Jurisdiction

S-2018-978

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

**State v. Cousan: Summary of the Court's Decision** In the case of *State of Oklahoma v. William Lee Cousan*, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed the legality of the police actions leading to the arrest of Cousan and the subsequent search of his person that resulted in the discovery of crack cocaine. **Background:** William Lee Cousan was charged with Illegal Drug Trafficking, Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. The charges arose from a police investigation initiated by an anonymous tip suggesting that Cousan was dealing drugs from a Motel 6 room. Following a surveillance operation and gathering additional evidence, police obtained a search warrant for Cousan's motel room. While executing the warrant, Cousan left the motel in a vehicle, and police conducted a traffic stop approximately eight blocks away. During this stop, officers found cocaine on him and placed him under arrest. Cousan argued that the officers exceeded the scope of the search warrant during his detention and that the subsequent search of his person was unlawful. **District Court Ruling:** The district court agreed with Cousan's motion to suppress evidence, stating that the search was not justified as incident to the execution of the search warrant since it occurred outside the immediate vicinity of the premises. **Court of Criminal Appeals Decision:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the district court's ruling, holding: 1. **Probable Cause:** The court found that the officers had probable cause to arrest Cousan at the time of his detention based on the tips and surveillance evidence indicating he was dealing drugs. 2. **Lawful Search Incident to Arrest:** The search of Cousan's person was deemed lawful as a search incident to arrest because probable cause existed for that arrest, independent of the execution of the search warrant. 3. **Inevitability Doctrine:** Even if the court did not find probable cause at the time of the stop, the officers could have made a valid investigative stop based on reasonable suspicion. Given the circumstances, the evidence inevitably would have been discovered after the execution of the warrant. 4. **Categorical Detention Rules:** The appeals court acknowledged that while the detention of Cousan was not justifiable under the Summers rule (as it did not occur immediately near the premises), the officers still had the right to detain Cousan based on the totality of circumstances, including the undercover work that had identified him as a key suspect. **Conclusion:** The appellate ruling overturned the district court's decision to suppress the evidence found on Cousan, allowing the State of Oklahoma to continue its prosecution for illegal drug trafficking and associated charges. **Final Note:** The opinion reflects on the importance of understanding both the probable cause standard for arrest and the rules surrounding lawful searches and seizures, emphasizing the balance between individual rights and public safety in law enforcement practices.

Continue ReadingS-2018-978

F-2018-485

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-485, Scott Thomas Stout appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape and Sexual Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Scott Thomas Stout was found guilty by a jury in Kay County for forcing himself on a long-time friend and for sexual battery. The jury did not find him guilty of two other charges of Rape by Instrumentation. The judge sentenced him to twenty years for the rape charge and four years for the sexual battery charge, which he must serve consecutively. Furthermore, he must serve at least 85% of his sentence before being considered for parole. Stout raised two main points in his appeal. First, he argued that the prosecutor acted improperly and that these actions denied him a fair trial. Second, he claimed that the trial court made a mistake by allowing the prosecution to call a witness in the middle of his defense to present evidence. In the first point, Stout pointed out three specific issues with the prosecutor's conduct. He said the prosecutor tried to make the jury feel sorry for the victim, asked questions that seemed to give opinions on the victim's credibility, and used first names for witnesses inappropriately. The court looked at all of the evidence and determined that these actions did not distract from the overall fairness of the trial. The jury acquitted Stout on two of the charges and recommended lighter sentences for the others. Therefore, the court ruled that Stout did not experience unfairness due to prosecutorial misconduct. Regarding the second point in his appeal, Stout argued that it was wrong for the prosecutor to cause the defense to stop its case to bring in a detective to verify some evidence. The court noted that the prosecutor's interruption was related to a question raised by Stout's own lawyer and that the trial judge had acted fairly in allowing it. The judge ruled that this did not disrupt the trial's fairness. In conclusion, the court found no errors in how the trial was conducted and affirmed Stout's conviction, meaning the original decision stood.

