Judicial Review Archives - Page 2 of 5

S-2018-229

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

**Summary of Case: State of Oklahoma v. Brittney Jo Wallace, 2019 OK CR 10** **Court**: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma **Case No.**: S-2018-229 **Date Filed**: May 23, 2019 ### Background: Brittney Jo Wallace was charged in the District Court of Rogers County with two counts of Enabling Child Abuse and one count of Child Neglect. A pretrial hearing was held regarding her motion to suppress evidence obtained from her cell phone, which was granted by the trial court. ### Key Points: 1. **Appeal by State**: The State of Oklahoma appealed the trial court's decision to suppress evidence obtained from Wallace's cell phone, arguing that the seizure was supported by probable cause. 2. **Legal Standards**: - The appeal is evaluated under 22 O.S.2011, § 1053, which allows the State to appeal a pretrial order suppressing evidence in cases involving certain offenses. - The appellate court applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a motion to suppress. 3. **Probable Cause & Exigent Circumstances**: - The court recognized that warrantless searches are presumed unreasonable but can be justified under certain conditions, such as probable cause and exigent circumstances. - The detective believed that Wallace's phone contained evidence of child abuse and had sufficient reasons to act quickly to preserve that evidence. 4. **Actions Taken with the Phone**: - The detective accessed the phone with Wallace's assistance to forward calls and put the device in airplane mode, actions viewed as reasonable to prevent potential evidence loss. 5. **Trial Court's Findings**: - The trial court suppressed the evidence, stating the seizure and accessing of the phone were illegal. The appellate court found this decision to be an abuse of discretion, as the actions taken by law enforcement were justified. 6. **Search Warrant**: - The State also challenged the trial court's ruling regarding a subsequent search warrant for the cellphone, which the trial court deemed overly broad and not supported by probable cause. - The appellate court highlighted the need for the defendant to provide evidence showing the invalidity of the warrant and noted the lack of factual development in the record. ### Conclusion: The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision to suppress the evidence. It determined that the initial seizure and accessing of Wallace’s phone were reasonable and consistent with legal standards. The matter was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The decision was unanimously concurred by all judges. **Document Link**: [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2018-229_1734331323.pdf) --- This summary encapsulates the critical elements of the case, focusing on the legal principles involved and the court's reasoning without delving into detailed citations or procedural minutiae.

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-2017-1301

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

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1301, William Curtis Box appealed his conviction for Aggravated Domestic Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of his deferred judgment, which meant that his earlier decision to defer judgment was changed to a conviction. One judge dissented. The case started when Box was found guilty of a crime related to domestic violence and was given a deferred judgment, meaning he wouldn’t have a criminal record if he followed certain conditions for ten years. However, he did not follow those conditions and committed another crime called Obstructing an Officer. When the State of Oklahoma found out, they asked the court to change his deferred judgment to a conviction. Box argued that his probation should not be accelerated because the court did not have a written list of rules for his probation. He referred to previous cases from 1969 and 1970 which ruled in favor of defendants when there were no signed probation rules. However, the court explained that in later cases, they decided that a person on probation should understand they cannot commit any further crimes, even without a written agreement. Box also asked to withdraw his agreement to the State's application to change his probation status but could not find any laws that allowed him to do so. The court noted that a stipulation, or agreement, to accelerate a deferred judgment is different from things like guilty pleas, and there is no established way to take back such an agreement. Moreover, Box claimed that his sentence was too harsh. However, the court stated that during an acceleration appeal, they can only examine whether the acceleration was lawful, not whether the sentence was too long. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision to accelerate Box's judgment to a conviction based on his probation violation. They found no evidence of an abuse of discretion by the lower court in making this decision.

