Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 652

F-2021-211

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-211, Michael Ray Dawkins appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon, felon in possession of a firearm, and maiming. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon and felon in possession of a firearm but reversed the conviction for maiming and instructed to dismiss it. A dissenting opinion was not noted. The case involved a jury trial where Dawkins was found guilty on all counts after shooting a woman named Krystal Traylor. He received a sentence of 45 years for the assault and battery, 25 years for the firearm possession, and another 45 years for the maiming, with some sentences running concurrently and others consecutively. Dawkins raised several claims on appeal, including that his constitutional right to an attorney of his choice was violated, that he faced double punishment for the same act, and that there were errors in admitting certain evidence during his trial. Upon review, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Dawkins's request for a new attorney, as he did not provide valid reasons for wanting to change lawyers. It was also determined that Dawkins’s convictions for assault and battery and maiming stemmed from a single act, which should not result in multiple punishments. Therefore, the court reversed the maiming conviction. Further, the court found that the identification of Dawkins by the victim was correctly admitted as evidence, dismissing the hearsay claim. Dawkins's assertions about prior bad acts being admitted were also rejected, as they were deemed relevant and essential for establishing motive and intent. The court noted that a limiting instruction had been provided to jurors, mitigating concerns over the impact of these past acts. Finally, regarding Dawkins's claim for a speedy trial violation, the court found that the delays were mainly attributable to him or his defense strategies, concluding that he was not prejudiced by the delay. Overall, most of Dawkins's claims were denied, leading to the affirmation of his main convictions and the reversal of the maiming charge.

Continue ReadingF-2021-211

F-2019-854

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-854, Joshua Lee Purdom appealed his conviction for several serious crimes, including assault and battery, kidnapping, and rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand the case with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented. Joshua Lee Purdom was found guilty by a jury of multiple crimes and received a lengthy sentence in the District Court of Hughes County. The court took into account that Purdom committed these crimes against a victim who had Indian heritage and that the crimes occurred on land considered part of an Indian Reservation. This brought up a question about whether the state had the right to convict him. Purdom argued that because the victim was an enrolled member of an Indian tribe and the crimes happened on Indian land, the state did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him; instead, this should be handled by federal courts. The case brought attention to a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that said parts of Oklahoma were still considered Indian Country for legal purposes. The OCCA agreed with Purdom and found that based on the facts established in a hearing, the state did not have the authority to prosecute him. The victim’s status as an Indian and the location of the crimes played a crucial role in the decision. Therefore, the court dismissed the case, emphasizing that only federal courts have jurisdiction over crimes against Indians in Indian Country under federal law. In summary, the court reversed Purdom’s convictions and ordered the case to be dismissed, which means he will not face charges from this case.

Continue ReadingF-2019-854

F-2019-16

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOHNNY W. WARD,** Appellant, v. **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2019-16** **FILED DEC 12 2019** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Appellant Johnny W. Ward was tried by jury and found guilty of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon (Count I) (21 O.S.2011, § 652) and Possession of a Firearm (Count II) (21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 1283), both counts After Former Conviction of A Felony, in the District Court of Muskogee County, Case No. CF-2017-1155. The jury recommended as punishment imprisonment for thirty (30) years in Count I and ten (10) years in Count II. The trial court sentenced accordingly, ordering the sentences to be served concurrently. It is from this judgment and sentence that Appellant appeals. Appellant must serve 85% of his sentence in Count I before becoming eligible for consideration for parole. 21 O.S.2011, § 13.1. **Appellant raises the following propositions of error in support of his appeal:** 1. The eyewitness identification of Appellant was based upon an overly suggestive, one-man show-up that violated Appellant's rights to due process and a fair trial. 2. The State's evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed the crimes of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony Conviction and his convictions must therefore be reversed with instructions to dismiss. 3. Appellant's sentence is excessive and should be modified. After thorough consideration of these propositions and the entire record, we have determined that under the law and the evidence no relief is warranted. **Proposition I:** Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress the in-court identification made by Ms. Davidson after an on-the-scene one person show-up. Appellant argues the pre-trial identification was unnecessarily suggestive and tainted the subsequent identification of Appellant at trial. A one man show-up is not necessarily unduly suggestive or improper. Young v. State, 2000 OK CR 17, ¶ 30, 12 P.3d 20, 34. Absent special elements of unfairness, prompt on-the-scene confrontations [between a victim and a suspect] do not entail due process violations.... Harrolle v. State, 1988 OK CR 223, ¶ 7, 763 P.2d 126, 128, quoting Russell v. United States, 408 F.2d 1280, 1284 (D.C.Cir.1969). The one person show-up in this case was not unduly suggestive or so improper as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress the identification. However, even if the show-up was unduly suggestive, the same would not automatically invalidate the subsequent in-court identification if that identification can be established as independently reliable under the totality of the circumstances. Young, 2000 OK CR 17, ¶ 31, 12 P.3d at 34. Under the circumstances of this case, we find the in-court identification reliable. As the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing into evidence the in-court identification of Appellant, this proposition of error is denied. **Proposition II:** Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. He argues the State failed to show he had anything to do with the alleged crimes. Appellant asserts that the State's evidence showed only that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, evidence showed that Appellant shot his victim in the knee and buttock as the victim begged for his life. Appellant then ran away from the scene, discarding the gun he used and a hoodie he was wearing. Reviewing Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Mitchell v. State, 2018 OK CR 24, ¶ 11, 424 P.3d 677, 682. Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is denied. **Proposition III:** Appellant argues that his sentence is excessive and should be modified. He asserts that while his sentence is technically within the range provided by law, it does not bear a direct relationship to the nature and circumstances of the offenses. However, Appellant's sentences were within the applicable statutory range (21 O.S.2011, §§ 652(A), 1284 and 51.1(C)). This Court will not modify a sentence within the statutory range unless, considering all the facts and circumstances, it shocks the conscience. Pullen v. State, 2016 OK CR 18, ¶ 16, 387 P.3d 922, 928. The evidence showed that despite having a prior robbery conviction, Appellant was in possession of a gun, which he used to shoot the victim multiple times as the victim begged for his life. Under these circumstances, the 30 year and 10 year sentences are not excessive. Therefore, modification of the sentences is not warranted and this proposition is denied. Accordingly, this appeal is denied. **DECISION** The JUDGMENT and SENTENCE is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MUSKOGEE COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE THOMAS H. ALFORD, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** BRIAN WATTS 222 N. 4TH ST. MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** NICOLLETTE BRANDT OKLA. INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **ORVIL LOGE** DISTRICT ATTORNEY TIM KING ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY MUSKOGEE CO. COURTHOUSE MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **MIKE HUNTER** ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA CAROLINE E.J. HUNT ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21ST ST. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur --- [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2019-16_1734781599.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2019-16

