Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 Archives - Page 5 of 19

F-2017-762

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 18, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-762, Kendell Paul Sparrow appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree (Malice Aforethought). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court, sentencing him to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. One judge dissented. Sparrow was convicted of a serious crime, and his appeal included two main issues. First, he argued that the trial should not have included the preliminary hearing testimony of a witness because he believed it went against his right to confront witnesses. Second, he contended that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction for murder. During the trial, the court allowed a witness’s earlier testimony to be used because that witness was unavailable to testify in person. Sparrow challenged this, claiming it violated his constitutional rights. However, the court found no error because the State had made reasonable efforts to bring the witness to trial. The court also determined that Sparrow had a chance to question the witness during the preliminary hearing. Therefore, the admission of the testimony was upheld. As for the evidence presented against Sparrow, the court examined whether the State proved he was guilty of murder. The law requires that to convict someone of first-degree murder, it must be shown they unlawfully caused the death of another with intent or malice. The court looked at all the evidence in favor of the State and concluded that reasonable jurors could find Sparrow guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Ultimately, the court decided that Sparrow's appeal did not provide grounds for reversing his conviction. Therefore, the original sentence of life imprisonment was affirmed.

F-2017-902

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 15, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-902, Kaylin Mixon appealed his conviction for Second Degree Depraved Mind Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and uphold the sentence. One judge dissented. Kaylin Mixon was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to 30 years in prison, along with a $100 fine. Mixon argued that his trial was unfair for three reasons. First, he believed that the jury should have been individually asked about their verdict to ensure all members agreed. However, the court found that since no one complained during the trial, there was no clear error. They determined that the jury's agreement was evident enough without needing to poll each member individually. Second, Mixon contended that photos from the autopsy shown at trial were too upsetting and should not have been allowed as evidence, claiming they were not necessary since the cause of death was not disputed. The court ruled that the photos were relevant to the case and helped to explain the details of the crime, so the inclusion of the photos did not unfairly influence the jury. Lastly, Mixon challenged the $100 fine imposed by the judge, arguing that it wasn’t proper since the law didn’t specifically mention a fine for his type of conviction. However, the court referenced past rulings that allowed judges to impose fines in felony cases, concluding that the fine was valid. After reviewing these issues, the court found no substantial errors that would warrant a new trial or change in the sentence. Therefore, they affirmed the original decision and the appeal was denied.

C-2017-1044

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 8, 2018
Post category:C

The document appears to be a legal summary from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of Auntra Lawan Edmonds. The case revolves around Edmonds' appeal after being convicted of two counts of First Degree Manslaughter. Here’s a concise overview of the case and the court's decision: 1. **Background**: Auntra Lawan Edmonds was charged with two counts of First Degree Manslaughter in Greer County District Court. After entering a no contest plea and being sentenced to life imprisonment for each count (to run concurrently), he later sought to withdraw his plea, which the court denied. 2. **Propositions of Error**: - **Proposition I**: Edmonds argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea, claiming it was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The court found that the record sufficiently demonstrated that Edmonds was aware of his rights and the nature of the charges, thus affirming that his plea was valid. - **Proposition II**: He claimed ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea withdrawal hearing. The court concluded that this claim lacked merit, noting that Edmonds did not provide substantial evidence to support the claim of ineffective assistance. - **Proposition III**: Edmonds argued that his life sentences were excessive. The court reasoned that the sentences were factually substantiated and justified given the severity of the incident, including the presence of alcohol and prior criminal behavior. 3. **Court Decision**: The court denied Edmonds' petition for a writ of certiorari, affirming the judgment and sentence of the District Court. It upheld that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea. 4. **Final Note**: The opinion emphasizes the importance of properly presenting claims during the trial and highlights that a defendant's dissatisfaction with a sentence does not invalidate a plea agreement. This case serves as a reference point for issues regarding plea withdrawals, effective legal counsel, and the proportionality of sentences in criminal proceedings.

