Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 51.1

RE-2019-19

  • Post author:
  • 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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided that revoking his suspended sentence without him being present was a violation of his right to due process, and therefore, the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.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-19

F-2018-1072

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document is a summary opinion issued by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma in the case of D'Angelo Keiyawn Threatt. The appellant, Threatt, was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to eight years in prison. The opinion addresses three propositions of error raised by Threatt on appeal: 1. **Admission of Prior Felony Conviction**: Threatt contended that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to name his specific prior felony conviction (forcible oral sodomy) despite his offer to stipulate that he had a felony conviction. He cited the case Old Chief v. United States to support his argument. The Court ruled that Threatt did not preserve this issue adequately for appeal due to the timing and nature of his objections and ultimately found that there was no plain error affecting his substantial rights. 2. **Prosecutorial Misconduct**: Threatt claimed that the prosecutor's closing argument included highly prejudicial statements that unfairly influenced the jury. The Court examined the statements and determined they were reasonable comments based on the evidence presented at trial. Thus, they did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct that would warrant relief. 3. **Cumulative Effect of Errors**: Threatt argued that the combined effect of the alleged errors warranted a new trial. The Court disagreed, noting that the individual errors did not affect the overall outcome of the trial and therefore did not justify relief. In conclusion, the Court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court of Oklahoma County, finding no reversible error in the trial proceedings. The opinion underscores the importance of proper procedural objections and the evaluation of trial conduct in the context of the entire trial. For more detailed information, a PDF of the full opinion can be downloaded from the provided link.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1072

F-2018-975

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MICKEY JOE EDWARD RICHARDSON,** **Appellant,** **VS.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-975** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA JAN 30 2020** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Mickey Joe Edward Richardson, was convicted by a jury in Haskell County District Court, Case No. CF-2016-91, of several crimes, receiving the following sentences: - **Assault and Battery on a Police Officer**, After Conviction of a Felony (Count 1) - **5 years** - **Larceny of an Automobile**, After Conviction of a Felony (Count 2) - **20 years** - **Feloniously Pointing a Firearm**, After Conviction of a Felony (Count 4) - **30 years** - **Felon in Possession of a Firearm**, After Conviction of a Felony (Count 5) - **Life** - **Escape from Detention** (Count 8) - **1 year** On September 11, 2018, the trial court, presided by the Honorable Brian C. Henderson, Associate District Judge, imposed the jury-recommended sentences to be served consecutively. This appeal followed. Appellant raises six propositions of error: 1. **Misinstruction on Sentencing Range** for Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony. 2. **Violation of Fourteenth Amendment Due Process** regarding jury instructions. 3. **Improper Victim Impact Statements** affecting the fairness of the sentencing hearing. 4. **Abuse of Discretion** with respect to the policy of consecutive sentencing. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel** violating constitutional rights. 6. **Cumulative Errors** affecting the fairness of the proceedings. After thorough consideration of the propositions, briefs, and the entire record, we affirm. Appellant was convicted after attacking a sheriff’s deputy, stealing a patrol car, and attempting to evade other officers. ### Analysis of Propositions: **Proposition I: Misinstruction on Sentencing Range** Appellant claims misinstruction regarding the sentencing range for Count 5, asserting it should be one to ten years under 21 O.S. 2011, § 1284. However, the jury was properly instructed on the sentencing range pursuant to 21 O.S.2011, §§ 51.1(A)(2) and 1284. **Proposition II: Jury Instruction on Statement Voluntariness** Appellant argues the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the voluntariness of his statement to police. As Appellant testified and did not claim the statements were involuntary, this contention lacks merit. **Proposition III: Victim Impact Statements** Appellant objected to victim impact statements, claiming they were inadmissible since the crimes were not violent. However, one conviction (Pointing a Firearm) was classified as a violent crime, making the inclusion of the statements appropriate. **Proposition IV: Consecutive Sentencing Policy** Appellant alleges the trial court enforced a policy of consecutive sentencing for defendants who exercise their right to a jury trial. The record indicates the trial court exercised discretion properly, adhering to the statutory default for consecutive sentences. **Proposition V: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel** Appellant contends his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to previous claims. As we found those claims meritless, trial counsel cannot be faulted for failing to raise meritless objections. **Proposition VI: Cumulative Errors** No errors were identified in prior propositions, thus, there are no cumulative errors to evaluate. ### Decision The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Haskell County is **AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ordered issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **Appeal from the District Court of Haskell County** **The Honorable BRIAN C. HENDERSON, Associate District Judge** **Attorneys for Appellant: ROGER HILFIGER, SARAH MACNIVEN** **Attorneys for Appellee: CHRISTINA BURNS, MIKE HUNTER, ASHLEY L. WILLIS** **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** --- [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-975_1734872271.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-975

F-2018-1190

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of Walter Lee Roundtree, who was convicted of violations related to the Sex Offender Registration Act. The court found against him on several propositions of error, including claims of insufficient evidence, double jeopardy, improper sentencing enhancements, and ineffective assistance of counsel. **Key Points from the Opinion:** - Roundtree was convicted of two counts: Violation of the Sex Offender Registration Act and Failure to Comply with the Act, with the jury recommending sentences of four and five years, respectively, to be served consecutively. - The court addressed several legal propositions raised by Roundtree, concluding that the evidence supported the convictions, and there was no violation of double jeopardy laws. - Roundtree's assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel was also denied, as the court found that he did not demonstrate sufficient prejudice from his attorney's performance. - The court ultimately affirmed the judgment and sentences while denying a request to supplement the appeal record due to a lack of evidentiary support. **Judicial Opinions:** - Judge Lumpkin authored the opinion affirming the judgments. - Judge Lewis concurred in part but dissented on the affirmation of Count 1, arguing that Roundtree's single act of moving should not subject him to multiple punishments under the law. The court's ruling underscores the importance of establishing clear legal standards for crimes and how multiple offenses are treated under similar circumstances.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1190

F-2018-136

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-136, Michael Emmanuel Ishman appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Possession of a Firearm After Former Felony Conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Ishman's conviction and sentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Ishman who was trialed and convicted by a jury. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for each count, with all sentences running consecutively. Ishman raised several arguments in his appeal regarding the evidence presented, jury instructions, and the conduct of his trial. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for robbery and determined that the witness's corroboration was not required as she was not considered an accomplice. The court also addressed claims of instructional errors regarding the punishment range for firearm possession, finding that the errors were harmless because the jury recommended the maximum sentence. Moreover, the court dismissed claims about the introduction of evidence of other bad acts and the failure to instruct the jury on lesser offenses. The court determined that defense counsel performed adequately, stating that there was no evidence that any of the claimed errors affected the trial's outcome. The court summarized that the jury's recommendation of life sentences was appropriate given the circumstances of the case, and affirmed all judgments made by the trial court. Overall, the court did not find sufficient grounds for relief based on Ishman's claims and decided to uphold the conviction and sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2018-136

F-2018-1137

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the appeal of Parron Lavon Burrus. Burrus was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, after being found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Caddo County. The court sentenced him to 30 years in prison for the first count and 25 years for the second, running consecutively. In the appeal, Burrus contended that the sentences were excessive and should be modified. He argued that the offenses were interconnected and that the trial court exhibited prejudice against him during sentencing, referencing the requirement for his testimony to be under oath and the judge's prior role in prosecuting him. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment and sentence. The court noted that the sentences fell within the statutory range, that there is no constitutional right to concurrent sentences, and that Burrus did not demonstrate that the trial judge's actions or previous involvement in prior prosecutions caused an unfair sentencing outcome. The court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in sentencing, emphasizing the separate nature of the offenses committed by Burrus. In essence, the appeal was denied, and the court's decision was upheld, confirming the sentences imposed on Burrus.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1137

F-2018-1020

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document is an opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the case of Renese Bramlett, who was convicted of First Degree Murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The case summary includes the following key points: 1. **Background**: Bramlett's original conviction was affirmed, but his sentence was vacated, leading to a resentencing trial where the same life without parole sentence was imposed again. 2. **Appeal Issues**: Bramlett raised three main issues on appeal: - Alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. - Denial of due process due to the introduction of his prior felony convictions while being unable to present mitigating evidence. - A claim that the sentencing process should have been modified rather than remanded for resentencing. 3. **Court's Findings**: - **Prosecutorial Misconduct**: The Court found that the prosecutor's comments did not constitute inappropriate appeals to sympathy but were instead proper comments on the evidence. No relief was warranted. - **Due Process Concerns**: The Court upheld the procedure established by Oklahoma statute, which allows the State to introduce evidence of prior felony convictions without permitting the defendant to present mitigating evidence. The statutory framework was deemed to meet due process requirements. - **Remand vs. Modification**: The Court rejected Bramlett's argument that a modification of sentence was warranted. It ruled that the resentencing procedure did not disadvantage him, and there were no legal errors that warranted a modification of the sentence. 4. **Conclusion**: The Court affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court, confirming that the procedures followed during resentencing were consistent with due process and statutory law. The opinion also includes concurring opinions from Judges Lewis and Kuehn, who noted specific interpretations of the law regarding sentencing in noncapital cases. In summary, the Court's decision reinforces the legal standards governing the introduction of evidence during sentencing in noncapital murder cases and the limits on presenting mitigating evidence in light of prior felony convictions.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1020

F-2018-221

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-221, Kenneth Merle Hammick, II appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, burglary in the first degree, and larceny of an automobile. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Kenneth Hammick was convicted of serious crimes. The evidence showed that he broke into a house in Claremore, Oklahoma, on May 10, 2015. He threatened the people inside with a gun and stole a car from one of the victims to escape. He later tried to steal another car but took a pistol instead. The police found him hiding in some bushes the next day. During police questioning, Hammick made statements that suggested he was guilty, even though he initially denied doing anything wrong. After a while, he asked to speak to the police again and confessed to the robbery, even showing them where he had hidden the gun. Hammick's first argument was that the court should not have allowed his confession to be used against him because he had already asked for a lawyer. The court decided that since he started talking to the police again, his confession was valid, and he understood what he was doing. Next, Hammick claimed that the way the police identified him was unfair. He said that because he had a neck tattoo, he was easily recognizable in a photo lineup shown to the victims. However, the court found that the victims had a good opportunity to see him during the crime and provided reliable identifications. Lastly, Hammick argued that the court should not have allowed evidence of another crime he committed after the robbery. This was a theft of a gun. The court decided that this evidence was important to provide a complete picture of Hammick's actions and did not unfairly prejudice the jury against him. In the end, the court upheld Hammick's conviction and did not find any reason to change the original decision.

Continue ReadingF-2018-221

F-2018-793

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MARTIN OCHOA MEDINA,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2018-793** **FILED AUG 29 2019** JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant Martin Ochoa Medina appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Beckham County, Case No. CF-2017-275, for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, After Former Conviction of a Felony in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 652. The Honorable Doug Haught, District Judge, presided over Medina's jury trial and sentenced him, in accordance with the jury's verdict, to life imprisonment. Medina raises a single issue on appeal: whether he was denied a fair sentencing proceeding because of prosecutorial misconduct throughout the second stage of his bifurcated trial. **1. Prosecutorial Misconduct Claim** Medina contends he was denied a fair sentencing proceeding due to prosecutorial misconduct during the second stage of his trial. He specifically argues that the prosecutor improperly introduced details of his prior conviction, appealed to sympathy for the victim, and wrongly commented on the potential for him to commit future crimes. However, Medina failed to object to these comments during the trial, waiving review of this claim for all but plain error. **Reviewing for plain error**, the Court finds that Medina has not shown that any alleged prosecutorial misconduct affected the outcome of the trial. Arguments made during closing are considered within the context of the entire trial. While the prosecutor did make improper comments regarding future crimes, reviewing the totality of the circumstances, such comments did not significantly impact the fairness of the sentencing proceeding. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is **AFFIRMED**. --- **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** **CONCURRING IN PART/DISSENTING IN PART:** **HUDSON, J.:** I write separately to dissent regarding the finding of plain error related to the prosecutor's comments about the potential for future offenses. The majority's reference to prior case law does not fully support their conclusion, as the prosecutor's comments were grounded in the evidence presented during trial and were relevant to the discussion of Medina's history and behavior. The prosecutor's arguments were appropriate and based on the evidence regarding Medina's prior violent acts, which warranted discussion in the context of sentencing. There was no misuse of the argument to stir societal alarm but rather a legitimate consideration of the defendant's recidivism. Recidivism has always been a recognized basis for enhanced sentencing, and the defendant's past conviction of a violent crime aligns with the evidence presented during this trial. Therefore, I believe the prosecutor's comments were within the permissible bounds and the majority has incorrectly labeled this as error. I concur with the denial of relief for the remaining arguments but dissent regarding the assessment of error concerning the comments about future conduct. --- For further details, you can [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-793_1735216324.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-793

RE-2018-769

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant, Robert Kenneth Kramer, appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2015-100. On September 9, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere to Financial Exploitation by a Caregiver (21 O.S.2011, § 843.1) After Former Conviction of a Felony (21 O.S.Supp.2011, § 51.1). He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for ten years, with the final six years suspended. On May 31, 2017, the trial court modified the suspended portion of the sentence from six to eight years. On March 28, 2018, the State filed an application to revoke the suspended sentence, alleging that Appellant had committed new crimes: possessing a cell phone while incarcerated and knowingly concealing stolen property. A hearing on the application was held on July 11, 2018, before the Honorable Lawrence W. Parish, District Judge. Judge Parish granted the State's application and revoked the eight-year suspended sentence in full. **ANALYSIS** The standard for revocation of a suspended sentence requires a determination of whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated, which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. A trial court's decision to revoke should not be reversed unless there is an abuse of discretion. 1. **Proposition I: Violation of the 20-day Rule** Appellant claims the district court violated the 20-day Rule as stated in 22 O.S.Supp.2012, § 991b(A). Since Appellant did not raise this objection at the hearing, the review is for plain error. Appellant failed to demonstrate that any deviation affected his substantial rights, and he had previously waived his right to a hearing within the statutory time-frame. Therefore, this proposition is denied. 2. **Proposition II: Sufficiency of Evidence** Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conclusion that he possessed a cell phone while in jail. Testimony from Appellant's ex-wife indicated that she received text messages from a phone she associated with him. Additionally, a jailer testified about witnessing inmates, including Appellant, trying to destroy a cell phone. This evidence satisfies the preponderance standard. **DECISION** The order revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2015-100 is AFFIRMED. **APPEARANCES:** - Counsel for Appellant: Curt Allen, Jeremy Stillwell, Indigent Defense System - Counsel for State: Emily Mueller, Assistant District Attorney; Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma; Theodore Peeper, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.:** LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur in Results HUDSON, J.: Concur **[End of Summary Opinion]** For further details, you may view the full court opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-769_1734420410.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-769

RE-2018-674

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **LEON DESHAWN WRIGHT,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. RE-2018-674** **Filed July 18, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** This case involves an appeal by Appellant Leon Deshawn Wright from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2014-1676. **Background:** On April 30, 2015, Wright entered a guilty plea to Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property after a previous felony conviction, for which he was sentenced to five years of imprisonment, all suspended. The State filed an application to revoke this sentence on May 9, 2016, citing multiple violations, including failure to obtain a mental health assessment, failure to report to a drug rehabilitation program, failure to pay supervision fees, and possession of marijuana. A hearing was conducted on August 27, 2018, overseen by the Honorable Bill Graves, where the judge granted the State's application for revocation, leading to the current appeal. **Analysis:** At a revocation hearing, the court determines if the terms of the probation have been violated, which should be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Revocation should not be overturned unless there's an abuse of discretion by the trial court. 1. **Possession of Marijuana:** Appellant argues insufficient evidence for this charge. The court agrees but finds sufficient evidence for the remaining violations. 2. **Failure to Pay Fees:** Appellant contends his failure to pay fees was not willful. The court finds it was Appellant's responsibility to demonstrate he was not willful in this failure. As Appellant did not provide evidence regarding his employment status or good-faith efforts to pay, the burden was not met. 3. **Full Revocation Justification:** Appellant argues that the violations do not justify full revocation. However, the court finds the failure to report alone is an adequate basis for revoking the suspended sentence. **Decision:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirms the District Court's order revoking the suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2014-1676. **Judges’ Concurrence:** - **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concurred in part/dissented in part, stating that while he agreed some violations justified revocation, he dissented concerning the failure to pay fines, emphasizing that Appellant's evidence of homelessness and unemployment should have been considered. He finds the court should demonstrate more clarity on when failure to pay fines due to indigence suffices to avoid revocation. For further details and the full legal opinion, you can [download the PDF here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-674_1734423903.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-674

C-2018-315

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of David Duane Albright, a petitioner who sought to withdraw his guilty pleas related to charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of a controlled substance, and maintaining a place for keeping/selling controlled substances. ### Key Points: 1. **Background**: - Albright was originally charged in Delaware County with multiple drug-related offenses in 2010. - He entered a guilty plea in December 2010 and was accepted into the Delaware County Drug Court Program. - After being terminated from the program for non-compliance, he was sentenced in September 2013 to life imprisonment on two counts and 20 years on another, with fines imposed. 2. **Procedural Posture**: - Albright filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas shortly after sentencing, which was denied. - He initially failed to appeal but was granted an appeal out of time in 2018. 3. **Claims on Appeal**: Albright raised several propositions of error: - **Proposition I**: He argued his plea lacked an adequate factual basis. - **Proposition II**: Claimed his pleas were not entered knowingly and voluntarily. - **Proposition III**: Contended the $50,000 fine was unauthorized by statute. - **Proposition IV**: Asserted he should have received credit for jail time, violating his due process. - **Proposition V**: Claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. 4. **Court's Analysis**: - **Proposition I and II**: The court found Albright waived appellate review by not raising these claims in his motion to withdraw his plea. - **Proposition III and IV**: These claims were also deemed waived for similar reasons, not raised in the motion to withdraw. - **Proposition V**: While the court reviewed the ineffective assistance of withdrawal counsel, they found no evidence of deficiency or that it prejudiced Albright's case. 5. **Decision**: - The court affirmed the lower court's denial of Albright's Motion to Withdraw Plea, concluding that he did not demonstrate a valid basis for the claims made. 6. **Concurring Opinion**: - Judge Rowland specially concurred, expressing concern regarding the adequacy of the factual basis for the plea related to maintaining a place for keeping/selling a controlled dangerous substance. While recognizing the issues, he noted that because the facts weren’t adequately challenged during the proceedings, the claims were not actionable in this appeal. ### Conclusion: The petitioner's appeal was denied, and the trial court's decision stands, allowing the guilty pleas to remain in effect due to procedural waivers and the lack of substantive evidence to support the claims raised on appeal. The opinion highlights the importance of raising issues timely and thoroughly in the proper forums to preserve them for review.

Continue ReadingC-2018-315

F-2017-851

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-851, Anthony Harold Warnick appealed his conviction for Possession of Child Pornography, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified the fee for his indigent defense. The dissenting opinion was not specified. Warnick was tried without a jury and found guilty, receiving a 35-year prison sentence. He argued several points in his appeal, claiming errors and issues with how his previous convictions were used to enhance his sentence. He stated that his earlier convictions should not have been considered because they were misdemeanors at the time of the offenses or were too old to count against him. The court reviewed specific claims regarding the earlier convictions and determined there were no plain errors in how they were assessed. They found that Warnick's previous convictions were appropriately used to enhance his sentence, as he did not successfully challenge their validity in previous appeals or post-conviction actions. One error was found concerning the fee for his defense representation, which was set too high at $500 instead of the legal limit of $250. The court corrected this fee to the legal amount and directed the trial court to make this change. Overall, the court concluded that no significant errors impacted Warnick's trial or his sentence, except for the mentioned fee correction. His appeal was mostly denied, reinforcing his conviction but providing a slight adjustment in the costs associated with his defense. The dissenting opinion on this case was not detailed in the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2017-851

F-2016-562

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-562, Kadrian Daniels appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court, except that the fine imposed on the Possession count was vacated. One judge dissented. Daniels was found guilty by a jury and received a thirty-year sentence for the robbery and an additional eight years and a $10,000 fine for the illegal firearm possession. Daniels raised several concerns on appeal. He argued that the trial court made mistakes that affected his right to a fair trial. First, Daniels objected to a question asked by the prosecutor to a detective about the number of robberies that happened in Tulsa during the past year. He felt that this question could alarm the jury. However, the court decided that the question was allowed because it was relevant to the case and didn’t unfairly sway the jury. Next, Daniels claimed that the prosecutor behaved improperly during the closing arguments, which made his trial unfair. Some of the comments made by the prosecutor were challenged, but the court ruled that those comments were acceptable and did not harm the fairness of the trial. Additionally, Daniels complained about the jury being instructed that a $10,000 fine was mandatory if they convicted him of the firearm charge. Since Daniels’ lawyer did not object to this instruction during the trial, the court reviewed this issue only for plain error. The court found that the instruction was incorrect because the law does not require such a fine. This error was significant enough that the court decided to remove the fine. Moreover, Daniels argued that his attorney did not provide effective help during the trial, especially for not calling out the errors made by the prosecution or the judge. The court considered this but concluded that the issues raised by Daniels were not serious enough to have changed the outcome of the trial. The final decision affirmed the conviction but removed the unnecessary fine, ensuring that the legal process remained fair despite the mistakes noted during the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2016-562

C-2015-1057

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-1057, Steven Casey Jones appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition and allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Here’s a simpler breakdown of what happened in this case: Steven Casey Jones was charged with robbery involving a dangerous weapon. He decided to plead guilty to this charge as part of an agreement, thinking he would get a lighter sentence. However, after he pleaded guilty, he felt that he had been given wrong information about the punishment he could face. Jones said that his attorney told him the minimum punishment was twenty years in prison, but he later found out that it was actually less. Because of this wrong information, he felt he had to plead guilty to a fifteen-year sentence, which was still longer than what it should have been. He later tried to take back his guilty plea, but this was denied. So, he appealed the decision in court, wanting to show that his plea was not made with the correct information. The court reviewed the entire case, including what Jones and his attorney had discussed. It turned out that the attorney's mistake about the punishment range was significant. The State also agreed that this error could have influenced Jones's decision. Due to this mistake, the court decided to let Jones withdraw his guilty plea and go back to the start of his case. This meant he would have another chance to present his arguments about the robbery charge without the misunderstanding affecting him. After considering everything, the court decided to grant Jones's petition, which means they agreed with him and wanted to fix the mistake. The case was sent back to the lower court to allow Jones to withdraw his plea.

Continue ReadingC-2015-1057

C-2015-573

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-573, Jeremy Ross Wilson appealed his conviction for Escape from the Department of Corrections. In a published decision, the court decided to modify Wilson's sentence. One judge dissented. Jeremy Ross Wilson was an inmate who escaped from a work center. He was arrested later and faced charges for his escape. He pleaded guilty and was given a long sentence, but he later wanted to take back his guilty plea. His motion to do so was denied, and he appealed that decision. The case included a problem with how the state used Wilson's past felony convictions. The law says you cannot use the same prior convictions to charge someone with a crime and to make the punishment worse for that crime. The state did that with Wilson, using five of his past felonies to both charge him and to increase his punishment. Because of this, the court found that Wilson had been given a harsher sentence than what was allowed by law. The main question was whether Wilson had entered his guilty plea voluntarily and intelligently. It was found that he had. However, the court also decided that the sentence needed to be corrected. Wilson's lawyer did not challenge the state's use of the prior felonies, which was seen as ineffective help. As a result, the court modified Wilson's sentence to a shorter term of seven years instead of fifteen. Wilson would also have to be supervised for a year once released and pay fines. The court affirmed the decision to deny his request to withdraw his guilty plea but changed the length of his sentence.

Continue ReadingC-2015-573

F-2015-187

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-187, Steven R. Jennings appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation and Domestic Assault and Battery Resulting in Great Bodily Injury. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Jennings’ conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery Resulting in Great Bodily Injury, while affirming the other conviction. One judge dissented. Jennings was found guilty by a jury for two serious crimes against a person in a domestic situation. The jury recommended a punishment of 25 years in prison for each crime, making a total of 50 years. Jennings thought this was unfair and argued several reasons that should change his situation. First, Jennings said both convictions were for one single action, meaning he shouldn't be punished twice for the same act. The court looked closely at whether the injuries were caused by separate actions or not. They decided that Jennings’ actions were connected and not separate incidents. Because of this, the court agreed with Jennings that he should not have been sentenced for both. Next, Jennings argued that the way the trial was conducted was not fair. He wanted the trial to be held in one stage, which would have simplified things. However, the court believed it was appropriate to have two stages so that the jury wouldn’t be overly influenced by his past convictions when deciding if he was guilty of the new charges. Therefore, they didn’t agree with his claim about this issue. Thirdly, Jennings felt that his lawyer did not help him enough, which meant he did not get a fair trial. The court looked at this claim and decided that Jennings did not show how having a different lawyer would have changed the outcome of his case. They found no clear mistakes made by his attorney that harmed his defense. Finally, Jennings felt that a 50-year sentence was too long. Since the court reversed one of his convictions, this concern became less relevant because his total sentence was reduced. In conclusion, the court affirmed one of Jennings’ convictions, it reversed the other, and decided that he should get a new sentence based on the remaining conviction. One judge disagreed and believed there should be a different outcome.

Continue ReadingF-2015-187

F-2014-500

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-500, Dale Lynn Taylor appealed his conviction for Second Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to fifteen years in prison. No judges dissented. Dale Lynn Taylor was put on trial and found guilty of Second Degree Rape after a jury deliberated on the evidence presented. He had a previous felony conviction from 1992, which the State tried to use to enhance his punishment. However, since the previous conviction was over ten years old, it was considered stale and should not have been used for increasing his sentence. The jury originally recommended a punishment of twenty years in prison. The court reviewed Taylor's claims of error, which included the improper use of the old conviction, the admission of certain evidence, and the actions of the prosecution during the trial. The court found that while some issues raised were valid, others were not significant enough to alter the outcome of the case. After looking closely at all the evidence, the court decided that Taylor's sentence should be reduced to fifteen years in prison. They believed this was a fair outcome considering the circumstances of the case and the nature of the crime. Taylor's arguments about the trial process raised important points, but in the end, they did not change the decision about his guilt. The final outcome was that Taylor's conviction remained, but his punishment was adjusted to be more appropriate under the law. The court emphasized that even though there were problems, they did not warrant completely overturning the conviction. Therefore, he would still serve time but for a reduced period.

Continue ReadingF-2014-500

C 2014-693

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2014-693, a person appealed his conviction for child neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to allow him to withdraw his no contest plea due to receiving bad advice from his attorney, which made his plea not knowing and voluntary. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC 2014-693

F-2013-11

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-11, James Earl Darton appealed his conviction for first degree murder, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, and domestic assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Darton's convictions and sentences while modifying the sentence for the domestic assault and battery charge. One judge dissented. Darton was found guilty of killing Kimberly Ragland, who was found shot in her car. Prior to her death, Ragland had a tumultuous relationship with Darton, which included a previous altercation that led her to seek a protective order against him. This protective order prohibited Darton from being near her, which he violated on the night of the murder. On that night, after a fight where Darton hit Ragland and used a stun gun on her, she was later taken away by Darton, where her murder occurred. Darton was arrested and claimed he had left with a different person. The jury found him guilty based on evidence presented during the trial, including his motive for killing Ragland due to financial loss from the protective order. In his appeal, Darton raised several issues. First, he argued that the sentence for domestic assault was improperly increased based on a law that was not applicable at the time of his offense. The court agreed that this was indeed an error and reduced his sentence for that charge. He also claimed evidence of his drug dealing should not have been allowed during the trial. However, the court found that this evidence was relevant to show Darton’s motive to murder Ragland since her protective order affected his ability to sell drugs. Lastly, Darton asserted that he did not have competent legal representation during his trial. The court reviewed his claims about his lawyer’s performance and ultimately decided that his attorney’s actions were part of a reasonable strategy and did not significantly harm Darton's case. Overall, the court affirmed most of the lower court's judgments but corrected the sentence related to the domestic assault charge.

Continue ReadingF-2013-11

F-2012-914

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-914, Bradley Joe Raymond appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Domestic Abuse in the Presence of a Minor, and Domestic Abuse by Strangulation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for one count. One judge dissented. Raymond was found guilty of three serious crimes connected with domestic violence. After the trial in McCurtain County, the jury decided that he should spend life in prison for each count. However, the judge decided that Raymond's sentences for two of the counts would be served at the same time, while the sentence for the third count would be served after the first two. Raymond's appeal included questions about whether the jury received the correct instructions regarding his possible punishments given his past crimes and whether certain evidence presented during the trial might have harmed him. The court found that the jury instructions relating to his first and third counts were correct but that there was a mistake concerning the instructions for the second count of Domestic Abuse in the Presence of a Minor. For the second count, the law at the time stated that certain punishments were not allowed if the crime was a second or later offense. Since the sentencing guidelines given to the jury were incorrect, Raymond’s sentence for that count was changed from life in prison to five years in prison, while the sentences for the other counts remained the same. The appeals court also addressed a concern that some evidence presented during the trial might have caused unfair prejudice to Raymond. After reviewing the evidence, the court determined that it did not find any significant error as it did not affect the overall outcome of the case. The court ultimately confirmed the convictions for the first and third counts and changed the sentence for the second count, ensuring that Raymond would serve five years instead of life for that specific offense.

Continue ReadingF-2012-914

F-2012-567

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-567, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, shooting with intent to kill, and possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence for the first-degree murder charge to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, and the sentence for the possession of a firearm charge to seven years imprisonment. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Mario Lenard Phenix was found guilty of killing Nicholas Martin and injuring Alex Shaw during a dispute on December 31, 2010. The incident involved Phenix, his former girlfriend, and her friends after a night out at a club. Phenix had been angry after his girlfriend ended their relationship, which led to threatening phone calls and ultimately to the shooting. The trial revealed different accounts of what happened that night. Witnesses said Phenix confronted the men with a gun, fired at them, and later, after a struggle, shot Martin again while inside his car. Phenix claimed he shot in self-defense, saying Martin was armed and aggressive. However, the jury rejected this, finding him guilty of murder and other charges. During the trial, Phenix raised several issues on appeal. He argued that he should have been allowed to present a lesser charge of manslaughter. However, because his self-defense claim would have resulted in an outright acquittal if believed, the court found that the jury's instructions were sufficient. Phenix also claimed that the trial process was unfair because the order of presenting evidence might have influenced the jury's decision on punishment. The court agreed that there was a procedural error but found it did not affect the fairness of the trial or the sentence imposed, except for the first-degree murder, which was modified to allow parole. Other arguments related to the introduction of evidence about Phenix's past violent behavior and comments made by the prosecutor during closing arguments were also addressed. The court found no prejudicial errors in these matters that would have affected the trial's outcome. In summary, the decision affirmed the conviction while modifying certain sentences, indicating that, despite some procedural issues, the overall due process was upheld in the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2012-567

