In OCCA case No. C-2021-218, the petitioner appealed her conviction for outraging public decency and violation of a protective order. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the appeal. The court agreed that her due process rights were violated when the district court denied her motions to withdraw her pleas while she was absent from the hearing. No one dissented.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JODY LYNN BAILEY,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. RE-2019-80** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Appellant Jody Lynn Bailey appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2016-2879. On February 1, 2017, Appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas to four counts of Identity Theft (21 O.S.Supp.2011, § 1533.1) and two counts of Using a Computer with the Intent to Defraud (21 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1953(A)(2)). He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for fifteen years on each count with all but the first four years suspended. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. On November 1, 2018, the State filed an application to revoke the suspended sentences, alleging Appellant committed the new crime of robbery. A hearing on the application was held on January 22, 2019, before the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge. Judge Elliott granted the State's application and revoked Appellant's suspended sentences in full. On appeal, Appellant asserts the revocation was excessive. We disagree. **ANALYSIS** At the hearing where the State seeks revocation of a suspended sentence, the court must determine whether the suspended portion of the sentence should be executed based on whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated. A violation need be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, a trial court's decision to revoke a suspended sentence should not be overturned unless there is an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when there is an unreasonable or arbitrary action taken without proper consideration of the facts and law, or a clearly erroneous conclusion that goes against the logic and effect of the evidence presented. In this case, we find no abuse of discretion in Judge Elliott's decision to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences. The determination of witness credibility and the weight given to their testimony is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the trier of fact. Therefore, Judge Elliott's decision to revoke the suspended sentences has not been established as an abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended judgments and sentences in Case No. CF-2016-2879 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** **THOMAS P. HURLEY** ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE 611 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **HALLIE BOVOS** ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE 400 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **DAN POND** ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE 505 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR STATE **MIKE HUNTER** OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL **CAROLINE HUNT** ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21st STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** **LEVIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** **ROWLAND, J.: Concur** --- For further information, you may download the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2019-80_1734335833.pdf).
In OCCA case No. RE-2020-398, Kenneth Joe Norton appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but ordered the trial court to modify the term executed on one charge to one year. One judge dissented. Norton was charged with two crimes, Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Larceny of Merchandise, and he pleaded no contest in both cases. He was sentenced to ten years in prison, but part of that sentence was suspended as long as he completed a program. Later, the State claimed he broke the terms of his suspended sentence by getting into more trouble, which led to a court hearing. Norton argued that the sentence that was given to him was too long. He believed that the old law allowed a shorter sentence. The court looked at his claims and noted that, since the law changed after he was convicted, he should only serve one year on the larceny charge. This part of his appeal was accepted. Norton also tried to argue that some of the evidence during his revocation hearing should not have been allowed because it was obtained without proper procedures. He claimed that he had not been warned about his rights when he made a statement that led to his arrest. The court explained that during a revocation hearing, the same protections as a criminal trial do not apply. Therefore, the evidence was allowed. Moreover, he claimed his lawyer did not do a good job because they did not raise certain points about his case. However, since one of his claims was accepted, the court decided that it did not matter if the lawyer made mistakes because his issue was already resolved. In conclusion, the court allowed some changes to the sentence but maintained that his revocation was valid. The court focused on the rules for reviewing revocation cases and kept Norton accountable for his actions that led to the revocation of his suspended sentences.
In OCCA case No. F-2019-496, Patrick Wayne Olive appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, Speeding in a Posted Zone, and Possession of Contraband in a Penal Institution. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate Olive's convictions and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Olive was convicted in the District Court of Muskogee County on three charges and sentenced to thirty-two years for drug trafficking, along with fines and jail time for the other charges. Olive argued that the court did not have the right to prosecute him because he is an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation and the crimes took place within the boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation. The OCCA reviewed Olive's claims and found that he indeed had Indian heritage and was a registered member of the Cherokee Nation at the time of the offenses. They confirmed that the crimes occurred within the Creek Reservation. The court's decision relied heavily on a previous Supreme Court case called McGirt v. Oklahoma, which determined that Oklahoma lacks jurisdiction over crimes committed by Native Americans in certain areas recognized as reservations. Because of this ruling, the OCCA concluded that the Muskogee County District Court did not have the authority to prosecute Olive. After considering all the evidence and arguments, the court vacated Olive's judgment and sentence and directed the lower court to dismiss the charges against him. This meant that Olive's criminal convictions were erased, and he would not serve the sentences that had been handed down.
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.
In OCCA case No. C-2019-853, the petitioner appealed his conviction for first degree murder and larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case involved a woman who entered a guilty plea for two crimes: first degree murder and larceny of merchandise. She was sentenced to life in prison for the murder and thirty days for the larceny, with both sentences running at the same time. Later, she wanted to change her guilty plea and filed a motion to withdraw it. During the appeal, one major issue raised was whether the State of Oklahoma had the right to prosecute her. The woman argued that the state didn’t have jurisdiction because of her status as a member of a federally recognized tribe and the nature of the crime being committed within the reservation boundaries. The court looked at a recent Supreme Court decision, McGirt v. Oklahoma, where it was determined that certain lands in Oklahoma are still recognized as Native American reservations. The court agreed with the petitioner about the jurisdiction issue. Both the petitioner and the state agreed on certain facts regarding her tribal membership and the location of the crime. Since the court found that the state did not have the right to prosecute the petitioner, it decided to vacate the earlier judgment and sentence. The decision meant that the petitioner would not face charges in state court but rather would need to be prosecuted in federal court because of her tribal affiliation and the location of the crime committed. This ruling highlighted the importance of understanding jurisdiction, especially when it involves Native American rights and lands.
In OCCA case No. C-2019-263, Floyd Joseph Ball, Jr. appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree and Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have the right to prosecute Ball because he is considered an Indian under federal law, and the crimes occurred in Indian Country. The judgment and sentence were reversed, and the case was remanded to the District Court with orders to dismiss it. One judge dissented from this decision.
In OCCA case No. RE-2019-522, Leslie Ford appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentences in both cases but also instructed the lower court to correct a written order error regarding the duration of the revocation. One member of the court dissented. Leslie Ford had previously been sentenced in two cases for stalking, with each sentence being five years long but suspended, meaning he would not have to go to prison if he followed certain rules. However, he was accused of breaking these rules. The state said he didn’t pay the required fees, didn’t go to treatment for domestic abusers, drank alcohol, and even got in trouble for more offenses. At a hearing, the judge found that Leslie did indeed break the rules, leading to the full revocation of his sentences. Leslie then appealed the decision, bringing up several reasons why he thought the revocation was unfair. He argued about his mental fitness during the process and claimed there were time limit violations concerning the hearings. The court explained that they could only focus on whether the revocation was valid and that the evidence showed he broke the rules. They also found that a confusion on how long he was sentenced was a mistake, which they ordered to be fixed. Overall, Leslie did not manage to successfully argue for the reversal of his revocation, except for the correction regarding the error in the time of imprisonment mentioned in the written order.
In OCCA case No. S-2019-242, the State of Oklahoma appealed Wesley Warren Peritt Weaver, II's conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child Under 12. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that denied the State's request to introduce evidence of the defendant's prior sexual offenses as propensity evidence. One judge dissented. This case started on January 5, 2017, when the defendant, Weaver, was charged with sexually abusing his daughter, A.W., from 2011 to 2016. During a preliminary hearing, A.W. claimed that her father abused her and shared this information with her mother. The case involved testimonies from both A.W.'s mother and a forensic interviewer who assessed A.W. The State later sought to present evidence of previous sexual offenses allegedly committed by Weaver against another child, A.A., to demonstrate a pattern of behavior. A.A. testified that Weaver had molested her several years earlier. However, during a hearing, the trial court decided not to allow this evidence, stating that its probative value was less than the potential for unfair prejudice against Weaver. The State of Oklahoma appealed this ruling. They argued that the trial court made an error in not permitting the sexual propensity evidence, which could provide context for Weaver's behavior in the current case. The appellate court looked closely at the details of the case and the rules surrounding the admissibility of such evidence. Ultimately, the appellate court ruled to affirm the trial court's decision, meaning that the prior offense evidence would not be allowed during the trial against Weaver. The court concluded that the trial court's decision was reasonable and did not abuse its discretion. They found solid reasoning in the trial court's assessment of the evidence's relevance versus its potential negative impact on the jury's perception. One judge disagreed with the majority opinion, believing that the trial court had not fully considered the nuances of the sexual propensity laws and had conflated different types of evidentiary standards. This dissenting opinion emphasized the importance of acknowledging the differences between types of evidence when it comes to sexual offenses. In short, the case involved serious allegations against Weaver regarding his daughter, and while the State attempted to build a strong case by including prior incidents, the court ultimately felt that allowing such evidence would not be appropriate during the trial.
This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the appeal of Joseph Eugene Dean. He was convicted in Muskogee County District Court for endangering others while eluding or attempting to elude a police officer after having two or more prior felonies. The jury sentenced him to twenty years in prison and a $2,500 fine. Although he was acquitted of possessing a stolen vehicle, Dean appealed the decision on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he argued his attorney failed to request a cautionary instruction regarding eyewitness identification. The court considered the appeal but found Dean's argument lacked relevant authority or sufficient legal backing. As a result, they deemed the issue forfeited for appellate review in compliance with court rules. Furthermore, the court addressed the merits of the claim, applying the Strickland v. Washington standard. This requires showing both deficient performance by counsel and resulting prejudice to the defense. The court found the cautionary instruction unnecessary due to the reliability of the eyewitness identification in the case and determined the counsel's actions did not constitute ineffective assistance. Consequently, the court affirmed Dean's conviction and sentence.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SHANNON SHEREE JOHNSON,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-1004** **FILED FEB 13, 2020** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** On April 18, 2017, Appellant Shannon Sheree Johnson entered a plea of guilty in Oklahoma County District Case No. CF-2015-8771. The trial court delayed her sentencing in this case and suspended the probation requirements for her prior cases—CF-2013-2846, CF-2014-1596, and CM-2015-1832—pending successful completion of the Oklahoma County Mental Health Court program. According to the plea agreement, if Appellant did not successfully complete the Mental Health Court, the trial court would revoke her suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2013-2846 and CF-2014-1596, convert her deferred sentences to convictions with a one-year prison sentence in Case No. CM-2015-1832, and impose concurrent ten-year sentences for Counts 1 and 2 in Case No. CF-2015-8771. The State filed a motion to terminate Appellant’s participation in the Mental Health Court, alleging her non-compliance with the program, including failure to follow court rules, lack of progress, unauthorized departure from inpatient treatment, and not graduating from treatment. After a hearing, Special Judge Geary Walke terminated her participation in Mental Health Court and sentenced her in accordance with her plea agreement. Appellant contends that the termination was an abuse of discretion, arguing that the judge should have considered intermediate sanctions before imposing the sentences. She cites her period of sobriety prior to the hearing as a reason for less severe punishment options. However, evidence presented at the hearing indicated that Appellant had consistently missed meetings, court appearances, and drug tests, and had not made adequate efforts to complete her treatment. Appellant's counsel argues that Judge Walke should have recognized relapses as part of the rehabilitation process under 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 472(F). This section allows for discretion in determining whether conduct justifies revocation of a participant from the program. The record does not support Appellant's position that Judge Walke acted unreasonably or arbitrarily in the face of substantial evidence demonstrating her failure to comply with the program. As Appellant has not shown that the trial court's decision was contrary to law or the facts of the case, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The termination of Appellant's participation in the Mental Health Court program is AFFIRMED. The mandate is ordered to be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES** **ON APPEAL** Melissa French, Counsel for Defendant Andrea Digilio Miller, Counsel for Appellant Heather Coyle, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Oklahoma Attorney General Tessa Henry, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR
**State of Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Summary Opinion** **Case Title:** M.C.T. v. The State of Oklahoma **Case Number:** J-2019-618 **Filed:** February 6, 2020 **Judges:** Kuehn, Vice Presiding Judge; Lewis, Presiding Judge (specially concurring); Lumpkin, J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. **Background:** M.C.T. appeals the certification decision by Special Judge Scott Brockman in Cleveland County District Court Case No. CF-2019-470, where M.C.T. was certified for trial as an adult for crimes including Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Unlawful Use of a Computer. The case was expedited under the Accelerated Docket of the Court. **Legal Issues:** The core issue revolves around statutory interpretation regarding the certification of juveniles as adults under Oklahoma law, specifically focusing on 10A O.S.2018 § 2-5-204(H)(1). **Findings:** 1. **Statutory Interpretation:** The Court reviewed the statute, noting that once adjudicated as an adult, a youthful offender retains that status in subsequent criminal proceedings, as mandated by the law. M.C.T.'s prior stipulation to adult status in Oklahoma County was sufficient to affirm his status as an adult in Cleveland County. 2. **Precedent:** M.C.T. relied on D.J.B. v. Pritchett, but the Court distinguished this case based on its unique circumstances, emphasizing that M.C.T. had already been adjudicated as an adult prior to the Cleveland County proceeding. 3. **Judicial Efficiency:** Holding a certification hearing in Cleveland County after a prior adult conviction would be considered a waste of judicial resources, reinforcing the decision to affirm the district court's certification of M.C.T. as an adult. **Conclusion:** The Court affirmed the decision of the Cleveland County District Court to certify M.C.T. as an adult, highlighting that the statutory provisions were effectively applied in this case and that his prior plea as an adult eliminated the necessity for further certification hearings. **Decision:** The certification is AFFIRMED. The mandate is to be issued upon filing this decision. **Counsel:** - **For Appellant:** M. Karla Tankut, Jasmine Johnson (Indigent Defense System) - **For Appellee:** Kristi Johnson, Suanne Carlson (Assistant District Attorneys) **Special Concurrence:** Judge Lewis acknowledged the detailed writing of the opinion and expressed concern regarding the trial counsel's understanding of the consequences of simultaneous cases in different counties. Though counsel's actions were questionable, they did not alter the outcome, given M.C.T.'s unsuitability for youthful offender status. **Download PDF:** [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-618_1734430249.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)
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** S.M.W.B., Appellant, v. No. J-2019-578 THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee. **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAN - 2 2020** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant was charged as a youthful offender in Caddo County District Court Case No. YO-2019-1 on February 13, 2019, with five counts of Lewd or Indecent Acts to Child Under 12. On March 28, 2019, the State filed a Motion to Impose an Adult Sentence pursuant to 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-208. On April 3, 2019, Appellant filed a Motion for Certification to the Juvenile Justice System pursuant to 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-206. Following a hearing on these motions, Honorable David Stephens, Special Judge, denied Appellant's motion and granted the State's motion. From this order, Appellant appeals, raising the following issues: 1. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING CERTIFICATION OF S.M.W.B. AS A JUVENILE; and 2. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY GRANTING APPELLEE'S MOTION TO CERTIFY AS AN ADULT. Pursuant to Rule 11.2(A), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), this appeal was automatically assigned to the accelerated docket of this Court. Oral argument was held on November 21, 2019. After a review of the record and the arguments presented, we find no merit to the propositions of error raised by Appellant. The key issue before this Court is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for certification as a juvenile and granting the State's motion to impose adult sentencing. An abuse of discretion is defined as a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment that contradicts the logic and effect of the facts. The trial court's decision must be supported by the evidence presented, and our review is limited to the record. Judge Stephens appropriately considered the criteria mandated by Sections 2-5-206 and 2-5-208 of Title 10A, leading us to conclude that the record supports his decision. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Caddo County denying Appellant's motion for certification as a juvenile and granting the State’s motion for imposition of adult sentencing is **AFFIRMED**. The State's motion to file a properly verified response brief is **GRANTED**, and the Amended Response to Application for Accelerated Docket is ordered to be **FILED** by the Clerk of this Court. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE is **ORDERED** issued upon the filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CADDO COUNTY, THE HONORABLE DAVID STEPHENS, SPECIAL JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** **MARK OSBY** P.O. BOX 850126 YUKON, OK 73085 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** **ANDREW BENEDICT** CADDO CO. ASST. DIST. ATTY. 110 S.W. 2ND ST. ANADARKO, OK 73005 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR IN RESULTS **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-578_1734445561.pdf)
This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, addressing the appeal of Spencer Joe Cuccaro regarding his termination from the Kay County Drug Court and subsequent sentencing. ### Key Points: 1. **Case Background**: - Appellant Spencer Joe Cuccaro was placed in the Kay County Drug Court program on June 22, 2017, following a plea agreement that stipulated the conditions of his sentencing based on his performance in the program. - Cuccaro was involved in multiple cases (CF-2016-561, CF-2011-74, CF-2008-353) linked to drug offenses and was under specific probationary requirements. 2. **Allegations Against Cuccaro**: - The State filed a petition to remove Cuccaro from Drug Court, citing new criminal charges (including trafficking in illegal drugs), non-compliance with counseling requirements, and outstanding fees. - Evidence presented included testimonies from law enforcement regarding drug possession during a traffic stop and at the jail. 3. **Termination Hearing**: - At the termination hearing, evidence presented indicated that Cuccaro had violated the terms of his drug court agreement by committing new offenses and failing to meet his counseling and payment obligations. - The trial judge, David R. Bandy, found sufficient evidence to terminate Cuccaro from the Drug Court program. 4. **Appeal Propositions**: - **Proposition I**: Cuccaro claimed his no contest pleas were coerced. - **Proposition II**: He alleged the trial court failed to follow mandatory Drug Court procedures. - **Proposition III**: He contended the trial judge abused discretion in terminating him. - **Proposition IV**: He argued that the sentencing was excessive. 5. **Court's Analysis**: - The court found that Proposition I was not a suitable subject for this appeal and should be addressed in a separate certiorari appeal regarding the plea. - Proposition II also fell outside the scope of the termination appeal, which is to assess the validity of the termination order. - For Proposition III, the court upheld that the decision to terminate Cuccaro was within the judge’s discretion, consistent with the evidence of non-compliance and new criminal activity. - Proposition IV regarding sentencing was similarly ruled to be outside the appeal context, advising Cuccaro to raise such claims in the separate certiorari appeal. 6. **Decision**: - The court affirmed the termination order, emphasizing the trial judge's proper authority and the sufficiency of the evidence for termination from Drug Court. ### Conclusion: The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the District Court's order to terminate Spencer Joe Cuccaro from Drug Court and advised him to pursue any excessive sentence claims separately. The decision reflects adherence to legal standards concerning plea agreements, drug court compliance, and the discretion exercised by trial judges in such matters. For more details, you can access the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1087_1734789881.pdf).
