Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1451

F-2017-336

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-336, Bea Ann Epperson appealed her conviction for two counts of Embezzlement of Building Trust. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her convictions and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Bea Ann Epperson was found guilty in a trial without a jury for embezzling money related to a building trust. She was sentenced to five years in prison for each count, but her sentences were suspended, meaning she wouldn’t serve time unless she violated certain conditions. Epperson believed that the court did not have the right to try her case because she is a member of the Cherokee Nation, and the victims might be part of the Creek Nation, with the crimes happening on Creek Reservation land. This argument was connected to a U.S. Supreme Court decision called McGirt v. Oklahoma, which deals with whether certain areas are considered Indian Country. The questions involved were Epperson's Indian status, the status of the victims, and the location of the crimes. Because these questions needed more fact-finding, the case was sent back to the District Court. At a hearing to gather more details, it was determined that Epperson had some Indian blood (3/64th degree) and was recognized as a member of the Cherokee Nation. It was also confirmed that the crimes took place within the boundaries of the Creek Reservation. The court accepted these agreements made by both sides regarding what the evidence would show. In a later brief, the State supported the District Court’s findings, but wanted time to consider whether to file new charges against Epperson. After reviewing everything, the court agreed Epperson had shown she was an Indian and that the crimes happened in Indian Country, thus the State of Oklahoma did not have the right to try her. The court reversed the judgment of Epperson's convictions and sent the case back to be dismissed, meaning she wouldn't face charges for the embezzlement anymore.

Continue ReadingF-2017-336

F-2018-814

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. F-2018-814** **MELINDA GAYLE HENRY,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Appellant, Melinda Gayle Henry, was convicted by jury of Embezzlement, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 1451, in the District Court of Nowata County Case Number CF-2016-71. The jury recommended a punishment of five years imprisonment and a fine of $10,000.00, which the trial court imposed. Appellant now appeals this judgment and sentence. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Appellant contends trial counsel was ineffective for failing to secure necessary discovery. 2. **Failure to Request Continuance:** Appellant also asserts counsel was ineffective for not seeking a continuance for trial. 3. **Plain Error:** Lastly, Appellant claims the trial court committed plain error by proceeding to trial with unprepared counsel. **Analysis:** **Propositions One and Two (Ineffective Assistance of Counsel):** Under the Strickland v. Washington framework, Appellant must show (1) that counsel's performance was deficient and (2) that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. There is a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within a range of reasonable professional assistance. In Proposition One, Appellant argues that her counsel did not obtain critical records from the victim, The Woodshed convenience store, potentially impacting her defense. Counsel did request the records but believed they were destroyed. The trial court found that the State had offered access to the records, which the defense did not utilize. Appellant's assertion lacks evidence that obtaining these records would have changed the outcome of her trial; thus, this claim is speculative and fails to demonstrate prejudice. In Proposition Two, Appellant claims counsel was ineffective for not requesting a continuance due to the lack of records. However, the trial court's history with the case and previous findings suggested a request for a continuance would have been denied. Therefore, counsel would not be ineffective for abandoning a baseless motion. **Proposition Three (Plain Error):** Appellant's final claim of plain error regarding the trial being held without sufficient preparation fails under Rule 3.5(A)(5) of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which requires specific citations to the record. This assertion is superficial and unsubstantiated, leading to its waiver from appellate review. **Decision:** The judgment and sentence are **AFFIRMED**. **Mandate Ordered.** --- **APPEARANCES:** **AT TRIAL:** - **Mark Kane, Counsel for Appellant** - **Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma; Kevin Buchanan, Assistant District Attorney for the State** **ON APPEAL:** - **Kevin D. Adams, Counsel for Appellant** - **Katherine R. Morelli, Assistant Attorney General for the State** **OPINION BY:** **LUMPKIN, J.** **LEWIS, P.J., KUEHN, V.P.J., HUDSON, J., ROWLAND, J.:** Concur in Result [Download Full Opinion PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-814_1735213396.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-814

F-2018-350

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-350, Jonathan Brent Buccino appealed his conviction for three counts of embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Jonathan was found guilty in a trial where the judge decided the case without a jury. He was accused of taking money from an investment, which he was supposed to use for software development, but instead, he used the money for other purposes. The judge gave him five years in prison for each count, but these sentences were suspended, meaning he wouldn’t go to prison right away, if at all. During his appeal, Jonathan claimed that the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove he committed a crime. He argued that the only proof was what people said in their testimony, not any written documents. He believed that this meant the state did not meet its obligation to show he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court explained that when figuring out if there was enough evidence for a conviction, they look at it in a way that favors the state. This means they assume the evidence presented was correct and that the jury found the witnesses believable. Even if there were different opinions, the judge made the final call on what was credible. The court found that Jonathan was only allowed to use the invested money for software development, and the state showed he used it elsewhere, which was enough to prove he was guilty. In his second claim, Jonathan argued that the “Statute of Frauds” should have applied to his case. He thought that this statute meant any agreement needed to be in writing if it couldn’t be completed within a year, and since he didn’t have a written agreement, his case shouldn’t have been criminal. The court explained that embezzlement doesn’t need a contract, and whether or not there was a written agreement was not important. The crime was based on his actions, not on whether a written contract existed. The court also noted that the decision to bring a criminal case was the district attorney’s responsibility and that the evidence provided was enough to charge him with a crime, regardless of whether he might have been open to a civil case as well. In conclusion, the court affirmed Jonathan’s conviction, meaning they agreed with the original decision of the trial court.

Continue ReadingF-2018-350

C-2014-254

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-254, the petitioner appealed his conviction for embezzling over $25,000. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling regarding the petitioner's motions, but vacated the restitution order and remanded the case for a new determination of the victim's loss. One judge dissented. The petitioner, who is William Reeves Cathey, was accused of embezzlement by the state. He pleaded guilty to the charge in 2012, and his sentencing was delayed multiple times so he could repay the money he took. When his sentencing finally took place in January 2014, he decided to represent himself after dismissing his lawyer due to their illness. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison, but allowed him to suspend six years of that sentence and ordered him to pay $96,500 in restitution to the victim. Before he was sentenced, the petitioner made several requests to withdraw his guilty plea and to disqualify the District Attorney's office, claiming it was unfair. The court denied these requests. He also claimed that he did not understand the plea agreement because he thought the maximum fine would be much lower than what it was. He felt that the judge had not properly explained the charges to him when he entered his plea and claimed this made his plea involuntary. During the appeal process, the court looked at the petitioner's points. They decided that his concerns about the restitution order were valid. The court found that the lower court had not made it clear how the restitution amount was determined, and they thought that a new hearing was needed to sort this out. The court also rejected all of the petitioner's other arguments. They believed that he had entered his plea knowingly and that his sentence, while long, was not excessively severe. In conclusion, the court confirmed the denial of his motions to withdraw his plea but returned the issue of the restitution amount back to the trial court for further evaluation.

Continue ReadingC-2014-254

F-2011-1054

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-1054, Michael Don Bryant appealed his conviction for Grand Larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Bryant's conviction and sentence but ordered that his Judgment and Sentence be corrected to accurately reflect the crime he was convicted of. One judge dissented. Michael Don Bryant had a trial by jury and was found guilty of Grand Larceny in Logan County. He was sentenced to one year in prison and had to pay a fine. After the trial, Bryant appealed, claiming a few mistakes happened during his trial. First, he said that the prosecutor made some unfair comments during closing arguments that hurt his chances of a fair trial. Bryant believed that the way the prosecutor spoke about his defense was wrong and led the jury to be biased against him. However, the court did not agree that these comments made the trial unfair. Second, he argued that a police officer gave evidence that should not have been allowed in the trial. The officer talked about the surveillance cameras and the cables that were involved in the case. Again, the court found that while the officer's comments might have seemed odd, they did not prove to be a big mistake in the trial. Lastly, Bryant pointed out that there was a problem with the official documents after his trial. The papers said he was convicted of embezzlement, but he was actually found guilty of Grand Larceny. Bryant wanted the court to fix this mistake and to make sure he got credit for time he had already served in jail. The court agreed that there was a mistake in the official documents and sent the case back to fix the paperwork. However, they kept Bryant's conviction and sentence the same.

Continue ReadingF-2011-1054

F 2004-1238

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1238, James Alan Wade appealed his conviction for Embezzlement of Rented Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Mr. Wade was found guilty by a jury of embezzling a rented car and was sentenced to twenty years in prison. He appealed this conviction, raising several arguments. He claimed there wasn't enough evidence to prove his prior felony convictions and that his sentence was too harsh. He also argued that his lawyer didn’t do enough to protect his rights during the trial. The court looked closely at whether there was enough proof that Mr. Wade had committed the crime he was accused of. One key point was whether the car he rented was valued correctly according to the law. The court found that the prosecution didn't provide evidence proving the car's value was over $1,000, which is necessary for the embezzlement charge. Because of this lack of evidence, the court decided that Mr. Wade should not have been convicted and ordered that the case be dismissed. The dissenting judge, however, thought that there was enough evidence for the jury to make their decision and believed the conviction should be upheld.

Continue ReadingF 2004-1238

F-2004-410

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-410, Twyla Tanner appealed her conviction for Embezzlement by Bailee. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from forty-five years to twenty years of imprisonment. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Twyla Tanner was found guilty after a jury trial. The court had to decide on several issues raised by Tanner regarding her trial, including errors in denying her motion for a new trial, not allowing a witness to testify, the sufficiency of evidence, the length of her sentence, and whether all of these issues combined affected her right to a fair trial. The court determined that the trial judge made the right choices in handling these issues. They agreed that Tanner’s request for a new trial was not given because it was late. They also supported the judge's decision to prevent a witness from testifying because Tanner did not follow the rules for sharing her evidence in time. The court found enough evidence for the jury to decide she was guilty of stealing. However, they thought that the original sentence of forty-five years was very harsh for the crime and the situation. They changed it to twenty years in prison after considering the facts, including that she did not cause any damage and returned the vehicle she was accused of embezzling. One judge disagreed with reducing Tanner's sentence, believing that the jury's decision was justified based on her past criminal record and that the prosecution's comments during the trial did not unfairly influence the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2004-410