALAN REYNOLDS,** Petitioner, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Respondent. **Case No. C-2018-410** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **APR 18 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- ### SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Petitioner Sean Alan Reynolds entered a negotiated plea of guilty in the District Court of LeFlore County, Case No. CF-2016-1365, to Soliciting Sexual Conduct or Communication with a Minor by Use of Technology (Count 1), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1040.13a, and Possession of Juvenile Pornography (Count 3), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2. On March 7, 2018, the Honorable Marion D. Fry, Associate District Judge, accepted Reynolds' guilty plea and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment on Count 1. On Count 3, Reynolds was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment with all but the first ten years suspended. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. Reynolds filed a timely motion to withdraw his plea, which was denied after a hearing. He now appeals the denial of that motion and raises the following issues: 1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying his plea withdrawal on the grounds that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered; 2. Whether the district court erred by failing to conduct the requested competency hearing; 3. Whether the special condition of probation restricting his internet use is overly broad and infringes upon his rights; 4. Whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel. **1. Denial of Motion to Withdraw Plea** Reynolds argues that his plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily, claiming the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw. The standard of review for such cases is whether there was an abuse of discretion. The district court's decision, based on testimony, demeanor, and the plea form, supports that Reynolds' plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plea withdrawal. **2. Competency Hearing** Reynolds contends that the trial court erred in not ordering a mental health evaluation before ruling on the plea withdrawal motion. However, the record reflects that the district court established Reynolds' competency when accepting his plea. There was no indication during the plea hearing of any mental incapacity, and therefore, the court acted within its discretion by not ordering further evaluation. **3. Condition of Probation** Reynolds challenges a condition of probation prohibiting internet usage for five years, arguing it's overly broad. However, this issue was not raised in his motion to withdraw the plea, leading to a waiver of appellate review on this matter. **4. Effective Assistance of Counsel** Finally, Reynolds argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. To succeed, he must demonstrate both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. He claims his counsel did not address his alleged mental health issues, but there was no evidence presented at the plea hearing to suggest incapacity. Additionally, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to cite non-binding cases. Therefore, Reynolds has failed to show he was denied effective assistance of counsel. ### DECISION The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is **DENIED**. The district court's denial of Petitioner's motion to withdraw plea is **AFFIRMED**. The MANDATE is ordered issued. --- **APPEARANCES IN THE DISTRICT COURT** **CYNTHIA VIOL** ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER **KIMBERLY D. HEINZE** PLEA COUNSEL **MATTHEW R. PRICE** MOTION TO WITHDRAW COUNSEL **MIKE HUNTER** ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA --- **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur in Results **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-410_1734106115.pdf)

RE-2017-964

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2019
Post category:RE

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case No. RE-2017-964** **Antonio Depew Rhone, Appellant** **State of Oklahoma, Appellee** **Filed: April 4, 2019** **Summary Opinion:** Judge Hudson delivers the opinion of the court, affirming the revocation of Rhone's suspended sentence. ### Background: - On May 19, 2004, Antonio Depew Rhone pleaded guilty to Robbery with a Firearm and Kidnapping. - He received a 20-year sentence for the robbery (12 years suspended) and a concurrent 10-year sentence for kidnapping. - In July 2016, the State filed a motion to revoke his suspended sentence due to multiple probation violations, including new criminal charges. - After a revocation hearing on July 10, 2017, the District Court revoked Rhone's suspended sentence in full. ### Propositions of Error: 1. **Denial of Counsel of Choice:** Rhone claimed the trial court erred by not allowing him to hire his chosen attorney and denied his motion for a continuance. The court found no abuse of discretion, noting that Rhone had ample time to secure counsel but did not do so and had not shown any conflict with the appointed counsel. 2. **First Amendment Rights:** Rhone argued that his Facebook posts, which included threats, constituted protected speech. The court noted that Rhone did not object to the evidence's admissibility at the hearing, limiting review to plain error. The court ruled the statements were threats and not constitutionally protected speech. 3. **Insufficient Evidence for Revocation:** Rhone asserted the evidence against him was insufficient to support his revocation based on new criminal charges and other alleged probation violations. The court found that the State only needed to prove violations by a preponderance of the evidence and was satisfied the evidence presented justified the revocation. 4. **Abuse of Discretion in Revocation Decision:** Rhone contended that completely revoking his suspended sentence was excessive. The court reiterated that even one violation can justify a full revocation and found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision. ### Decision: The court affirmed the District Court's decision to revoke Rhone's suspended sentence. **Concurring Opinion (Kuehn, V.P.J.):** Kuehn concurred with the result, emphasizing that the evidence for the new drug charge alone justified the revocation. The other propositions were deemed moot. Kuehn agreed with the majority's analysis regarding the First Amendment claim, concluding there was no error in charging Rhone for his statements. **Conclusion:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the revocation of Rhone’s suspended sentence, affirming the trial court's findings and rulings across all raised propositions. **[Download PDF of the full opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2017-964_1734708773.pdf)**