Continue ReadingF-2018-485

C-2018-698

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

The text you provided is a legal summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, regarding the case of Joe Saucedo Guerrero. The opinion details the background of the case, the pleas entered by the petitioner, the subsequent motion to withdraw those pleas, and the court's final decision denying the petitioner's request for relief. Here is a breakdown of the main points: 1. **Case Background**: - Joe Saucedo Guerrero pled guilty to multiple charges including Lewd or Indecent Proposal to a Child, Soliciting a Minor for Indecent Exposure/Photos, and Possession of Child Pornography. - He was sentenced to a total of twenty years for the first seven counts and five years for the eighth count, with all sentences running consecutively. 2. **Motion to Withdraw Plea**: - Guerrero filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas shortly after sentencing, claiming his pleas were not entered knowingly and voluntarily, misunderstanding of the charges, ineffective assistance from his counsel, and that the sentences were excessive. - The judge denied this motion after a hearing where Guerrero was the only witness. 3. **Propositions of Error**: - The court examined Guerrero's arguments which included claims of inadequate factual basis for the pleas, ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the sentences were excessive. - The court found that Guerrero had waived some claims due to failure to raise them properly in his motion or during the hearing. 4. **Court's Findings**: - The court held that Guerrero's pleas were entered knowingly and voluntarily, especially since he had been informed of all charges and had signed a plea form acknowledging them. - The court found no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel that warranted the withdrawal of his plea. - The court concluded that the sentences imposed were within statutory limits and not excessive. 5. **Final Decision**: - The court denied Guerrero's petition for certiorari and affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence. This summary captures the critical elements of the judicial opinion and reflects the legal reasoning utilized by the court in reaching its conclusion.

Continue ReadingC-2018-698

F-2017-1149

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1149, Moore appealed his conviction for Permitting Invitees Under 21 to Possess or Consume Alcohol, Child Neglect, and Transporting a Loaded Firearm in a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court. One judge dissented. Moore was convicted for crimes related to a party where a fifteen-year-old boy named N.F. drank too much alcohol and died from alcohol poisoning. The party took place at the home of a sixteen-year-old friend, and although Moore was not there, the court had to decide if he was responsible for what happened because he was in a relationship with the boy's mother, who lived at that house. The first major point in the case was whether there was enough evidence to support Moore’s convictions. The court found that there was, especially because Moore admitted he lived with the mother and his driver's license listed that address. This was important as the law stated that he could be held responsible for underage drinking and neglect if he was living there. Moore also argued that he didn’t get a fair trial because his lawyer did not do a good job. He mentioned that his lawyer failed to object to certain testimonies from a worker in child protective services. The court looked into this claim but concluded that it didn’t affect the fairness of the trial enough to change the outcome. They thought that defense counsel did present evidence to support Moore's case, showing he may not have lived at the home when N.F. died. Another issue was about evidence presented during the trial. Moore’s lawyer did not object to the testimony from the child protective services worker, which led to the question of whether this testimony hurt his case. The court found that while this testimony might have been improper, it did not significantly affect the trial's result since the jury could have made their decision based on other evidence presented. Moore also claimed he should get credit for the time spent in jail before his sentencing. However, the court said it was up to the judge to decide about giving credit for time served, not mandatory. They believed the judge made the right choice and affirmed the decision. In conclusion, the court upheld Moore's convictions and sentences, affirming that there was enough evidence against him and that his rights to a fair trial were not violated. Moore was denied the motion to have a hearing about his lawyer's effectiveness in defending him.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1149