F-2018-418

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-418, Ebrima Tamba appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Ebrima Tamba was sentenced to twenty years in prison for his involvement in trafficking illegal drugs, specifically marijuana. Tamba felt that this sentence was too harsh. He argued that it was unfair because it was longer than the minimum penalty for the crime and that he had less marijuana than what the law required for a more serious charge. He also mentioned that since his arrest, the laws in Oklahoma changed, allowing people with a medical marijuana license to use marijuana legally. However, the court explained that even if laws changed after Tamba's crime, the new laws did not apply to his case. They noted that he was given a sentence that followed the laws in place when he committed the crime, and his sentence was within the legal limits. Tamba also claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly during the trial. He believed his attorney should have challenged how police stopped him and questioned whether the evidence used against him was acceptable. However, the court found that Tamba did not prove that his lawyer's actions negatively affected the outcome of his trial. In conclusion, the court decided that Tamba's twenty-year sentence was appropriate and that his lawyer provided adequate help during his trial. Therefore, his appeal did not lead to any changes in his case.

F-2018-15

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

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

C-2018-225

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

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

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-2017-1285

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 2, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1285, Isaac Avila appealed his conviction for multiple counts of kidnapping, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Isaac Avila was found guilty by a jury for kidnapping his estranged wife and his own children, along with possessing a firearm during these events and resisting an officer. The jury gave him various sentences, including a total of 50 years in prison for the kidnappings and other convictions. Avila argued that his convictions for kidnapping his children were not valid since he believed he had the right to be with them as their parent. He also claimed there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him for these crimes. The court examined the law and the evidence. They found that, while parents do have rights, Avila acted in a way that was not allowed by law when he took his children. The court also decided that the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions, meaning it was strong enough for a reasonable person to believe he was guilty. Avila further argued that the jury should have been told about the defense of consent, which is when someone allows an action to happen, and that his lawyer didn’t do a good job helping him. However, the court ruled that the trial instructions were adequate and that his lawyer's performance did not harm his case. Lastly, Avila thought his sentences were too harsh. The court agreed that, while they were serious, they were reasonable given the facts of the case. Overall, the court upheld Avila's convictions and sentences, deciding that he had received a fair trial and that the evidence against him was strong enough to support the jury's decisions.

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)

S-2018-950

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

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellant,** **V.** **JERRY LEE NILES, JR., Appellee.** **No. S-2018-950** **NOT FOR PUBLICATION** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA APR - 4 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** The State of Oklahoma appeals from an order affirming a ruling that sustained Jerry Lee Niles, Jr.'s demurrer to the evidence and motion to dismiss charges of Manslaughter in the First Degree. This appeal arises from the death of inmate Anthony Dewayne Huff, who died after being restrained for over fifty hours in the Garfield County Jail. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** On June 8, 2016, Inmate Huff died in the Garfield County Jail while strapped in a restraint chair, prompting charges against Sheriff Niles and three co-defendants for manslaughter in the first degree, based on alleged misdemeanors of cruelty to prisoners and sheriff or jailer neglect. Judge Ryan D. Reddick granted Niles's demurrer, stating the evidence failed to demonstrate probable cause for either misdemeanor or a causal link to Huff's death. **REVIEWING JUDGE'S FINDINGS** Judge Jill C. Weedon, upon reviewing the preliminary hearing transcripts, found that although jail protocols were violated, Sheriff Niles was not personally involved in the events leading to Inmate Huff's death and had policies in place. The medical examiner determined that the cause of death was related to chronic alcoholism, not directly attributable to Niles's actions. **ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE STATE** 1. Whether sufficient evidence was presented to establish probable cause for the underlying misdemeanors. 2. Whether there was sufficient causation between Niles's alleged misdemeanors and Huff's death. 3. Whether there was probable cause for indicting Niles on the charge of Manslaughter in the Second Degree. **COURT ANALYSIS** The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to establish probable cause that a crime was committed and that the defendant likely committed it. The court must view evidence in favor of the state and ascertain if all elements of the crimes are sufficiently met. Here, the evidence did not support a conclusion that Niles engaged in misconduct that led to Huff's death. **DECISION** The repeated affirmations from both Judge Reddick and Judge Weedon regarding the insufficiency of the evidence concerning probable cause indicate no abuse of discretion. Thus, we AFFIRM the ruling of the District Court of Garfield County sustaining the magistrate's decision dismissing the charges. **CONCURRING OPINION BY HUDSON, J.:** While the court did not find criminal liability here, the circumstances surrounding the case are troubling. The death of an inmate, particularly under such inhumane conditions, raises serious moral questions. Although this ruling does not exonerate the sheriff or absolve oversight responsibility, any potential civil liabilities will fall upon taxpayers, which is an unfortunate outcome of this case. **COUNSEL:** For the State: Christopher M. Boring For Appellee: Gary J. James **END OF DOCUMENT**

