Judicial Proceedings

F-2018-994

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **KATESHA CHRISTINE CHILDERS,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-994** **Filed: November 21, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, JUDGE:** Appellant Katesha Christine Childers appeals her Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2017-3783, for First Degree Murder (Count 1) and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon (Count 2). The Honorable Kelly Greenough presided at her jury trial and sentenced her to life imprisonment on Count 1 and one year on Count 2, to run concurrently with credit for time served. Childers raises several issues including: 1. Sufficiency of evidence for her first-degree murder conviction. 2. The trial court's failure to instruct on first degree heat-of-passion manslaughter. 3. Ineffective assistance of counsel for not requesting the above instruction. 4. Admission of lay witness testimony regarding her confession. 5. Admission of hearsay evidence violating her right to a fair trial. 6. Prosecutorial misconduct affecting her trial. 7. Cumulative error necessitating relief. **1. Sufficiency of Evidence for Conviction:** Childers argues insufficient evidence of malice aforethought. The court reviews evidence in the light most favorable to the state, concluding that a rational jury could find her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence of a verbal altercation, her pursuit of the victim, and her admissions of guilt supported the jury's decision. Thus, this claim is denied. **2. Failure to Instruct on Heat-of-Passion Manslaughter:** Childers contends that the trial court erred by not issuing a heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction. Since no objection was raised at trial, review is for plain error. The court finds no evidence supporting such an instruction as Childers was the pursuer in the confrontation. Therefore, this claim is also denied. **3. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Childers claims ineffective assistance because her counsel did not request the heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction. However, as she was not entitled to the instruction based on evidence, this claim fails. **4. Admission of Confession Testimony:** Childers asserts that her statements to lay witnesses were inadmissible due to lack of corroboration. The court adjudicates that there was substantial independent evidence corroborating her statements, thus denying this claim. **5. Admission of Hearsay Evidence:** Childers challenges various hearsay testimonies. Some were admitted without objection, so they are reviewed for plain error. The court finds that the admittance of testimony regarding the victim's fear of Childers is permissible under state-of-mind exceptions to hearsay. Consequently, this claim is denied. **6. Prosecutorial Misconduct:** Childers argues several instances of prosecutorial misconduct, including mention of her status as a convicted felon. Objections were made, and the trial court acted appropriately to mitigate potential prejudice against her. Based on the totality of circumstances, relief is not warranted, leading to a denial of this claim. **7. Cumulative Error:** Finally, Childers contends cumulative errors merit relief. As no individual errors warrant relief, this claim is denied. **CONCLUSION:** The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is AFFIRMED. **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **Download PDF:** [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-994_1734870881.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-994

F-2018-678

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The decision from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirms the conviction of Kenneth Oliver Ross for multiple offenses, including lewd molestation and human trafficking of a minor. The court meticulously addressed each of the twelve propositions of error raised by the appellant in their appeal. 1. **Double Punishment**: The court found no double jeopardy in the separate counts of lewd molestation, as they described distinct acts of abuse. 2. **Charge Appropriateness**: The court ruled that human trafficking was properly charged, as the prosecutor had discretion in choosing the relevant statutes. 3. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Both propositions regarding the sufficiency of evidence for human trafficking were denied, with the court stating that isolated incidents could constitute the crime. 4. **Jury Instructions**: The court upheld the jury instructions given, finding no error in how the law was communicated to the jury. 5. **Ex Post Facto Claims**: The court found no ex post facto violation, indicating that ignorance of the victim's age was not a defense to the charges. 6. **Lesser Included Offenses**: The court ruled that the lack of request for certain lesser-included offense instructions meant review would be under plain error, which the court did not find. 7. **Statutory Clarity**: Propositions regarding the constitutionality and vagueness of the human trafficking statute were denied, with the court upholding the statute's clarity and application. 8. **Sentence Severity**: The court concluded that the 50-year sentence for human trafficking was not shockingly excessive based on the evidence presented. 9. **Cumulative Error**: The final proposition regarding cumulative error was also denied as no individual errors were found. Overall, the appellate court found no merit in any of the propositions and affirmed the original sentence handed down by the district court. The case illustrates the court's rigorous examination of statutory interpretation, jury instructions, evidentiary sufficiency, and statutory vagueness concerns in criminal appeals.

Continue ReadingF-2018-678

F-2018-198

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-198, Ann Sykes appealed her conviction for Abuse by Caretaker (Neglect) and Abuse by Caretaker (Financial Exploitation). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Ann Sykes was found guilty of two types of abuse against her son, who is a vulnerable adult. The first conviction was for not providing him with basic needs like food and shelter. The second conviction was for mishandling his money. The court sentenced her to eight years in prison but suspended three years, meaning she would only serve five years in custody. Appellant raised several problems with the trial process. She claimed that hearsay evidence, which is when someone repeats what another person said outside of court, was used against her unfairly. However, the court found that much of the evidence was not considered hearsay because it was not meant to prove the truth of the statements, and any hearsay that was improperly admitted didn't impact the trial's outcome. Sykes also argued that witnesses were allowed to testify without personal knowledge of the information they shared. The court disagreed, stating that witnesses had information based on their own experiences or observations. Another point of appeal was about whether the trial court made mistakes by letting certain opinions into evidence. A social worker testified about how not getting enough nutrition could affect someone's mental state. The court decided that the social worker was qualified to give that information based on her experience. Sykes claimed her two convictions meant she was being punished twice for the same actions, which is called double punishment. The court found that the actions leading to the two charges were different enough to allow both charges to stand without violating the law. She also believed that the charges against her were not clearly stated in the official documents, but the court noted that she didn’t raise this issue during the trial, so it wasn’t considered on appeal. Another argument was that she was denied a right to have a lawyer appointed to help her during the trial. The court found that although there was a lack of a hearing on this, Sykes did have a lawyer who represented her during the trial. Sykes claimed her lawyer did not do a good enough job. The court noted that for a claim like this, Sykes needed to show both that her lawyer did not perform well and that this affected the trial's outcome. The court did not find evidence that the lawyer's actions changed the trial's result. Lastly, Sykes claimed that even with the errors made during her trial, they did not add up to deny her a fair trial overall. The court agreed, concluding that the errors did not require the reversal of her conviction. Overall, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence, meaning Sykes will continue to serve the time given by the lower court. The application to further review her claims about lawyer effectiveness was denied as well.

Continue ReadingF-2018-198

F-2018-360

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-360, McNeary appealed his conviction for lewd acts with a child under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. No one dissented. Goldy Romeo McNeary was found guilty by a jury for two counts of committing lewd acts with a child under 16 years old. The jury sentenced him to ten years in prison for each count, and these sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. The court also decided that McNeary must serve 85% of his sentence before he could be considered for parole. McNeary appealed his conviction, arguing several points. First, he claimed that the trial court wrongfully allowed evidence of other bad acts, which he said made his trial unfair. Second, he said that this evidence was more harmful than helpful, violating his right to a fair trial. Third, he argued that the trial court did not give the jury proper instructions about how to use this evidence. Fourth, he felt that the trial court was wrong to not allow him to present evidence about Speck Homes, where the acts took place. Lastly, he believed that when considering all the errors together, they warranted a new trial. For the first two points, the court looked at whether the admission of the other crimes evidence was an obvious mistake and if it affected McNeary’s rights. They concluded that even if there was a mistake, it did not change the outcome since there was clear evidence of his guilt. Thus, the evidence did not rise to the level of a serious error. For the third point, the judge had promised to give instructions about the other crimes evidence but failed to do so at the right time. However, since the judge provided some instructions later, the court found no harm was done to McNeary from this. On the fourth point about Speck Homes, the court reasoned that the evidence was not allowed mainly because it was not relevant and also tried to avoid bad effects such as confusion. The trial judge made a choice based on their understanding of the law, and the appellate court did not find it to be a mistake. Lastly, the court examined McNeary's claim that all the errors combined were enough to grant him a new trial. They determined that no significant individual errors had occurred that would justify this request. In conclusion, the court upheld the judgment and sentencing, affirming McNeary’s conviction without any dissent from the other judges involved.

Continue ReadingF-2018-360

F-2017-1307

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1307, James Rex Clark appealed his conviction for four counts of Child Abuse by Injury and one count of First Degree Child Abuse Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. James Rex Clark and his wife were charged after the tragic disappearance of a boy named Colton, who was living with them. They had adopted Colton and his older brother T.J.S. after the boys were removed from their biological parents due to drug and alcohol issues. In 2006, Colton was reported missing, and a massive search took place; however, no trace of him was ever found. T.J.S. later revealed that he had been abused by the Appellants and expressed fears about his brother's fate. After years had passed, T.J.S. reached out to authorities to provide information about the abusive environment he and Colton had experienced while living with their uncle and aunt. As a result of T.J.S.’s testimony and an investigation that followed, both James and his wife were charged with the serious crimes. During the trial, T.J.S. described the harsh treatment he and Colton endured, which included physical abuse and isolation from others. He explained that after Colton had an argument with James, he was taken to a bedroom, and T.J.S. later found him unresponsive on the couch. James tried to argue that he did not receive a fair trial. He claimed that parts of the trial were not properly recorded and that he was not given a fair chance to defend himself. He contended that evidence against him was presented in a way that was not appropriate and that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial. However, the court explained that there was no evidence that the issues James raised affected the outcome of the trial. They found that the testimony about Colton’s character and life was important and properly admitted to show that he would not have run away. They also considered that the defense did not provide sufficient reasons for their claims of error. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction, affirming that the evidence showed James was guilty of the serious charges. T.J.S.'s accounts of the abuse were significant in proving what James and his wife had done. The judges concluded that despite the many claims made by James, they did not find the errors alleged by him to be valid or sufficient to overturn the jury's decision. The court’s ruling confirmed that James would face life imprisonment as recommended by the jury based on the severity of the crimes committed against Colton. This case highlighted serious issues regarding child welfare and the responsibilities of adults toward children in their care.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1307

F-2018-302

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-302, Jorge R. Medina appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child Under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Medina's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. The case involved Medina being found guilty by a jury of a serious crime against a young child. The court imposed a severe sentence of forty years imprisonment. Medina raised several arguments in his appeal, claiming he did not receive a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct, issues with his confession, introduction of evidence regarding his past behavior, and ineffective assistance of his attorney. First, Medina argued that the prosecutor made incorrect statements during the trial and suggested that the jury should assume certain things rather than find them to be true based on evidence. However, the court reviewed the prosecutor's comments and determined they did not misstate the law or unfairly influence the jury. Next, Medina claimed he did not fully understand his rights when he confessed, which should have meant that his confession was not valid. But the court found that Medina had waived this right and that the confession was given voluntarily after he understood his rights. Medina also contested the admission of evidence about his past bad acts. The court found that the prosecution had properly notified Medina of this evidence beforehand, so it was admissible. Regarding hearsay statements made by the victim, which were brought up as evidence at the trial, Medina’s team did not object to this during the trial. The court observed that since the defense had been aware of the basis for these statements and did not raise any objections, it affected their ability to contest them later. Moreover, Medina argued his attorney did not provide effective legal help because they did not object to issues during the trial. The court concluded that the alleged deficiencies of the attorney did not impact the outcome of the case due to the strength of the evidence against Medina. Finally, Medina claimed that the accumulation of errors throughout his trial added up to a denial of his rights. However, the court found that the trial did not have enough significant errors to justify this claim. In conclusion, the court upheld Medina's conviction and sentence, emphasizing that the errors he pointed out did not meet the threshold to alter the jury's decision.

Continue ReadingF-2018-302

M-2018-1055

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SADE DEANN McKNIGHT, Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **Case No. M-2018-1055** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA OCT - 3 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant Sade Deann McKnight seeks to appeal her Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Payne County, Case No. CM-2016-1491, for her misdemeanor convictions of Obstructing an Officer, 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 540 (Count 1) and Resisting an Officer, 21 O.S.1991, § 268 (Count 2). The Honorable R.L. Hert, Special Judge, presided over the jury trial, where McKnight was sentenced to a $500.00 fine for Count 1 and six weeks confinement in the county jail along with a $500.00 fine for Count 2. **FACTS** On September 9, 2016, during severe weather, Appellant lost control of her vehicle on Interstate 35, resulting in a collision. Upon the Oklahoma Highway Patrol's arrival, Trooper Ryan Long found McKnight and her three small children in an ambulance nearby. Initially cooperative, McKnight became argumentative upon learning she would be ticketed for driving too fast for conditions. As tensions increased, McKnight attempted to leave the ambulance and re-enter her car despite Trooper Long's directives to stay. Following her non-compliance, Trooper Long attempted to escort her back, which led to her striking him and resisting arrest. Subsequently, she was charged with obstructing and resisting an officer. **ANALYSIS** 1. **Sufficiency of Evidence for Obstruction** Appellant argues that evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for obstruction. The jury instruction required proof that McKnight willfully obstructed an Oklahoma Highway Patrolman in the discharge of his duties. Long's testimony confirmed the nature of his duties and her non-compliance. Viewing the evidence favorably for the prosecution, we conclude a rational jury could find McKnight guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. **Resisting Unlawful Arrest** McKnight contends her conviction for resisting an officer should be reversed due to an unlawful arrest. This argument, raised for the first time on appeal, is examined for plain error. However, because Long had probable cause to arrest McKnight for obstruction as evidenced by her behavior, the arrest was lawful, negating her claim. 3. **Excessiveness of Sentences** Finally, Appellant challenges the sentences as excessive. However, both sentences fall within statutory limits, and we find they do not shock the conscience. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. **MANDATE** Pursuant to Rule 3.15 of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon filing of this decision. --- **COUNSEL** **At Trial:** Stephen Cale, Tulsa, OK **On Appeal:** Ariel Parry, Norman, OK; Rodrigo Carrillo, Stillwater, OK **For the State:** Mike Hunter, Oklahoma City, OK **OPINION BY:** ROWLAND, J. **Concur:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J. (concur in results); HUDSON, J. [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/M-2018-1055_1734357754.pdf)

Continue ReadingM-2018-1055

F-2018-893

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The case presented involves D'Angelo Landon Burgess, who appealed the acceleration of his deferred sentence stemming from a guilty plea to Grand Larceny. The Oklahoma County District Court had originally awarded him a five-year deferred sentence in 2013. However, in 2017, the State sought to accelerate this sentence due to new offenses, including a high-speed chase and the resulting charges. The appeal centers around a claim of a lack of diligent prosecution by the State, which Burgess argued deprived him of his due process rights. However, the court determined that there was no plain error, meaning that the proceedings followed legal protocols adequately and Burgess had not demonstrated harm from the timing of the acceleration hearing. The court affirmed the district court's decision, stating that accelerations of deferred sentences do not require the same level of due process protections as full criminal proceedings. The decision also referenced a related case in which Burgess faced serious charges, including first-degree murder, which is currently under appeal. The court's opinion concluded with affirming the order of the district court to accelerate Burgess's deferred sentence. In conclusion, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the acceleration of Burgess's sentence, ruling there was no violation of due process and that the district court acted within its discretion.

Continue ReadingF-2018-893

F-2018-147

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-147, Marcus Dewayne Boyd appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder, Shooting with Intent to Kill, and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentences from the trial court. One judge dissented. Marcus Dewayne Boyd was found guilty by a jury of serious crimes, including murder and several counts of shooting at people. The jury decided that he should spend life in prison for the murder, twenty years for each shooting count, and two years for the weapon possession. The judge ordered that these sentences should be served one after the other, meaning Boyd would spend a long time in prison before having a chance for parole. During the appeal, Boyd argued several points, saying that his trial was unfair. He mentioned that it was wrong for the court to allow evidence about his gang affiliation. The court saw that this evidence helped explain why the crimes happened, so they disagreed with Boyd's claim. He also said it was unfair that the prosecutor questioned a witness about her relatives who had been prosecuted. The court agreed that this questioning was okay to show potential bias and did not cause an error. Boyd claimed that the way police showed the lineup of suspects was unfair and could influence witnesses. However, the court found the lineup was appropriate and did not break any rules about how police should conduct lineups. Boyd further argued that the prosecution did not share some evidence that could have helped him in his defense, but the court decided that he did not prove this claim. Boyd also objected to how one of the witnesses, who had a prior conviction, was treated in court. The court stated that having a history of misdemeanors is generally allowed as it can show a witness's credibility. Furthermore, Boyd said he was made to wear a ankle restraint during the trial without a good reason. The court recognized that this was not justified but ultimately decided it did not affect the outcome of the trial significantly. On the point of his lawyer's performance, Boyd claimed his lawyer did not defend him properly and raised many issues that could have been objected to but were not. However, the court noted that there were no errors in the trial that would change the outcome, so the attorney’s actions were acceptable. Finally, Boyd argued that the combination of all these issues made the trial unfair. The court agreed that there was only one area where there was an error, but this alone was not enough to convince them that it affected the jury's decision. In summary, the court found no reason to change the conviction or sentence, agreeing that the trial was mostly fair and that Boyd received appropriate legal representation, despite a few concerns about courtroom procedures.

Continue ReadingF-2018-147

F-2018-36

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-36, Robert Eugene Brewer appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child Under 12. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Brewer's conviction. One judge dissented. Brewer was tried in Tulsa County for sexually abusing a child under the age of 12. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to seven years in prison. He was also ordered to serve three years of supervision after his prison term. Brewer appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court made a mistake by allowing evidence related to other crimes that he believed had not been proven. The court reviewed the evidence and arguments presented. The main issue was whether the trial court had the right to let in evidence that showed Brewer had a pattern of behavior related to sexual abuse. This type of evidence is sometimes called propensity evidence. Brewer argued that the trial court should have held a special hearing before allowing this evidence and should have required witnesses to testify in person. However, the court found that the trial judge had done a thorough job. The judge had held multiple hearings and considered the evidence carefully. The judge did not make a mistake by allowing the evidence because they had enough information to decide it was relevant and necessary for the case. Even though Brewer did not object to the evidence when it was presented during the trial, the court considered whether there was a serious mistake that affected the fairness of the trial. After reviewing everything, the court concluded that the trial judge acted correctly. In summary, the court believed that the evidence presented was acceptable and did not harm Brewer's case. Therefore, Brewer’s conviction was upheld, but the court also instructed the district court to make some corrections to its legal documents regarding the correct law that applied to Brewer's actions at the time of the crime. The decision was to keep Brewer's sentence in place while correcting the legal documentation properly.

Continue ReadingF-2018-36

F-2018-940

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the case of LeJeanna Sue Chronister v. State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed several appeals raised by the appellant following her conviction for Aggravated Manufacture of a Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine) and her subsequent sentencing to twenty years in prison. The appellant raised three primary propositions of error: 1. **Violation of Rights Regarding the 85% Rule**: The appellant contended that her sentence was unconstitutional because she was not informed that the 85% Rule (requiring her to serve 85% of her sentence before becoming eligible for parole) applied to her case. The court concluded that this argument did not hold merit in a non-jury trial setting, stating that the judge, not a jury, was responsible for sentencing and presumed to know the law. The court found no plain error as the sentence was within the statutory range and was the minimum allowed. 2. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: The appellant claimed her counsel was ineffective for not informing her about the 85% Rule, impacting her decision-making during her trial. The court applied the Strickland standard to evaluate the ineffectiveness claim, concluding that the appellant did not demonstrate how the alleged deficiency in counsel's performance prejudiced her case or altered the outcome. 3. **Cumulative Error**: The appellant argued that the combination of errors denied her a fair trial. The court determined that since none of the individual claims of error warranted relief, the cumulative error argument also lacked merit. Ultimately, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court of LeFlore County, stating that the appellant had not demonstrated any error that would necessitate modifying the sentence or overturning the conviction. The ruling emphasizes the distinction between non-jury trials and jury trials concerning informing defendants about parole-related laws and the importance of counsel's performance under the criteria established by the Strickland case.