C-2018-861

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BOBBY RAY LEWIS,** **Petitioner,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-861** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA JUN 16 2019** --- **OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **JOHN D. HADDEN LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner, Bobby Ray Lewis, faced charges in two separate cases in the District Court of Okfuskee County. Case No. CF-2017-17 included charges of *Driving Under the Influence*, *Leaving the Scene of an Accident with Injury*, and *Failure to Report a Personal Injury Accident*. Case No. CF-2018-21 involved charges of *Assault and Battery on a Police Officer* and *Assault and Battery on an Emergency Medical Care Provider*. **I. Procedural Status of Appeal** The Court notes that the Petitioner's Petition For Writ of Certiorari is not properly before it. According to established law, appeals from judgments following a plea must proceed via a writ of certiorari. The relevant statutes and court rules state that a defendant must file an application to withdraw the plea within ten days of the judgment's pronouncement. In this case, the District Court pronounced judgment and sentence on June 27, 2018. The Petitioner failed to file a motion to withdraw his plea within the required ten-day window. As a result, the conviction became final, and the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case. The Petitioner’s motion, filed on July 17, 2018—twenty days post-judgment—was therefore untimely, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. Accordingly, since the Petitioner's petition is not properly before the Court, this appeal is dismissed. **DECISION** The Petitioner's Petition For Writ of Certiorari is dismissed as it is not properly before the Court. Pursuant to Rule 3.15 of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** Curt Allen, Indigent Defense System, Okmulgee, OK Arlan Bullard, Attorney at Law, Pauls Valley, OK **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** Robert W. Jackson, Indigent Defense System, Norman, OK Emily Mueller, Assistant District Attorney, Okemah, OK --- **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur --- **[Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-861_1734181193.pdf)**

Continue ReadingC-2018-861

RE-2018-231

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

This summary opinion addresses the appeal of Latarsha Grant concerning the revocation of her suspended sentences in two criminal cases. Below is a concise breakdown of the key points from the opinion: ### Background - Latarsha Grant was convicted in 2007 for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (Case No. CF-2007-359) and sentenced to ten years with the sentence suspended. - In 2011, she was involved in new criminal activities leading to further actions against her suspended sentence. - By 2012, she had entered a guilty plea in a new case regarding drug distribution (Case No. CF-2011-269) with a concurrent ten-year suspended sentence after completing a rehabilitation program. - In 2017, a motion to revoke her suspended sentences was filed due to allegations of her involvement in a robbery, leading to the revocation hearing in 2018. ### Procedural History - The trial court, after hearing evidence, revoked her suspended sentences due to her involvement in the new crimes and appeared to find sufficient evidence against her. ### Appellate Claims Grant raised seven propositions of error, which the court proceeded to analyze: 1. **Competent Evidence**: The court found sufficient evidence that Grant had violated the terms of her suspended sentences. The evidence established her involvement in planning the robbery and her presence during the crime. 2. **Right to Confront Witnesses**: The court concluded that the hearsay issues raised were not applicable, as revocation procedures allow for such evidence. Furthermore, all relevant witnesses were available for cross-examination. 3. **Jurisdiction Concerns**: Grant's arguments relating to the trial court's jurisdiction or abuse of discretion regarding specific offenses were deemed misdirected, as they pertain to her original plea which she could challenge separately. 4. **Excessive Sentencing**: Grant claimed her overall sentence was excessive, but this is tied to the context of her behavior and criminal activities, which justified the trial court's decisions. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Similar to the above, claims surrounding the inadequacy of her representation in court were not appropriately addressed in this revocation context and would need separate proceedings. 6. **Nunc Pro Tunc Orders**: Grant sought to correct inaccuracies related to her plea and sentencing, which would also need to be handled through a different legal mechanism than this appeal. ### Conclusion The appellate court affirmed the decision of the District Court to revoke the suspended sentences, stating that the evidence supported the trial court's findings. The court dismissed all of Grant's claims based on their analysis of procedural and evidential standards, emphasizing the limitations of their review scope in revocation appeals. ### Decision Issued The order to revoke the concurrent suspended sentences was **AFFIRMED**. The court ordered the issuance of the mandate. ### Document Access A link to the full opinion is provided for those seeking detailed legal reasoning: [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-231_1734701780.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-231

