In OCCA case No. F-2019-37, Suggs appealed his conviction for first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial on that count due to an instructional error, while affirming the convictions on the other counts. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2020-291, Christopher Alan Vaughn appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. No one dissented. Vaughn was found guilty by a jury after being accused of trafficking drugs. During the trial, there was a mistake with how the jury understood the punishment for his crime. The jury first marked that he had multiple prior convictions incorrectly, which was fixed when the judge voided it and asked the jury to fill out a proper verdict form. Eventually, the jury marked his prior felony convictions correctly but failed to suggest a sentence. The judge then decided to give him a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Vaughn argued that the judge gave the jury wrong instructions about what the punishment should be. He claimed that the law at the time of his crime said that punishment could range from 20 years to life or life without parole, not just life without parole. The State agreed that there was a mistake in how Vaughn was sentenced. The court reviewed the arguments and found that the jury should have been given proper instructions about the range of punishment. The law in effect when Vaughn committed his crime said that if someone had two or more previous felony convictions, the person could receive a sentence of at least 20 years to life or life without parole, but his prior convictions were not for trafficking, so the incorrect instructions could lead to an unfair sentence. Because of this issue, the court decided to reverse Vaughn’s sentence and sent the case back to the lower court for him to be resentenced properly under the correct guidelines.
In OCCA case No. F-2019-588, Ricky Eugene Spencer appealed his conviction for two counts of Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Ricky Eugene Spencer was found guilty of shooting at two people, which led to his conviction. The trial took place in Muskogee County, where the jury decided on a twenty-year sentence for each count. However, the judge allowed for some of that time to be suspended and had conditions for probation. During his appeal, Spencer raised several issues, but one stood out: the jury was given the wrong instructions about transferred intent. This is a legal concept that says if someone means to hurt one person but accidentally hurts someone else, the intent to harm can still apply to the actual victim. The court found there was indeed an error in how the jury was instructed. Spencer did not challenge the instruction during the trial, so the court reviewed the mistake under plain error, meaning it was an obvious error that affected the fairness of the trial. The judge explained that the jury was incorrectly told they could find Spencer guilty of intent to kill based on a lesser intention to injure or scare someone else. This meant they could convict him without the proof needed for a serious crime like shooting with intent to kill. The prosecution argued that Spencer aimed to kill one person and mistakenly shot two bystanders. However, the trial's instructions could have allowed the jury to convict him based on weaker proof than required. During discussions, the jury showed they weren't completely convinced, asking questions that suggested they were unsure. The prosecutor's arguments during the trial also emphasized the wrong aspects of the law, pushing the jury toward an improper conclusion. Overall, the court could not be sure that the jury understood what they needed to prove. Therefore, they ruled that the error affected Spencer's rights significantly, requiring a new trial to ensure fairness. The decision means that Spencer would get another chance to defend himself in court, as the guidelines for convicting him were not properly explained the first time.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DUSTIN SCOTT PATTON,** Appellant, Case No. F-2018-957 **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Dustin Scott Patton was convicted in the District Court of Kay County, Case No. CF-2017-258, of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, violating 21 O.S.2011, § 652(C). A jury recommended a ten-year sentence, and Honorable David Bandy, District Judge, imposed the sentence as per the jury's verdict. Patton appeals with two propositions of error. 1. **The modified jury instruction improperly relieved the State of proving an essential element of the crime charged.** 2. **Appellant was deprived of a fair trial due to numerous pleas for sympathy for the victim during trial.** Upon thorough review of the record and arguments presented, we find no grounds for relief. Patton's judgment and sentence are **AFFIRMED**. **Proposition I:** Patton concedes he did not object to Instruction No. 24 at trial, necessitating plain error review. To establish plain error, Patton must show an actual error that is obvious and affects his substantial rights. Previous case law indicates that certain weapons, like knives, are per se deadly weapons. Instruction No. 24, which classified a knife as a deadly weapon, was not erroneous, and thus Proposition I is **denied**. **Proposition II:** For prosecutorial misconduct claims, relief is granted only if the misconduct renders the trial fundamentally unfair. Patton only objected to the display of the victim’s scars. The presentation of the victim’s injuries primarily served to illustrate the crime's severity and the use of force, which was pertinent to the charges against Patton. This evidence was not unduly prejudicial, and thus, Proposition II is also **denied**. **DECISION:** The District Court's Judgment and Sentence are **AFFIRMED**. *Issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.* **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J. --- For further details, you can download the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-957_1734873972.pdf).
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ANTHONY BRUCE HENSON, SR.,** Appellant, **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. Case No. F-2018-835 Summary Opinion FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA JAN - 9 2020 **OPINION** *LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:* Anthony Bruce Henson, Sr., Appellant, was tried by jury and found guilty on Counts 1 through 6 for sexual abuse of a child under twelve (12) years, violating 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(F); and Count 7 for child abuse, violating 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(A), in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2017-3127. The jury sentenced the Appellant to life imprisonment and a $1,000.00 fine for each of Counts 1 through 6, and six (6) years imprisonment for Count 7. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively, though the court did not impose the fines. The State dismissed Count 8, charging child abuse, prior to trial. The jury deadlocked on Counts 9 and 10, also charging sexual abuse of a child under twelve, leading the State to dismiss those counts. Mr. Henson raises the following propositions of error on appeal: 1. The District Court erred in admitting bad act evidence of pornography, violating provisions of the Oklahoma Evidence Code and denying due process and a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment. 2. The jury instruction concerning the other crimes evidence was erroneous, as it did not limit its admission purpose. 3. The consecutive life sentences are excessive and should be modified. 4. Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel per the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. **Proposition One:** Appellant argues the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his possession of child pornography on a cell phone, which counsel did not object to at trial, waiving all but plain error. As established in *Simpson v. State*, Appellant must demonstrate that this plain error affected the trial's outcome. The Court finds no error in the admission of this evidence to show motive or intent for the charged crimes. **Proposition Two:** Appellant contends the trial court used an incorrect limiting instruction for the other crimes evidence of child pornography. The request for this instruction constituted a waiver of the standard error analysis. Although the court erred in using a modified instruction, it did not compromise the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings, thus, relief is unwarranted. **Proposition Three:** Appellant claims his six consecutive life sentences are excessive. The Court will not alter sentences within statutory limits unless they are so excessive that they shock the court’s conscience. The sentences here do not shock the conscience and are within legal limits. **Proposition Four:** The Appellant argues ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to inadmissible evidence and not requesting a proper limiting instruction. Following *Strickland v. Washington*, the Court finds no reasonable probability that the outcomes would have differed due to trial counsel's performance. **DECISION** The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES** **AT TRIAL** Richard Koller, Attorney for Appellant Barbara Woltz **ON APPEAL** Nicole Dawn Herron, Attorneys for Defendant Katie Koljack, Mike Hunter, Mark Morgan, Asst. District Attorneys Sheri M. Johnson, Asst. Attorney General **OPINION BY:** Lewis, P.J. Kuehn, V.P.J.: Concur Lumpkin, J.: Concur in Results Hudson, J.: Concur Rowland, J.: Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-835_1735212413.pdf)
**Case Summary: Bryon Lynd Gordon v. The State of Oklahoma** **Court:** Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals **Case No.:** F-2018-624 **Date Filed:** October 3, 2019 **Judges:** Lumpkin (Majority Opinion), Lewis (Partial Concurrence and Dissent), Kuehn (Partial Concurrence and Dissent) **Background:** Bryon Lynd Gordon was convicted by a jury in the District Court of Bryan County for Forcible Oral Sodomy (Count 1), and the jury recommended a ten-year prison sentence. Gordon appealed the conviction, raising several points of error relating to the trial proceedings. **Key Propositions Raised on Appeal:** 1. **Competency of Witness:** Gordon argued the trial court abused its discretion by ruling the alleged victim, R.S., competent to testify without an inquiry into his ability to distinguish between truth and fiction. The court found that R.S. demonstrated competency and the ruling was not an abuse of discretion. 2. **Preliminary Hearing Testimony:** Gordon contended that the magistrate abused discretion by allowing R.S. to testify at the preliminary hearing without confirming his competency. However, the court ruled that the failure to file a motion to quash before trial waived this claim. 3. **Admission of Hearsay Evidence:** Gordon claimed that the trial court erred by admitting unreliable hearsay statements made by R.S. without a required reliability hearing. The court recognized the error but deemed it harmless, asserting that the statements were inherently trustworthy based on available evidence. 4. **Sufficiency of Evidence:** Gordon argued that R.S.’s testimony was inconsistent and required corroboration. The court ruled that the victim's testimony was sufficient to sustain the conviction without the need for corroboration as the testimony was clear and coherent regarding the acts committed. 5. **Jury Instructions:** Gordon contended that the jury should have been instructed on how to handle R.S.’s prior inconsistent statements. The court found this omission did not affect the outcome of the trial. 6. **Vouching for Credibility:** Gordon argued that a witness, Palmore, impermissibly vouched for R.S.’s credibility. The court acknowledged this was error but did not rise to the level of plain error as it did not affect the trial's outcome. 7. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Gordon claimed his counsel failed to request certain jury instructions and did not object to Palmore's testimony. The court found no basis for an ineffective assistance claim as Gordon failed to show a reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different with better representation. 8. **Cumulative Errors:** Gordon finally argued that the accumulation of errors deprived him of a fair trial. The court concluded that since the individual errors were found to be harmless, their cumulative effect did not warrant relief. **Decision:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence of the trial court, stating that after reviewing the entire record, no reversible errors were found that affected Gordon's substantial rights. **Outcome:** Judgment and sentence affirmed. **Dissenting Opinions:** Judges Lewis and Kuehn provided partial dissent regarding the handling of preliminary hearing procedures and the application of plain error review, suggesting that certain errors and the lack of timely objections should still be considered under principles of fairness and justice. For the full opinion, you can [download the PDF here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-624_1735226692.pdf).
In OCCA case No. F-2018-12, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree rape by instrumentation and misdemeanor assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the rape conviction. One judge dissented. The case involved Daniel Bryan Kelley, who was initially sentenced to twenty years for rape following a jury trial. He appealed that decision, and the Court agreed that there had been a mistake involving the use of a past out-of-state conviction for sentence enhancement. They sent the case back for a new sentencing trial. The second trial resulted in a life sentence. Kelley argued that he had ineffective assistance from his appellate lawyer because he was not informed about the risks of a longer sentence should he win the appeal. However, the court found no clear evidence that he would have chosen to do anything differently had he been fully informed beforehand. Kelley also wanted the court to limit his new sentence to twenty years, but the court explained that upon retrial or resentencing, the complete range of punishment is available. Therefore, they refused his request to cap the current sentence. Finally, Kelley claimed that the life sentence was excessive. The court considered the nature of his crime and his history, stating that the sentence was within the legal limit and justified based on the circumstances of the case. As a result, the court concluded that his life sentence did not shock the conscience and upheld the previous decisions regarding his case.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1019, Johnson appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Johnson's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Johnson was found guilty of abusing a child and was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. He also had to pay a fine and would be supervised after serving his time. Johnson argued that the evidence against him wasn't enough, that the jury didn't get proper instructions, that his lawyer didn't help him much, and that he didn’t know he would be on a list of sex offenders if convicted. The court looked closely at all these claims and found no significant problems. First, the court said there was enough evidence for the jury to decide Johnson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Johnson claimed the actions happened because of a dream, but the jury believed otherwise. The court said that it would not change the jury's decision as they followed the law. Second, the court noted that the jury had received instructions about what would happen after Johnson was imprisoned. So, this point did not hold. Third, Johnson's claim about his lawyer not performing well was also denied. For this claim to work, Johnson would need to show that his lawyer made a serious mistake that hurt his defense. However, Johnson only gave statements about his own state of mind without clear evidence to support his claim. The court found that his lawyer did not make mistakes that harmed Johnson's case. Next, the court looked at the claim about sex offender registration. Johnson said the jury should have been told more about this, but he never asked for this instruction during the trial. The court decided there was no clear error because they had already ruled on this issue in past cases. Finally, the court dismissed Johnson's claim about the combined effects of the errors. Since they found no significant errors, they concluded that his right to a fair trial had not been violated. In the end, the court upheld Johnson's conviction and sentencing, affirming the judgment made by the lower court.