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

C-2018-675

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

The summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals involves a case where Rayvon Latroy Johnson sought to withdraw his guilty plea for the charge of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. Johnson's plea was initially found untimely by one day, but that decision was based on an oversight regarding the observance of President's Day, a legal holiday when the courthouse was closed. The court agreed with Johnson, acknowledging that the deadline for filing his motion to withdraw the plea was extended to the next business day due to the holiday. Therefore, the initial decision by the district court was incorrect. Additionally, the court found that Johnson's counsel failed to provide effective assistance by not establishing the timeliness of the plea withdrawal motion, constituting a lapse in observing his rights under both the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions. As a result, the court granted Johnson's petition for a writ of certiorari and remanded the case to the District Court of Oklahoma County for a new hearing on the motion to withdraw his guilty plea. This outcome reflects careful consideration of procedural fairness and adherence to legal standards for filing deadlines and the right to effective legal counsel.

Continue ReadingC-2018-675

F-2018-272

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-272, Lavonte Antonio Johnson appealed his conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of his deferred sentence to 27 years in prison. One judge dissented. Lavonte Johnson entered a guilty plea in 2014, which was followed by a five-year deferred sentence. However, in 2018, the state sought to accelerate this sentence, claiming Johnson had violated probation by possessing a firearm and committing bail jumping. During a traffic stop, police found Johnson could not provide a driver's license and that he had a gun with him. Johnson argued that the police had to give him a Miranda warning before asking about the gun, as he believed it was a custodial interrogation. The court found that because this was a routine traffic stop, the police were not required to issue a Miranda warning. Johnson's statements about the gun were deemed admissible. The court reviewed the decision to accelerate Johnson's sentence and found no abuse of discretion. Therefore, Johnson’s appeal was denied, and the original sentence was upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2018-272

RE-2017-113

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In the case of Ruben Geraldo Velasquez v. The State of Oklahoma, the appellant appealed the revocation of his suspended sentences across multiple cases in the Caddo County District Court. The appeals were addressed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The appellant had pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including possession of a firearm after conviction, driving under the influence, and domestic assault. His sentences were imposed with significant portions suspended, and he was placed on probation. However, the State filed a petition to revoke his suspended sentences citing several violations, including failure to pay fees, failure to report, changes in address, and new criminal offenses. The trial court revoked the appellant's suspended sentences in full after a hearing, and the appellant raised several propositions of error on appeal. The court determined that the first two propositions, which challenged the validity of the original sentences, were not properly resolved through this appeal and needed to follow certiorari procedures instead. The court found that the amendment to the revocation order, which removed post-imprisonment supervision, rendered one of the propositions moot. Regarding claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated any deficiency in counsel's performance nor shown any resulting prejudice. The appellant's argument that the trial court abused its discretion by denying credit for time served was found to have no supporting legal authority, as the court indicated that there is no statutory requirement for such credit to be granted. Lastly, the court rejected the appellant's assertion that the revocation was excessive. The evidence presented to the trial court satisfied the standard necessary to revoke the suspended sentences, affirming that the burden of proof for violations is preponderance of the evidence, and that the decision to revoke is within the discretionary power of the trial court. Ultimately, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to revoke the appellant's suspended sentences across all cited cases, concluding that there was no abuse of discretion in the revocation. The mandates for this decision were ordered to be issued following the filing of the opinion. The decision is summarized as follows: **The revocation of Ruben Geraldo Velasquez's suspended sentences is AFFIRMED.**