F-2017-189

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 24, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-189, William Todd Lewallen appealed his conviction for Child Neglect, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court. A dissenting opinion was not recorded. Lewallen was found guilty in a previous trial and sentenced to twenty-three years in prison. He appealed this sentence, and the court decided to change the sentence to fourteen years during a resentencing trial. Lewallen wanted to testify during this resentencing but was not allowed to do so by the trial court. This decision led to Lewallen's appeal. Lewallen claimed that not allowing him to testify was a serious mistake called structural error, which means it affected the fairness of the entire trial process. However, the court explained that most errors in trials can be harmless unless they are structural errors. The court ultimately found that Lewallen's case did not involve what would be classified as structural error. The court noted that while everyone has the right to present a defense and testify, this right has limits and must follow the rules of court. In Lewallen's case, his request to testify was denied because the court believed it didn't relate to the sentencing phase of his case. The court held that his testimony would not change the outcome of the sentencing because it was not relevant to the issues that the jury was deciding at that time. The decision emphasized that the resentencing was not a chance to revisit the guilt or innocence of Lewallen, as he was already found guilty. The new jury was only tasked with deciding how long his punishment should be based on what they learned from the original trial. In summary, the court affirmed Lewallen's new sentence and ruled that there were no errors that would affect the outcome of the case, including the denial of his request to testify.

RE-2017-57

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 19, 2018
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2017-57, Leslie Kay Mosby appealed her conviction for burglary and drug possession. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold her revocation from the mental health court program and the resulting sentences. One judge dissented. Leslie Kay Mosby was convicted for several crimes, including burglary and possession of a controlled substance. She was sentenced to seven years for two felony counts and one year for a lesser charge. She entered a plea agreement that allowed her to participate in a mental health court program, which meant that if she did well, her sentences would not need to be served in prison. However, if she failed in the program, her sentences would be enforced. During her time in the mental health court program, Mosby had many problems, including missing appointments and using drugs. The state noticed these issues and asked the court to take her out of the program. After a hearing, the court agreed that she had not followed the program rules and removed her from the program. This meant that she would now serve her sentences in prison. Mosby believed that the court was wrong to remove her from the mental health program without giving her proper chances to improve. She also argued that her sentences should run at the same time instead of one after the other. However, the court decided that the original agreement was not clear enough about the sentences running together and confirmed the judge’s decision to impose consecutive sentences. Lastly, Mosby pointed out that there was a mistake in the paperwork about the charge against her, but she did not follow the right steps to correct it. The court decided that the judge's rulings were mostly correct, but they would send the case back so the judge could ensure that the correct parts of the sentences were listed properly. Overall, the court affirmed the decision to revoke her from the mental health court program and ruled that her longer sentences would stand, with some corrections to the paperwork.

MA 2018-0296

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 5, 2018
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.

RE 2016-1019

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 23, 2018
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2016-1019, Jerry Lynn Clemons appealed his conviction for Home Repair Fraud and other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but directed the District Court to modify the orders so that the sentences would run concurrently. The dissenting opinion was not specified. Here's a simplified summary of what happened: Jerry Clemons was found guilty in two cases. He pleaded guilty to Home Repair Fraud in one case and robbery and property damage in another. He was given suspended sentences, meaning he would not go to prison if he followed rules and conditions of probation, like reporting to a probation officer and not changing his address without informing them. However, he did not follow these rules, which led the State to ask to revoke his suspended sentences. During a hearing, the judge decided to revoke Clemons' suspended sentences because he had failed to report as required and changed his address without telling his probation officer. Clemons argued that the State didn’t properly inform him about the reasons for the revocation and that they didn’t provide enough evidence to support their claims. He also said that the judge should not have revoked his sentence because the punishment was longer than what the law allowed for one of his charges. The court agreed with some of Clemons' points but stated that there was enough evidence to support the decision to revoke his suspended sentences. They found that he didn’t show how the judge made a wrong choice. However, they also recognized a mistake in how the sentences should be served. They ordered that all his sentences should run concurrently, meaning they would be served at the same time, rather than one after the other. In conclusion, Clemons' appeal was mostly not successful, but the court made important changes to ensure he would serve his time in a fair way according to the law.

RE-2016-1101

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 14, 2017
Post category:RE

This is a summary of a legal opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding Richard Leroy Felton's appeal following the revocation of his suspended sentences. Felton had previously entered guilty pleas to several misdemeanor charges, leading to consecutive suspended sentences of one year and six months. His probation was later revoked because he allegedly violated several probation conditions. Notably, he was accused of failing to pay supervision fees, maintaining employment, answering questions truthfully, and violating a protective order. During the revocation hearing, evidence was presented regarding Felton's threats against probation officers, his failure to report to them, and multiple documented violations of the protective order. The court concluded that even just his threats to the officers were sufficient grounds for revocation, thereby affirming the district court's decision. Felton raised five propositions of error on appeal, including claims of insufficient evidence for the state’s allegations, denial of due process, ineffective assistance of counsel, and abuse of discretion in revoking his sentences. The court found these arguments without merit, affirming the revocation on the basis that sufficient evidence supported the action taken by the district court. The court's ruling highlighted that violations of probation do not require the same standards as criminal prosecutions and that the existence of threats and failures to comply with probation conditions justified the decisions made at the lower court level. The order of revocation was thus upheld.