RE-2017-706

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 8, 2018
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **THOMAS LYNN SPANN,** Appellant, **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. No. RE-2017-706 **FILED ** IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOV 8 2018 JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** In the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CF-2012-436A, Appellant, while represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty to the offense of Cruelty to Animals. On October 10, 2013, in accordance with a plea agreement, the Honorable Joe H. Enos, District Judge, sentenced Appellant to a $1,000.00 fine and to five (5) years imprisonment, with all but the first one (1) year of that term conditionally suspended under written rules of probation. On October 20, 2016, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence. The Motion alleged Appellant had violated his probation by: 1. Failing to provide verification of employment; 2. Being in $920.00 in arrears on supervision fees due to the Department of Corrections; 3. Failing to pay restitution of $152.44; 4. Failing to pay $75.00 per month beginning October 2015 towards costs, fines, and fees, resulting in arrears of $675.00. On November 10, 2016, the parties appeared before the Honorable Ken Graham, District Judge, regarding the Motion to Revoke. While represented by counsel, Appellant stipulated to the probation violations contained in that Motion. Further revocation proceedings regarding punishment were postponed for two months, allowing Appellant time to comply with his probation requirements. This period was later expanded twice, eventually leading to a hearing on June 22, 2017. At this June 22nd hearing, Appellant again appeared with counsel. The probation officer provided a Supplemental Report indicating that Appellant remained significantly delinquent in fulfilling payment obligations, although he had paid off the restitution. Additionally, the report noted that Appellant had not verified employment nor demonstrated compliance with job search requirements. There were also reports of unsigned traffic citations and evidence of an altered appointment slip presented by Appellant. After considering testimonies and evidence regarding Appellant's compliance, Judge Graham revoked Appellant's suspended sentence in full. Appellant now appeals that final order of revocation, asserting that the court denied due process and abused its discretion by revoking the remaining suspended sentence based on extra-application allegations. After careful review, we find no error warranting reversal. Appellant had stipulated to the probation violations, providing the State with the necessary grounds to prove the allegations. Consequently, the trial court had the authority to revoke the suspended sentence. Appellant failed to demonstrate significant compliance with probation requirements over an extended period, despite having opportunities to rectify the situation. The revocation order is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2018), MANDATE IS ORDERED ISSUED on the filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** **R. L. WILLIAMS** P.O. BOX 2095 LAWTON, OKLAHOMA 73502 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT **GREG STEWARD** ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY STEPHENS COUNTY COURTHOUSE 101 SOUTH 11TH STREET DUNCAN, OKLAHOMA 73533 ATTORNEY FOR STATE OF OKLA. --- **OPINION BY: HUDSON, J.** **LUMPKIN, P.J.: CONCUR** **LEWIS, V.P.J.: CONCUR** **KUEHN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** --- **KUEHN, JUDGE, CONCURRING IN RESULT:** I concur in the result. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in full. Appellant stipulated to the Application to Revoke, making only the issue before the trial court whether to revoke the suspended sentence in part or in full. While Appellant used this opportunity to pay restitution, he failed to comply with the rest of the conditions. The trial court reasonably considered Appellant's interim behavior, given the evidence of continued violations, leading to the conclusion to revoke. The failure to make a determination regarding Appellant’s ability to pay was error, but not dispositive as Appellant had already stipulated to the original allegations. The trial court properly considered the evidence presented in mitigation when deciding the final revocation of the sentence.