Continue ReadingRE-2017-113

F-2017-1042

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1042, Vincent Ray Perosi appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. The case began when Perosi, who had recently divorced, was ordered to leave the house he had been living in by January 1, 2016. After that date, his ex-wife, Pamela Perosi, returned to the house with two friends to change the locks because he had not moved out. This led to a confrontation. Perosi shot and killed Pamela and another friend, Buddy Weber, while wounding Karen Priest, who was also present. Perosi claimed he shot in self-defense, saying he was scared of Weber. However, evidence showed that he had a history of threats against his ex-wife and evidence contradicted his version of events. The court ruled that he did not qualify for immunity under the Stand Your Ground law and denied his request for related jury instructions. In reviewing the evidence, the court found sufficient proof to support the convictions, rejecting Perosi's claims of self-defense and that shooting Pamela was accidental. Further, his videotaped confession was admitted as evidence, despite defense claims it was coerced; the court found it was voluntary. In addition, the court allowed testimony about Perosi's bad character and a victim impact statement from Pamela’s family. Ultimately, the court upheld the trial’s decisions and affirmed the conviction, denying any errors raised in the appeal.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1042

F-2017-1104

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1104, Joseph Johnson appealed his conviction for first degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Joseph Johnson was found guilty of killing Quavis Trae Cato during an argument over a car. The jury sentenced Johnson to life in prison without parole. The incident happened on October 10, 2016, when Johnson shot Cato 14 times, after a dispute over a stolen car. Witnesses testified that Johnson was armed with two guns and returned to the argument after briefly leaving the scene. During the trial, Johnson's defense argued for instructions on lesser charges of manslaughter, claiming he acted in the heat of passion or self-defense. However, the court found no evidence that Cato provoked Johnson sufficiently to warrant such instructions. The judges decided that Johnson escalated the situation by bringing guns into the argument and that simply being angry or upset does not justify the use of deadly force. Johnson also claimed that the prosecutor's closing arguments contained misconduct, asserting that they misled the jury about the facts and the law of self-defense, but the court found no errors that affected the fairness of the trial. Finally, Johnson’s defense argued that his lawyer didn't perform adequately by not presenting expert testimony about psychological conditions that might have affected his perception of the situation. However, the court concluded that even if the lawyer's performance was deficient, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the trial because Johnson had initiated the conflict while armed. In summary, the court upheld the conviction for murder, concluding that Johnson acted with intent and malice when he killed Cato. The judges agreed that there was no basis for a lesser charge or for claims of ineffective counsel. Overall, the ruling was in favor of maintaining the original sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1104

F-2017-849

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-849, Samuel Cosby appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Samuel Cosby was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County and sentenced to life imprisonment. He raised several arguments to claim that errors during the trial affected his right to a fair trial. First, Mr. Cosby argued that the trial court made a mistake by not having a pretrial hearing to check if the expert testimony about firearms was reliable. The court found no error in allowing the expert testimony because it is generally accepted in trials. Second, he claimed the firearms expert's analysis was flawed and unfair. However, the court decided that there was no plain error since the expert's opinion was based on accepted methods. Third, he argued that a phone call he made from jail should not have been used as evidence. While he objected in court, the judges felt the phone call was relevant because it showed he was aware of the situation. Fourth, Mr. Cosby said there were mistakes in how evidence was handled, particularly about the victim's injuries. The court ruled that the evidence was necessary for proving the case. Fifth, he felt the jury instructions were wrong because his request for an explanation about inconsistent statements was denied. The court explained that the victim's testimony was not inconsistent enough to require such an instruction. Lastly, Mr. Cosby claimed he did not receive effective help from his lawyer. The court found that since these errors did not actually happen, this claim was also not valid. The overall decision was that the judgment and sentence against Mr. Cosby were correct, and his appeals did not show any significant errors that affected the fairness of his trial.

Continue ReadingF-2017-849

F-2017-241

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-241, Joseph Tunley, Jr. appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and send the case back for a new trial. The court found that Tunley's original waiver of his right to a jury trial was not shown to be knowing, intelligent, or competent, which is required by law. The dissenting opinion was not specified, but it indicates that there may have been differing views on the matter.