In OCCA case No. RE 2018-1288, Jose Santiago Hernandez appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and conspiracy to commit a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Hernandez had pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm and conspiracy in 2017, getting a ten-year sentence for each count, but only had to serve five years if he followed the rules set for his probation. The State accused him of perjury, claiming he lied during a court proceeding about his co-defendant's involvement in the crime. During a hearing in December 2018, the judge found enough evidence to revoke Hernandez’s suspended sentences because he did not truthfully testify. Hernandez argued that the State did not show he committed perjury, but the court explained that they only needed to prove the violation of his probation terms by presenting a greater weight of evidence. The court concluded that they had enough evidence to believe Hernandez had broken the rules. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision to revoke his suspended sentences, meaning he would have to serve the full ten years.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Filed December 12, 2019** **Conner E. Dover, Petitioner, Case No. C-2019-25** **v.** **The State of Oklahoma, Respondent.** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Conner E. Dover, Petitioner, pled guilty to Count 1, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, in violation of 47 O.S.2011, § 4-402; and Count 2, aggravated attempting to elude a police officer, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 540(A)(B), in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2018-610. The Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, accepted the plea and delayed sentencing pending Petitioner's completion of a Regimented Inmate Discipline program. Judge Elliott later sentenced Petitioner to five (5) years imprisonment for each count, to be served consecutively. Petitioner filed an application to withdraw the plea, which was denied. He now seeks a writ of certiorari, asserting the following proposition of error: The trial court abused its discretion by not allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea when the court did not intend to sentence him in accordance with the plea agreement. Certiorari review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently before a court of competent jurisdiction (Weeks v. State, 2015 OK CR 16, ¶ 11, 362 P.3d 650, 654); whether the sentence is excessive (Whitaker v. State, 2015 OK CR 1, ¶ 9, 341 P.3d 87, 90); whether counsel was constitutionally effective (Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, ¶ 27, 932 P.2d 22, 31); and whether the State has the authority to prosecute the defendant at all (Weeks, 2015 OK CR 16, ¶ 12, 362 P.3d at 654). A valid plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant (North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S. Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)). We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea for an abuse of discretion (Carpenter v. State, 1996 OK CR 56, ¶ 40, 929 P.2d 988, 998), unless it involves a question of statutory or constitutional interpretation, which we review de novo (Weeks, 2015 OK CR 16, ¶ 16, 362 P.3d at 654). We find that Petitioner's plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. Petitioner’s dissatisfaction with the sentences he received does not provide sufficient grounds for withdrawal of a plea (Lozoya, 1996 OK CR 55, ¶ 44, 932 P.2d at 34; Estell v. State, 1988 OK CR 287, ¶ 7, 766 P.2d 1380, 1383). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Petitioner's motion to withdraw the plea. No relief is warranted. **DECISION** The petition for the writ of certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. **APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** ROBIN BRUNO ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER DANNY WHITE 320 ROBERT S. KERR # 611 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT (PLEA & SENTENCING) **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** THOMAS P. HURLEY 320 ROBERT S. KERR # 611 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 (WITHDRAWAL) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT DAN POND ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 320 ROBERT S. KERR # 505 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur in Results **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur For more details, [click here to download the PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2019-25_1733763771.pdf).