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ROBERT AARON RODGERS,** **Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Summary Opinion** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** On January 17, 2017, Appellant was charged in Grady County District Court with Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(C) in Case No. CM-2017-36. Appellant was found guilty following a jury trial and the Honorable Timothy A. Brauer, Special Judge, sentenced him according to the jury's recommendation to a $1,000 fine. Appellant appeals. Appellant raises three propositions of error in support of his appeal: **I.** Mr. Rodgers was denied a fair trial because the trial court refused to instruct on his theories of defense. **II.** The admission of irrelevant and prejudicial expert testimony on domestic abuse was plain error entitling Mr. Rodgers to a new trial. **III.** The audio tape sponsored by Cindy Trapp failed to meet the requisites for admissibility. Admission of this evidence denied Mr. Rodgers a fair trial. After thorough consideration of the entire record before us, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits, and briefs, we find that the law and evidence do not require relief. **Proposition I**: Appellant argues he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court denied his request for jury instructions on defense of another and defense of property. Decisions denying requested jury instructions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Appellant fails to establish that any unlawful interference with his property occurred or was imminent. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying these instructions. **Proposition II**: Appellant contends that the testimony of Amanda Grayson, an expert on domestic violence, was irrelevant and prejudicial. Appellant did not object to the testimony at trial, waiving appellate review except for plain error. The expert testimony was relevant and provided insight into the victim's behavior and Appellant's intent. Thus, Proposition II is without merit. **Proposition III**: Appellant challenges the admission of a duplicate recording of a conversation based on the best evidence rule. Appellant objected on the basis of relevance rather than the best evidence rule, and thus has waived that issue. No genuine question regarding the authenticity of the duplicate was established, and the trial court took steps to ensure the jury was not misled by the recording. Therefore, Proposition III is denied. **Decision**: The Judgment and Sentence of the trial court is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** ED GEARY **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** DAVID AUTRY **COUNSEL FOR STATE** NATALIA LEVCHENKO MIKE HUNTER KATHERINE MORELLI **OPINION BY**: KUEHN, V.P.J. **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** **RA/F** --- This summary captures the key elements of the case involving Appellant Robert Aaron Rodgers, the propositions of error raised, and the court's analysis and decisions, providing a streamlined understanding of the court's ruling.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1099, Willie Donnell Jackson appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree-Victim Unconscious. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Jackson's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Willie Donnell Jackson was found guilty by a jury for a serious crime involving a victim who was unconscious. The jury suggested that he spend life in prison without the chance to get out, but the trial judge decided to give him a chance for parole after a long time instead. Jackson didn't agree with this decision and said there were errors made during the trial that affected his rights. Jackson raised five main arguments on appeal. First, he said that the prosecutor acted improperly during the trial, which made it unfair. He claimed this had a cumulative effect and harmed his chance for a fair trial. Second, he thought the judge didn't give the jury the right instructions, which was another error. The third point was about his lawyers not helping him enough, meaning that he didn't get the proper support he needed during the trial. Fourth, Jackson believed that the prosecutor's actions led to a sentence that was too harsh compared to what happened. Finally, his last argument was that all the mistakes added up to deny him a fair trial and the legal protections he should have received. After looking at everything presented during the appeal, the judges decided there were no significant errors that would change the outcome of the trial. They did not agree with Jackson's claims, concluding that his trial was fair. As a result, they upheld the original decision and affirmed his sentence, meaning Jackson must serve a long time in prison. The judges, in concise language, rejected all of Jackson's claims, confirming that he did not prove that any errors affected the fairness of his trial or the severity of his sentence, leading to the final ruling.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-120, Shelton appealed his conviction for Human Trafficking for Commercial Sex. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. No one dissented. Shelton was found guilty of coercing a young woman to engage in prostitution. The jury sentenced him to thirty years in prison, which he must serve at least 85% of before he can be considered for parole. Shelton raised issues claiming that the trial court made several errors that affected his right to a fair trial. First, he argued that the court should have given a different definition for human trafficking. However, since he did not ask for a specific instruction during the trial, the court looked for any major mistakes. They decided that the instruction provided was accurate and that giving a different definition would have confused the jury more than it helped. Second, Shelton argued that there was not enough evidence against him to support the conviction. The victim testified that she was recruited by him, provided with clothing and drugs, and he took away the money she earned. The court found that the evidence clearly supported the jury's determination that Shelton coerced her, even though she was not physically forced to work. Third, a concern was raised about an instruction given by the trial court that explained consent was not a defense in this case. The court ruled that this instruction was correct and did not unfairly shift the burden of proof to Shelton. Finally, Shelton claimed he was unable to present a full defense because the trial court did not let him ask if the victim had engaged in prostitution before meeting him. The court decided that this question was not relevant, as the victim had already shared enough information about her background and that it did not show any reason for her to lie about Shelton. In conclusion, the court firmly upheld the conviction, showing that the trial was fair and that evidence supported the jury’s decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1167, Revival Aso Pogi appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Revival Aso Pogi was convicted of murdering Steven Qualls in Oklahoma City in April 2014. Qualls was found dead in his home, and the scene was very bloody. An autopsy showed he had been beaten and stabbed over fifty times. Pogi was arrested after his wallet and bloody handprints were found at the crime scene. During police questioning, Pogi initially denied any involvement but later admitted to killing Qualls, stating he acted in self-defense after being held captive. Pogi’s appeal raised several arguments. He claimed that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction and that the trial court made mistakes. He argued that the jury should have been given instructions on a lesser charge of manslaughter, that his statements to police were made under duress, and that evidence of the victim's past conduct was improperly excluded. Pogi also challenged the use of a graphic photograph of the victim and claimed that the cumulative impact of all errors warranted a new trial. The court rejected Pogi's claims. They found that the jury had enough evidence to conclude that Pogi intentionally killed Qualls and that his self-defense claim wasn’t justified. They ruled that the trial court made appropriate decisions about jury instructions and evidence. The court noted that even if there were errors, they were harmless and did not affect the outcome of the trial. Ultimately, the court upheld Pogi's conviction for First Degree Murder and confirmed the life sentence imposed by the trial judge.
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.
In OCCA case No. F-2016-562, Kadrian Daniels appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court, except that the fine imposed on the Possession count was vacated. One judge dissented. Daniels was found guilty by a jury and received a thirty-year sentence for the robbery and an additional eight years and a $10,000 fine for the illegal firearm possession. Daniels raised several concerns on appeal. He argued that the trial court made mistakes that affected his right to a fair trial. First, Daniels objected to a question asked by the prosecutor to a detective about the number of robberies that happened in Tulsa during the past year. He felt that this question could alarm the jury. However, the court decided that the question was allowed because it was relevant to the case and didn’t unfairly sway the jury. Next, Daniels claimed that the prosecutor behaved improperly during the closing arguments, which made his trial unfair. Some of the comments made by the prosecutor were challenged, but the court ruled that those comments were acceptable and did not harm the fairness of the trial. Additionally, Daniels complained about the jury being instructed that a $10,000 fine was mandatory if they convicted him of the firearm charge. Since Daniels’ lawyer did not object to this instruction during the trial, the court reviewed this issue only for plain error. The court found that the instruction was incorrect because the law does not require such a fine. This error was significant enough that the court decided to remove the fine. Moreover, Daniels argued that his attorney did not provide effective help during the trial, especially for not calling out the errors made by the prosecution or the judge. The court considered this but concluded that the issues raised by Daniels were not serious enough to have changed the outcome of the trial. The final decision affirmed the conviction but removed the unnecessary fine, ensuring that the legal process remained fair despite the mistakes noted during the trial.
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.
In OCCA case No. F-2016-82, Angel Marie Proctor appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder, Kidnapping, and Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the kidnapping conviction with instructions to dismiss, while affirming the other convictions. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2015-720, Bobby Dewayne Ray appealed his conviction for second degree burglary and impersonating an officer. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the fine of $1,500.00 but affirmed the judgment and sentence otherwise. One judge dissented regarding the fine. Bobby Dewayne Ray was found guilty by a jury of two crimes: second degree burglary and impersonating an officer. The jury decided that he committed the burglary after he had already been convicted of two or more felonies. Because of this, he was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and fined $1,500 for the burglary, and was given one year in jail and fined $100 for impersonating an officer. Both sentences were to be served at the same time. On appeal, Ray raised two main arguments. First, he said that the way he was identified by the victim in court was unfair and not allowed under the law. He believed that an earlier identification using his photo was done in a way that could cause mistakes. He pointed out that his lawyer didn’t object to this identification during the trial, which meant he could only argue that it was clearly a mistake. The court looked at the situation and decided that even though the police used only one photo of him, the victim had a good view of him during the crime and was sure of her identification. So, they didn’t believe there was a big chance of making a mistake, thus they found no clear error in letting the victim identify him in court. In his second argument, Ray claimed that the instruction given to the jury about the fine was wrong. The judge told the jury that a fine was mandatory when it was actually optional. In a past case, the court recognized that giving such an instruction was a big mistake, but they also decided that in that case the mistake didn’t change the outcome because the jury gave the highest fine possible. In Ray’s case, they agreed that the $1,500 fine might indicate that the jury would have chosen a smaller amount if they had been told that giving a fine was not required. Therefore, they decided to cancel the fine, but they agreed that his conviction should stay. The court stated that their decision would be filed, and the mandate would be issued once the decision was recorded. One judge agreed with the result of the decision but disagreed about canceling the fine. They believed the jury probably intended to fine Ray because the amount was still significant enough, and the error shouldn't mean that the fine had to be thrown out. In summary, the court agreed to remove the fine but kept the convictions, while expressing that the mistake in jury instruction about the fine did not matter too much in the overall decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2015-886, Russell Carl McCrillis appealed his conviction for two counts of Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the case for the trial court to assess a specific term of years for post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. McCrillis was convicted in a jury trial and received a twenty-year prison sentence and a $20,000 fine for each count of lewd molestation. The sentences were ordered to be served at the same time. McCrillis raised several issues in his appeal. He claimed that his statement to the police should not have been allowed at trial because it was not made freely and voluntarily. He also argued that the jury should have been instructed about the voluntariness of his statement. Additionally, he pointed out that the trial court could not change his sentence to an indefinite probation after prison. Finally, he believed his sentences were too harsh. The court looked closely at whether McCrillis's statement to the police was voluntary and found that he had waived his rights properly and given his statement willingly. This meant the trial court did not make a mistake when it allowed the statement to be presented during the trial. The court did notice that while the judge should have instructed the jury on the voluntary nature of his confession, the lack of instruction didn’t really have an impact on the trial's outcome, as there was strong enough evidence against McCrillis. Regarding the trial court's authority to modify the sentence, the court agreed that it should have set a clear term for post-imprisonment supervision, which means after McCrillis serves his time, he should be supervised for a set number of years. The law says people convicted of certain crimes, like lewd molestation, must have a period of supervision after serving time, usually between nine months and a year. However, there is also a specific law stating that in cases of sexual offenses, supervision could be longer. The court noted that the trial judge didn’t give a fixed duration for supervision, which was a mistake. In the end, while the court agreed with McCrillis on the need for a specified period of supervision upon release, it found that his twenty-year sentence was not too severe based on the details of the crimes committed. Therefore, the court upheld the conviction but sent the case back to have the trial court determine the proper length of post-imprisonment supervision.