F-2017-911

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

In OCCA case No. F-2017-911, the appellant appealed his conviction for various offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of the appellant from the Drug Court program. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, previously convicted of two counts of Second Degree Burglary, was sentenced to twenty-one years for each count but with most of that time suspended. While under supervision, the appellant was accused of violating the terms of his release due to new criminal charges. He later pleaded guilty to those new charges as well. To avoid serving the full sentences, the appellant entered a Drug Court program aimed at helping him overcome substance abuse issues. However, after several years in the program, he faced multiple sanctions for drug use and missed compliance with program rules. Eventually, the state moved to terminate him from Drug Court, asserting he had violated several agreements tied to his participation. During the hearing to decide whether he should be removed from the program, the trial judge ultimately decided that the appellant had not adequately followed the rules and terminated his participation. The appellant then argued that the judge should have considered giving him additional chances rather than terminating him outright. The court checked to see if the trial judge had abused his discretion, meaning if the judge made a choice that was unreasonable or did not follow the law. The records showed the appellant had been sanctioned several times over his three years in the program, but he continued to struggle with drug use. The court found no evidence that the judge had failed to weigh all the necessary factors before deciding to end the appellant's time in Drug Court. In the end, the court affirmed the decision to terminate the appellant from the Drug Court program, stating that the earlier judgments regarding his sentence also needed no changes since the mistakes made in paperwork were corrected. Therefore, the appeal was largely dismissed as moot.

F-2017-559

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

In OCCA case No. F-2017-559, Jonas Jorge Conroy-Perez appealed his conviction for Harboring a Fugitive From Justice. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing. One judge dissented. The case started when Conroy-Perez entered a guilty plea in 2015, which allowed him to avoid immediate penalties but required him to follow certain rules for two years. One of these rules involved paying fees. Later, the state claimed he violated these rules by not only missing payments but also due to new felony charges. In 2017, after a hearing, the judge decided that Conroy-Perez had violated his probation and increased his sentence to a 10-year term, with time suspended except for the first 90 days in jail. Conroy-Perez argued that he couldn’t pay the fees because he was unable to work after a vehicle accident and was receiving worker's compensation. The court looked into his arguments. On one hand, the court agreed that while the state proved he owed money, they should also have checked whether he was willfully not paying. The state did not show he could afford to pay the fees, thus the court ruled it was not right to increase his sentence based solely on that. Therefore, they sent the case back for further examination. On other points of appeal, the court found that there was no evidence his legal representation was inadequate and did not rule on the length of the new sentence since they had already reversed it. The dissenting judge noted concern about the implications of the ruling, emphasizing the importance of understanding a person’s ability to pay before increasing sentences for not paying fees.

F-2017-902

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 15, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-902, Kaylin Mixon appealed his conviction for Second Degree Depraved Mind Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and uphold the sentence. One judge dissented. Kaylin Mixon was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to 30 years in prison, along with a $100 fine. Mixon argued that his trial was unfair for three reasons. First, he believed that the jury should have been individually asked about their verdict to ensure all members agreed. However, the court found that since no one complained during the trial, there was no clear error. They determined that the jury's agreement was evident enough without needing to poll each member individually. Second, Mixon contended that photos from the autopsy shown at trial were too upsetting and should not have been allowed as evidence, claiming they were not necessary since the cause of death was not disputed. The court ruled that the photos were relevant to the case and helped to explain the details of the crime, so the inclusion of the photos did not unfairly influence the jury. Lastly, Mixon challenged the $100 fine imposed by the judge, arguing that it wasn’t proper since the law didn’t specifically mention a fine for his type of conviction. However, the court referenced past rulings that allowed judges to impose fines in felony cases, concluding that the fine was valid. After reviewing these issues, the court found no substantial errors that would warrant a new trial or change in the sentence. Therefore, they affirmed the original decision and the appeal was denied.