Continue ReadingF-2017-241

C-2016-1000

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-1000, Bryan Keith Fletcher appealed his conviction for multiple charges including kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon, rape, and child abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant part of his appeal regarding one misdemeanor charge while denying all other claims. The court modified the sentence for the misdemeanor related to threatening violence to six months in jail but affirmed the sentences for all other counts, which resulted in a significant time in prison. The petitioner argued several points, including that he did not receive effective legal help, that he was not competent when he entered his plea, and that his plea was not voluntary. However, the court reviewed these claims and found that they did not hold up under scrutiny. The judges opined that the actions taken during the plea process were appropriate and upheld the ruling on the grounds that there was no evidence of ineffective assistance or invalid plea. One judge disagreed with some aspects of the decision.

Continue ReadingC-2016-1000

F-2015-1007

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-1007, Johnny Lee Ingram appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case began when Ingram was tried for two crimes: one for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and the other for Possession of a Firearm after prior convictions. The jury found him guilty of the first charge and not guilty of the second. He was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison based on the jury's recommendation. Ingram raised several points during his appeal. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes, such as not properly answering the jury's questions about the law, which led to confusion. The court agreed that the trial court's responses to the jury were not clear and this could have impacted the jury's decision. During the jury's deliberation, they asked about the meaning of certain instructions related to the case. The trial judge referred them to another instruction without clearly addressing their concerns. This left the jury confused about what constituted criminal intent and whether Ingram could be guilty based on his presence at the scene but not guilty of the other charge. The court emphasized that when jurors express confusion, it is crucial for judges to clearly resolve that confusion. Since the jury found Ingram guilty despite being confused, and considering that the instructions did not help clarify the legal standards, the appellate court concluded that Ingram was not given a fair trial. Thus, they overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial to ensure that the jury could properly consider the evidence laid out, without the confusion created by the previous instructions.

Continue ReadingF-2015-1007

F-2014-1019

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-1019, Charles Leonard Bennett, III appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the district court. One judge dissented. Bennett was found guilty after a trial where the judge, not a jury, listened to the case. He received a sentence of fifteen years in prison. Bennett raised several issues on appeal. He first argued that the evidence did not prove he did not act in self-defense. The court found enough evidence that a reasonable person could decide he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This means they believed the victim and the facts presented at the trial supported the conviction. Bennett also wanted to argue other issues that could lead to a new trial. However, he decided to withdraw those arguments and only focus on the issues that might lead to his case being dismissed or his sentence being changed. He signed a document saying he knew what he was doing by waiving those rights. Another issue was about restitution, which is when a person convicted of a crime has to pay the victim for their losses. Bennett contested the court's order for him to pay restitution because the required paperwork showing the victim's losses was not properly presented during the trial. Since no proof of the victim's financial losses was provided, the court agreed that the restitution order was arbitrary and sent the case back to the district court to properly determine the victim's losses. Overall, while Bennett's conviction was upheld, the court required a re-evaluation of the restitution owed to the victim. The case was sent back to the district court for this purpose, but other than that, the court found no significant errors that would change the outcome of the case.

Continue ReadingF-2014-1019

C-2014-584

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-584, Gilbert Paz appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, Shooting with Intent to Kill, Conspiracy, Attempted Robbery with a Firearm, and Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the District Court's denial of Paz's Motion to Withdraw Plea and remanded the case for further proceedings. One member of the court dissented. Gilbert Paz was involved in a serious crime case where he initially pleaded guilty to multiple charges. After some time, he wanted to take back his guilty pleas, claiming that he didn’t fully understand what he was doing when he agreed to the plea deal. He felt confused and believed his lawyer wasn't helping him properly. The case started when a burglary went badly, resulting in one person being killed and another being hurt. After his guilty pleas were accepted in court, Paz tried to withdraw them, but the judge said no. The judge continued to give him time to get a new lawyer but did not allow him to take back his pleas. Paz argued five main points in his appeal. He claimed that the judge helped too much during his plea negotiations, that his guilty plea was not made knowingly or intelligently, that he was denied his right to have a lawyer present during important parts of the trial, and that his lawyer did not provide effective help. He also claimed that all these issues together made it unfair for him. The court reviewed everything and determined that the main issue was that Paz did not receive the help of a lawyer when trying to withdraw his guilty pleas. Both Paz and the State agreed that he should have had a lawyer to assist him in this situation. The court recognized that without proper counsel, Paz's claim that his pleas were not voluntary could not be dismissed as harmless. As a result, the court decided to vacate the previous decision and send the case back to the District Court so they could properly address Paz's request to withdraw his pleas.

Continue ReadingC-2014-584

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

C-2010-431

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-322, Kinter appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate his conviction and grant him a new trial. One judge dissented. Silvon Dane Kinter was charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon in 2009. He had trouble paying his lawyer, and she withdrew from the case. