Okla. Const. art. II § 20 Archives

C-2019-815

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 14, 2021
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2019-815, the petitioner appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary, Second Degree Burglary, and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and remand the case for a new hearing. One member of the court dissented. The case began when the petitioner, after entering guilty pleas for the charges, expressed a desire to withdraw those pleas. He believed he had not been properly represented by his attorney and filed a letter to withdraw his plea. A hearing was held where the petitioner appeared without his attorney. During this hearing, he claimed that he felt misled regarding the likely outcome of his plea. The petitioner argued that the hearing to withdraw his plea was unlawful because he was not given proper legal representation. He said that he didn’t effectively waive his right to counsel at that hearing and claimed there was a conflict of interest since his attorney had represented him in the original plea. The court found that there was no valid waiver of his right to counsel, meaning he didn’t fully understand the implications of representing himself. The trial court had not thoroughly questioned him about his need for counsel or his rights, leading to confusion about whether he was proceeding with an attorney or alone. The state agreed that the hearing had issues because the petitioner didn’t receive conflict-free representation. Therefore, the court ruled that the previous denial of his motion to withdraw his plea was a mistake and sent the case back for a new hearing where these issues could be properly addressed.

F-2014-22

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 9, 2015
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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but reversed a citation for direct contempt of court and vacated the associated sentence.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.

C-2011-546

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 17, 2012
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2011-546, Myron Emanuel Louie appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for the appointment of conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented. Myron Louie was originally charged with a more serious crime, but he later pleaded guilty to a lesser offense. However, after pleading guilty, he wanted to change his mind and withdraw his plea. The court sentenced him to ten years in prison, even after he expressed his desire to withdraw the plea. Louie then filed a motion to officially withdraw his guilty plea, but the court denied his request during a hearing. During the appeal, Louie claimed that his lawyer had a conflict of interest that affected how well he was represented. He argued that this made it hard for him to get fair legal help, especially during the hearing to withdraw his plea. The judges explained that a lawyer must represent their client fully and not have any conflicts that could hurt the client’s case. The court agreed that the original lawyer did not handle the motion to withdraw effectively and that this lack of proper representation meant Louie's appeal needed to be looked at again with a new lawyer who doesn't have a conflict of interest. They ordered the case to go back to the original court to appoint a new attorney. The judges also stated that if the new attorney managed to get the guilty plea withdrawn, this would be considered a successful outcome in this appeal. But if the motion to withdraw was denied again, all the decisions and details of that hearing would need to be sent back to the appellate court for review. In conclusion, the case was sent back to be re-evaluated with a new lawyer, making it a measurement of fairness and justice for Louie.

F-2005-1094

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 28, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1094, #x appealed his conviction for #y. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. #n dissented. Charles Arnold Fields was found guilty of delivering a controlled drug after having been convicted of felonies before. The jury gave him a sentence of 15 years to life in prison and a big fine. Fields did not like his representation during the trial, and he wanted to fire his lawyers. But the judge told him he could either continue with his lawyers or represent himself with them helping him. The case had three main issues. The first one was about whether Fields gave up his right to have a lawyer in a way that was clear and fair. The second issue questioned whether his long sentence was okay. The last issue looked at whether the judge made a mistake by not allowing Fields to challenge some evidence. The court found that Fields did not really ask to represent himself, and the judge did not explain to him the problems that could arise from not having a lawyer. Because of this, the court said he deserved a new trial. Since they decided on the first issue, they did not need to look into the other two issues. The court's final decision was to cancel the previous judgment and send the case back for a new trial.