F-2017-153

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 30, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-153, Crawley appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, Felony Eluding, Second Degree Burglary, and Possession of Burglary Tools. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the exclusion of key evidence violated Crawley's right to a fair trial, leading to the reversal of his convictions for Counts 1 and 2. A judge dissented.

C-2017-684

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 31, 2018
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-684, Bryan Lee Guy appealed his conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle, driving while his license was under suspension, and affixing an unauthorized license plate. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal and remand the case to the District Court for a determination of whether he is a mentally ill person exempt from paying the costs of incarceration. One judge dissented. Bryan Guy was charged with three offenses and entered a guilty plea for all of them. He received a sentence that included time in prison and jail, plus post-imprisonment supervision. After a few days, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, saying he didn't fully understand what he was doing or that he wasn't well advised by his lawyer. The court held a hearing but decided not to allow him to withdraw his plea. In his appeal, Bryan raised three main issues. He argued that he should be allowed to take back his guilty plea because it wasn't made in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary way. He also complained about being charged for incarceration costs and claimed his lawyer didn't provide effective help. The court looked closely at Bryan’s arguments. It found that he didn’t prove that he didn’t understand his plea, concluding that the trial court acted fairly. Bryan's second point about the costs also didn't stand because he didn't raise it during the first hearing, which meant he could not bring it up later in his appeal. His claim about not getting good help from his lawyer was examined using a specific test. The court noted that Bryan claimed to have been misinformed about the minimum punishment for one of the offenses, but this did not affect the outcome since the misunderstanding was in his favor. Ultimately, the court found that there was a chance Bryan might be mentally ill, which means he might not have to pay for incarceration costs. This was a significant factor, leading to the decision to send the case back to the lower court for more examination of his mental health status. The final decision of the court was to deny the appeal for the first two issues but recognized the need to assess Bryan's mental health concerning the costs he was ordered to pay for incarceration. The case was remanded for that specific determination.

F-2016-902

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 21, 2017
Post category:F

The Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case of K.G.O., charged as an adult with Murder in the First Degree, who sought to be certified as a Youthful Offender. The trial court granted this certification, which the State appealed, arguing that the decision was erroneous due to insufficient evidence supporting K.G.O.'s claim for Youthful Offender status. The appeal highlighted that, at the time of the alleged offense, K.G.O. was presumed to be an adult based on Oklahoma law, which allows for certification as a Youthful Offender but places the burden of proof on the accused to overcome this presumption. The court evaluated several guidelines specified in Oklahoma statute regarding certification, giving the most weight to the first three, which focus on the nature of the offense and the offender's history. After a thorough review, the appellate court concluded that the trial judge had abused her discretion by not adhering appropriately to these guidelines. They found a lack of evidence suggesting that K.G.O. met the necessary criteria to warrant status as a Youthful Offender and that the judge's decision did not support the conclusion reached. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and directed that the case proceed with K.G.O. being treated as an adult. A dissenting opinion from Judge Lewis expressed a belief that the trial court's certification should be upheld, indicating a difference in interpretation of the evidence and the application of the guidelines. Overall, the decision illustrates the court's stringent standards for certifying youthful offenders, emphasizing the necessity of a robust evidentiary basis to override the presumption of adult status in serious criminal cases.

C-2016-1000

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 2, 2017
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-1000, Bryan Keith Fletcher appealed his conviction for multiple charges including kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon, rape, and child abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant part of his appeal regarding one misdemeanor charge while denying all other claims. The court modified the sentence for the misdemeanor related to threatening violence to six months in jail but affirmed the sentences for all other counts, which resulted in a significant time in prison. The petitioner argued several points, including that he did not receive effective legal help, that he was not competent when he entered his plea, and that his plea was not voluntary. However, the court reviewed these claims and found that they did not hold up under scrutiny. The judges opined that the actions taken during the plea process were appropriate and upheld the ruling on the grounds that there was no evidence of ineffective assistance or invalid plea. One judge disagreed with some aspects of the decision.

F-2016-461

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 22, 2017
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-461, Roy Dale Doshier appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacated a $250 attorney fee that had been assessed. One judge dissented. Doshier was found guilty after a jury trial and received a 30-year sentence, with the requirement to serve 85% of the term before being eligible for parole. He raised six points of error in his appeal, focusing on issues such as the admissibility of his statements, jury instructions regarding lesser offenses, the attorney fee, and the fairness of the proceedings. The court reviewed each issue. It found no error in admitting Doshier's statements, reasoning that the trial court had not abused its discretion in allowing them into evidence. On the question of jury instructions, the court concluded that the judge had not erred in not including instructions for lesser offenses, as no prejudice had been shown against Doshier. However, the court agreed to vacate the $250 fee for indigent defense because the attorney assigned to him did not actually represent him in court, which meant the fee was not valid. They also determined that Doshier's sentence was not excessive and did not require the jury to be informed about sex offender registration as part of the instructions. In the end, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence while vacating the fee, upholding the conviction due to a lack of legal errors. Overall, there was no indication that Doshier did not receive a fair trial, and the judges were satisfied with the outcome except for the singular point about the attorney fee.

S-2016-163

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 28, 2017
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-163, Stites appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse and Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which had dismissed one count of Child Sexual Abuse and amended another to Lewd Molestation. One judge dissented.

RE-2015-765

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 11, 2016
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-765, Jimmy Lee Fields appealed his conviction for sexually abusing a minor child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Fields' suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Fields, in 2000, pleaded guilty to sexually abusing a child. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, but all but five years were suspended. This meant he would not have to serve the full sentence if he followed the rules. In 2001, his sentence was modified to fourteen years and the execution of that sentence was also suspended with conditions he had to follow while on probation. In 2015, the state accused Fields of breaking the rules of his probation by committing more serious crimes, including child sexual abuse. After a hearing, the court revoked his suspended sentence completely, meaning he had to serve time in prison. Fields disagreed with this decision, claiming the court made errors. Fields presented two main arguments for his appeal. First, he argued that the court was wrong to impose post-imprisonment supervision at the time of revocation, which was not part of the original sentence. Second, he believed the court acted unfairly when it revoked his entire sentence because he had mitigating circumstances like health issues and past good behavior. The court reviewed his claims but found no errors in the decision to revoke the suspension. It highlighted that committing new crimes while on probation justified the revocation. Therefore, the court upheld the revocation but instructed to correct the official written order to remove the additional supervision requirement that was added later. Overall, the court affirmed the decision to revoke his probation with the clarification needed for the written records.

RE-2015-735

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 30, 2016
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-735, Kathy Lynn Logan appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case. The court found that Logan was not given the proper opportunity to have a lawyer assist her during the revocation hearing, which is a requirement by law. The court noted that both Logan and the State agreed that the trial court did not properly check if Logan needed a lawyer, which meant she was denied her rights.

C-2015-573

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 22, 2016
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-573, Jeremy Ross Wilson appealed his conviction for Escape from the Department of Corrections. In a published decision, the court decided to modify Wilson's sentence. One judge dissented. Jeremy Ross Wilson was an inmate who escaped from a work center. He was arrested later and faced charges for his escape. He pleaded guilty and was given a long sentence, but he later wanted to take back his guilty plea. His motion to do so was denied, and he appealed that decision. The case included a problem with how the state used Wilson's past felony convictions. The law says you cannot use the same prior convictions to charge someone with a crime and to make the punishment worse for that crime. The state did that with Wilson, using five of his past felonies to both charge him and to increase his punishment. Because of this, the court found that Wilson had been given a harsher sentence than what was allowed by law. The main question was whether Wilson had entered his guilty plea voluntarily and intelligently. It was found that he had. However, the court also decided that the sentence needed to be corrected. Wilson's lawyer did not challenge the state's use of the prior felonies, which was seen as ineffective help. As a result, the court modified Wilson's sentence to a shorter term of seven years instead of fifteen. Wilson would also have to be supervised for a year once released and pay fines. The court affirmed the decision to deny his request to withdraw his guilty plea but changed the length of his sentence.