F-2012-168

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-168, Tommie Joe Moore appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, and Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Moore's convictions but modified his fine on one count. One judge dissented. Moore was found guilty after a jury trial and received a sentence of twenty years for Distribution and a $25,000 fine, ten years for Possession and a $7,500 fine, and twenty-five years for Trafficking with another $25,000 fine. The sentences for the Distribution and Possession counts were ordered to be served at the same time, but the Trafficking sentence was to be served afterward. Moore raised several points in his appeal. He argued that the fine for the Distribution count was too high and that it should be corrected. He claimed that the jury should have been instructed about a lesser charge related to Possession and that he did not get a fair trial because of mistakes made during the trial, including some comments made by the prosecution. He also stated that the sentences he received were too harsh and should not have been served one after another, but at the same time. After reviewing all the evidence and arguments, the court agreed that the fine for the Distribution count was indeed too high and changed it to $10,000. However, the court found that there was no need for a lesser charge instruction, and that the prosecution's actions did not affect the fairness of Moore's trial. The sentences given to Moore were within legal limits, and the court did not think they were excessively harsh. In the end, the court affirmed Moore's convictions but made a change to reduce the fine in one of the counts. This meant that while the convictions stood, Moore would not have to pay the original high fine, and he could continue to serve his sentences as ordered.

Continue ReadingF-2012-168

F-2010-914

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-914, Burdex appealed his conviction for uttering a forged instrument. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified Burdex's sentence from life imprisonment to twenty years. One judge dissented. Burdex was found guilty of dealing with a fake check, and the jury decided he should serve life in prison due to his past crimes. His appeal raised several issues, including whether he received a speedy trial, if the evidence against him was strong enough, and if the judge made mistakes during the trial. The court looked at the claim for a speedy trial and used a test from a previous case. They found that he was not denied this right. They also believed there was enough evidence that showed Burdex knew the check was fake since he gave different reasons for having it. Burdex argued that the state shouldn't have used some of his old felonies to lengthen his sentence. However, the court found that the state followed the rules correctly. They said that the past felonies were not too old to be used in deciding his punishment. The court also looked into whether Burdex had good lawyers. They found no evidence that his lawyers did a bad job. Additionally, the judges decided the trial court was correct in not explaining what a life sentence meant. When it came to his sentence, the court felt that life imprisonment was too harsh for a non-violent crime. They noticed that the jury seemed to struggle with the punishment and had questions about how to decide it. Because of this, they decided to change his sentence to twenty years instead of life. In summary, the court agreed with the trial's decision to convict Burdex but felt the punishment should be lighter. One judge did not agree with changing the sentence and believed the jury's decision on punishment should stay as it was.

Continue ReadingF-2010-914

F-2011-354

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-354, Isaiah Hasan Gilbert appealed his conviction for Felonious Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirty years to twenty years in prison. Gilbert was found guilty after a jury trial. He was charged with having a gun even though he was not allowed to because of his past criminal record. The jury recommended a sentence of thirty years and a fine of $5,000. Gilbert argued that his lawyer did not do a good job during the trial and that his sentence was too long considering the circumstances. The court looked carefully at everything that happened during the trial. It agreed that Gilbert's lawyer made mistakes but concluded that they did not affect the trial's outcome enough to reverse the conviction entirely. One of the main issues was that Gilbert's lawyer did not call a witness who could have said the gun belonged to someone else. Instead, the lawyer tried to bring that information up in a way that was not allowed, which was a mistake. The court also found that the jury heard improper information about Gilbert’s past, specifically that he had been given suspended sentences from previous convictions. The prosecutor mentioned this to the jury, which could have unfairly influenced their decision on how long to sentence him. Because of these issues, the court decided to reduce Gilbert's sentence from thirty years to twenty years. In conclusion, the decision by the court maintained Gilbert's conviction but reduced the time he had to spend in prison due to the unfair use of his past criminal history in the trial process.

Continue ReadingF-2011-354