In OCCA case No. F-2015-53, Dennis Ray Runnels appealed his conviction for Unlawful Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Runnels was convicted after a jury trial, where he was found guilty of distributing meth. The trial court sentenced him to 19 years imprisonment, with one year of post-imprisonment supervision, and ordered him to pay a fee for a court-appointed attorney and other costs. Runnels raised several issues in his appeal. First, he claimed that the state did not show a complete chain of custody for the meth. The court found that there was enough evidence for the jury to decide that Runnels was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also determined that Runnels had not shown any plain error regarding this issue. Second, Runnels argued that the state did not provide enough evidence to support his conviction. However, the court ruled there was sufficient evidence, including testimony and recordings from a controlled buy, for the jury to reach their conclusion. Third, he claimed the state failed to provide evidence that could have helped his case. He said the prosecutor did not correct a witness’s false testimony about prior convictions. The court found no wrongdoing by the state and ruled that Runnels had not shown how this affected the trial's outcome. In his fourth claim, Runnels argued that the jury was incorrectly instructed on punishment. The court agreed and found it was a plain error, which required modification of his sentence. Runnels also claimed the jury was led to think about probation and parole during the trial, but since the punishment was modified based on the previous claim, this point became moot. Regarding the claim that his sentence was excessive, the court agreed that it should be modified due to the instructional error and reduced it to 10 years with the same supervision and fees. Runnels also said his attorney was ineffective in several ways. However, the court found that these claims were moot because of the prior decision to modify his sentence. Lastly, Runnels asked the court to look at the overall errors during his trial to see if they denied him a fair outcome. The court determined that since they did not find any sustained errors, this request was denied. In conclusion, Runnels's conviction was upheld, but his sentence was reduced to 10 years in prison with supervision, and he will still pay the attorney fees and costs.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-764, Hawks appealed her conviction for Murder in the First Degree, Burglary in the First Degree, and two counts of Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Count I, which was the murder conviction, but affirmed Counts II, III, and IV, which were the burglary and kidnapping convictions. One judge dissented on the reversal of the murder conviction. Hawks was accused of being involved in serious crimes, including murder, along with two other co-defendants. After being found guilty by a jury, Hawks was sentenced to a long prison term, with the murder sentence being life imprisonment. Hawks argued that the evidence against her was weak, claiming she didn’t participate in the crimes or know about them beforehand. She believed the jury wasn't given a fair chance to make their decision because the prosecution made mistakes in explaining the law regarding aiding and abetting. Aiding and abetting means that someone helped or supported a crime, even if they weren't the main person committing it. For Hawks to be found guilty, the evidence needed to show she had some knowledge or intent to support the crimes of her co-defendants, which involved planning and executing the murder and kidnappings. However, the court found that there were major issues with how the prosecutors explained the law, which misled the jury. The judges agreed that the jury may not have properly understood the law because the prosecutor repeatedly misstated it, even if the jury was given the correct instructions. As a result, the court agreed to give Hawks a new trial for the murder charge. For the kidnapping and burglary charges, the evidence seemed sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, so those were upheld. In conclusion, while Hawks' murder conviction was reversed for a new trial due to errors in how the law was presented to the jury, her other convictions were confirmed as valid. One judge disagreed with reversing the murder conviction, believing that the verdict was just and the evidence against Hawks clear.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-3, Edwin Jermaine Daniels appealed his conviction for several serious crimes including burglary, robbery, kidnapping, and assault. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the trial court's decisions but did vacate some of the fines associated with his sentences. One judge dissented. During the trial, Daniels was found guilty of multiple counts connected to violent crimes he committed with a co-defendant. The judge sentenced him to a total of many years in prison and imposed fines for each count. Daniels raised several issues on appeal, arguing that there were mistakes made during his trial that affected the fairness of the process. First, he claimed that the jury instructions were confusing and reduced the State’s burden to prove guilt. The court found that since there were no objections to the instructions during the trial, they did not affect the trial's result. Second, Daniels objected to being told the fines were mandatory, but the court found that this was also a mistake that the State admitted to; thus, the fines were removed for certain counts. He also claimed prosecutorial misconduct, arguing that comments made by the prosecutor during the trial unfairly influenced the jury. The court ruled that these comments did not significantly change the trial's outcome. Daniels further contended that he did not receive effective legal assistance. The court concluded that his lawyer's performance did not meet a standard of failure that would have changed the trial's result. In the end, while the court affirmed the convictions, it removed the fines that were wrongly imposed, ensuring that Daniel's rights were respected where the trial process fell short.