Continue ReadingF-2018-940

F-2018-622

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The opinion you provided appears to be a detailed court ruling from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of Jasmine Michelle Irvin, who was convicted of First Degree Murder. Below is a summary of the key points from the opinion: ### Case Summary - **Appellant**: Jasmine Michelle Irvin - **Appellee**: State of Oklahoma - **Case Number**: F-2018-622 - **Court**: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals - **Judge**: Cynthia Ferrell Ashwood - **Verdict**: Convicted of First Degree Murder - **Sentence**: Life in prison without the possibility of parole ### Facts of the Case - The victim, Robert Godwin, was found shot to death in a secluded area. - Evidence indicated that Appellant had expressed a desire to have the victim killed and had made attempts to recruit others to help. - Appellant contacted the victim, leading him to the location where he was killed. - The victim suffered multiple gunshot wounds to the back, and information from cell phone data supported the timeline of events leading to the murder. ### Legal Propositions 1. **Waiver of Jury Trial**: Appellant challenged whether she knowingly and intelligently waived her right to a jury trial. The court found that the waiver was clear and the trial court had adequately assessed her understanding of the waiver. 2. **Victim Impact Testimony**: Appellant contended that her due process rights were violated due to the admission of victim impact testimony from a non-family member. The court acknowledged the error but did not find it sufficient to warrant relief since the trial judge was presumed to consider only competent evidence in sentencing. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Appellant alleged her counsel was ineffective for not ensuring her waiver of the jury trial was valid and for failing to object to the victim impact testimony. The court found no deficiency in counsel's performance. 4. **Accumulation of Errors**: The court addressed Appellant's claim that the cumulative errors denied her a fair trial. It was determined that since no reversible errors were found, the cumulative error claim lacked merit. ### Conclusion - The court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court, concluding there were no reversible errors present. - An additional concurrence discussed the standard of review for the waiver of jury trial but ultimately supported the affirmation of the conviction. For more details or to read the full opinion, you may refer to the link provided in your original text.

Continue ReadingF-2018-622

F-2018-446

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-446, Byron Craig Herd appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Byron Craig Herd was found guilty by a jury for breaking into someone's home. The court sentenced him to life in prison because he had a history of other convictions. During the trial, Herd's defense claimed that the prosecutor acted unfairly, which made it hard for him to get a fair trial. Herd argued two main points in his appeal. First, he said the prosecutor made the trial unfair by trying to make the jury feel sorry for the victims. The prosecutor did this by asking the jury about their feelings as potential victims of a burglary, which led to emotional comments during the trial. Secondly, Herd believed his life sentence was too harsh. The court looked carefully at the trial and the evidence. They noted that while some of the prosecutor's comments may have been too emotional, the evidence against Herd was very strong. There were recordings of him inside the victims' house, and he was caught shortly after the crime. The court concluded that, despite some mistakes made by the prosecutor, these did not significantly affect the fairness of the trial because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. They also determined that Herd's sentence was appropriate given his past crimes and the seriousness of his current crime. In the end, the court denied Herd’s appeal, meaning he would stay in prison for life.

Continue ReadingF-2018-446

F-2018-401

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-401, Collins appealed his conviction for Felon in Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Martino L. Collins was found guilty of having a gun even though he had previous felony convictions. He was sentenced to fourteen years in prison. Collins claimed that the trial was unfair because there was too much evidence about a shooting that he was not charged with, that certain expert testimony was wrong, and that he deserved credit for time spent in jail before the trial. The court looked at the evidence and decided that the shooting information was important for understanding why Collins was found with a gun. The jurors needed all the facts to make a fair decision. They found that there wasn't a mistake made by the trial court and that no one was unfairly harmed by this information. Collins also argued against certain things that witnesses said in court, but he didn't object to most of it during the trial, which meant he couldn’t complain about it later. Even when the court looked into the testimony by a ballistic expert, they found that it was okay for the expert to talk about his own findings. Lastly, the court said the law didn’t allow him credit for time he spent in jail before the trial began. Overall, after looking closely at everything, the court found no issues that would change Collins's conviction or sentence, so they kept the original decision.

Continue ReadingF-2018-401

F-2018-241

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-241, Mario Darrington appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Marijuana and Methamphetamine) and related drug charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Darrington was arrested after police executed a search warrant at a home in Tulsa. Officers found a large quantity of marijuana and methamphetamine in the house. Darrington was linked to this evidence through various items found at the scene, including drugs located in a suit pocket with his name on prescription bottles and documents. He was charged with trafficking and other felonies due to having a prior criminal record. During his trial, Darrington requested that evidence obtained from the search be suppressed, arguing that the search warrant was not valid. He believed that the warrant did not show enough information to justify the search. The court reviewed his claim and determined that the affidavit supporting the search warrant provided sufficient evidence for a judge to find probable cause. The police officer had personal observations and corroborated information that indicated illegal drug activity was happening at the residence. The court also found that the timing of the information was relevant and not too old to be dismissed. Additionally, Darrington sought to know the name of an unnamed informant who provided information to the police for the search. The court ruled that this informant was not a material witness, meaning their identity did not significantly affect Darrington's case. As a result, the court affirmed Darrington's conviction and upheld the district court's decisions regarding the suppression of the search evidence and the request for the informant's identity.

Continue ReadingF-2018-241

F-2017-67

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document provided is an appellate court opinion regarding the case of Cedric Dwayne Poore, who was convicted in the District Court of Tulsa County for multiple counts of Murder in the First Degree and Robbery with a Firearm. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma ultimately affirmed the convictions and sentences. ### Key Points from the Opinion: 1. **Charges and Convictions**: - Cedric Dwayne Poore was convicted of four counts of Murder in the First Degree through felony murder and two counts of Robbery with a Firearm. - The underlying felony for the murder counts was robbery committed in the course of the murders of four victims. 2. **Evidence Against Appellant**: - Witnesses testified that Poore and his brother shot and killed four victims in a robbery at an apartment. - Testimony from Jamila Jones, who was in contact with both brothers before the murders, suggested that they were planning to rob the victims. - Forensic evidence included DNA found on a cigarette near the victims and .40 caliber shell casings linking both Poore and the weapon used in other crimes. 3. **Proposition of Errors Raised on Appeal**: - **Hearsay**: The trial court’s denial of an affidavit from a witness who invoked the Fifth Amendment was challenged, but the court found no plain error. - **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Poore challenged the sufficiency of evidence, claiming that he was not directly involved in the murders, but the court held that circumstantial evidence sufficiently supported the convictions. - **Other Crimes Evidence**: The admissibility of evidence from a separate robbery was upheld as relevant and probative to establish motive and identity. - **Identification Testimony**: The court found no error in the admission of identification testimony from witnesses. - **Accomplice Corroboration**: The testimony of accomplices was found to be sufficiently corroborated by other evidence. - **Cell Phone Records**: Although the use of cellphone records without a warrant raised Fourth Amendment concerns, the evidence was deemed admissible under the good faith exception. - **Search Warrant**: Poore's arguments regarding the invalidity of the search warrant and execution of the search were rejected by the court. - **Cumulative Error**: The cumulative effect of any errors did not warrant relief, as the court found no substantial errors during the trial. 4. **Final Ruling**: - The Court affirmed the District Court's judgments and sentences without finding any significant legal errors that would warrant reversal. ### Conclusion: The case demonstrates the complex interplay of various legal standards, evidentiary challenges, and the appeals process for criminal convictions. The appellate court's decision reflects a thorough examination of both the procedural and substantive issues raised by the appellant, ultimately leading to the affirmation of the convictions based on the evidence presented at trial.

Continue ReadingF-2017-67

F-2018-309

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-309, Adrian Escajeda appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Adrian Escajeda was found guilty of first-degree murder by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. He was also convicted earlier of two drug possession charges, but those were not part of his appeal. During his trial, Escajeda claimed there were several errors that negatively impacted his case. First, he argued that it was wrong to have both his murder case and a separate child neglect case tried together in front of the same jury. He believed this made it hard for the jury to be fair. However, the court found that he didn't show how this joined trial actually harmed him because the jury had acquitted him of the child neglect charge. Additionally, the evidence against him for murder was very strong and unrelated to the child neglect, making the combined trial harmless. Escajeda also said his lawyer did not do a good job by not objecting to the charges being joined for trial. However, the court decided that his lawyer's performance wasn’t ineffective because there wasn’t any real prejudice; the outcome was not affected. The next point Escajeda raised was about some statements made during the trial. He believed hearsay was wrongly admitted, which violated his right to confront witnesses. The court looked into this and concluded that the statements in question were not hearsay, as they were used to explain the detective's investigation and did not assert the truth of those statements. Finally, Escajeda claimed that the prosecutor made unfair comments during the trial that made it hard for the jury to be impartial. The court examined these comments and found they were reasonable and based on the evidence presented. Since the comments did not create an unfair trial, the court dismissed this argument as well. In conclusion, the court reviewed all of Escajeda’s claims and found none of them warranted a change to his conviction or sentence. As a result, his conviction for first-degree murder remained in place, and he will serve the majority of his sentence in prison.

Continue ReadingF-2018-309

F-2018-194

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-194, the appellant appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child under twelve and child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. The appellant, William Harold Pittman, was convicted by a jury for serious crimes against children. The jury gave him a punishment of thirty years in prison for each crime, and both sentences were meant to be served one after the other. The judge who oversaw the trial also ordered the appellant to pay various costs and fees. Pittman appealed his conviction, claiming that the trial court made a mistake by allowing expert testimony about something called the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS). He argued that this evidence was not relevant and should not have been allowed, saying it was not proven to be reliable. The court explained that the decision to allow expert evidence is usually up to the trial judge. If a specific objection is made during the trial, then the appeal cannot rely on a different argument later. Pittman did not object during the trial to the CSAAS evidence based on its relevance or reliability, which made his chance for appeal more difficult. To win an appeal based on a plain error, the appellant needs to show three things: that there was a real error, that it was obvious, and that the error affected the case's outcome. The court found that Pittman could not prove any such errors in this case. The court stated that previously, CSAAS had been accepted as reliable evidence in prior cases. This evidence can help explain why some children might take a long time to talk about the abuse or might change their statements after initially making claims. In this case, the court confirmed that the CSAAS evidence was relevant to the victim's delay in talking about the abuse. Pittman also claimed that there wasn't enough data to prove CSAAS was reliable and asked the court to reconsider accepting it as reliable evidence. However, the court refused to change its stance, stating that it would not revisit this issue. Lastly, Pittman argued that the CSAAS testimony was too supportive of the victim's story and could not be considered harmless. The court pointed out that this evidence was permissible because it only served to support what the victim and other witnesses testified about. The court ultimately found no errors in the trial regarding the way CSAAS evidence was handled, and therefore affirmed the judgments and sentences against Pittman.