RE-2018-232

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case No. RE-2018-232** **Summary Opinion** **Appellant:** Courtney Quillen **Appellee:** The State of Oklahoma **Decided on:** May 30, 2019 **Judge:** Kuehn, Vice Presiding Judge **Background:** Courtney Quillen appealed the revocation of her concurrent seven-year suspended sentences issued by Judge Gregory D. Pollard. She had been convicted in two cases for several counts of Uttering a Forged Instrument. **Key Dates:** - **August 25, 2016:** Quillen entered nolo contendere pleas in two cases. - **March 3, 2017:** The State filed a motion to revoke her suspended sentences for failing to pay fees. - **February 26, 2018:** A revocation hearing was held, leading to the decision to revoke her sentences. **Charges and Allegations:** The State alleged that Quillen committed additional crimes (robbery and conspiracy) while on probation, which constituted violations of her probation terms. **Decision:** The court concluded that: - The alleged procedural errors regarding the twenty-day rule did not affect the court's ability to revoke the sentences from Case No. CF-2015-817 since it had jurisdiction over that case. - The evidence presented established that Quillen had participated in a robbery, thus justifying the revocation of her suspended sentences. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Jurisdiction challenge** - Denied; revocation in Case No. CF-2015-817 upheld. 2. **Validity of waiver regarding twenty-day rule** - Moot. 3. **Insufficient evidence for robbery** - Denied; evidence supported the involvement in robbery and conspiracy. 4. **Insufficient evidence for conspiracy** - Denied; Quillen was shown to have conspired with co-defendants. 5. **Ineffective assistance of counsel** - Moot due to affirming the revocation based on other factors. 6. **Abuse of discretion in revocation** - Denied; trial court acted within its discretion. **Final Order:** The Court affirmed the decision of the District Court of Pontotoc County to revoke Quillen’s concurrent suspended sentences. **Mandate Issued.** [Full opinion and details available here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-232_1734699237.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-232

F-2018-326

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-326, #1 appealed his conviction for #stalking. In a (published) decision, the court decided #the State proved that the protective order was valid during the time of the incidents. #2 dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2018-326

J-2018-402

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2018-402, M. T. G. appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that sentenced him as an adult and remanded the case back to the District Court. One judge dissented. M. T. G. was charged as a juvenile for Trafficking illegal drugs when he was 17 years and 9 months old. The State, however, filed a motion to treat him as an adult. The court found that M. T. G. should have been charged as a youthful offender instead of a juvenile, which was the basis for the reversal.

Continue ReadingJ-2018-402

F-2017-599

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-599, Christopher Michael Hildebrandt appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape of a Child under 14, Forcible Sodomy, and Abduction of a Person Under 15. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but vacated the assessment of prosecution reimbursement costs of $960.00. One judge dissented. The case involved a jury trial where Hildebrandt was found guilty of serious charges against a minor. The jury recommended sentences of 25 years for the first charge, 20 years for the second, and 5 years for the third, all of which were to be served one after the other. Hildebrandt raised several reasons for his appeal. He claimed that evidence from his car was obtained illegally because law enforcement acted outside their jurisdiction. However, the court determined that even if the car was seized unlawfully, the subsequent search conducted with a warrant made the evidence valid. He also argued that the jury selection was unfair because two minority jurors were removed based on race. The court found that the reasons given for their removal were valid and not racially biased. Furthermore, Hildebrandt pointed out that an emotional outburst from the victim's father during the trial could have influenced the jury. The court ruled that there was no need for the judge to inquire about the impact of the outburst because steps were taken to address the situation. He challenged the foundation for evidence presented at trial and whether he received proper notice of the charges. The court found that challenges to evidence would not have changed the outcome of the trial. Hildebrandt also asserted that his defense attorney did not help him adequately during the trial, but the court disagreed, noting that any objection his attorney might have made would have likely been denied. Lastly, he argued that his sentences were too harsh and should have been served concurrently instead of consecutively. The court upheld the sentences as appropriate given the serious nature of the crimes. However, they acknowledged that the assessment for reimbursement costs was incorrectly applied, leading to the decision to remove that specific charge. In conclusion, while the court found some merit in Hildebrandt's claims regarding prosecution reimbursement costs, they ruled that the convictions and the sentences were legally justified.