F-2017-994

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 8, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-994, Holly Tegan Zuniga-Griffin appealed her conviction for Enabling Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction. One judge dissented. The case involved Holly Tegan Zuniga-Griffin, who was found guilty of enabling the abuse of her three-year-old son. The jury in Muskogee County decided she was guilty of this crime based on the evidence presented during the trial. She was sentenced to ten years in prison, following the jury's recommendation. Zuniga-Griffin raised several issues in her appeal. First, she argued that the law regarding child abuse was unclear and vague. However, the court found no reason to change its previous decisions on this issue and denied her claim. Next, she claimed there wasn't enough evidence to prove she understood her child was in danger when she left him with her 17-year-old boyfriend. The court disagreed, stating there was enough evidence to show she should have known her child was at risk. Zuniga-Griffin had made inconsistent statements about how her son got hurt, and medical evidence indicated he had been physically abused. She also said she was denied a fair trial because the judge didn't instruct the jury properly. The court acknowledged that some jury instructions could have been appropriate, but overall, they did not think this affected the trial's fairness. Another point she raised was about a nurse giving an opinion in court when she didn't have the right qualifications. The court found that the nurse did have enough training and experience to testify about the injuries on the child, so they disagreed with Zuniga-Griffin's claim. Zuniga-Griffin contended that the prosecution failed to provide important evidence that could have helped her case. However, the court concluded that she was aware of the photos in question during the trial and did not attempt to use them, dismissing her argument. She also claimed her lawyer did not do a good job representing her, which negatively impacted her trial. But the court found her lawyer's decisions were reasonable and did not affect the outcome. Zuniga-Griffin then argued that her ten-year sentence was excessively harsh. The court noted that her son had suffered serious injuries, and her sentence was within what the law allowed, so they did not find it shocking. Finally, she stated that all the errors combined during the trial made it unfair. The court determined that the errors she identified did not, either separately or together, undermine her right to a fair trial. In the end, the decision of the trial court was upheld, meaning Zuniga-Griffin would serve her sentence as originally decided.

RE-2016-1049

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 30, 2018
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2016-1049, George appealed his conviction for violating the conditions of his probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence in one case and reversed the revocations in three other cases with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. George had a history of criminal activity, including a guilty plea to second-degree statutory rape. He received a sentence with parts suspended, allowing him to leave prison if he followed probation rules, including not having contact with minors. This became an issue when George was found to be in contact with his biological son, which he claimed was unconstitutional since he was not the victim of his previous crime. During a hearing, evidence showed that George was discovered with a child, and while he later claimed that it was his son, the court found that the state proved he violated his probation by having contact with a minor. The court affirmed the revocation in the case where this violation occurred, stating that a single violation is enough to revoke probation. However, George was also accused of failing to pay court costs in three other cases. The court decided that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he failed to pay, thus reversing the decision to revoke his probation in those cases. The court instructed the lower court to dismiss those revocations. This decision recognized the importance of proving probation violations with solid evidence, especially regarding financial obligations.

M-2017-739

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 1, 2018
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2017-739, Jeremy L. Garza appealed his conviction for Driving under the Influence of Intoxicating Substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Garza to represent himself during the acceleration proceedings without him properly waiving his right to counsel. One judge dissented. Garza had initially entered a guilty plea to a DUI charge and was given eighteen months of probation. However, the State later accused him of not following the rules of his probation, such as failing to report and not paying fines. When Garza addressed the court without a lawyer during these acceleration proceedings, the court did not properly document that he understood his right to have a lawyer or that he chose to give up that right. The court's opinion stressed that anyone facing charges has the right to a lawyer and can only waive this right if they do so knowingly and intelligently. This means they need to understand the consequences of representing themselves. Since the court did not show that Garza waived his right to counsel properly, the decision to sentence him was reversed. The matter was sent back to the lower court, instructing them to vacate the judgment and hold further proceedings that follow this ruling.

C-2017-458

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 9, 2018
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. MAC-2017-458, Harris appealed her conviction for possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand for further proceedings, agreeing that Harris was denied her right to a proper evidentiary hearing to withdraw her guilty plea. One judge dissented, expressing concerns about the approach taken by the majority in requiring a hearing despite the lack of detailed reasoning in the motions to withdraw.