**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **ANTWOIN LEE WALKER, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **Case No. RE-2018-645** **Summary Opinion** **File Date: December 12, 2019** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Antwoin Lee Walker appeals the full revocation of his six-year suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2015-675 by District Judge Paul Hesse of the Canadian County District Court. **Background:** On October 27, 2015, Walker pled guilty to Petit Larceny (Count 1) and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property (Count 2), resulting in a six-month county jail sentence on Count 1 and a ten-year sentence on Count 2, with four years suspended. On May 30, 2017, the State filed to revoke his suspended sentence, citing new charges including Attempt to Kill, Rape in the First Degree, and two instances of Petit Larceny, in Case No. CF-2017-445. Walker was subsequently convicted on May 10, 2018, of all counts in that case. During a hearing on June 19, 2018, which combined revocation and sentencing phases, Judge Hesse considered evidence from the jury trial and sentenced Walker to life imprisonment on Counts 1 and 2, among others. In the revocation portion, Walker’s attorney agreed to incorporate the trial evidence in assessing the probation violation. Judge Hesse found Walker had violated his probation and revoked the suspended sentence in full, ordering it to run concurrently with his sentences from Case No. CF-2017-445. **Proposition of Error:** Walker asserts the trial court erred by taking judicial notice of evidence from the prior trial. **Analysis:** The appellate court finds that there was no judicial notice taken. Walker consented to the combination of hearings and did not object to the incorporation of trial evidence into the revocation proceedings. The court notes the distinction from precedent cases, as Walker's situation involves a combined hearing rather than separate unrelated proceedings. Given that the trial court is afforded discretion in revocation matters and there was no abuse of that discretion, the court ultimately finds no reversible error. **Decision:** The order revoking Walker’s six-year suspended sentence is AFFIRMED. **Appearances:** - **For the Appellant:** Craig Corgan, Sarah MacNiven - **For the State:** Eric Epplin, Mike Hunter, Theodore M. Peeper **Opinion by:** KUEHN, V.P.J. **Concurred by:** LEWIS, P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. **Note:** For the full opinion, see [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-645_1734427729.pdf).
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOHNNY W. WARD,** Appellant, v. **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2019-16** **FILED DEC 12 2019** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Appellant Johnny W. Ward was tried by jury and found guilty of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon (Count I) (21 O.S.2011, § 652) and Possession of a Firearm (Count II) (21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 1283), both counts After Former Conviction of A Felony, in the District Court of Muskogee County, Case No. CF-2017-1155. The jury recommended as punishment imprisonment for thirty (30) years in Count I and ten (10) years in Count II. The trial court sentenced accordingly, ordering the sentences to be served concurrently. It is from this judgment and sentence that Appellant appeals. Appellant must serve 85% of his sentence in Count I before becoming eligible for consideration for parole. 21 O.S.2011, § 13.1. **Appellant raises the following propositions of error in support of his appeal:** 1. The eyewitness identification of Appellant was based upon an overly suggestive, one-man show-up that violated Appellant's rights to due process and a fair trial. 2. The State's evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed the crimes of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony Conviction and his convictions must therefore be reversed with instructions to dismiss. 3. Appellant's sentence is excessive and should be modified. After thorough consideration of these propositions and the entire record, we have determined that under the law and the evidence no relief is warranted. **Proposition I:** Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress the in-court identification made by Ms. Davidson after an on-the-scene one person show-up. Appellant argues the pre-trial identification was unnecessarily suggestive and tainted the subsequent identification of Appellant at trial. A one man show-up is not necessarily unduly suggestive or improper. Young v. State, 2000 OK CR 17, ¶ 30, 12 P.3d 20, 34. Absent special elements of unfairness, prompt on-the-scene confrontations [between a victim and a suspect] do not entail due process violations.... Harrolle v. State, 1988 OK CR 223, ¶ 7, 763 P.2d 126, 128, quoting Russell v. United States, 408 F.2d 1280, 1284 (D.C.Cir.1969). The one person show-up in this case was not unduly suggestive or so improper as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress the identification. However, even if the show-up was unduly suggestive, the same would not automatically invalidate the subsequent in-court identification if that identification can be established as independently reliable under the totality of the circumstances. Young, 2000 OK CR 17, ¶ 31, 12 P.3d at 34. Under the circumstances of this case, we find the in-court identification reliable. As the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing into evidence the in-court identification of Appellant, this proposition of error is denied. **Proposition II:** Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. He argues the State failed to show he had anything to do with the alleged crimes. Appellant asserts that the State's evidence showed only that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, evidence showed that Appellant shot his victim in the knee and buttock as the victim begged for his life. Appellant then ran away from the scene, discarding the gun he used and a hoodie he was wearing. Reviewing Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Mitchell v. State, 2018 OK CR 24, ¶ 11, 424 P.3d 677, 682. Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is denied. **Proposition III:** Appellant argues that his sentence is excessive and should be modified. He asserts that while his sentence is technically within the range provided by law, it does not bear a direct relationship to the nature and circumstances of the offenses. However, Appellant's sentences were within the applicable statutory range (21 O.S.2011, §§ 652(A), 1284 and 51.1(C)). This Court will not modify a sentence within the statutory range unless, considering all the facts and circumstances, it shocks the conscience. Pullen v. State, 2016 OK CR 18, ¶ 16, 387 P.3d 922, 928. The evidence showed that despite having a prior robbery conviction, Appellant was in possession of a gun, which he used to shoot the victim multiple times as the victim begged for his life. Under these circumstances, the 30 year and 10 year sentences are not excessive. Therefore, modification of the sentences is not warranted and this proposition is denied. Accordingly, this appeal is denied. **DECISION** The JUDGMENT and SENTENCE is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MUSKOGEE COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE THOMAS H. ALFORD, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** BRIAN WATTS 222 N. 4TH ST. MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** NICOLLETTE BRANDT OKLA. INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **ORVIL LOGE** DISTRICT ATTORNEY TIM KING ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY MUSKOGEE CO. COURTHOUSE MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **MIKE HUNTER** ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA CAROLINE E.J. HUNT ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21ST ST. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur --- [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2019-16_1734781599.pdf)