Continue ReadingF-2017-599

S-2015-771

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-771, the defendant appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower courts' rulings. One judge dissented. Carl Edward Prince, also known as Carl Edward Harper, was arrested for having marijuana and other related charges. He was charged with three main offenses regarding drug possession and use of a police radio. During the early stages of the trial, a magistrate judge decided there wasn't enough evidence for one of the charges, which was about maintaining a place used for selling drugs. The prosecution believed that this decision was wrong and appealed it. The appeal against the magistrate's decision went to another judge who agreed with the first judge, stating that the evidence given by the prosecution was not strong enough to prove that Prince had maintained a location where marijuana was kept with the intent to distribute it. Because of this, they could not prove that there was a pattern or habit of drug use or sales at the location. The case was taken to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The main issues raised by the prosecution were about whether the requirement for a pattern of activity (habitualness) should be considered a fact that needed to be proven and whether there was enough evidence to bring the case to a jury. The Appeals Court decided that the past decisions regarding drug cases required proof of more than just a single event of drug possession. They reasoned that a location must show a pattern of illegal drug activity or use before a person can be convicted under this law. The court looked carefully at what evidence was presented while considering the arguments from both sides. They concluded that there were no clear mistakes made by the lower courts. The evidence didn’t meet the standard needed to prove that Prince’s home was used primarily for drug activity. They upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which means that Prince was not found guilty of that charge. One judge disagreed with this final decision, feeling that the lower courts made a mistake in throwing out the charge about maintaining a place for drugs. This dissenting opinion argued that the law should allow for flexibility and not just rely on showing repeated actions or habits to prove the case. The dissenting judge expressed that the current interpretation of the law was too strict and made it difficult to prosecute based on the evidence presented. In summary, the Appeal Court confirmed that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge Prince with maintaining a place for drug distribution, leading to the upholding of his preliminary ruling.

Continue ReadingS-2015-771

C-2017-104

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-104, McLaughlin appealed his conviction for burglary and unlawful use of a police scanner. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the sentences for burglary and unlawful use of a police scanner but reversed the sentence for possession of burglary tools. One judge dissented. McLaughlin had pleaded no contest to charges of burglary in the second degree and unlawful use of a police scanner in a district court. At sentencing, he received life imprisonment for each of those counts, along with a fine for the second count. However, there was an additional charge for possession of burglary tools that had been dismissed earlier, but the court sentenced him for that count as well. McLaughlin wanted to withdraw his no contest plea later, but his request was denied. He filed for an appeal to challenge that denial, which was allowed to proceed. He raised three main arguments: one regarding the court's authority to sentence him for the dismissed charge, another about failing to bring him to trial on time, and the last about the severity of his life sentences being excessive. The court found that it was wrong for the district court to impose a sentence on the dismissed possession charge, and so it directed that judgment to be vacated. However, it ruled that McLaughlin had missed his chance to challenge the timing of his trial. The court also determined that his life sentences were not shockingly excessive, thus they would not be disturbed. In summary, McLaughlin's appeal was granted in part and denied in part: the decision on the burglary and police scanner charges stood, but the judgment on the possession of burglary tools was reversed, and the case was sent back to the lower court for corrections.

Continue ReadingC-2017-104

C-2016-813

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-813, Derlin Lara appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including Manslaughter in the First Degree and Driving Under the Influence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny in part and grant in part the appeal. One judge dissented. Derlin Lara was involved in a serious legal situation where he entered an Alford plea. This type of plea means that he did not admit guilt but agreed that there was enough evidence to convict him. His charges included killing someone while driving under the influence, injuring another person while DUI, driving without a license, and transporting alcohol in the car. After he pleaded guilty, he was sentenced by a judge. The judge gave him a long sentence that meant he’d serve a lot of time in prison. Lara later wanted to take back his plea because he felt it wasn’t fair and that he didn't fully understand what he was doing. He argued that he was confused during the process, and that he had received poor advice from his lawyer. The court looked carefully at Lara's case and found several key points: 1. The judges believed that Lara's plea was actually made with understanding, even though he insisted that he did not understand everything. They noted that he had an interpreter during his hearings. 2. The court decided that Lara was not unfairly punished multiple times for the same actions. They explained that each charge had different parts and involved different victims, so they did not violate any laws regarding multiple punishments. 3. Lara’s claims about his lawyer not helping him were also rejected. The court found that Lara did not show that having a different lawyer would have changed his decision to plead guilty. 4. The sentence he received for one of the charges was too harsh according to the law. He was given a year in jail for driving without a license, but that punishment was higher than allowed. The court changed that sentence to a shorter one of just thirty days. Lastly, the court found that the amounts assessed for victim compensation and restitution were not properly explained during sentencing. Therefore, they canceled those amounts and decided that a hearing should be held to determine fair compensation. In summary, while the court denied most of Lara's requests, they did change one of his sentences and agreed that some financial penalties needed to be rethought.

Continue ReadingC-2016-813

RE-2016-401

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2016-401, a person appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and burglary in the second degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences. One member of the court dissented. The case began when the person entered a guilty plea on November 3, 2014, and was sentenced to eight years in prison, with three years to be served and the rest suspended. This means he would not have to serve the full eight years right away. However, problems arose when the State of Oklahoma wanted to revoke his suspended sentence on January 13, 2016. During the revocation hearing held on April 26, 2016, it was found that he had violated the terms of his suspended sentences. The important issue in the appeal was whether the court had the right to hold the hearing after a certain time. According to the law, a revocation hearing should happen within twenty days unless both sides agree to wait longer. In this case, the person pleaded not guilty on February 1, 2016. The hearing was originally set for February 29, 2016, which was already too late according to the rules. It was then moved to April 26, 2016, making it even later and not meeting the legal deadline. Because the court did not have the right to hold the hearing after so much time had passed, the higher court decided to reverse the earlier decision and send the case back for further action that follows the law.

Continue ReadingRE-2016-401

C-2015-942

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-942, Prince Edward Myers appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including Running a Roadblock and Eluding a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm several parts of the case. However, they found errors concerning sentences that exceeded what was allowed by law. Myers received a mix of sentences, including prison time and fines, and the court ruled that some of his jail sentences were not valid because the offenses only allowed for fines. One judge disagreed with some aspects of the decision.

Continue ReadingC-2015-942

S-2015-672

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA Case No. S-2015-672, the appellant appealed his conviction for Attempted First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to dismiss the State's appeal and deny the petition for writ of prohibition/mandamus. The dissenting opinion was noted by one member of the court. This case involves Jeremy Scott Niederbuhl, who was charged on December 13, 2013, for trying to break into a home. After attending a barbeque at the homeowner's house, Niederbuhl returned hours later and attempted to enter the home through a door and a window. The homeowner, Mr. Scott, fired shots, hitting Niederbuhl, who then went to the hospital and remained there for two weeks. The legal process began in 2013 when the charges were filed. However, Niederbuhl only found out about the charges in late 2014 when he turned himself in for a different issue. His lawyer argued that there were important text messages between Niederbuhl and the homeowner that could help his case, but the State did not provide this evidence, leading to a significant delay in the trial. On July 17, 2015, the trial court dismissed the case, agreeing that Niederbuhl's rights to a speedy trial and due process were violated due to the State’s lack of action and bad faith. The court believed the State did not follow its obligation to turn over evidence, which was a significant factor in its decision to dismiss the case. The State disagreed with the trial court's dismissal and filed a motion to reconsider the ruling. However, the trial court decided it couldn’t consider this motion because the State already filed an appeal. The State then appealed the dismissal, claiming the trial court made errors in its ruling and that the dismissal did not follow legal procedures. However, the court decided that the State’s appeal was not valid since it did not follow specific laws regarding when the State can appeal a dismissal. In addition to the appeal, the State also filed a petition requesting an order based on their belief that the trial court made mistakes in its rulings. However, the appellate court concluded that the State did not meet the requirements to get an extraordinary writ, which is a special type of order. In summary, the appellate court dismissed the State's appeal and told the case to go back to the District Court for further actions. The petition for the extraordinary writ was also denied, indicating that the appellate court found no legal basis for the State’s claims.

Continue ReadingS-2015-672

F-2015-374

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-374, Jerrell Otis Thomas appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, Robbery with a Weapon, and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and Possession of a Firearm, but to reverse the conviction for Robbery with a Weapon with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Jerrell Otis Thomas was found guilty by a jury for three serious crimes. The main issue was whether he was being punished too harshly for his actions. He argued that he should not have been convicted for both Shooting with Intent to Kill and Robbery with a Weapon because they were connected, like two parts of the same event. The court agreed with him on this point and felt that, under the law, he should not be punished twice for what they saw as one act. Thomas also claimed that he did not get a fair trial because the public was kept out of the courtroom while a key witness testified. The court looked into this and decided that the closure was justified due to threats made against the witness, ensuring their safety. He further claimed that his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial. After considering all the facts, the court found that his lawyer did their job okay, and there wasn't enough evidence to show he was harmed by their actions. Finally, the judge determined that the way Thomas's sentences were set to run (one after another) was acceptable, even though they reversed one of his convictions, meaning he would serve less time than originally planned for that charge. Overall, Thomas won on one point regarding his robbery conviction, meaning that part of the punishment was taken away, but his other convictions were upheld. The court’s decisions aimed to ensure no unfair punishment occurred while also maintaining the law's integrity.

