Mitigation Archives - OCCA Opinions

RE-2019-19

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 30, 2020
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-19, Daniel Lee Hart appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that revoking his suspended sentence without him being present was a violation of his right to due process, and therefore, the revocation was reversed. One judge dissented. Daniel Lee Hart originally pleaded guilty in 2009 to trying to manufacture a controlled substance. He was given a 20-year sentence, with 12 years of that being suspended, meaning he didn't have to serve that part of the time as long as he followed certain rules. One of those rules was that he had to stay clean from drugs and check in regularly with his probation officer. In 2017, the state said that Hart had broken the rules. They said he had used drugs, didn’t show up for meetings with his probation officer in both Oklahoma and Kansas, didn’t register as a drug offender in Kansas, didn’t pay fees for his probation, and hadn’t completed his GED as he was supposed to. Hart later agreed to these claims but was able to be released for drug treatment for a few months before being sentenced. When the time came for his sentencing, Hart did not show up. Because he was absent, the court revoked the suspended part of his sentence completely. This meant he would have to serve the full 20 years instead of just the 8 years that he had left to serve. Hart appealed this decision, saying it was unfair for the court to make such a serious decision without him being there. The court looked at whether Hart's absence affected his right to defend himself. They said that everyone has the right to be present when decisions are made about their punishment. The court noted that Hart had not willingly chosen to skip the sentencing and that his absence could have greatly impacted the outcome. Because of these reasons, the court said Hart deserved a new hearing where he could be present to possibly explain why he wasn’t there and defend himself more fully. The final decision was to send the case back for another hearing. They wanted to make sure Hart had a fair chance to be present when the consequences of his actions were discussed again. In summary, because Hart was missing during a very important hearing, the court agreed that this was a mistake. They reversed the earlier decision and ordered a new hearing where he could be present.

RE-2017-484

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JERMAINE THRASH,** Appellant, **VS** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2017-484** **Filed April 4, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Jermaine Thrash, appeals from the revocation of his ten-year suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2005-4341 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, by the Honorable Michelle D. McElwee, District Judge. On October 11, 2005, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 - Rape in the First Degree; and Count 2 - Forcible Oral Sodomy. He was sentenced to fifteen years for each count with the first five years to be served and the remaining ten years suspended, with the sentences running concurrently. On September 29, 2015, the State filed an application to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence, alleging multiple violations of probation: testing positive for illegal drugs, failure to pay supervision fees, failure to participate in a sex offender treatment program, and possession of pornographic material. Appellant waived the twenty-day hearing requirement, and the hearings were subsequently continued several times to allow him to comply with probation requirements. The revocation hearing took place on May 1, 2017, before Judge McElwee. The State's witness, Megan Hicks, Appellant's probation officer, testified about Appellant's consistent failures to complete his probation requirements. She noted his non-participation in court-ordered sex offender treatment and multiple positive drug tests, including methamphetamines and cocaine, spanning over several months between 2015 and 2017. Notably, Appellant admitted to using drugs even shortly before the hearing. Appellant offered mitigation, arguing that he used drugs to cope with his circumstances as a convicted felon and sex offender. However, the court found that his continued drug use and failure to adhere to his probation terms constituted substantial violations. On appeal, Appellant asserts that his violations were merely technical and therefore do not justify the full revocation of his sentence. However, the ruling emphasizes that continued drug use while on probation is not merely a technical violation. The court noted that Appellant had numerous opportunities to comply with the probation requirements, and the trial judge's discretion in revoking the suspended sentence was upheld. **DECISION:** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's ten-year suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2005-4341 is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** **FOR APPELLANT:** Kenda H. McIntosh Andrea Digilio Miller Oklahoma County Public Defender **FOR THE STATE:** Merydith Easter Mike Hunter Oklahoma County District Attorney Jennifer Miller Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J., LUMPKIN, J., HUDSON, J., ROWLAND, J. [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2017-484_1734711166.pdf)

M-2016-596

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 8, 2017
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2016-596, Lyndol Keith Nunley appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. The case began with a non-jury trial in which Nunley was found guilty of committing domestic abuse against someone he knew. The judge sentenced Nunley to pay a fine and to spend time in county jail. Initially, he was required to serve his jail time day for day, meaning he would serve the full year without any reductions. However, this requirement was later changed. Nunley appealed for three main reasons. First, he claimed his lawyer did not do a good job because there was no record of what happened during the trial, which made it hard for him to appeal. The court explained that to prove a lawyer was ineffective, a person must show how this caused them harm. Since Nunley did not give enough proof or show that any errors happened during the trial, his claim was not accepted. Second, Nunley argued that his sentence was too harsh. He believed the day for day term made his punishment excessive. However, since that requirement was removed after he filed his appeal, this argument was no longer valid. Lastly, Nunley pointed out that he received the maximum penalty allowed by law. The court noted that while it did impose the maximum jail time, his fine was much lower than what he could have received. The judges decided that Nunley did not show that his sentence was shocking or unfair, so they rejected his request to change it. In the end, the judges upheld the decision made in the lower court, meaning Nunley had to serve his sentence as it was decided.

RE-2007-850

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2008
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2007-850, Barbara Denise Sanders appealed her conviction for grand larceny and false declaration of ownership, as well as three counts of bail jumping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence for the grand larceny charge, but reversed the revocation of her bail jumping sentences, which means those were dismissed. One judge dissented. Barbara Sanders had pleaded guilty to her charges and received several sentences that were mostly suspended, meaning she wouldn't have to serve time if she followed certain rules. However, she did not follow these rules, which included not paying fees, failing to report to her probation officer, and leaving Oklahoma without permission. Because of these issues, the state tried to revoke her suspended sentences. At a hearing, Barbara admitted to the problems but argued the state had not acted quickly enough to bring her back to court for these issues. The judge did not agree with her and decided to revoke her sentences. On appeal, Barbara claimed that the state had not been diligent in prosecuting her case, and she also pointed out mistakes in the court's records. The court agreed that certain parts of her previous sentences had not been revoked properly and decided that the state had acted too late in one of her cases, which resulted in those charges being dismissed. In the end, the court kept the revocation for the grand larceny charge but said the revocation for the bail jumping charges was invalid because the state did not follow the rules in time.

RE-2005-1032

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 26, 2006
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2005-1032, Natalie Blades appealed her conviction for revocation of her suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentences but remanded the case to ensure that the sentences would run concurrently instead of consecutively. One member of the court dissented.