S-2015-723

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 8, 2016
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-723, Alexander appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (marijuana), unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and public intoxication. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order that sustained Alexander's motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges against him. One judge dissented. The case started when a highway patrol officer saw two vehicles on the side of the road, one of which looked disabled. Instead of checking on the disabled vehicle, the officer decided to pull over a maroon car that was leaving the scene because it had a cracked windshield. Alexander was in the front passenger seat of the maroon car. When the officer asked for identification, Alexander admitted he did not have any. The officer said he would check Alexander's information in his cruiser for safety reasons. While talking to Alexander in the cruiser, the officer noticed he smelled alcohol on him and saw signs of slurred speech and slow movements. The officer found out that Alexander had an outstanding warrant and arrested him. Initially, there were inconsistencies in the officer's story about what happened during the stop. He claimed the smell of alcohol was evident when Alexander exited the car, but later changed his answers under questioning. During the hearing about Alexander's motion to suppress the evidence, the officer's actions came under scrutiny. The state argued that the stop was justified, and that finding the warrant should allow the evidence collected to be used. However, the district court felt the officer's actions were not good faith mistakes but rather improper. The officer had handcuffed Alexander and questioned him without informing him of his rights, which the court deemed as a significant violation of Alexander's rights. The higher court found the district court had properly assessed the facts and ruled in favor of Alexander. They determined that the illegal stop and the officer's methods were serious enough to dismiss the evidence gathered after the stop. Thus, the verdict of the trial court to suppress evidence and dismiss the case was upheld.

F-2015-715

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 31, 2016
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-715, Kevin Judd Lemons appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to seventeen years in prison and reduce his fine to $10,000.00. One judge dissented regarding how the sentence was amended. The case began with Lemons being charged for drug trafficking and related offenses. During the trial, he was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison and fined $25,000. He argued several points in his appeal, including that the search of his vehicle was illegal, and the evidence against him was insufficient. He also claimed that he received an excessive sentence and that his defense attorney did not represent him well. The court reviewed these arguments carefully. On the first point, the court found that the police did not act improperly during the traffic stop which led to the discovery of drugs and paraphernalia. The court explained that the officers were following the law during the search. Regarding the second point, the court noted that Lemons himself had admitted to his prior felony convictions, which relieved the State from having to further prove these convictions. This meant his claims about insufficient evidence for his previous felonies were not valid for the appeal. For the claim about his sentence being too harsh, the court agreed that Lemons had been sentenced incorrectly under the wrong punishment range. They adjusted the duration of his prison time downward to correct this mistake. They also ruled that the fine imposed was not appropriate under the law, which allowed them to reduce it to a lower amount. Lastly, Lemons contended that his lawyer failed to support him effectively. The court found that most of the points mentioned did not show a serious problem with the representation that would warrant further action. Overall, the court upheld Lemons' conviction but decided to make changes to both his prison time and the fine he had to pay. While most judges agreed, one judge thought that rather than changing the sentence directly, the case should be sent back for a new sentencing hearing.

F-2015-155

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 31, 2016
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-155, Sauter appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and burglary in the first degree. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction due to insufficient evidence. One judge dissented. Sauter was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Nowata County and was sentenced to a total of forty-seven years in prison along with fines. The evidence presented during the trial primarily came from two accomplices, Welsh and Fulcher. Sauter argued that since these accomplices’ testimonies were not supported by independent evidence, his convictions should not stand. The court explained that under Oklahoma law, the testimony of an accomplice cannot solely support a conviction unless there is other evidence that connects the defendant to the crime. The court found that while there was evidence linking Sauter’s vehicle to the crimes, there was no evidence that directly implicated Sauter himself. Since the only evidence against Sauter came from the testimonies of Welsh and Fulcher, which lacked corroboration, the court had to reverse the convictions. The dissenting judge felt there was enough independent evidence connecting Sauter to the crimes, particularly the fact that Sauter's car was used and that he had been seen driving it shortly before the home invasion. This judge believed that the jury could conclude Sauter was complicit in the robbery and burglary based on the evidence presented.