Continue ReadingF-2015-374

RE-2015-206

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-206, Akers appealed his conviction for Burglary in the Second Degree, Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, Conspiracy to Commit Burglary II, and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation order against him. One judge dissented. In this case, Akers had entered pleas of no contest to several charges after a plea agreement. He was sentenced to serve time in prison, but part of his sentence was suspended, meaning he wouldn’t have to serve it right away if he followed certain rules. However, a few months later, a judge revoked part of his suspended sentence because of a violation. Akers argued that the court did not follow the rules properly during the revocation process. Specifically, he claimed that the court didn’t hold a required hearing within 20 days after he entered a plea of not guilty to the motion for revocation. According to the law, if this time frame is not followed, the court loses the authority to revoke the suspended sentence. The record showed that the state filed a motion to revoke Akers' suspended sentence, and although he entered a plea of not guilty, he did not receive a hearing within the 20-day period. Akers' lawyer pointed out this issue during the hearing, claiming the court should not have moved forward with the revocation as it did not meet the required timeframe. The dissenting judge had a different opinion, but the majority agreed that Akers was right. Because the required hearing was not held on time, they decided to reverse the revocation order and told the lower court to dismiss the state’s motion, meaning Akers’ rights were upheld, and he would not face the consequences of the revocation. Thus, the decision was made to give Akers another chance by reversing the revocation.

Continue ReadingRE-2015-206

S-2015-446

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-446, James Leonard Martinez appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and operating without mud flaps. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the District Court's ruling that suppressed evidence in the case. One judge dissented. The case began when Officer Porter stopped Martinez's vehicle because he believed it lacked the required mud flaps, which the officer thought was a violation of the law. However, the trial court found that Martinez's car had fenders, and according to the statute, if a vehicle has fenders, it does not need mud flaps. Thus, the officer's stop was not justified. The State argued that even if the law did not apply to Martinez's vehicle, Officer Porter had a reasonable but mistaken belief about the law when he stopped Martinez. However, the trial court ruled that the officer's misunderstanding of the law was not reasonable because the law's language was clear. The court reviewed the officer's actions and concluded that he made a mistake of law, which means he misunderstood the actual law regarding mud flaps. Because of this, the court agreed with the trial court's decision to suppress evidence gathered during the stop and to dismiss the case against Martinez. Ultimately, the court confirmed that the stop was not lawful and upheld the trial court's ruling.

Continue ReadingS-2015-446

RE-2014-743

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-743, the appellant appealed his conviction for attempted manufacturing of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine), first-degree arson, and child endangerment. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences for some charges but vacate the revocation for one charge due to a prior dismissal. The case began when the appellant, on November 3, 2010, pleaded guilty to several charges, including attempting to manufacture methamphetamine. He was sentenced to serve time but was given a chance to have his sentences suspended if he followed probation rules. However, in August 2012, the state claimed the appellant violated these rules by not living in a sober facility and testing positive for drugs. The appellant admitted to these violations but was given another chance to comply with the probation terms. Later, the state filed another application to revoke his suspended sentences, alleging he committed new crimes, including kidnapping. A revocation hearing was postponed multiple times, eventually taking place in 2014. The court decided to revoke all of his suspended sentences except for one, which had been dismissed earlier. The appellant raised several arguments in his appeal. He claimed that the court did not have the right to revoke his sentences since the revocation hearing was delayed beyond the allowable time. He also argued that the court should not have revoked his sentence related to the dismissed charge and said he didn’t receive proper help from his attorney. The court found that while the appellant was correct about the dismissal of one charge, the other violations justified the revocation of his sentences. The court determined that the initial confession of violations was enough for the revocation and that the appellant had not shown neglect of care by his attorney on the other claims. As a result, the court affirmed the decision to revoke the sentences for the charges that were still valid but agreed to cancel the revocation related to the dismissed count. The case was sent back to the lower court to correct the record about the dismissed charge. Overall, the court's findings led to a mixed outcome for the appellant, maintaining some penalties while recognizing the error regarding the dismissed charge.

