Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1289.11 Archives

J-2019-65

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:J

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **G.E.J., Appellant, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **No. J-2019-65** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA MAY 23, 2019 JOHN D. HADDEN ROWLAND, JUDGE** **SUMMARY OPINION** On August 27, 2018, G.E.J. was charged as a juvenile with (1) Soliciting for First Degree Murder and (2) Reckless Conduct with a Firearm in Rogers County District Court. A show cause hearing was held, resulting in probable cause for continued juvenile detention. G.E.J. eventually entered a no contest stipulation leading to adjudication as a delinquent on October 30, 2018. Following a hearing on January 17, 2019, the trial court denied his motion to withdraw the stipulation. G.E.J. raised several issues on appeal regarding the denial of due process, the voluntariness of his plea, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and the sufficiency of proceedings leading to his stipulation. The Court reviewed the claims in light of the record and hearings. The Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, emphasizing: 1. **Detention Period**: G.E.J. argued that he was detained for 24 days before charges were filed, which he claimed constituted a denial of due process. The Court found that he was represented by counsel during this period and had a bond set, distinguishing his case from precedent cases involving more severe delays without legal representation or bonding. 2. **Voluntariness of Plea**: G.E.J. contended that his plea was not knowing and voluntary, citing that he believed he would be released upon entering the stipulation. However, testimonial evidence indicated that his attorney’s statements were not misleading and that G.E.J. was adequately informed of the charges and the evidence against him. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Claims of ineffective assistance were examined under the Strickland standard, requiring a showing of deficient performance and resulting prejudice. The Court found no shown deficiency by his attorneys and ruled that even if there were lapses, they did not prejudice the outcome. 4. **Factual Basis for Stipulation**: The absence of a lengthy factual basis during the stipulation hearing did not undermine the sufficiency of the process; the Court noted adequate evidence existed to support the stipulation through prior hearings. The appeal was evaluated under the standards for an abuse of discretion, and the findings of the trial judge who observed G.E.J. throughout the proceedings were upheld. **DECISION**: The Court affirmed the decision of the Rogers County District Court, upholding the denial of G.E.J.’s motion to withdraw his stipulation. **Counsel for Juvenile**: Jeffrey Price **Counsel for Appellant**: Sarah MacNiven **Counsel for State**: Edith Singer **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** **LEWIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **LUMPKIN, J.: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-65_1734448303.pdf)

RE-2018-128

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 18, 2019
Post category:RE

In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, Milton Roger Hornsby appealed the revocation of his suspended sentence from the McIntosh County District Court, overseen by Judge James D. Bland. This appeal arose from convictions in two cases, CF-2012-45 and CF-2012-60, covering multiple charges including possession of a firearm after conviction and assault with a dangerous weapon. Hornsby initially received a twenty-year suspended sentence for one charge and six-month suspended sentences for others, all to be served concurrently. The State's motion to revoke the suspended sentences, filed on September 19, 2016, was due to an alleged new crime involving assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Following a hearing on December 29, 2016, Judge Bland revoked ten years of Hornsby's suspended sentences. Hornsby raised several legal arguments on appeal: 1. **Burden of Proof**: He argued that Judge Bland imposed a lower burden of proof than required. However, the court affirmed that Judge Bland properly articulated the standard during the hearing, which was that the State needed to show it was more likely than not that Hornsby violated his probation. 2. **Suppressed Evidence**: Hornsby contended that evidence pertaining to the use of a knife, previously suppressed in a related case, was improperly considered at the revocation hearing. The court noted that Hornsby did not object during the hearing and thus waived his right to raise this issue on appeal apart from claiming plain error, which he failed to establish. 3. **Intent to Harm**: Hornsby claimed there was insufficient evidence to prove he intended to inflict bodily harm. The court stated that the evidence presented was sufficient to suggest that it was more likely than not that Hornsby had such intent. 4. **Cumulative Errors**: Lastly, Hornsby argued that the accumulation of errors deprived him of a fair hearing. The court found no merit in this argument, as each proposition raised was without merit. The Court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in Judge Bland's decision to revoke the suspended sentence, affirming the revocation. The mandate was ordered to issue following the filing of the decision.

F-2017-1270

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 18, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1270, Bryan James Abner appealed his conviction for several offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the decision to terminate him from drug court and sentence him according to the plea agreement. One judge dissented. Bryan James Abner was involved in multiple criminal cases related to theft, guns, drugs, and burglary. He was given the chance to join a Drug Court program to help him with his drug addiction instead of going straight to prison. However, if he did not follow the rules of the program, he would be sentenced for his crimes. Abner did well in the Drug Court for the first six months, but then he started to have problems. He tested positive for methamphetamine several times, had legal troubles, and missed appointments. The State's attorney asked to terminate him from the Drug Court because of these issues. During the hearing, witnesses testified about Abner's behavior. One officer found drugs on him, and a supervisor explained that Abner had many chances to improve but did not make enough progress. Abner's counselor testified that he had learned from some difficult experiences, including the death of his son, and asked for another chance in the program. The judge decided against Abner, saying that despite what the counselor said, Abner's problems continued. She noted that he had broken the rules of the Drug Court many times and had not responded to the chances he had been given. In summary, the court ruled that Abner needed to be removed from the Drug Court program for not following the rules, and he was sentenced based on his plea agreement. The court found that the evidence supported this decision, and there was no abuse of discretion by the judge.

C-2016-877

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 7, 2017
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-877, Charles David Miller appealed his conviction for multiple charges including stalking and possession of a firearm during a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Miller’s petition in part. The court affirmed the judgments and sentences for some counts but reversed the sentence for Count 1 and dismissed Count 4 due to double punishment concerns. One judge dissented. The case began when Miller, facing serious charges, entered a guilty plea in December 2014, agreeing to certain terms. He was originally given deferred sentences, meaning he would not serve time in prison if he followed the terms of his probation. However, after a hearing in 2015, the court ruled to impose a harsher sentence because Miller did not comply with the terms, leading to his appeal. Throughout the appeal, Miller argued that his guilty plea should be withdrawn for several reasons. He claimed there was no factual reason for his plea, that he was not made aware of his rights, and expressed concerns about double punishment as well as the effectiveness of his lawyer. The court reviewed the details and concluded that Miller had not shown enough grounds for his claims because some issues were not raised earlier in court, making them not eligible for review. The court particularly focused on whether Miller's plea was voluntary and if he was properly informed. They found that while Miller's plea might have been motivated by a desire to get his car back, he did understand the consequences of his actions. The court upheld the judgment for some counts, but it noted that the sentence for Count 1 was illegal because it exceeded the maximum allowed by law. As a result, they ordered a new sentencing for that count and dismissed Count 4 entirely because of double punishment. In summary, the main points were that Miller wanted to reverse his guilty plea but the court found many of his arguments unsubstantiated. They decided to change his sentence on one charge while dismissing another, affirming the result on several others.

C-2002-1190

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 10, 2003
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2002-1188, the petitioner appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including possession of controlled substances and shooting with intent to kill. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed the conviction for maintaining a vehicle used for the keeping or selling of controlled substances, due to insufficient evidence. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively.