Malicious Injury to Property

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

RE-2018-630

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CHRISTOPHER CHARLES DOWNUM,** **Appellant,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-630** **FILED JUN 20 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** On July 14, 2017, Appellant Downum, represented by counsel, entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of Malicious Injury to Property in McIntosh County Case No. CM-2017-317. Downum was sentenced to one (1) year in the McIntosh County jail, all suspended, subject to terms and conditions of probation. On October 18, 2017, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Downum's suspended sentence alleging he committed the new offenses of Public Intoxication and Obstructing An Officer in McIntosh County Case No. CM-2017-457. The District Court of McIntosh County, presided over by the Honorable James D. Bland, held a combined revocation hearing and preliminary hearing on May 31, 2017, and revoked ten (10) days of Downum's suspended sentence in Case No. CM-2017-317. From this Judgment and Sentence, Downum appeals with the following propositions of error: 1. The trial court used the wrong legal standard in revoking Downum's suspended sentence. 2. The evidence was insufficient to show that Downum committed the acts of public intoxication and obstructing an officer. 3. The sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive. The revocation of Downum's suspended sentence is **AFFIRMED**. The scope of review in a revocation appeal is limited to the validity of the revocation order executing the previously imposed sentence. The Court examines the basis for the factual determination and considers whether the court abused its discretion. Downum agues in Proposition I that Judge Bland used the wrong standard in revoking his suspended sentence by confusing the burden of proof for revoking a suspended sentence with that required for a preliminary hearing. This concern relates to Proposition II, where Downum claims there was insufficient evidence even if the appropriate standard had been applied. However, alleged violations of conditions of a suspended sentence need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court finds no evidence in the appeal record supporting Downum's claim that Judge Bland did not apply the correct standard. The record shows competent evidence was presented at the revocation hearing, allowing the court to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Downum violated his probation terms. Consequently, Propositions I and II are denied. In Proposition III, Downum argues that the ten-day revocation is excessive, citing no supporting authority. The Court has established that violation of any condition of probation can justify revocation of a suspended sentence. No abuse of discretion is found in Judge Bland's decision to revoke ten days of Downum's suspended sentence. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of McIntosh County revoking ten (10) days of Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CM-2017-317 is **AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MCINTOSH COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE JAMES D. BLAND, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** WARREN GOTCHER GOTCHER & BEAVER 323 E. CARL ALBERT PKWY. P.O. BOX 160 MCALESTER, OK 74502 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** WARREN GOTCHER GOTCHER & BEAVER 323 E. CARL ALBERT PKWY. P.O. BOX 160 MCALESTER, OK 74502 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT GREGORY R. STIDHAM ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY MCINTOSH COUNTY 110 NORTH FIRST STREET EUFAULA, OK 74432 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE MIKE HUNTER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA THEODORE M. PEEPER ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21ST STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** **[END OF DOCUMENT]** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-630_1734428440.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-630

RE 2016-1019

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2016-1019, Jerry Lynn Clemons appealed his conviction for Home Repair Fraud and Robbery By Force of Fear. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but remanded the case to the District Court to modify its revocation orders to ensure that the sentences are served concurrently. One judge dissented. Clemons had pleaded guilty to several charges and was given suspended sentences with specific rules to follow. However, he later failed to report to his probation officer and changed his address without notifying them, which led the State to apply for the revocation of his suspended sentences. During the revocation hearing, the judge revoked Clemons' suspended sentences. Clemons appealed the revocation, arguing that he did not receive proper notice of the allegations against him, the State did not provide enough evidence for revocation, and that he was sentenced incorrectly for his misdemeanor charge. The court found that the State did indeed provide enough evidence to revoke the sentences and noted that some charges had already been corrected in an amended ruling regarding the length of his sentence for the misdemeanor. Moreover, the court determined that the revocation orders did not align with the original sentence where counts were meant to be served concurrently. Therefore, they directed the District Court to correct this mistake. In conclusion, while the revocation of Clemons' suspended sentences was largely upheld, the court required modifications to ensure that his sentences would run concurrently as originally intended. This led to a decision that balanced the need for imposed penalties with the requirement for proper procedure.

Continue ReadingRE 2016-1019

RE-2016-929

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2016-1019, the appellant appealed his conviction for home repair fraud and robbery by force of fear. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but required the district court to modify its orders to reflect that the sentences should run concurrently. One judge dissented. Jerry Lynn Clemons pleaded guilty to home repair fraud and robbery in Muskogee County. He was given suspended sentences, meaning he wouldn't go to jail if he followed certain rules, which included reporting to a probation officer and paying fines. However, the state said Clemons didn't follow these rules by not reporting and changing his address without telling his probation officer. This led to a revocation hearing where the judge decided to enforce his suspended sentences. Clemons argued that he wasn't properly informed about the reasons for revoking his sentence. He also raised concerns about not being given enough evidence of his alleged failures, and about a mistake in the length of his punishment for the misdemeanor charge. Ultimately, some of his arguments were accepted, especially regarding sentencing errors, but the court found enough evidence to support the revocation of his sentence based on his failure to report and violating other conditions. The court directed that the modified orders clarify that the sentences were to be served at the same time instead of one after the other. Clemons also claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly, which might have affected his defense. However, the court concluded that Clemons did not prove this claim sufficiently. In summary, while the court agreed to fix some mistakes in his sentencing, it still upheld the decision to revoke his suspended sentences due to the established violations.

Continue ReadingRE-2016-929

J-2010-653

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2010-653, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including arson and assault on a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the juvenile court's order certifying the appellant as an adult. Two justices dissented. The appellant, who was around seventeen-and-a-half years old at the time of the incidents, faced serious charges, including arson and endangering human life. The state wanted to treat him as an adult, and a judge agreed to this on June 25, 2010. However, the appellant's defense argued that the state did not provide clear and convincing evidence to support this decision. During the appeal, the court examined whether the evidence justified treating the appellant as an adult. The judges noted that the law allows for such decisions only in exceptional cases, where a child is deemed not able to benefit from rehabilitation provided in juvenile programs. The appellant's side argued that he was receptive to treatment, as shown by his actions post-incident. He was receiving proper medical treatment after struggling with prescription medication and alcohol use, and he was advancing in his rehabilitation efforts. The justices found that the evidence presented showed the appellant was amenable to treatment and could be rehabilitated if kept within the juvenile system. The court emphasized that just because the acts committed were serious does not mean the child should be treated as an adult without proper evidence. Ultimately, the appeal resulted in the reversal of the certification order, meaning the appellant should not be treated as an adult and should be retained in the juvenile system. The dissenting opinions raised concerns about the risks of letting the appellant remain a juvenile, suggesting that not treating him as an adult could endanger the community given the serious nature of his actions. They believed that the judge's original decision should have been upheld. In conclusion, the majority opinion favored rehabilitation over punishment as an adult, highlighting the importance of the juvenile justice system's focus on the potential for reform and supervision.

Continue ReadingJ-2010-653

F-2008-824

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-824, Allen James Taylor appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including conspiracy and burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his termination from Drug Court but ordered that his sentences should be served concurrently rather than consecutively. One judge dissented. In this case, the appellant had agreed to plead guilty and was initially sentenced with his sentences suspended, meaning he would not serve time in prison right away but had to follow conditions of probation. Later, the appellant breached the terms of his probation, leading to the state applying to revoke his suspended sentences. He then participated in a Drug Court program, which was intended to help him with substance abuse issues. However, after a while, he was terminated from this program due to more violations. When he was removed from Drug Court, the court ended up ordering him to serve his sentences one after the other instead of at the same time, which was against what was originally agreed upon. The court felt that this was not right and decided that the sentences should indeed run at the same time, completing the original terms set forth at the beginning. The appellant argued that he was not correctly represented by his lawyer when he entered Drug Court and that his original guilty plea should not be valid. However, the court noted these concerns were not the focus of this specific appeal regarding the Drug Court termination. In the end, the court confirmed the appellant’s Drug Court termination but corrected how his sentences were to be served, stating they should be concurrent rather than consecutive. This concluded the key aspects of the case.

Continue ReadingF-2008-824

C-2007-1009

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2007-1009, Richardson appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery and Malicious Injury to Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Richardson was entitled to a hearing on his Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2007-1009

F-2005-963

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-963, the appellant appealed his conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court modified the conviction to felony malicious injury to property instead. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, Larry Roger Watts, was found guilty by a jury of a crime involving firing a weapon from a vehicle. The jury decided he should serve three years in prison and pay an $8,000 fine. Watts disagreed with the decision and argued several points in his appeal. First, he believed there was not enough evidence to support the charge against him. He claimed that since nobody was near where he fired the weapon, it wasn't a real drive-by shooting, which is meant to endanger people, not property. He also pointed out that the law was changed, and air guns were no longer considered weapons that could be fired from a vehicle under this specific law. Secondly, the appellant argued that the way he was arrested was not legal, meaning the evidence against him should not have been allowed in court. He also mentioned that important recordings from the police that could have helped his case were erased, which he felt was unfair. While looking at all these claims, the court decided that the original conviction for a drive-by shooting could not stand since no one was harmed during the incident. However, the court recognized that damages to property did happen, which led them to change the conviction to felony malicious injury to property. This new conviction came with a lesser punishment: two years in prison and a fine of $1,000 instead of the earlier sentence. The judges concluded that allowing the state to proceed under different theories of the law was appropriate. They determined that Watts was not surprised or prejudiced by this change. In the end, the court ruled in favor of modifying the conviction and sentence, agreeing that it was the right way to handle the case based on the evidence available. They also stated that there was no plain error regarding the prosecutor's comments or about the contention of the erased tapes. Overall, the case showed how legal decisions can evolve based on the circumstances and the interpretations of the law.

Continue ReadingF-2005-963

F-2001-313

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-01-313, *Steven Wayne Robertson* appealed his conviction for *Attempted Burglary in the First Degree* and *Assault with a Dangerous Weapon*. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to run concurrently. One judge dissented. Robertson was found guilty by a jury for two crimes. He was accused of trying to break into a house (attempted burglary) and attacking someone with a weapon (assault). The jury decided to give him a ten-year prison sentence for each crime, which would usually mean he would spend twenty years in prison, but the court later decided he would serve both sentences at the same time, totaling ten years. Robertson claimed that it was unfair to punish him twice for what he said was one event. However, the court concluded that the two charges were based on different actions and that he could be punished for both. They looked at the evidence, like a witness who saw him with an axe, showing he was dangerous. He also said he should have had the chance to argue that he only caused damage to property instead of trying to break in, but the court found that this was not needed based on the facts of the case. Finally, Robertson thought he did not get a fair trial because of some things the prosecutor said during the trial. The court agreed that there were improper comments but still decided to keep the guilty verdicts and just change the sentences so that he would serve ten years instead of twenty.

Continue ReadingF-2001-313

M-2000-115

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2000-115, the person appealed his conviction for assault and battery, assault upon a peace officer, and malicious injury to property, along with two counts of domestic abuse - assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions except for one count of domestic abuse, which was reversed with instructions to dismiss. One member of the court dissented. The case took place in the District Court of Seminole County, where the appellant was found guilty after a non-jury trial. He was sentenced to time in jail and fines for his crimes, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. During the appeal, the appellant raised two main arguments. First, he claimed that two counts of assault and battery were unfair because they stemmed from the same incident. Second, he argued there was not enough evidence to prove he intended to assault a police officer. After reviewing the case, the court agreed that the two counts of domestic abuse arose from one incident and that the state had not properly informed the appellant about these charges, so the conviction for that count was reversed. However, the court found there was enough evidence to support the other convictions. In summary, except for one count of domestic abuse that was reversed, the court upheld the other convictions.

Continue ReadingM-2000-115