Continue ReadingRE-2014-743

RE-2014-96

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-96, Blackwell appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Blackwell's suspended sentence but remanded the case to determine whether Blackwell is entitled to credit for time served as a Youthful Offender. One member of the court dissented. Blackwell was charged with First Degree Rape but later pleaded guilty to Child Abuse, and his sentence was delayed for five years on probation. After violating several terms of his probation, the state requested to revoke his suspended sentence. Blackwell claimed that the court did not have the right to revoke his sentence because he argued he was a youthful offender and that his adult conviction was improper. The court explained that the appeal focused on if the revocation was valid rather than the underlying conviction's correctness. Blackwell’s claims related to his conviction need to be addressed through a different legal process, not this appeal. The court also pointed out that issues about the correctness of laws mentioned in the documents were not within their authority to correct in this appeal. Additionally, Blackwell argued that his entire sentence revocation was too harsh. However, the court mentioned that breaking even a single probation rule is enough to revoke the suspended sentence. Finally, Blackwell maintained he should get credit for the days he spent under juvenile custody, and the court agreed to look into this matter further, sending the case back for clarification on this issue. They affirmed the revocation overall but allowed for the investigation into how much credit Blackwell should receive.

Continue ReadingRE-2014-96

C-2014-270

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-270, Gabriel Brian Solis appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for resentencing before a different trial court. Solis had entered a plea where he maintained his innocence but accepted the plea for reasons other than guilt. He was sentenced to eighty years in prison and a fine, needing to serve 85% of the time before being eligible for parole. After feeling he was unfairly treated, he tried to withdraw his guilty plea, but the trial judge did not allow it. Solis then sought a higher court's intervention, which granted him a new hearing with a different lawyer. During the new hearing, it was found that the judge had shown bias against Solis and that his attorney had not done enough to protect his rights. This bias and the lack of effective legal representation were key reasons for the court’s ruling that Solis had been denied a fair trial. The court ultimately agreed that there were serious issues with how the plea was handled and the sentencing process. In summary, the court ruled in favor of Solis due to the unfairness he experienced in his initial trial, which led to the decision to have the case heard again, ensuring a fair process moving forward.

Continue ReadingC-2014-270

RE-2014-248

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-248, Harvell appealed his conviction for violating conditions of probation related to drug possession. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the lower court's order that sentenced him to prison. The court concluded that the District Court lost its authority to revoke his suspended sentence when the state asked to dismiss the motion. Judge Smith dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2014-248

C-2014-139

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-139, Clifford Eugene Teel appealed his conviction for lewd molestation, forcible sodomy, and indecent exposure. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his request to withdraw his guilty pleas and allowed him to enter new pleas for the charges. The dissenting opinion was not specified. Teel had entered a plea of nolo contendere, which means he did not admit guilt but accepted the punishment. The judge sentenced him to a total of twenty years for some charges and ten years for another, all to be served together. Later, Teel wanted to change his plea because he believed he had been given wrong information about the length of his possible prison time. He thought he could get life in prison, but it turned out that the maximum punishment for his charges was actually much less. Teel's claims were that he did not get proper advice from his lawyer and that the judge did not explain the correct punishments before he accepted the plea. During a review, it was found that the trial court had indeed not informed him right about the maximum punishments he faced. The Attorney General even admitted there was a mistake in how Teel was advised. The court decided that since Teel's plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily due to the wrong advice, he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and enter new ones concerning his charges. The original judgment and sentence from the District Court were reversed, and the case was sent back for further actions.

Continue ReadingC-2014-139

RE-2013-848

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-848, a person appealed his conviction for attempting to make methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court did not have the authority to revoke the person's suspended sentence because the hearing on the revocation was not held within the required twenty days. The court reversed the revocation and sent the case back for further actions. One judge dissented from this opinion.

Continue ReadingRE-2013-848