Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 843.1 Archives

F-2018-198

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 14, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-198, Ann Sykes appealed her conviction for Abuse by Caretaker (Neglect) and Abuse by Caretaker (Financial Exploitation). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Ann Sykes was found guilty of two types of abuse against her son, who is a vulnerable adult. The first conviction was for not providing him with basic needs like food and shelter. The second conviction was for mishandling his money. The court sentenced her to eight years in prison but suspended three years, meaning she would only serve five years in custody. Appellant raised several problems with the trial process. She claimed that hearsay evidence, which is when someone repeats what another person said outside of court, was used against her unfairly. However, the court found that much of the evidence was not considered hearsay because it was not meant to prove the truth of the statements, and any hearsay that was improperly admitted didn't impact the trial's outcome. Sykes also argued that witnesses were allowed to testify without personal knowledge of the information they shared. The court disagreed, stating that witnesses had information based on their own experiences or observations. Another point of appeal was about whether the trial court made mistakes by letting certain opinions into evidence. A social worker testified about how not getting enough nutrition could affect someone's mental state. The court decided that the social worker was qualified to give that information based on her experience. Sykes claimed her two convictions meant she was being punished twice for the same actions, which is called double punishment. The court found that the actions leading to the two charges were different enough to allow both charges to stand without violating the law. She also believed that the charges against her were not clearly stated in the official documents, but the court noted that she didn’t raise this issue during the trial, so it wasn’t considered on appeal. Another argument was that she was denied a right to have a lawyer appointed to help her during the trial. The court found that although there was a lack of a hearing on this, Sykes did have a lawyer who represented her during the trial. Sykes claimed her lawyer did not do a good enough job. The court noted that for a claim like this, Sykes needed to show both that her lawyer did not perform well and that this affected the trial's outcome. The court did not find evidence that the lawyer's actions changed the trial's result. Lastly, Sykes claimed that even with the errors made during her trial, they did not add up to deny her a fair trial overall. The court agreed, concluding that the errors did not require the reversal of her conviction. Overall, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence, meaning Sykes will continue to serve the time given by the lower court. The application to further review her claims about lawyer effectiveness was denied as well.

RE-2018-769

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
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).

C-2016-778

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 11, 2017
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-778, Donald Garra Patterson appealed his conviction for Abuse by Caretaker, Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body, and Obtaining a Controlled Substance by Forgery/Fraud. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions on most counts but modified the sentence for Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body due to it being greater than allowed by law. One judge dissented. Patterson had entered a plea of guilty to various charges and was sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment, including ten years for Abuse by Caretaker and seven years for each of the other charges. Afterward, he wanted to withdraw his plea, claiming he did not fully understand what he was pleading guilty to and felt his lawyer had not helped him properly. The main issues raised included whether his plea was made knowingly and if his lawyer had conflicts of interest or failed to give him correct information. The court found that Patterson didn't support his claims about not understanding the plea and concluded his sentence for the crime of Unlawful Removal had to be changed because it was wrongly set longer than the law allowed. The court also confirmed that the mistakes in advising Patterson were not enough to prove he was treated unfairly by his lawyer. Ultimately, the court decided to lower his sentence for Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body to the correct maximum of five years and instructed the lower court to fix some record-keeping errors regarding fees.

S-2015-87

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 14, 2016
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-87, Donna Long and Lillian Shipman appealed their conviction for Financial Exploitation by Caretaker. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's dismissal of the case. One judge dissented. The State of Oklahoma charged Long and Shipman with financially exploiting Shipman's mother-in-law, who had passed away. The case revolved around two checks signed by the mother-in-law shortly before her death. The first check was for $5,500, and the second check was for $250,000, which the defendants deposited. During the preliminary hearing, the judge found that the evidence did not support the State's claims that the defendants were caretakers or that they exploited the deceased. The judge noted that while there were checks involved, there wasn't enough proof that Long and Shipman acted improperly or had bad intent in obtaining these checks. Both defendants filed motions to quash the information, claiming there was not enough evidence for the case to continue. Ultimately, the judge ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that the prosecution did not provide enough evidence to prove their guilt. The case was then appealed to a higher court, which reviewed the lower court's decision. The higher court concluded that the lower court did not make an error and affirmed the dismissal of the charges against Long and Shipman, agreeing that there was insufficient evidence presented during the preliminary hearing to justify proceeding with the case. In summary, the case focused on whether the defendants financially exploited their relative, but the court found the evidence lacking, leading to the dismissal of the charges.

F-2006-301

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 10, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-301, Peggy L. Caves appealed her conviction for Neglect by Caretaker. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Caves' conviction but modify her sentence. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. The case involved Peggy L. Caves, who was found guilty of neglecting an adult in her care. The jury suggested a $10,000 fine, and the judge agreed to this sentence. Caves argued that there were several mistakes during her trial, including that there wasn't enough evidence to prove her guilt, and that she didn't get a fair trial because of various reasons, such as improper juror conduct and irrelevant testimony. The court looked closely at the arguments Caves made. They found that there was enough evidence showing that Caves neglected the adult in question. They also determined that she was aware of the charges against her, so the fact that the evidence presented matched the charges was not a problem. One key argument was about whether Caves did everything she could to help the adult in her care. While Caves said she did not think the person needed help, the court noted that unless a doctor declares a person dead, help must be given. The court concluded that the rules related to Do Not Resuscitate orders did not apply in this case. The court agreed that certain evidence, like the mention of a civil suit against Caves' employer, was not necessary and could have influenced the jury unfairly. Because of this, they decided to lower Caves' fine from $10,000 to $7,500. In the end, the court kept the conviction but changed the amount of the fine due to the identified errors and the impact they might have had on the jury's decision. One judge disagreed with lowering the fine, believing that Caves was already fortunate to only receive a fine without jail time.