Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 540(A)(B)

C-2018-640

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2018-640, Jimmie Dewayne Starr appealed his conviction for multiple crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate his convictions and remand the case for dismissal. One judge dissented. Starr had entered a guilty plea for crimes in three different cases, including endangering others while trying to escape from police, failure to wear a seatbelt, possession of a controlled substance, resisting an officer, and bail jumping. He received several sentences that were ordered to be served concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time, rather than one after the other. After his sentencing, Starr wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, so he asked the court to allow it. The court held a hearing on Starr's request but ultimately denied it. This led to Starr appealing the decision, raising several issues including whether the court had the right to sentence him, whether he had good legal help, whether improper evidence led to an unfair sentence, and whether the state had jurisdiction in his case. The court looked closely at one of Starr's arguments about jurisdiction. He claimed that the State of Oklahoma didn't have the right to prosecute him based on a previous Supreme Court decision known as McGirt v. Oklahoma. This case said that certain crimes committed by Native Americans on tribal land must be handled in federal court, not state court. To investigate his claims, the court sent the case back to the lower district court to gather facts, specifically focusing on Starr's status as an Indian and whether the crime happened within the boundaries of the Muscogee Creek Reservation. Both sides agreed on several important facts about Starr's Indian blood, his membership in the Creek Nation, and that the crime occurred on Creek land. The district court accepted these facts and concluded that under federal law, Starr was indeed considered an Indian, and the crime took place on the reservation. Because of the ruling in the McGirt case, the appellate court decided that the state court did not have the authority to prosecute Starr. As a result, the appellate court vacated all of Starr's convictions, which means they were canceled, and they instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. This decision emphasized that Starr should be prosecuted in federal court instead of state court.

Continue ReadingC-2018-640

C-2019-25

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

This decision from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals pertains to Conner E. Dover's petition for writ of certiorari, which was denied. Dover had pled guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and aggravated attempting to elude a police officer. His sentencing followed the completion of a regimented inmate discipline program, resulting in five years of imprisonment for each count, to be served consecutively. Dover sought to withdraw his plea based on an argument that the court did not sentence him according to his plea agreement. However, the court found that his plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently, and dissatisfaction with the sentence is not a valid reason for withdrawal. The court confirmed that the plea met the necessary legal standards and was not abusive, hence no relief was granted. The denial of the writ indicates the court's decision to affirm the original judgment and sentence. The legal principles applied include reviewing whether a plea was voluntarily and intelligently made, whether the sentence is excessive, the effectiveness of counsel, and the state's power to prosecute. Overall, the court held that there was no abuse of discretion in denying Dover's motion to withdraw the plea, supporting the conclusion that his plea agreement was validly applied.

Continue ReadingC-2019-25

F-2018-15

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-15, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of drugs causing great bodily injury, felony eluding, running a roadblock, and assault with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. The case involved Marcus Ray Smith, who was found guilty in a non-jury trial of several serious offenses related to a high-speed police chase. The judge sentenced Smith to ten years for some crimes and thirty years for others, but with some time suspended, allowing for parole. Smith appealed for multiple reasons. He argued that he was being punished too harshly for actions that were part of one event. According to the law, people usually can't be punished multiple times for the same act. However, the court found that the crimes he committed were separate incidents. For example, running a roadblock is recognized as a distinct crime, and his actions while fleeing from the police qualified as two separate acts that endangered others. Smith also claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he had intended to cause harm with his vehicle when he drove recklessly towards others. The court disagreed and stated that the way he drove clearly showed that he intended to hurt someone. Lastly, Smith said his lawyer didn't do a good job by not arguing about the double punishment issue during the trial. However, the court found that since his double punishment claim was not valid, there was no failure on his lawyer's part. In conclusion, the court upheld Smith's convictions, deciding he had received a fair trial and that his legal arguments were not strong enough to change the outcome.

Continue ReadingF-2018-15

C-2018-225

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. C-2018-225** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Petitioner:** STEVEN LEON GRIMMETT **Respondent:** THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **Opinion by: LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Steven Leon Grimmett (Petitioner) was charged with multiple felony counts and entered a blind plea of no contest. After sentencing, he sought to withdraw his plea, claiming coercion and misunderstandings regarding his sentence. His motion was denied, and he appealed the decision, raising several propositions of error. 1. **Coercion and Voluntariness of Plea**: Petitioner claimed his plea was coerced and involuntary. The court evaluated whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently, emphasizing the importance of confirming that the plea was not the result of force or threats. The court concluded that evidence demonstrated the plea was voluntary. 2. **Advice on Sentencing Requirements**: The Petitioner contended he was not adequately informed about the 85% rule applicable to his sentence or the post-imprisonment supervision requirement. However, since these claims were not raised in his Motion to Withdraw Plea, the appellate court found he waived the right to contest these issues. 3. **Clerical Error Argument**: Petitioner argued there was a clerical error in the judgment regarding the requirement of post-imprisonment supervision. The court did not find this to be an obvious error but remanded the matter to the district court to address the claim. 4. **Effective Assistance of Counsel**: The court assessed his claims of ineffective assistance of both plea and withdrawal counsel using the Strickland test, which evaluates counsel's performance and whether any deficiencies prejudiced the defense. The court determined that Petitioner was sufficiently informed about his plea and that withdrawal counsel's performance did not constitute ineffective assistance. **DECISION**: The court affirmed the denial of the Motion to Withdraw Plea and remanded for the district court to address the clerical error regarding post-imprisonment supervision. **Counsel Information:** - **Counsel for Petitioner at Trial and Appeal**: Shelley Levisay, Kimberly D. Heinze - **Counsel for the State**: Adam Panter, Mike Hunter, David Hammer, Joshua Fanelli **Opinion filed: May 9, 2019** **Mandate ordered upon filing**. For full opinion documents, refer to [the PDF link here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-225_1734103367.pdf).

Continue ReadingC-2018-225

F-2014-286

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-286, Ketcher appealed his conviction for eluding a police officer after two or more felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence but vacated the $5000 fine associated with the felony offense. One judge dissented. Ketcher was found guilty by a jury on several counts, including eluding police, leaving the scene of an accident, driving without a license, and having improper vehicle equipment. He was sentenced to a total of thirty years in prison and received various fines based on his convictions. The main point of his appeal was about the eluding charge, where he argued that the evidence was not strong enough to show he endangered others while trying to escape the police. The court reviewed the case and found that the evidence, including video footage, demonstrated that Ketcher did endanger others. He ran stop signs and drove very fast through neighborhoods, even close to pedestrians. Therefore, the court felt that a reasonable person could find him guilty of the charge beyond doubt. Ketcher also argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury about a lesser charge for eluding. However, the court stated that the evidence did not support this request, so they denied it. Additionally, the court acknowledged a mistake in how the jury was told about fines for the felony eluding charge. It should have been clear that the jury had the choice to impose a fine rather than it being mandatory. Because of this, they removed the $5000 fine from Ketcher's sentence. Regarding other claims of unfairness during the trial, the court found no serious problems that damaged Ketcher’s right to a fair trial. They noted that much of what the prosecutor said during the trial was based on evidence presented. Ketcher also claimed his attorney did not do a good job, but since the court found no serious errors during the trial, they did not agree with this claim. The final decision by the court was to uphold the prison sentences but to remove the fine, allowing them to issue their final ruling without more delays.

Continue ReadingF-2014-286