Continue ReadingF-2018-194

F-2017-1176

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1176, Anthony Dean Wilkerson, Jr., appealed his conviction for seven counts of Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence given to him. One judge dissented. Wilkerson was convicted by a jury for serious crimes against a child. The jury decided on the punishments for each count, giving him long sentences, including life imprisonment for some of the counts. The trial court judge sentenced him to serve these sentences one after the other, meaning he would spend a long time in prison. Wilkerson raised several issues in his appeal, saying that his trial was not fair. He argued that he was punished too harshly for the same crime (double punishment), that the trial court made mistakes during the trial, and that the total effect of these mistakes made it unfair for him. The court looked at all the evidence and decided that Wilkerson's arguments were not strong enough to change the original decision. For his first point about double punishment, the court noted that the crimes were separate acts, so it was okay for him to be convicted on all counts without violating laws against multiple punishments. For his second and third points, the court said the trial judge was allowed to let the state ask questions that helped the young victim, J.W., remember her experiences better and to clarify her testimony about what happened to her. Regarding the length of his sentences and how they were administered (running consecutively), the court found no reason to change what the jury and trial judge decided. The punishments fell within legal limits, and the court didn't find that they were too harsh when considering the seriousness of the crimes. Wilkerson also claimed there was an error about a fine that was not mentioned at his sentencing. The court agreed that it was a simple mistake and ordered the lower court to correct this. Finally, the court did not find any combined errors that affected the fairness of the trial, so they rejected his last claim about cumulative error. In conclusion, the court upheld the original decision and confirmed Wilkerson's convictions, but instructed the lower court to fix the written sentencing document to remove the fine.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1176

F-2018-502

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-502, Randall Patrick Molloy appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Molloy's conviction. One justice dissented. Molloy was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for hurting a child, which is a serious crime. The jury decided he should go to prison for sixteen years and pay a fine of $5,000. However, the judge agreed to lessen his sentence by taking away three years, meaning he would only have to serve thirteen years in prison. Molloy raised two main problems with his trial. First, he argued that he didn't get a fair trial because the state didn't share an agreement with a co-defendant that might have helped his case. Second, he felt that instructions given to the jury were confusing and didn't help them understand the facts related to the co-defendant's earlier statements. The court reviewed all the evidence and listened to the arguments from both sides. They pointed out that for Molloy to get a new trial based on not receiving a fair trial, he had to show that there was a clear mistake that changed how the trial turned out. Ultimately, they found that there were no clear mistakes or errors in the trial. The court noted that the information about the co-defendant was known to Molloy's lawyer during the trial, and therefore, it did not affect the outcome negatively. Regarding the jury instructions, the court also concluded that those instructions did not clearly cause any problems that could change the trial's result. The jury had enough information to make a fair decision about Molloy's guilt based on the evidence presented. In summary, because the court found that there were no serious mistakes during the trial, they decided to uphold the original decision made against Molloy.

Continue ReadingF-2018-502

F-2018-77

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-77, Jose M. Diaz appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Diaz's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Diaz was tried by a jury in Tulsa County. The jury found him guilty of the crime and recommended he spend thirty years in prison. The trial was overseen by a district judge, who followed the jury's recommendation for sentencing. Three main points were raised by Diaz in his appeal. First, he argued that the court made a mistake by allowing certain testimony from victims' family members, which he believed unfairly impacted the jury's feelings about the case. Second, he claimed that the prosecutors made improper statements during their closing arguments that harmed his right to a fair trial. Lastly, he argued that the issues combined created a situation where he could not receive a fair trial. The court looked carefully at all the evidence from the trial and the records of the case. For the first point about the victim's family's testimony, the court decided that it was relevant to the case. It helped the jury understand the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the victim, which connected to the nature of the crime. The court found no mistake in allowing that testimony. In the second point about the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments, Diaz did not object to some of the comments during the first closing statement, which limited his ability to challenge them later. The court noted that most of what the prosecutor said was based on evidence presented during the trial. Although one comment about the victim not being able to have children was deemed inappropriate, the overall context did not make the trial unfair. For the last point on cumulative error, the court stated that there were no significant mistakes to consider together that would change the outcome of the trial. Ultimately, the court decided that Diaz received a fair trial and did not find any major errors in the way the trial was conducted. As a result, they upheld the original judgment and sentence given to him.

Continue ReadingF-2018-77

F-2018-923

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **PHILIP JAN CANNON,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2018-923** **FILED** **AUG 15 2019** **Clerk** **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant Philip Jan Cannon was tried by a jury in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Case No. CF-2016-541, for Possession of Child Pornography, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2. The jury found Cannon guilty and assessed punishment at twenty years imprisonment and a $25,000.00 fine. The Honorable John Canavan, District Judge, who presided over Cannon's trial, sentenced him according to the jury's verdict. Cannon appeals, raising the issue of whether improper closing remarks by the prosecutor deprived him of a fair trial. Under 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1, Cannon must serve 85% of his sentence before he is eligible for parole consideration. We find relief is not required and affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. 1. Cannon complains of prosecutorial misconduct, arguing it deprived him of his right to a fair trial. Because the comments at issue were not objected to at trial, our review is for plain error only. *Harney v. State*, 2011 OK CR 10, ¶ 23, 256 P.3d 1002, 1007. To qualify for relief based on plain error, Cannon must demonstrate: (1) the existence of an actual error (a deviation from a legal rule); (2) that the error is plain or obvious; and (3) that the error affected his substantial rights, meaning it impacted the trial's outcome. *Hogan v. State*, 2006 OK CR 19, ¶ 38, 139 P.3d 907, 923. This Court only corrects plain error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings or represents a miscarriage of justice. *Stewart v. State*, 2016 OK CR 9, ¶ 25, 372 P.3d 508, 514. We evaluate alleged misconduct in the context of the entire trial, considering not only the propriety of the prosecutor's actions but also the strength of the evidence against Cannon and the arguments of defense counsel. Both parties have broad latitude to discuss the evidence and make reasonable inferences. Relief is granted only where the prosecutor's flagrant misconduct has so tainted the trial that it is rendered fundamentally unfair. *Jones v. State*, 2011 OK CR 13, ¶ 3, 253 P.3d 997, 998. It is rare that prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument necessitates reversal. *Pryor v. State*, 2011 OK CR 18, ¶ 4, 254 P.3d 721, 722. Cannon alleges the prosecutor argued facts not in evidence and appealed to the jury's sympathy for the victims. However, we find there was no plain error in these remarks. Therefore, this claim is denied. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE JOHN CANAVAN, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** **ADAM BANNER** **DUSTIN PHILLIPS** **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** 1900 N.W. Expressway, P.O. Box 926 Suite 601 Norman, OK 73070 **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** **ROBERT W. JACKSON** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** Oklahoma City, OK 73118 **ADAM PANTER** **COUNSEL FOR STATE** **MIKE HUNTER** Pottawatomie County Attorney General of Oklahoma 331 N. Broadway Shawnee, OK 74801 **DIANE L. SLAYTON** Assistant Attorney General 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 **OPINION BY:** ROWLAND, J. **LUMPKIN, P.J.:** Concur **LEWIS, V.P.J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **KUEHN, J.:** Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-923_1734954802.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-923

F-2017-1284

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1284, Jesse Earl Maupin appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child Under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Maupin was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. He raised several issues on appeal, arguing that there was not enough evidence to prove he was guilty, that his life sentence was not a valid punishment, that the sentence was too harsh, and that there were mistakes in his trial that required a new trial. The court carefully reviewed the evidence and found that there was enough proof for the jury to convict Maupin based on the law. They explained that juries can use both direct evidence and indirect evidence to make their decisions. Maupin also claimed that a life sentence should not have been an option given the laws around his charges. The court found that the sentence was legal and appropriate. They ruled that a life sentence is a valid punishment when the law does not specify a maximum sentence. Regarding the sentence itself, the court determined that the life sentence did not shock their conscience or seem overly harsh given the circumstances of the case. Finally, since the court found no errors in the trial, they also declined to grant a new trial based on the idea of cumulative errors. In conclusion, the court affirmed Maupin's conviction and sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1284

RE-2018-769

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant, Robert Kenneth Kramer, appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2015-100. On September 9, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere to Financial Exploitation by a Caregiver (21 O.S.2011, § 843.1) After Former Conviction of a Felony (21 O.S.Supp.2011, § 51.1). He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for ten years, with the final six years suspended. On May 31, 2017, the trial court modified the suspended portion of the sentence from six to eight years. On March 28, 2018, the State filed an application to revoke the suspended sentence, alleging that Appellant had committed new crimes: possessing a cell phone while incarcerated and knowingly concealing stolen property. A hearing on the application was held on July 11, 2018, before the Honorable Lawrence W. Parish, District Judge. Judge Parish granted the State's application and revoked the eight-year suspended sentence in full. **ANALYSIS** The standard for revocation of a suspended sentence requires a determination of whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated, which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. A trial court's decision to revoke should not be reversed unless there is an abuse of discretion. 1. **Proposition I: Violation of the 20-day Rule** Appellant claims the district court violated the 20-day Rule as stated in 22 O.S.Supp.2012, § 991b(A). Since Appellant did not raise this objection at the hearing, the review is for plain error. Appellant failed to demonstrate that any deviation affected his substantial rights, and he had previously waived his right to a hearing within the statutory time-frame. Therefore, this proposition is denied. 2. **Proposition II: Sufficiency of Evidence** Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conclusion that he possessed a cell phone while in jail. Testimony from Appellant's ex-wife indicated that she received text messages from a phone she associated with him. Additionally, a jailer testified about witnessing inmates, including Appellant, trying to destroy a cell phone. This evidence satisfies the preponderance standard. **DECISION** The order revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2015-100 is AFFIRMED. **APPEARANCES:** - Counsel for Appellant: Curt Allen, Jeremy Stillwell, Indigent Defense System - Counsel for State: Emily Mueller, Assistant District Attorney; Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma; Theodore Peeper, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.:** LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur in Results HUDSON, J.: Concur **[End of Summary Opinion]** For further details, you may view the full court opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-769_1734420410.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-769