Larceny of an Automobile

F-2018-975

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MICKEY JOE EDWARD RICHARDSON,** **Appellant,** **VS.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-975** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA JAN 30 2020** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Mickey Joe Edward Richardson, was convicted by a jury in Haskell County District Court, Case No. CF-2016-91, of several crimes, receiving the following sentences: - **Assault and Battery on a Police Officer**, After Conviction of a Felony (Count 1) - **5 years** - **Larceny of an Automobile**, After Conviction of a Felony (Count 2) - **20 years** - **Feloniously Pointing a Firearm**, After Conviction of a Felony (Count 4) - **30 years** - **Felon in Possession of a Firearm**, After Conviction of a Felony (Count 5) - **Life** - **Escape from Detention** (Count 8) - **1 year** On September 11, 2018, the trial court, presided by the Honorable Brian C. Henderson, Associate District Judge, imposed the jury-recommended sentences to be served consecutively. This appeal followed. Appellant raises six propositions of error: 1. **Misinstruction on Sentencing Range** for Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony. 2. **Violation of Fourteenth Amendment Due Process** regarding jury instructions. 3. **Improper Victim Impact Statements** affecting the fairness of the sentencing hearing. 4. **Abuse of Discretion** with respect to the policy of consecutive sentencing. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel** violating constitutional rights. 6. **Cumulative Errors** affecting the fairness of the proceedings. After thorough consideration of the propositions, briefs, and the entire record, we affirm. Appellant was convicted after attacking a sheriff’s deputy, stealing a patrol car, and attempting to evade other officers. ### Analysis of Propositions: **Proposition I: Misinstruction on Sentencing Range** Appellant claims misinstruction regarding the sentencing range for Count 5, asserting it should be one to ten years under 21 O.S. 2011, § 1284. However, the jury was properly instructed on the sentencing range pursuant to 21 O.S.2011, §§ 51.1(A)(2) and 1284. **Proposition II: Jury Instruction on Statement Voluntariness** Appellant argues the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the voluntariness of his statement to police. As Appellant testified and did not claim the statements were involuntary, this contention lacks merit. **Proposition III: Victim Impact Statements** Appellant objected to victim impact statements, claiming they were inadmissible since the crimes were not violent. However, one conviction (Pointing a Firearm) was classified as a violent crime, making the inclusion of the statements appropriate. **Proposition IV: Consecutive Sentencing Policy** Appellant alleges the trial court enforced a policy of consecutive sentencing for defendants who exercise their right to a jury trial. The record indicates the trial court exercised discretion properly, adhering to the statutory default for consecutive sentences. **Proposition V: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel** Appellant contends his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to previous claims. As we found those claims meritless, trial counsel cannot be faulted for failing to raise meritless objections. **Proposition VI: Cumulative Errors** No errors were identified in prior propositions, thus, there are no cumulative errors to evaluate. ### Decision The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Haskell County is **AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ordered issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **Appeal from the District Court of Haskell County** **The Honorable BRIAN C. HENDERSON, Associate District Judge** **Attorneys for Appellant: ROGER HILFIGER, SARAH MACNIVEN** **Attorneys for Appellee: CHRISTINA BURNS, MIKE HUNTER, ASHLEY L. WILLIS** **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** --- [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-975_1734872271.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-975

F-2018-852

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the case of Donald Ray Morrow. The key points of the opinion are as follows: 1. **Case Background**: Donald Ray Morrow was convicted by a jury of first-degree burglary, second-degree burglary, and larceny of an automobile in Custer County. He received a concurrent sentencing of fifteen years for the first-degree burglary, four years for the second-degree burglary, and six years for larceny. 2. **Propositions of Error**: Morrow raised two main arguments on appeal: - **Proposition One**: He claimed the trial court erred by allowing a juror who had a social acquaintance with a prosecution witness to remain on the panel. Upon examination, the juror stated that she could set aside any prior knowledge and decide based solely on the evidence presented. The court found no actual bias or harm and denied the request for a mistrial. - **Proposition Two**: Morrow argued that his sentence did not properly reflect credit for time served. The court agreed that an order was necessary to ensure that the credit for time served is accurately recorded in the judgment. 3. **Decision**: The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Morrow's convictions but remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to correct the judgment to reflect that he is to receive credit for time served. 4. **Outcome**: The mandate was ordered to be issued upon the filing of the decision, and all participating judges concurred with the opinion. For those interested in the full legal document, a link to download the complete opinion in PDF format is provided.

Continue ReadingF-2018-852

C-2017-1050

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma Summary Opinion** **David Neil Dunn v. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No. C-2017-1050** **Filed November 8, 2018** **Summary:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the case of David Neil Dunn, who sought to withdraw his no contest plea for various serious charges. Dunn appealed on the basis that he was denied his due process right to be present during the evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw the plea, and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. **Key Points:** 1. **Charges and Plea**: Dunn was charged with multiple felonies, including First Degree Robbery and Burglary. He entered a blind plea of no contest, which resulted in significant prison sentences. 2. **Motion to Withdraw Plea**: Dunn filed a motion to withdraw his plea shortly after sentencing, claiming various legal grounds, including concerns about the validity of his plea. An evidentiary hearing was held, but Dunn was not present as he had been transported to the Department of Corrections. 3. **Court's Ruling**: The Court found that Dunn had a due process right to be present during this critical stage of the proceedings. The absence of Dunn hindered a fair and just hearing, particularly concerning his claims about the voluntariness of his plea. 4. **Counsel’s Role**: The court clarified that defense counsel's belief that Dunn's presence was unnecessary does not equate to a valid waiver of his right to be present. The decision emphasized that Dunn's testimony was crucial for effectively contesting the plea's validity. 5. **Outcome**: The Court granted Dunn's petition for certiorari and remanded the case back to the District Court for a proper evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw the plea, ensuring he would be present. 6. **Dissenting Opinion**: One judge dissented, arguing that the absence of Dunn did not constitute a violation of his rights, noting that his counsel had effectively represented him at the hearing. It was contended that the procedural complexities of representation should not be interpreted as waivers of due process. **Conclusion**: The Court ruled in favor of Dunn, stressing the importance of a defendant's presence in legal proceedings, particularly when their rights and pleas are being challenged, which underscores the principles of fairness and due process within the judicial system. For a detailed reading, [click here to download the PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2017-1050_1733996496.pdf).

Continue ReadingC-2017-1050

RE-2015-844

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-844, Cully appealed his conviction for Larceny of an Automobile, Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, and Driving Without A License. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Cully's suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Cully had entered a guilty plea in 2008 and was given suspended sentences in 2010. Later, he faced allegations of violating his probation, which led to a hearing and the eventual revocation of his suspended sentences in 2015. Cully claimed that the court should have specified that his sentences were to be served concurrently, and that the addition of post-imprisonment supervision was not allowed for him. The court concluded that while it could not add post-imprisonment supervision to his sentence due to the timing of the laws, the decision to revoke his suspended sentences was valid. Cully's request for a change to the order to show that his sentences were to be served concurrently was denied, and the case was sent back to the District Court to correct the judgment as per the court's rules.

Continue ReadingRE-2015-844

F-2015-212

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-212, Robert Leroy Gore appealed his conviction for Larceny of an Automobile and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. The court found that there was not enough evidence to show that Gore had properly given up his right to a jury trial. Therefore, the previous trial was not valid, and he will have another chance to present his case. No one dissented in this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2015-212

F-2010-203

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-203, Travis Lee Danley appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his conviction for Larceny from a House to Petit Larceny but affirmed the other convictions. One judge dissented. Danley was found guilty of two counts of First Degree Murder, Second Degree Arson, Larceny from a House, and Larceny of an Automobile, and sentenced to life in prison without parole on the murder counts, among other sentences. The events occurred on August 31, 2008, when Danley shot two victims in a home after an argument, attempted to cover up the crime, and fled the scene with stolen items. During his trial, Danley raised several issues on appeal, including that the district court should have declared a mistrial after the jury heard testimony about his probation, whether there was enough evidence for the larceny conviction, prosecutorial misconduct, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative error from the trial. The court found that the mention of Danley being on probation did not prejudice the trial significantly and upheld the district court's ruling. However, it agreed with Danley that the evidence did not support a conviction for Larceny from a House, as he was a guest in the home and did not unlawfully enter. Therefore, his charge was modified to Petit Larceny due to insufficient evidence regarding the value of the stolen items. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct were also considered, with the court noting that the prosecutor's questions and comments did not render the trial unfair. Danley’s argument regarding ineffective assistance of counsel was rejected, as the jury instructions were deemed adequate at the time of the trial. Lastly, the court ruled that even if there were errors during the trial, they did not cumulatively harm Danley's right to a fair trial. In summary, the court affirmed most of the trial's decisions but modified one conviction due to insufficient evidence, affirming the principle that defendants deserve fair treatment under the law.

Continue ReadingF-2010-203

RE-2010-403

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-403, Eddie Ray Casey, Jr. appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property and Larceny of an Automobile. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Casey's suspended sentence but instructed the District Court to correct the record to reflect that nine total years were revoked. No one dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2010-403

C-2008-938

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2008-938, William Eugene Henderson appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including robbery, shooting with intent to kill, kidnapping, larceny of an automobile, third-degree arson, and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided that Henderson's pleas of guilty were knowing and voluntary, affirming the sentences for most of the counts. However, the court found that the kidnapping charge was not separate from the robbery and reversed that conviction, ordering it to be dismissed. One judge dissented on the issue of the kidnapping conviction.

Continue ReadingC-2008-938

F 2004-269

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-269, Edward Lee Cox, Jr. appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, Robbery with Firearms, and Larceny of an Automobile. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that his conviction for Robbery with Firearms should be reversed and dismissed, while the convictions for the other two counts were affirmed. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF 2004-269

C-2002-652

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2002-652, the petitioner appealed his conviction for multiple offenses, including Second Degree Burglary, First Degree Burglary, Kidnapping, Larceny of an Automobile, and Robbery with a Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner's appeal in part by modifying some of his sentences. However, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences for the other offenses. One judge dissented from the decision.

Continue ReadingC-2002-652

C-2001-341

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2001-341, Terrell Dwayne Gurley appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including robbery with a firearm, kidnapping, burglary, larceny of an automobile, possession of a firearm after felony conviction, forcible entry, and attempting to intimidate a witness. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Gurley's conviction for one of the charges, burglary in the first degree, and ordered that this count be dismissed. The court upheld the remaining convictions and found Gurley's sentences were not excessive. One judge dissented, arguing that the laws applied in the case should be reconsidered regarding the relationship between the crimes committed.

Continue ReadingC-2001-341

RE 2000-1170

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-1170, the appellant appealed his conviction for revocation of suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence in one case and to reverse and dismiss the revocation in another case. One judge dissented. In this case, the appellant had previously pleaded guilty to two crimes and received suspended sentences, which means he would not have to serve time in prison if he followed the law and met certain conditions. However, the State (the lawyers representing the government) wanted to revoke these sentences, claiming the appellant did not follow the rules. At a hearing, the judge revoked the appellant’s suspended sentences. Later, the appellant appealed the decision, arguing that the State was too late to revoke one of his suspended sentences because the time to do so had expired. The State agreed with the appellant that they did not have the right to revoke the sentence for one of the cases. After considering the arguments, the court decided to keep the revocation for one case but to reverse the revocation for the other case, meaning the appellant would not have to serve time for the second case. The court also canceled a scheduled oral argument, stating it was not needed.

Continue ReadingRE 2000-1170