RE-2018-357

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 2, 2018
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CASE NO. RE-2018-357** **JAMES MONROE JONES, Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** James Monroe Jones (Appellant) appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290, and CF-2013-6519, adjudicated by the Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge, in the District Court of Oklahoma County. On June 16, 2010, Appellant pled guilty in Cases CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, and CF-2010-290, receiving concurrent sentences with significant portions suspended. Specifically, in CF-2008-7440, he was convicted of two counts of Concealing Stolen Property and sentenced to fifteen years on each count, with the first five years served. Similar sentences were imposed for offenses stemming from the other cases. On May 1, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated nolo contendere plea in CF-2013-6519 for an amended count of Concealing Stolen Property, resulting in a ten-year sentence with the first year served. On August 26, 2016, the State filed applications to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences due to reported violations, including failure to report, change of address, and new criminal activity related to Domestic Assault and Battery. Enhanced allegations were added on March 7, 2018, encompassing additional crimes attributed to Appellant. A hearing was conducted on April 2, 2018. Appellant's counsel objected to the State's evidence, citing inadequate discovery. The trial court, however, noted Appellant had received relevant documents previously, and dismissed the objections after reviewing the evidence. Judge Henderson ultimately found Appellant had violated his probation through specific new criminal conduct and revoked his suspended sentences in full. Appellant presents two propositions of error on appeal: **PROPOSITION I:** The trial court violated Jones's right to due process and a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II § 7 of the Oklahoma State Constitution. **PROPOSITION II:** Defense counsel failed to prepare adequately for trial, resulting in ineffective assistance of counsel. **ANALYSIS** In addressing Proposition I, Appellant contends that the overruling of his objections regarding discovery violations deprived him of due process. It is established that defendants have minimal due process rights in revocation hearings, including evidence disclosure. However, since Appellant’s counsel did not request discovery prior to the hearing, the burden falls on them for preparation. The trial court did not deny Appellant the opportunity to defend—therefore, Proposition I is denied. Regarding Proposition II, Appellant asserts his counsel's ineffectiveness based on a lack of preparedness stemming from unrequested discovery. The Strickland standard evaluates ineffective assistance claims through performance deficiency and resultant prejudice. Appellant has not substantiated claims that better-prepared counsel would have altered the outcome, as evidence showed several violations were confirmed. Thus, Proposition II is also denied. **DECISION** The order from the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290, and CF-2013-6519 is **AFFIRMED**. --- **APPEARANCES:** **AT TRIAL** Katie Samples, Assistant Public Defender Marva A. Banks, Assistant Public Defender **ON APPEAL** David Nichols, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Attorney General Keeley L. Miller, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. **[Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-357_1734695459.pdf)**

RE 2016-1019

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 23, 2018
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2016-1019, Jerry Lynn Clemons appealed his conviction for Home Repair Fraud and other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but directed the District Court to modify the orders so that the sentences would run concurrently. The dissenting opinion was not specified. Here's a simplified summary of what happened: Jerry Clemons was found guilty in two cases. He pleaded guilty to Home Repair Fraud in one case and robbery and property damage in another. He was given suspended sentences, meaning he would not go to prison if he followed rules and conditions of probation, like reporting to a probation officer and not changing his address without informing them. However, he did not follow these rules, which led the State to ask to revoke his suspended sentences. During a hearing, the judge decided to revoke Clemons' suspended sentences because he had failed to report as required and changed his address without telling his probation officer. Clemons argued that the State didn’t properly inform him about the reasons for the revocation and that they didn’t provide enough evidence to support their claims. He also said that the judge should not have revoked his sentence because the punishment was longer than what the law allowed for one of his charges. The court agreed with some of Clemons' points but stated that there was enough evidence to support the decision to revoke his suspended sentences. They found that he didn’t show how the judge made a wrong choice. However, they also recognized a mistake in how the sentences should be served. They ordered that all his sentences should run concurrently, meaning they would be served at the same time, rather than one after the other. In conclusion, Clemons' appeal was mostly not successful, but the court made important changes to ensure he would serve his time in a fair way according to the law.

RE-2016-929

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 23, 2018
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2016-1019, the appellant appealed his conviction for home repair fraud and robbery by force of fear. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but required the district court to modify its orders to reflect that the sentences should run concurrently. One judge dissented. Jerry Lynn Clemons pleaded guilty to home repair fraud and robbery in Muskogee County. He was given suspended sentences, meaning he wouldn't go to jail if he followed certain rules, which included reporting to a probation officer and paying fines. However, the state said Clemons didn't follow these rules by not reporting and changing his address without telling his probation officer. This led to a revocation hearing where the judge decided to enforce his suspended sentences. Clemons argued that he wasn't properly informed about the reasons for revoking his sentence. He also raised concerns about not being given enough evidence of his alleged failures, and about a mistake in the length of his punishment for the misdemeanor charge. Ultimately, some of his arguments were accepted, especially regarding sentencing errors, but the court found enough evidence to support the revocation of his sentence based on his failure to report and violating other conditions. The court directed that the modified orders clarify that the sentences were to be served at the same time instead of one after the other. Clemons also claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly, which might have affected his defense. However, the court concluded that Clemons did not prove this claim sufficiently. In summary, while the court agreed to fix some mistakes in his sentencing, it still upheld the decision to revoke his suspended sentences due to the established violations.

F 2017-0031

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 11, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2017-0031, Heath Saxon Ford appealed his conviction for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and unauthorized use of a vehicle, both felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his termination from the Drug Court Program and remand the case for reinstatement into a Drug Court program, preferably in another county. No one dissented. Heath Saxon Ford was charged with multiple offenses in McCurtain County. He pleaded guilty to two of them and entered a Drug Court Program, agreeing to specific conditions. If he didn’t follow these conditions, he could be sentenced to twelve years in prison. The state wanted to kick him out of the Drug Court Program, saying he violated his agreement by having a bad drug test. At a hearing, a witness said something about the drug test results, but she didn’t perform the test herself nor was the actual test introduced as evidence. Ford argued that this was not fair and that they used hearsay, which is when someone talks about what another person said instead of providing direct evidence. The court agreed that the hearsay could not be the only reason for terminating Ford from the program and that they didn’t show strong enough evidence to prove he violated the terms. There were also concerns about how the Drug Court was being run, suggesting possible impropriety. Because of these issues, the court decided to reverse the decision to end Ford's participation in the Drug Court Program and ordered that he be reinstated, possibly in a different county's program.

RE-2016-1101

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 14, 2017
Post category:RE

This is a summary of a legal opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding Richard Leroy Felton's appeal following the revocation of his suspended sentences. Felton had previously entered guilty pleas to several misdemeanor charges, leading to consecutive suspended sentences of one year and six months. His probation was later revoked because he allegedly violated several probation conditions. Notably, he was accused of failing to pay supervision fees, maintaining employment, answering questions truthfully, and violating a protective order. During the revocation hearing, evidence was presented regarding Felton's threats against probation officers, his failure to report to them, and multiple documented violations of the protective order. The court concluded that even just his threats to the officers were sufficient grounds for revocation, thereby affirming the district court's decision. Felton raised five propositions of error on appeal, including claims of insufficient evidence for the state’s allegations, denial of due process, ineffective assistance of counsel, and abuse of discretion in revoking his sentences. The court found these arguments without merit, affirming the revocation on the basis that sufficient evidence supported the action taken by the district court. The court's ruling highlighted that violations of probation do not require the same standards as criminal prosecutions and that the existence of threats and failures to comply with probation conditions justified the decisions made at the lower court level. The order of revocation was thus upheld.

RE 2016-0218

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 8, 2017
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2016-0218, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but instructed the lower court to remove the requirement for post-imprisonment supervision from the revocation order. One member of the court dissented.

RE-2015-922

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 4, 2017
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-922, Palmer appealed his conviction for perjury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Palmer's suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Palmer had previously received a deferred sentence for a case in 2010. In 2015, he pleaded no contest to a perjury charge and got another suspended sentence that he was serving at the same time as the first one. Later, the State of Oklahoma filed to revoke his suspended sentences, claiming he had violated probation by not reporting, not paying court costs, and not completing a required program. They also added new charges of kidnapping and assault. During the revocation hearing, Palmer was removed from the courtroom because he was disruptive. He interrupted the judge repeatedly and was warned to stop, but he did not listen. The court found that because he was behaving disruptively, his absence from the hearing did not make the process unfair. Palmer also claimed that he wanted to represent himself but was forced to have a lawyer. The court determined he had not made any formal request to represent himself, so this claim was rejected. Additionally, Palmer argued that the court did not explain why his sentences were revoked. However, the court noted that there is no requirement to provide detailed reasons at a revocation hearing. Palmer's failure to follow even one condition of his probation was enough to justify the revocation of his sentences. Finally, Palmer thought the judge did not have the power to impose supervision following his imprisonment. However, the court found this issue was already resolved and was therefore moot. The court's overall ruling was to confirm that Palmer's suspended sentences were revoked, maintaining that proper procedures were followed during the revocation hearing.

M-2016-268

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 2, 2017
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2016-268, the appellant appealed his conviction for threatening to perform an act of violence and resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court made an error by not properly informing the appellant about the risks of representing himself without a lawyer. The court found that there was not enough evidence to show that the appellant understood what he was doing when he waived his right to a lawyer. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and ordered a new trial. One judge dissented.

F-2015-720

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 28, 2017
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-720, Bobby Dewayne Ray appealed his conviction for second degree burglary and impersonating an officer. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the fine of $1,500.00 but affirmed the judgment and sentence otherwise. One judge dissented regarding the fine. Bobby Dewayne Ray was found guilty by a jury of two crimes: second degree burglary and impersonating an officer. The jury decided that he committed the burglary after he had already been convicted of two or more felonies. Because of this, he was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and fined $1,500 for the burglary, and was given one year in jail and fined $100 for impersonating an officer. Both sentences were to be served at the same time. On appeal, Ray raised two main arguments. First, he said that the way he was identified by the victim in court was unfair and not allowed under the law. He believed that an earlier identification using his photo was done in a way that could cause mistakes. He pointed out that his lawyer didn’t object to this identification during the trial, which meant he could only argue that it was clearly a mistake. The court looked at the situation and decided that even though the police used only one photo of him, the victim had a good view of him during the crime and was sure of her identification. So, they didn’t believe there was a big chance of making a mistake, thus they found no clear error in letting the victim identify him in court. In his second argument, Ray claimed that the instruction given to the jury about the fine was wrong. The judge told the jury that a fine was mandatory when it was actually optional. In a past case, the court recognized that giving such an instruction was a big mistake, but they also decided that in that case the mistake didn’t change the outcome because the jury gave the highest fine possible. In Ray’s case, they agreed that the $1,500 fine might indicate that the jury would have chosen a smaller amount if they had been told that giving a fine was not required. Therefore, they decided to cancel the fine, but they agreed that his conviction should stay. The court stated that their decision would be filed, and the mandate would be issued once the decision was recorded. One judge agreed with the result of the decision but disagreed about canceling the fine. They believed the jury probably intended to fine Ray because the amount was still significant enough, and the error shouldn't mean that the fine had to be thrown out. In summary, the court agreed to remove the fine but kept the convictions, while expressing that the mistake in jury instruction about the fine did not matter too much in the overall decision.