C-2016-877

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 7, 2017
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-877, Charles David Miller appealed his conviction for multiple charges including stalking and possession of a firearm during a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Miller’s petition in part. The court affirmed the judgments and sentences for some counts but reversed the sentence for Count 1 and dismissed Count 4 due to double punishment concerns. One judge dissented. The case began when Miller, facing serious charges, entered a guilty plea in December 2014, agreeing to certain terms. He was originally given deferred sentences, meaning he would not serve time in prison if he followed the terms of his probation. However, after a hearing in 2015, the court ruled to impose a harsher sentence because Miller did not comply with the terms, leading to his appeal. Throughout the appeal, Miller argued that his guilty plea should be withdrawn for several reasons. He claimed there was no factual reason for his plea, that he was not made aware of his rights, and expressed concerns about double punishment as well as the effectiveness of his lawyer. The court reviewed the details and concluded that Miller had not shown enough grounds for his claims because some issues were not raised earlier in court, making them not eligible for review. The court particularly focused on whether Miller's plea was voluntary and if he was properly informed. They found that while Miller's plea might have been motivated by a desire to get his car back, he did understand the consequences of his actions. The court upheld the judgment for some counts, but it noted that the sentence for Count 1 was illegal because it exceeded the maximum allowed by law. As a result, they ordered a new sentencing for that count and dismissed Count 4 entirely because of double punishment. In summary, the main points were that Miller wanted to reverse his guilty plea but the court found many of his arguments unsubstantiated. They decided to change his sentence on one charge while dismissing another, affirming the result on several others.

M 2015-1099

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 31, 2017
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2015-1099, Phantirath appealed her conviction for engaging in prostitution and operating a place of prostitution. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse her convictions because she was not allowed to enter a guilty plea, which is a right for defendants. One judge dissented, stating that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the plea.

RE-2015-922

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 4, 2017
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-922, Palmer appealed his conviction for perjury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Palmer's suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Palmer had previously received a deferred sentence for a case in 2010. In 2015, he pleaded no contest to a perjury charge and got another suspended sentence that he was serving at the same time as the first one. Later, the State of Oklahoma filed to revoke his suspended sentences, claiming he had violated probation by not reporting, not paying court costs, and not completing a required program. They also added new charges of kidnapping and assault. During the revocation hearing, Palmer was removed from the courtroom because he was disruptive. He interrupted the judge repeatedly and was warned to stop, but he did not listen. The court found that because he was behaving disruptively, his absence from the hearing did not make the process unfair. Palmer also claimed that he wanted to represent himself but was forced to have a lawyer. The court determined he had not made any formal request to represent himself, so this claim was rejected. Additionally, Palmer argued that the court did not explain why his sentences were revoked. However, the court noted that there is no requirement to provide detailed reasons at a revocation hearing. Palmer's failure to follow even one condition of his probation was enough to justify the revocation of his sentences. Finally, Palmer thought the judge did not have the power to impose supervision following his imprisonment. However, the court found this issue was already resolved and was therefore moot. The court's overall ruling was to confirm that Palmer's suspended sentences were revoked, maintaining that proper procedures were followed during the revocation hearing.

F 2015-121

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 19, 2016
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.

RE-2015-180

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 8, 2016
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-180, the appellant appealed his conviction for two counts of Rape in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Here's a summary of the case: The appellant, after pleading guilty to Rape in the First Degree, was sentenced to twelve years in prison, which was suspended under certain conditions, including registering as a sex offender. Later, the State alleged that the appellant violated his probation by committing a new crime in Michigan, specifically being a felon in possession of a firearm. When the appellant was brought back from Michigan, a hearing took place about whether he had indeed violated his probation. During this hearing, the State presented various documents and testimony to support their claims, but these did not meet the legal requirements. They had included some documents from Michigan that were not certified and did not prove that a final judgment had been made regarding the alleged new crime. The court found that the State did not provide enough competent evidence to support their claim that the appellant had committed a new crime. The judges noted that the State must strictly prove a new offense for revocation of a suspended sentence. Since the State did not prove that the judgment from Michigan was final, the court agreed that there was an error. As a result, the court reversed the revocation order and sent the case back for further actions as needed. The court did not need to consider the other issues raised since the lack of evidence was sufficient to decide the appeal in favor of the appellant.

S-2013-510

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 9, 2015
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-509 and S-2013-510, two individuals appealed their convictions for first-degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against them based on their claim of immunity under the Stand Your Ground law. The court found that the appeal by the State of Oklahoma was not authorized to challenge the dismissal order. One judge dissented.

RE-2014-238

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 21, 2015
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-238, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance within the presence of a minor child, driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and failure to carry an insurance verification form. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the one year of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented.