Legal Precedents

F-2019-854

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-854, Joshua Lee Purdom appealed his conviction for several serious crimes, including assault and battery, kidnapping, and rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand the case with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented. Joshua Lee Purdom was found guilty by a jury of multiple crimes and received a lengthy sentence in the District Court of Hughes County. The court took into account that Purdom committed these crimes against a victim who had Indian heritage and that the crimes occurred on land considered part of an Indian Reservation. This brought up a question about whether the state had the right to convict him. Purdom argued that because the victim was an enrolled member of an Indian tribe and the crimes happened on Indian land, the state did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him; instead, this should be handled by federal courts. The case brought attention to a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that said parts of Oklahoma were still considered Indian Country for legal purposes. The OCCA agreed with Purdom and found that based on the facts established in a hearing, the state did not have the authority to prosecute him. The victim’s status as an Indian and the location of the crimes played a crucial role in the decision. Therefore, the court dismissed the case, emphasizing that only federal courts have jurisdiction over crimes against Indians in Indian Country under federal law. In summary, the court reversed Purdom’s convictions and ordered the case to be dismissed, which means he will not face charges from this case.

Continue ReadingF-2019-854

F-2017-357

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-357, Shawn Lee McDaniel appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence, remanding the matter with instructions to dismiss. The main issue in this case was whether the victim was considered an Indian under federal law and whether the crime took place in Indian country, which is defined as land within the boundaries of Indian reservations. Both questions were answered affirmatively. The court looked to a previous case, McGirt v. Oklahoma, which established that certain lands in Oklahoma were still recognized as Indian reservations under federal law. McDaniel’s appeal was based on the fact that the murder occurred within the historic boundaries of the Cherokee Nation and that the victim was a recognized member of the Cherokee Nation at the time of his death. The court remanded the case to a lower court, which found that both of these conditions were true, meaning federal, not state, authorities had jurisdiction over the case. The court’s decision concluded that since the crime fell under the federal jurisdiction, the state of Oklahoma did not have the authority to prosecute McDaniel. Consequently, the judgement was vacated, and the matter was directed to be dismissed. While most judges agreed with the results, there were dissenting opinions which expressed concern and highlighted issues within the majority opinion, particularly regarding its adherence to historical precedents and the implications of McGirt's ruling.

Continue ReadingF-2017-357

F-2020-208

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2020-208, Ryan Cortland Johnson appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Ryan was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison, meaning he would have to serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. He argued that the state court did not have the right to try him based on a Supreme Court decision from 2020 called McGirt v. Oklahoma. In this case, it was determined that certain crimes committed by members of federally recognized tribes on tribal land could not be prosecuted in state courts. Ryan Johnson claimed he was a member of the Chickasaw Nation and that the murder happened on Creek Nation tribal land, which is considered a reservation. The court allowed him to challenge its jurisdiction. The case was sent back to the district court for an evidentiary hearing, but the parties involved agreed on certain facts, which meant a hearing was not necessary. They confirmed that Ryan is a member of the Chickasaw Nation and that the crime took place on land owned by the Creek Nation. After reviewing the facts, the district court found that Ryan is indeed an Indian under federal law and that the crime took place in the Creek Nation boundaries. Therefore, the state court did not have the authority to charge him with murder based on the findings in the McGirt case. Because of this ruling, the court granted Ryan's appeal, decided the state court had no jurisdiction, and instructed that the case be dismissed.

Continue ReadingF-2020-208

F-2018-78

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-78, Jordan Batice Mitchell appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him. This means that the court could not judge this case because it involved issues concerning his status as an Indian and the location of the crime being within the Muscogee Creek Reservation. The finding was based on a previous case, McGirt v. Oklahoma, which affected how certain crimes involving Native Americans are prosecuted. Consequently, the court vacated Mitchell's sentence and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it. There was a dissenting opinion regarding the decision, as one judge expressed concerns about the implications of the ruling.

Continue ReadingF-2018-78

C-2017-998

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-998, Arnold Dean Howell appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate Howell's convictions and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented. Howell had pleaded guilty to the charges in the District Court of Creek County and was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction and twenty-five years for the robbery conviction, with both sentences served one after the other. After the guilty plea, Howell filed a motion to withdraw it, which the district court denied. Howell then raised several issues in his appeal, questioning the state's authority to prosecute him, his competency to plead guilty, if his plea was made knowingly and voluntarily, whether he received good legal help, and if his sentence was too harsh. The important part of the appeal was Howell's claim regarding jurisdiction. He argued that the state did not have the right to prosecute him because he is considered an Indian under federal laws and the crimes happened within the Muscogee Creek Nation Reservation. This argument was based on a specific legal case called McGirt v. Oklahoma, which changed how certain cases with Indian individuals should be treated. In response to Howell's appeal, the court ordered a review of his case to determine if he was an Indian and if the crimes occurred on the reservation. During this review, both sides agreed on a few facts: Howell has Indian blood, is a registered citizen of the Muscogee Creek Nation, and the crimes did occur within the reservation. The district court accepted these facts. Following this information, the court concluded that Howell is legally an Indian and that the state did not have authority over the case. As a result, the court decided Howell's conviction could not stand, and they vacated the lower court's judgment and ordered the case to be dismissed. In conclusion, Howell's legal challenges about how his case was handled were significant enough to require a reversal of his convictions based on the jurisdictional issues brought up by the McGirt decision. This decision demonstrates how important it is to understand the laws regarding tribal lands and individual rights within the legal system.

Continue ReadingC-2017-998

F-2018-269

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2017-1055, a person appealed their conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (Oxycodone). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of the appellant from the Pontotoc County Drug Court Program. One judge dissented. The case started on February 18, 2014, when the appellant was charged with a drug-related crime. The appellant agreed to enter the Drug Court Program, where they could avoid prison if they completed the program successfully. If not, they could face up to ten years in prison. On April 19, 2017, the state sought to terminate the appellant from the program. They claimed the appellant had tested positive for THC, which is found in marijuana. A hearing was held, and the judge decided to terminate the appellant from Drug Court. As a result, the appellant was sentenced to ten years in prison but received credit for the time they had already spent in custody. The appellant argued three things on appeal. First, they believed the court made a mistake by kicking them out of Drug Court because there was not enough evidence of a rule violation. Second, the appellant stated that there was no written agreement outlining the rules of the Drug Court, and therefore, they should not have been terminated for breaking rules they did not know about. Lastly, the appellant claimed that since the state filed the termination application after the allowed time to participate in Drug Court had passed, the court should not have been able to terminate them. The court addressed each of these arguments. They found that the appellant never objected to the evidence showing the positive drug test, which made it hard for them to argue the judge made a mistake. The court also looked into whether the appellant had been informed about the rules and found that the evidence showed the appellant had been explained the terms and understood them. Lastly, regarding the timing of the termination, the court explained that while the timeframe for treatment had expired, the court still had the authority to terminate participation in the program before a final sentence was given. Ultimately, the appellate court agreed with the original trial court's decision to terminate the appellant from Drug Court and affirmed the ten-year sentence. One judge disagreed with the decision about the timing of the termination, believing that the court did not have the right to terminate after the set period.

Continue ReadingF-2018-269

F-2017-1301

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2017-1301

F-2017-1030

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1030, Polo Carrillo appealed his conviction for kidnapping, first-degree rape, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and domestic assault and battery in the presence of a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Polo Carrillo was found guilty on several serious charges and sentenced to life imprisonment on three charges, with an additional year on the domestic assault charge. He raised several arguments on appeal, including issues with the evidence presented during his trial and concerns about whether he received a fair trial. One point of contention was the trial court's decision to allow a nurse to read a report during the trial that included what the victim had stated about the incident. Carrillo argued that this was hearsay and unnecessary since there was other testimony about the same information. The court determined that the nurse's statements were allowed because they related to medical treatment, which is an exception to hearsay rules. Another argument Carrillo made was about the court's ruling regarding the disclosure of certain witnesses' information. The trial court had allowed the victim's address to be withheld for safety reasons. The court pointed out that Carrillo was able to communicate with the victim without knowing her home address. Thus, the court concluded that the ruling did not harm his defense. Carrillo also claimed that photographs shown to the jury were redundant and biased against him, but the court found that these images were important in showing the victim's injuries and supported the testimony, so they were allowed. Further, Carrillo argued that the jury was not given the correct instructions regarding post-imprisonment supervision. The court indicated that the instructions given were generally proper since the jury couldn't recommend a sentence lower than two years, ruling that errors were not affecting the trial's outcome. At sentencing, there was an error in how Carrillo's time served was recorded. However, this was later corrected by the District Attorney’s office, making this issue no longer relevant. Finally, Carrillo claimed that even if individual errors in the trial did not deserve a new trial, the cumulative effect of these errors should. The court disagreed, stating that since there were no errors that warranted reversal, the cumulative error claim also failed. In summary, the court affirmed Carrillo's convictions, indicating that he did not suffer an unfair trial despite the various arguments he raised on appeal. The decision was backed by careful consideration of the law and the facts presented during the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1030

F 2015-121

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2015-121, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the district court, but vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Erica Lashon Harrison, who was accused of murder but was convicted of the lesser charge of first-degree manslaughter. The jury sentenced her to 25 years in prison and a fine of $10,000. Harrison raised multiple issues on appeal. She argued that the state did not prove she was not acting in self-defense, that improper evidence was allowed, and that she did not have proper legal representation. The court reviewed the case and found that the evidence supported the jury's verdict. They determined Harrison's claim of self-defense could not stand as there was not enough evidence to show she was in danger. The court noted that while some incorrect evidence was introduced, it did not affect the conviction. However, they decided that the sentence should be vacated and the case sent back for resentencing due to the improper character evidence brought up during the trial. The judges concluded that this error needed to be addressed, even if the earlier convictions were proper. The opinion recognized that although some arguments made by Harrison were valid, overall, the court found her conviction was supported by overwhelming evidence. The dissenting judges believed the error did not have a significant impact on the jury's decision. They argued that the sentence should not be changed since the evidence clearly proved guilt, even if procedural mistakes were made during the trial. Overall, the court upholds the conviction but sends the case back for a new decision on sentencing. The judges agreed on the main decision, while differing on whether the sentence change was necessary.

Continue ReadingF 2015-121

F-2014-22

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-22, Padillow appealed his conviction for rape and sexual offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but reversed a citation for direct contempt of court and vacated the associated sentence. One judge dissented. Earnest Eugene Padillow faced serious charges in two cases related to the sexual abuse of young girls. The first case involved the abuse of his nine-year-old great-niece, S.G., during a single day in August 2007, and the second case involved the sexual assault of his 11-year-old niece, D.P., in 2011. In both instances, Padillow was accused of serious crimes, including rape and inappropriate sexual contact. During the trial, Padillow had a tumultuous relationship with his attorneys. He expressed dissatisfaction with their defense strategies and at times chose to represent himself. This led to a chaotic scene in the courtroom where Padillow violently attacked one of his attorneys, resulting in his removal from the courtroom. Despite his outbursts, the trial proceeded, and he was found guilty. The court sided with the trial judge's decision that Padillow waived his rights to be present during certain trial stages due to his disruptive conduct. Padillow also claimed that his constitutional right to testify was violated when he was removed from the courtroom. However, the court ruled that his violent actions constituted a waiver of that right. In another point of contention, Padillow argued that he should have been given the chance to respond to a direct contempt charge when the judge found him guilty of contempt for his outburst. Although the court acknowledged he did not have the opportunity to be heard, they decided to reverse the contempt finding rather than require a new hearing given the context of his other convictions. Lastly, it was determined that some of the judgment documents contained errors regarding sentences, which the court directed to be corrected. Overall, the court upheld the significant portions of Padillow's convictions while addressing some procedural errors related to his contempt citation and record-keeping in the judgments.

Continue ReadingF-2014-22

F-2005-620

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-620, Ryan Anthony Van Winkle appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and forcible oral sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon but affirmed the conviction for forcible oral sodomy. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the assault conviction. The case began when Van Winkle was tried by a jury and found guilty of two serious crimes. The jury decided that he should spend five years in prison for the assault and eight years for the sodomy, with these sentences to be served one after the other. During the appeal, several issues were raised. One major question was whether Van Winkle could be punished for both crimes because they were part of the same event. Van Winkle argued that the assault was the same act that made the sodomy forcible, which means he shouldn’t be punished for both under the law. The court looked closely at the details of the case. It found that Van Winkle had threatened the victim with a knife and made her agree to the sodomy because she feared for her safety. They decided that the assault with the knife was not a separate crime from the sodomy since they were tied closely together in this incident. Because of this, the court reversed the conviction for the assault, ordering that charge to be dismissed. While addressing the other arguments made by Van Winkle in his appeal, such as claims about not having a fair trial, the court decided these didn’t require changes since they were mainly related to the assault conviction. In summary, the court kept the conviction for forcible oral sodomy but did not allow the assault charge to stand due to how closely related the two acts were. One judge disagreed with the decision to reverse the assault conviction, believing that both crimes were deserving of punishment.

Continue ReadingF-2005-620

F 2000-1543

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-1543, James Rickey Ezell, III appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, Resisting an Officer, and Public Drunk. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Resisting an Officer and Public Drunk but modified the sentence for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs from seventy years to forty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Ezell was convicted after a jury trial where he faced three charges. The jury decided on tough punishments, including a long 70-year sentence for the drug charge. Ezell argued that his arrest was illegal and that various legal mistakes were made during the trial, including issues with how the jury was selected and his lawyer's performance. The court reviewed these points carefully. They found that Ezell's arrest was legal and that the jury selection did not violate his rights. The law under which he was charged for drug trafficking was also upheld as valid. However, the court agreed that his defense lawyer didn't do enough to investigate previous convictions that were used against Ezell during sentencing. Because of this lack of investigation, the court reduced his long sentence for drug trafficking but kept the other convictions intact. In the end, Ezell's hard punishment for drug trafficking was changed, but he still faced serious time for his actions.

Continue ReadingF 2000-1543