This document is an official order from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, identifying changes made to Rule 3.5 C regarding the citation of authorities. The substantial amendments aim to standardize citation formats for legal opinions from the court and establish official guidelines for referencing these opinions, including those prior to and after the issuance of mandates. ### Key Points of the Amendment: 1. **Purpose of Amendment**: - To enhance clarity in legal citations by establishing a consistent format. 2. **Citation Format**: - Separate citation formats are provided for opinions before and after January 1, 1954. - Opinions in which mandates have issued prior to January 1, 1954, need both the official paragraph citation and Pacific Reporter citation, with additional mention of Oklahoma Criminal Reports. - For opinions issued after this date, there’s a focus on the official public domain format along with required citations to the Pacific Reporter. - New guidelines also specify citation styles for opinions issued for publication, including using the Oklahoma Bar Journal. 3. **Online Publication**: - Clarifies that opinions will be published online on the Oklahoma State Courts Network (OSCN) and will serve as the official version once mandates are issued. 4. **Citations to the United States Supreme Court**: - Clear guidelines are provided for citing U.S. Supreme Court cases with an emphasis on including pinpoint citations. 5. **Effective Date**: - The amendments become effective immediately as of the order date, December 5, 2019. ### Conclusion: This revision reflects the Court's commitment to improving legal documentation practices, ensuring legal professionals can accurately reference past cases in compliance with established standards. These changes will promote consistency in legal writing and enhance the clarity of legal references within the Oklahoma judicial system.
**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma Summary Opinion** **Appellant:** David Martinez **Appellee:** The State of Oklahoma **Case No.:** F-2018-647 **Filed:** December 5, 2019 **Presiding Judge:** Lewis **Summary:** David Martinez was convicted in a bench trial of lewd or indecent acts to a child under 16, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2015 § 1123(A)(2). The trial was held in the District Court of Beckham County under Judge Doug Haught, who sentenced Martinez to ten years in prison, with the majority of the sentence suspended after serving six years. Martinez raised several propositions of error in his appeal: 1. **Allegation of Lewd Molestation without Corroboration:** - Martinez claimed his due process rights were violated because M.C.'s testimony was unbelievable and lacked corroboration. The court upheld that the general rule allows conviction based on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix if it is clear and unambiguous. The court found M.C.'s testimony sufficient and denied this proposition. 2. **Right to a Certified Interpreter:** - Martinez, who does not speak English, argued he was denied a certified interpreter. The court noted that the presumption of regularity in legal proceedings applies, and without evidence that interpretation was inaccurate or that it affected the trial’s outcome, this claim was denied. 3. **Hearsay Evidence:** - The court reviewed evidence of text messages sent by the victim to her mother as hearsay. Since the trial was a bench trial, the court presumed only competent evidence was considered, and any objection raised post-trial was not preserved for appeal. This proposition was denied. 4. **Preliminary Hearing Evidence:** - Martinez contended that the prosecution failed to show all elements of the crime during the preliminary hearing. The court pointed out that the age element was established during trial and noted the waiver of any preliminary hearing errors not related to jurisdiction. This proposition was denied. **Decision:** The judgment and sentence were affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma. **Opinion by:** Lewis, P.J. **Concurrences by:** Kuehn, V.P.J.; Lumpkin, J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. *For the complete opinion, you can download the PDF [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-647_1735224408.pdf).*
In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, the case reviewed is that of Pearlena Hall, who appealed the decision of the district court following her termination from the mental-health court program. On May 4, 2017, Hall entered guilty pleas in two cases related to larceny, obstructing an officer, and possession of drug paraphernalia. After entering the mental-health court program, she faced a motion to terminate her participation due to allegations of committing a new crime and various rule violations. The court reviewed the appeal for any abuse of discretion regarding the termination. The decision to terminate a defendant from a mental-health court must uphold minimum due process standards, which includes proper notice of violations, an opportunity to be heard, and the ability to confront witnesses. Hall argued that her due process rights were violated because the State did not file a new application for removal and thus did not provide adequate notice about the allegations against her. However, the court found that Hall was aware of the allegations, which she confessed to during the proceedings. The judge provided opportunities for her to comply with program requirements, and a delay in sentencing that favored Hall did not equate to a due process violation. The court highlighted that she could not complain about delays she acquiesced to during the processes. Ultimately, the court affirmed Hall's termination from the mental-health court, ruling that her procedural rights had been sufficiently met. Thus, her appeal was denied, and the termination order was upheld. The court's opinion was delivered by Judge Rowland, with Judges Lewis, Kuehn, Lumpkin, and Hudson concurring with the decision. The mandate was ordered as per Oklahoma Court rules, and the relevant parties were identified for representation. For further reference, you can view the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1187_1734785215.pdf).
