Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1704

RE-2021-1042

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2021-1042, Matthew Bryan Buttery appealed his conviction for a series of crimes including distribution of controlled substances and petit larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered that his new sentence run concurrently with a prior sentence from another case. One judge dissented on the issue of how the sentences should relate to one another. Matthew Buttery had previously pled guilty to several charges. He was given a ten-year suspended sentence, which means he didn't have to serve time in prison at that moment but had to follow certain rules. If he broke any rules, the court could take back that suspended sentence and send him to prison. The state claimed that Buttery did not report as required, did not pay his probation fees, and committed a new crime, for which they wanted to revoke his suspended sentence. During the hearing, the court found Buttery had violated the terms of his probation and revoked his suspended sentence. Buttery argued that the court made a mistake by not giving him credit for time he had already served and by ordering that his new sentence run after a different sentence from another county. The court explained that it had the right to revoke Buttery's suspended sentence because he violated the rules. They stated they didn't have to give him credit for time served because the suspended sentence is not changed by the violation. They also found that the judge improperly decided his new sentence would run after the one from the other county rather than at the same time. The judges clarified that when a sentence is revoked, it should not change how sentences from different cases affect each other. In the end, Buttery's appeal led to some changes. The court ordered that his new sentence should run concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time, rather than one after the other. However, the court upheld the overall decision to revoke his suspended sentence for breaking the rules of his probation. One judge agreed with the decision to affirm the revocation but disagreed with other parts of the analysis regarding the relationship between the sentences. So, to summarize, the main points from the case are that Matthew Bryan Buttery's suspension was revoked because he violated probation rules, but the court made a mistake when deciding how his new sentence should relate to an older sentence. He is to serve them at the same time now, according to the latest court ruling.

Continue ReadingRE-2021-1042

F-2018-1061

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case Summary: Joshua Loyd Bullard v. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No.: F-2018-1061** **Date Filed:** January 30, 2020 --- **Overview:** Joshua Loyd Bullard was convicted in the District Court of Stephens County for several offenses, including Petit Larceny, Resisting a Peace Officer, and Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. The jury determined sentences for each count, ultimately resulting in consecutive sentences totaling eight years, along with fines. Bullard appealed on two grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. --- **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** - Claim: Bullard contended that his attorney failed to request a third competency evaluation. - Analysis: The court assessed this claim based on the two-pronged test from *Strickland v. Washington*. It determined that defense counsel did not provide deficient performance, noting that two prior evaluations had confirmed Bullard's competency. There was no evidence suggesting a change in Bullard's mental state warranting further evaluation. Thus, the court ruled that there was no ineffective assistance. 2. **Prosecutorial Misconduct:** - Claim: Bullard argued that improper comments by the prosecutor regarding his prior suspended sentence during closing arguments prejudiced his trial. - Analysis: The court found that without objection from Bullard's counsel, review was limited to plain error. The court determined that the prosecutor’s references were permissible as they pertained to relevant evidence of prior convictions. Furthermore, the outcome of the sentencing showed that the jury's verdict was reasonable and not influenced by any improper statements. --- **Decision:** The appeals court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court, finding no merit in either of Bullard's propositions for appeal. **Judgment: AFFIRMED.** --- **Note:** The decision referenced case law and standards concerning competency evaluations and prosecutorial conduct during trials, underscoring the adherence to procedural norms. **For the Full Text Access:** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1061_1734859049.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-1061

F-2018-893

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The case presented involves D'Angelo Landon Burgess, who appealed the acceleration of his deferred sentence stemming from a guilty plea to Grand Larceny. The Oklahoma County District Court had originally awarded him a five-year deferred sentence in 2013. However, in 2017, the State sought to accelerate this sentence due to new offenses, including a high-speed chase and the resulting charges. The appeal centers around a claim of a lack of diligent prosecution by the State, which Burgess argued deprived him of his due process rights. However, the court determined that there was no plain error, meaning that the proceedings followed legal protocols adequately and Burgess had not demonstrated harm from the timing of the acceleration hearing. The court affirmed the district court's decision, stating that accelerations of deferred sentences do not require the same level of due process protections as full criminal proceedings. The decision also referenced a related case in which Burgess faced serious charges, including first-degree murder, which is currently under appeal. The court's opinion concluded with affirming the order of the district court to accelerate Burgess's deferred sentence. In conclusion, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the acceleration of Burgess's sentence, ruling there was no violation of due process and that the district court acted within its discretion.

Continue ReadingF-2018-893

F-2018-617

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of Douglas Edward Scott. Scott was convicted of Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation and Petit Larceny in a non-jury trial and was sentenced to eight years in prison for the first charge and six months in county jail for the second, with both sentences running concurrently. ### Key Points from the Opinion: 1. **Proposition I - Sufficiency of Evidence**: - Scott challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his domestic assault conviction. - The court reviewed the evidence favorably toward the prosecution and concluded that a rational trier of fact could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. - The trial court rejected Scott's claim of innocence, and the court affirmed that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. 2. **Proposition II - Sentence Excessiveness**: - Scott argued that his eight-year sentence was excessive. - The court noted that the sentence was within the statutory range and considered the facts of the case. - The court determined that the sentence did not shock its conscience and denied the proposition of excessive sentencing. ### Conclusion: - The court affirmed Scott's judgment and sentence, denying both of his propositions of error. - The mandate for the decision was ordered upon the delivery and filing of the opinion. ### Representations: - The trial representation included Charles Michael Thompson for the appellant and Richard Smothermon as the District Attorney for the State. - The opinion was written by Judge Lumpkin, with all other judges concurring. For more detailed information or legal context, you can download the full PDF of the opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-617_1735229379.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-617

C 2008-448

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2008-448, Franklin Savoy Combs appealed his conviction for grand larceny. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to allow Combs to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. Combs was charged with grand larceny after two checks were stolen while he was visiting someone's home. He entered an Alford plea, meaning he accepted a punishment without admitting guilt, thinking it would be in his best interest. Combs was sentenced to five years in prison, with four years of that time suspended. Later, Combs sent a letter to the court saying he wanted to change his plea because he believed he was not guilty since he did not actually steal anything. The court agreed to a hearing where Combs explained that he didn't commit the crime. However, the court decided not to let him withdraw his plea. Combs then appealed this decision and raised two main points: he didn't understand what he was doing when he entered his plea, and there wasn't enough evidence to support his plea. The appeals court reviewed the case and decided that the original court made mistakes. They noted that there was not enough factual basis for Combs to plead guilty. In fact, they found that he might actually be innocent of the charges based on the facts presented. The appeals court said that Combs should be allowed to take back his plea and sent the case back to the lower court for further actions based on their ruling. Overall, the court agreed that Combs did not enter his plea knowingly and voluntarily, and they concluded their findings by granting him the chance to withdraw his Alford plea.

Continue ReadingC 2008-448

F-2004-332

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-332, Sheila Ann Sutton appealed her conviction for grand larceny and knowingly concealing stolen property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify her conviction to petit larceny and reversed and dismissed the charge of concealing stolen property. One judge dissented. Sutton was accused of stealing electronic items, including DVD players, with friends. The jury found her guilty and she was sentenced to five years in prison for grand larceny and four years for concealing stolen property, with the sentences running at the same time. During her appeal, Sutton argued several points. She claimed that simply being in a car with stolen shoes did not mean she was hiding them. The court agreed that the evidence did not show she attempted to conceal the shoes and reversed the charge for that reason. Sutton also argued that she only took property worth less than $500, which should be classified as petit larceny, not grand larceny. The evidence showed that she took one DVD player worth $487, and the other players taken by her companions did not change that. The court agreed and changed her conviction to petit larceny. Additionally, Sutton claimed that the jury was not properly instructed about the law surrounding the charges against her. The court found that the instructions were lacking and noted that without proper guidance, the jury might have struggled to understand how to reach their decision on grand larceny. Sutton also pointed out that there was an instruction about flight, but the circumstances didn't support it, meaning it should not have been mentioned during the trial. The court acknowledged this, saying that giving such an instruction without proper context was wrong. After reviewing all of Sutton's claims, the court modified her conviction to petit larceny and changed her sentence to two years in prison. They dismissed the second charge. The dissenting opinion argued that there was enough evidence to support the original conviction and that the jury understood what happened during the events in question. In summary, the court modified Sutton's conviction and sentence due to errors in the trial process, particularly related to jury instructions, while the dissenting judge believed the jury's original decision was justified.

Continue ReadingF-2004-332

F 2002-532

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-532, James Jermaine Woodfork appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including Kidnapping, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Domestic Abuse, and other offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold some of his convictions while reversing others and sending them back to the District Court for dismissal. One member of the court dissented. Woodfork had been found guilty of various charges after a jury trial. He received significant sentences for his convictions, including 25 years for Kidnapping and 30 years for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. However, he raised concerns about double jeopardy, arguing that his multiple convictions for similar offenses involving different victims should not have occurred. The court agreed with him on some counts and reversed those convictions. Additionally, the court examined claims of trial errors and prosecutorial misconduct. Even though the prosecutor made some inappropriate comments during the trial, the court concluded that these did not significantly affect the overall fairness of the trial or the jury's decision, so they did not lead to a reversal of the sentence. In summary, some of Woodfork's convictions were upheld, while others were reversed, and he was given a chance for those to be dismissed. This case highlights important legal principles about multiple charges and the rights of defendants in a criminal trial.

Continue ReadingF 2002-532

C-2000-750

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2000-750, Nikisha Lynn Farris appealed her conviction for robbery in the first degree and concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to modify her sentence. One judge dissented. Farris pleaded guilty to robbery and concealing stolen property. She did not have a deal with the District Attorney about her sentence. The judge sentenced her to 100 years for robbery and 5 years for concealing stolen property, and both sentences would be served at the same time. After her sentence, Farris wanted to take back her guilty plea. However, the trial court said no when she asked to withdraw her plea. Farris then appealed the trial court's decision, and the court looked at everything in the case including records and Farris's arguments. The court found that Farris's plea was knowing and voluntary, meaning she understood what she was doing when she pleaded guilty. The court also determined that her lawyer did not make mistakes that harmed her case. However, the court thought the 100-year sentence for robbery was too harsh. They decided to change her sentence to 30 years instead. So while Farris would still have to spend time in prison, it would be less time than what she was originally given. The court agreed to modify the sentence while keeping the other parts of the original decision.

Continue ReadingC-2000-750