C-2016-40

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 9, 2017
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-40, Deandre Lashawn Henderson appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a firearm after a former conviction of a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to grant part of his appeal. The court affirmed the convictions for Counts 1 and 5, but reversed and vacated the judgments for Counts 2 through 4. One justice dissented. The case began when Henderson entered a negotiated Alford plea, which means he maintained his innocence but accepted the plea for the sake of a more favorable sentence. He was sentenced to twenty years for the assault counts and ten years for the possession count, all to be served concurrently, meaning at the same time. Later, Henderson wanted to withdraw his plea. He claimed that his plea was not made knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily. He also said that he did not receive effective help from his lawyer and that the trial court should have appointed a different lawyer due to a conflict of interest. During the appeal, the court looked closely at whether Henderson's plea was made voluntarily and if the district court had the authority to accept it. The court found that Henderson's plea was indeed voluntary because he knew the charges and the consequences. His choice to accept the plea was motivated by a desire to reduce his overall prison time, especially given the evidence against him. However, the court agreed that Henderson's lawyer should have argued that some of the charges violated the double jeopardy clause, which means he shouldn't be punished multiple times for the same act. The court found that the counts for assault stemmed from the same event and that it was wrong to punish him multiple times for it. Therefore, while verifying his conviction for some counts, the court ruled that the counts of conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon were not valid as they violated his rights. This decision meant that Henderson would not have to serve time for those three convictions but would still be sentenced for the other charges. Overall, the court upheld some aspects of the conviction but also corrected parts that were not handled properly.

C-2016-140

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 12, 2017
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-140, Hiram Frank Mutters appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to grant him a new hearing. One judge dissented. Mutters pleaded no contest to Child Sexual Abuse on December 7, 2015, and was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and a fine. He later wanted to withdraw his plea, so he filed a motion. However, during the hearing for this motion, he was not present because he was taken to another facility. His lawyer thought Mutters would prefer to stay away from jail rather than return for the hearing. This decision meant that Mutters could not explain his reasons for wanting to withdraw his plea. The court found that it is very important for a person to be present during such hearings because their testimony is vital. Since Mutters was not there, the hearing did not meet the required standards for fairness. Thus, the court ruled that the case should go back for a new hearing where Mutters can be present to share his side of the story and explain why he thinks he should withdraw his plea.

S-2016-332

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 5, 2017
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-332, the defendants appealed their conviction for conspiracy to deliver a narcotic controlled dangerous substance and first degree murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which indicated that the defendants were not part of the conspiracy at the time of the victim's death. One judge dissented. The case began when a grand jury accused several people, including the defendants, of being involved in a conspiracy to sell drugs, which ultimately led to the death of Jennifer McNulty. She died from an overdose of oxycodone. After a preliminary hearing, a judge decided that two defendants, Miers and Gregoire, should not be charged with murder because they had withdrawn from the conspiracy before McNulty’s death. The state did not agree with this decision and appealed. They argued that the judge made a mistake in saying Miers and Gregoire had ended their part in the conspiracy. However, the court reviewed the evidence and found that both defendants had indeed separated themselves from the drug conspiracy before the incident occurred, so they couldn’t be held responsible for the murder. The court confirmed that Gregoire was removed from the drug operation because of her problems with addiction, causing others not to want her in the conspiracy anymore. Also, Miers had moved to another state and had stopped working with the main person involved in drug sales before the death happened. After considering everything, the court decided that the earlier ruling was fair and didn't show an abuse of discretion. In conclusion, the court affirmed that Miers and Gregoire could not be charged with first degree murder because they had taken themselves out of the conspiracy before the victim's death. The dissenting judge felt that the court made an error and that the defendants should still face charges.

RE-2015-767

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 18, 2016
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-767, the appellant appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence but ordered the lower court to give her credit for time served in jail. The court also agreed that imposing nine months of supervision after her imprisonment was not appropriate. No judge dissented.

