LeFlore County

RE-2021-1042

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2021-1042, Matthew Bryan Buttery appealed his conviction for a series of crimes including distribution of controlled substances and petit larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered that his new sentence run concurrently with a prior sentence from another case. One judge dissented on the issue of how the sentences should relate to one another. Matthew Buttery had previously pled guilty to several charges. He was given a ten-year suspended sentence, which means he didn't have to serve time in prison at that moment but had to follow certain rules. If he broke any rules, the court could take back that suspended sentence and send him to prison. The state claimed that Buttery did not report as required, did not pay his probation fees, and committed a new crime, for which they wanted to revoke his suspended sentence. During the hearing, the court found Buttery had violated the terms of his probation and revoked his suspended sentence. Buttery argued that the court made a mistake by not giving him credit for time he had already served and by ordering that his new sentence run after a different sentence from another county. The court explained that it had the right to revoke Buttery's suspended sentence because he violated the rules. They stated they didn't have to give him credit for time served because the suspended sentence is not changed by the violation. They also found that the judge improperly decided his new sentence would run after the one from the other county rather than at the same time. The judges clarified that when a sentence is revoked, it should not change how sentences from different cases affect each other. In the end, Buttery's appeal led to some changes. The court ordered that his new sentence should run concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time, rather than one after the other. However, the court upheld the overall decision to revoke his suspended sentence for breaking the rules of his probation. One judge agreed with the decision to affirm the revocation but disagreed with other parts of the analysis regarding the relationship between the sentences. So, to summarize, the main points from the case are that Matthew Bryan Buttery's suspension was revoked because he violated probation rules, but the court made a mistake when deciding how his new sentence should relate to an older sentence. He is to serve them at the same time now, according to the latest court ruling.

Continue ReadingRE-2021-1042

F-2018-563

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **OCT 17 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** --- **BOBBY DALE STOCKTON,** **Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-563** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant Bobby Dale Stockton appeals from the District Court of LeFlore County's order terminating him from Drug Court and sentencing him to seven years in prison, as per the Drug Court contract in Case No. CF-2016-380. On February 14, 2017, Appellant pled guilty to Count 1: Unlawful Possession of CDS - Methamphetamine after a former felony conviction, and Count 3: Resisting an Officer. He agreed to enter Drug Court with a conviction and sentencing of seven years on Count 1 and one year on Count 3, both running concurrently. Successful completion of Drug Court would lead to suspended sentences; failure would result in imprisonment. The State filed an application for termination on June 26, 2017, alleging Appellant's non-compliance—failing to report for intake, missing a urinalysis, and being absent without leave. During a hearing on September 26, 2017, evidence showed Appellant had not participated in the program. He explained his absence was due to caring for his ill mother. Although acknowledging he had not complied, he expressed a willingness to accept a strict ninety-day monitoring. However, Judge Fry found a violation of the Drug Court contract for non-appearance and initiated a no tolerance policy. Subsequently, on September 29, 2017, Appellant failed to attend Drug Court, resulting in an arrest warrant and bail revocation. The State filed a second termination application on April 30, 2018, citing similar violations. At the hearing on May 22, 2018, Appellant admitted to a third heart attack and acknowledged non-compliance without providing documentation on medical issues. Judge Fry noted past assurances of compliance had not been honored and ultimately terminated Appellant from the program, imposing the seven-year prison sentence. **PROPOSITION OF ERROR:** I. The trial court abused its discretion in terminating Mr. Stockton from Drug Court before he had the opportunity to work the program. **ANALYSIS:** Appellant contends hospitalization justified his failures to report. He further claims that, if drug issues were believed to have driven his failures, proper disciplinary measures should have been applied. The discretion to revoke or terminate participation in Drug Court rests with the trial court, and its decision will only be reversed upon a showing of abuse. Under Oklahoma law, judges may impose progressively increasing sanctions for relapses but can revoke participation if necessary. Appellant was given two opportunities to comply with the Program's requirements, both of which he failed. His second failure followed a promise to comply, and although medical conditions were noted, no evidence was presented to substantiate his claims. Therefore, termination was not an abuse of discretion. **DECISION:** The order of the District Court of LeFlore County, terminating Appellant from Drug Court and imposing a seven-year prison sentence, is AFFIRMED. **MANDATE:** Issued forthwith. --- **APPEARANCES:** **Matthew H. McBee** Counsel for Appellant P.O. Box 1303 Poteau, OK 74953 **Joe Watkins & Keeley L. Miller** Counsel for State Assistant District Attorney 100 S. Broadway St., Room 300 Poteau, OK 74953 Assistant Attorney General 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 **OPINION BY:** ROWLAND, J. LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur

Continue ReadingF-2018-563

F-2018-940

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2018-940

RE-2018-484

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case No. RE-2018-484** **Summary Opinion** **Appellant:** Orville Tabe Keith, Jr. **Appellee:** The State of Oklahoma **Judge Hudson:** Orville Tabe Keith, Jr. appeals the revocation of his concurrent twelve-year suspended sentences following a revocation hearing where the State alleged that he violated probation by committing Manslaughter in the First Degree. **Background:** On March 5, 2009, Appellant pled guilty to two counts of Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon. He was sentenced to twelve years on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently and suspended under specific probation conditions. The State filed a Motion to Revoke on March 23, 2017, based on allegations that Appellant committed Manslaughter in connection with the death of Brandon Martinez during an altercation on June 27, 2015. Evidence presented included DNA matching Appellant to items found at the crime scene and testimony from a neighbor, Donna Underwood, who claimed Appellant admitted to killing Martinez. **Revocation Hearing:** The revocation hearing took place on May 1, 2018. The court reviewed evidence including: - DNA analysis linking Appellant to the crime scene. - Testimony from Underwood about Appellant’s self-incriminating statements. Judge Fry found that Appellant violated his probation conditions, leading to a full revocation of his suspended sentences. **Appellant's Argument:** Keith appeals on the grounds that the evidence presented was insufficient to justify the revocation of his suspended sentences. He challenges the credibility of Underwood's testimony and suggests that another individual, Paul Anderson, may have committed the homicide. **Analysis:** Oklahoma law requires that alleged violations of probation conditions be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The appeals court found that Underwood's testimony and the DNA evidence were adequate for a rational trier of fact to conclude that Appellant had violated the terms of his probation. **Decision:** The court affirmed the trial court's decision to revoke Appellant's concurrent twelve-year suspended sentences, concluding there was no abuse of discretion in Judge Fry's ruling. **Order:** The order of the District Court of LeFlore County is **AFFIRMED**. **Opinion by**: HUDSON, J. **Concurrences by**: LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J. --- For further details, you can [**download the PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-484_1734542820.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-484

C-2018-1119

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AARON MARCUS SHORES,** **Petitioner,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-1119** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Petitioner Aaron Marcus Shores entered a negotiated plea of no contest in the District Court of LeFlore County to resolve his felony and misdemeanor charges in three cases. The charges included: 1. **Case No. CF-2018-239:** Failure to Notify Address Change of Sex Offender (felony). 2. **Case No. CM-2018-371:** Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (misdemeanor). 3. **Case No. CM-2018-373:** Malicious Injury to Property Under $1,000.00 (misdemeanor). Pursuant to the plea agreement, one count of Obstructing an Officer and one count of Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia were dismissed by the State. Judge Marion Fry subsequently sentenced Shores to four years of imprisonment on the felony count and one year in the county jail for each misdemeanor count, with all sentences running concurrently. He was also ordered one year of post-imprisonment supervision and awarded credit for time served. Shores filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, which was denied after a hearing. He appeals this denial, claiming: 1. The district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea as he did not receive the benefits of his plea bargain. 2. He received ineffective assistance of counsel. **1. Denial of Motion to Withdraw Plea** Shores argues he did not receive the promised benefits of his plea bargain. The court evaluated this claim against the standard set forth in *Couch v. State*, noting that promises made in plea agreements must be fulfilled. While Shores did not specifically raise his current argument in his initial motion to withdraw, it was discussed during the evidentiary hearing. The appellate court reviews the denial for abuse of discretion and affirmatively holds that Shores received the benefits of his plea agreement. The district court's order confirmed that Shores's Oklahoma sentences would run concurrently with his sentences from Arkansas, fulfilling the terms agreed upon during the plea process. **2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel** Shores claims ineffective assistance from conflict counsel, who allegedly failed to preserve his claim regarding the benefits of the plea agreement. To prevail on such a claim, Shores must demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel's performance. The court found that conflict counsel adequately raised Shores's concerns at the withdrawal hearing, effectively preserving the issue for appeal. Therefore, Shores could not establish that his counsel's performance resulted in any prejudice. **CONCLUSION** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The district court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to withdraw plea is AFFIRMED. **MANDATE ordered to be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.** **Appearances:** - Doug Schmuck, Appellate Defense Counsel, for Petitioner. - Matt McBee, Counsel for Withdraw Motion. - Kevin Merritt and Margaret Nicholson, Assistant District Attorneys for the State. --- This summary is designed for clarity and understanding without retaining excessive legal jargon, while accurately reflecting the decisions and arguments presented in the original case summary.

Continue ReadingC-2018-1119

F-2018-646

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the appeal of Ashley Dawn Bost. She was convicted of several offenses in LeFlore County District Court, including trafficking in illegal drugs and possession of a controlled substance, along with additional charges related to a firearm and drug paraphernalia. In her appeal, Bost raised a single proposition of error arguing that her convictions for trafficking in methamphetamine and possession of oxycodone violated the prohibition against multiple punishments for a single offense, as outlined in 21 O.S.2011, § 11. The court found that Bost did not preserve this argument for appeal as she failed to raise it during the trial, thus waiving her right to full review, except for considering it for plain error. The appellate court applied a three-part test for assessing plain error and determined that Bost did not demonstrate actual or plain error. The court explained that the analysis under Section 11 focuses on the relationship between the crimes and whether they require different proofs. Since the two charges involved different drugs and amounts required for trafficking and possession, the court concluded that they were indeed separate and distinct offenses and affirmed the trial court's judgments and sentences. The court's final decision was to affirm Bost's convictions and sentences, with the mandate ordered to be issued promptly. The opinion included a list of counsel for both the appellant and the appellee. For more information, a link to the full opinion is provided at the end of the summary.

Continue ReadingF-2018-646

F-2017-444

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-444, Haskin appealed his conviction for child neglect and child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. No one dissented. Haskin was found guilty of neglecting children and sexually abusing them. The jury gave him several long prison sentences, including ten years for each count of neglect and many decades for sexual abuse. The judge ordered these sentences to be served one after the other. Haskin raised seven main arguments against his conviction during his appeal. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes that affected his rights. For example, he said that evidence was unfairly used against him, and that the trial did not follow the rules properly. He argued that a police investigator should not have gone back to his property without a warrant, and that his rights were violated in other ways as well. However, the court found that the police acted reasonably and that Haskin's claims of error did not hold up because he did not provide enough details to support them. The court carefully reviewed everything and decided there was no need to change the outcome of the trial. They ruled that Haskin's conviction and the long sentences would stand. The decision means he will serve a considerable time in prison for his actions.

Continue ReadingF-2017-444

M-2016-108

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2016-108, Marty Spence Duncan appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery and Assault. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Duncan's judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial because the record did not show that he had waived his right to a jury trial. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingM-2016-108

F-2015-720

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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.

Continue ReadingF-2015-720

S-2008-53

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2008-53, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction for Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the earlier decisions, meaning they upheld the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to proceed with the trial against the defendant. One judge dissented in this case. The case was about a parent who was accused of child abuse after leaving her two children in a vehicle while she became unconscious. The court looked at whether the parent’s actions met the legal definition of child abuse. A special judge had already decided there wasn’t enough evidence to charge her, and when the State appealed that decision, the district judge agreed. When the case reached the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the justices reviewed the earlier decisions. They listened to arguments from both sides and looked closely at the facts. They saw that the earlier judges had acted reasonably and hadn’t made any mistakes that would change the outcome. Therefore, they decided to keep the original ruling, which meant that the parent wouldn’t have to face trial for the charges brought against her.

Continue ReadingS-2008-53