**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case Summary: Trever Wayne Ford v. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No:** F-2018-915 **Filed:** October 13, 2019 **Summary:** Trever Wayne Ford was convicted of Assault and Battery by Means and Force Likely to Produce Death under 21 O.S.2011, § 652(C) in the District Court of Pontotoc County, Case No. CF-2017-20. Judge C. Steven Kessinger sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison. Ford appealed, arguing that his sentence was excessive. **Key Points:** 1. **Appellant's Argument**: Ford contends that his sentence is too harsh given the conflicting evidence about the incident, his injuries (possibly a concussion), lack of prior convictions, employment status, family responsibilities, and character in relation to this crime. 2. **Court’s Response**: The court reviewed the case and noted that the trial court had considered all the relevant information when imposing the sentence. The evidence indicated that Ford engaged in violent actions that caused severe injury to the victim. 3. **Conclusion**: The appellate court found that Ford's twenty-five-year sentence was within the statutory range and not excessive given the circumstances described. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence. **Decision**: The judgment and sentence from the District Court of Pontotoc County are upheld. **Counsel Information**: - **For Appellant**: Shelley Levisay, Ricki J. Walterscheid, Carlos Henry. - **For Appellee**: Mike Hunter (Attorney General), Keeley L. Miller (Assistant Attorney General), Tara Portillo (Assistant District Attorney). **Judges**: Opinion delivered by Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn; Judges Lewis, Lumpkin, Hudson, and Rowland concurred. For the full decision, please refer to the provided [PDF link](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-915_1735118232.pdf).
In OCCA case No. F-2018-341, Anthony Kejuan Day appealed his conviction for several charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence against him. One judge dissented. Mr. Day was convicted of assault and battery on a police officer, conspiracy to cause violence, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, obstructing an officer, and resisting an officer. The trial court sentenced him to a total of twenty-five years for the first charge, with additional long sentences for the others. Mr. Day argued that the trial court made several mistakes. He claimed that the prosecution unfairly excluded African-American jurors, that changes to the charges against him were wrong, that he was punished too harshly for similar actions, and that his sentences should not have run one after the other but rather together. The court examined each argument. For the claim about jurors, it decided that the trial court acted properly and that there was no discrimination. Regarding the changes to the charges, the court found no clear mistakes that would have harmed Mr. Day's case. The court also rejected his argument about facing double punishment for similar offenses. Finally, it determined that the trial court was correct in allowing the sentences to be served consecutively. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision of the trial court and affirmed Mr. Day's convictions and sentences.
In OCCA case No. F 2018-0812, Cesar Jurado appealed his conviction for various drug-related offenses and weapon possession. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to accelerate Jurado's deferred sentences; he had previously entered guilty pleas to several felony charges. The State had applied to accelerate his deferred sentences based on new serious crimes he was alleged to have committed. Jurado argued that the evidence used to support this decision was based on unreliable testimony from a witness who did not appear in person. He claimed this was an abuse of discretion. The court found that the trial court acted within its rights and that there was enough evidence to support the acceleration of Jurado's sentences. It concluded that Jurado did not prove that there was any improper action taken by the trial court. Therefore, his appeal was denied, and the acceleration of his sentences was upheld. One justice dissented from this opinion.