C-2016-38

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 7, 2016
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-38, Charlie Franklin Roberts appealed his conviction for violation of a protective order, kidnapping, and domestic assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition and remand for a new hearing on the motion to withdraw plea. One judge dissented. Roberts had entered a no contest plea to the charges and was sentenced to one year in county jail for the misdemeanor and thirty years for each felony, with the felony sentences running at the same time but after the jail sentence. He later wanted to withdraw his plea, claiming he did not have the right help from his attorney during this process. The court looked into his claims and found that Roberts had not been given fair legal help when trying to withdraw his plea. Specifically, his attorney had conflicts of interest that affected his ability to represent Roberts properly. Because of these issues, the court allowed Roberts to have a new and better attorney who could help him file the motion. The court also ordered a hearing to figure out what Roberts would like to do about his plea within specific timelines.

S-2016-95

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 27, 2016
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-95, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction for acquiring proceeds from illegal drug activity. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling of the district court that granted a Motion to Suppress evidence. One judge dissented. The case began in Sequoyah County when the driver of a vehicle was stopped for speeding. During the traffic stop, the trooper checked the driver's license and vehicle documents, and after issuing a warning, asked if he could use a drug-sniffing dog on the vehicle. The driver said no and wanted to leave. Despite this, the trooper asked him to get back into the patrol car and moved ahead with deploying the dog. The drug dog found a large amount of cash hidden in the spare tire of the truck. The State appealed the decision saying that the trooper had enough reason to keep the driver there for the drug dog search. The trooper noted that the driver was very nervous, the truck was unusually clean with a strong air freshener scent, and the driver had two cell phones. When a police officer stops someone, they can only keep them there for as long as needed to handle the reason for the stop, which in this case was the speeding. The officer can extend the stop if they have reasonable suspicion that something illegal is happening, but they need solid reasons to do this. In reviewing the trooper's actions, the court looked at the overall situation, including the video from the stop, and decided that the trooper did not have enough reasonable suspicion to keep the driver longer. The factors the trooper mentioned did not add up to a valid reason for the ongoing detention. As a result, the court upheld the lower court's decision to suppress the evidence obtained from the drug dog search, meaning the cash found could not be used against the driver in court. The State’s appeal was denied.

RE-2015-844

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 17, 2016
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-844, Cully appealed his conviction for Larceny of an Automobile, Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, and Driving Without A License. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Cully's suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Cully had entered a guilty plea in 2008 and was given suspended sentences in 2010. Later, he faced allegations of violating his probation, which led to a hearing and the eventual revocation of his suspended sentences in 2015. Cully claimed that the court should have specified that his sentences were to be served concurrently, and that the addition of post-imprisonment supervision was not allowed for him. The court concluded that while it could not add post-imprisonment supervision to his sentence due to the timing of the laws, the decision to revoke his suspended sentences was valid. Cully's request for a change to the order to show that his sentences were to be served concurrently was denied, and the case was sent back to the District Court to correct the judgment as per the court's rules.

M-2015-506

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 17, 2016
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2015-506, Bell appealed her conviction for Disorderly Conduct and Interfering or Obstructing by Disobeying a Lawful Command. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and instructed to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. Bell was arrested on September 21, 2014, after protesting against a Satanic Black Mass at the Oklahoma City Civic Center. She was initially charged with trespassing but this was changed to Disorderly Conduct and Interfering or Obstructing by Disobeying a Lawful Command. Bell had gone to the Civic Center to pray against the event and knelt to pray on public property. She refused to leave when asked by police officers and was arrested. During the trial, witnesses, including police officers, testified that she did not block any entrances, and the City could not prove that she had obstructed access as per the ordinance she was charged under. The court found there was not enough evidence to support the claims that Bell had violated the law concerning disorderly conduct and interfering with the police. The judge reviewing the case decided that Bell's actions, which were protected under the First Amendment, did not constitute criminal obstruction. Although there were differences in opinion among the judges, the majority felt there was a lack of legal basis for the charges.