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-732, Bryan Thomas Delaney appealed his conviction for Escape from a Penal Institution and Resisting Arrest. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence for post-imprisonment supervision but upheld the rest of his conviction. One member of the court dissented. Delaney was found guilty by a jury after a trial where he faced charges for escaping a jail and resisting the police. As a result of these charges, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for the escape and 1 year in the county jail for the resisting arrest. The judge also ordered him to have 2 years of supervision after his prison time. Delaney argued that he was treated unfairly during the sentencing. He felt that the jury was wrongly told that his previous felony convictions could lead to a harsher sentence. However, he did not raise this issue during the trial, which made it harder for him to win the appeal. The court found that his past crimes were separate incidents and did not fall under the rules for counting prior offenses. Delaney also claimed that his lawyer did not do a good job because they did not challenge the jury instruction about the prior convictions. For his appeal to be successful on this point, he needed to show that his lawyer's mistakes really changed the outcome of his trial. The court decided that, since the jury's instruction was appropriate, his lawyer's actions did not affect his case. Finally, the court noted that while neither side pointed it out, Delaney was sentenced to longer supervision than what the law allows. They corrected this by reducing the supervision time to just 1 year. In summary, the court made some changes to Delaney's post-prison supervision but agreed with the rest of his sentencing and conviction. The decision was mostly upheld, and only one part was changed to be in line with the law.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-974, Karena L. Gilbreath-Hancock appealed her conviction for Actual Physical Control of a Motor Vehicle under the Influence of Alcohol. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for resentencing but affirmed her original conviction. One judge dissented. Gilbreath-Hancock was found guilty after a jury trial and was sentenced to two and a half years in prison along with a fine. She appealed for two main reasons. First, she claimed that her lawyer had a conflict of interest. However, the court found there was no actual conflict because Gilbreath-Hancock did not object to her lawyer's representation during the trial. The court stated that just because she disagreed with her lawyer's strategy, it did not mean there was a conflict of interest. Second, Gilbreath-Hancock argued that her rights were violated as the trial court failed to give the jury all the possible sentencing options available. The court agreed that the trial court made a mistake and needed to correct it. Because of this, they ordered the case to be sent back for resentencing, making sure that the jury would know all their options. In summary, while the court upheld the conviction of Gilbreath-Hancock, they recognized a mistake in the sentencing process and ordered that it be fixed.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-1073, George H. Pinkney appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) in the presence of a minor, among other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence for the first count to five years but upheld other convictions. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-137, Antonio Catalino Myrie appealed his conviction for burglary in the second degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Myrie's conviction but vacated the $10,000 fine imposed. One judge dissented regarding aspects of the sentencing arguments presented at trial. Antonio Myrie was tried and found guilty by a jury. The jury decided that he would spend thirty-five years in prison and pay a fine for the crime. Myrie appealed this decision, claiming several errors during his trial. He argued that the trial court made mistakes by not allowing him to suppress DNA evidence, not giving him more time to prepare his case, and other issues he thought affected his right to a fair trial. The judges reviewed the claims made by Myrie. They explained that the evidence used in his trial, including the DNA, was evaluated carefully. The judges believed that the trial court's decision to admit the DNA evidence was not a mistake. They also felt that Myrie did not show that he would have won his case even if the DNA had been tested differently. Myrie's other claims included that the court made mistakes in admitting hearsay evidence, which means statements made outside of court that shouldn't be used as evidence in court. The judges found that there was no strong reason to believe this would change the outcome of the trial, so they denied this claim as well. One important point was about how the jury was instructed on the consequences of a conviction. Myrie’s lawyers did not object to the jury instructions, and the judges concluded that one instruction wrongly made it sound like the fine was mandatory. They decided to remove the fine based on this mistake. Myrie also argued about misconduct during the trial, specifically that the prosecutor mentioned too many of his previous convictions, which he believed made the jury biased against him. However, the judges thought that while there were errors in how the prosecutor presented this information, it did not affect the fairness of the trial enough to change the outcome. In the end, the judges agreed that Myrie's punishment was justified given his past actions, and they decided to keep the thirty-five-year prison sentence while removing the fine due to a mistake about the jury instruction. One judge disagreed with parts of the decision, particularly about how the prosecutor argued about Myrie's past, stating it should have a different impact on the sentence. Overall, the court upheld the conviction and modified the fine.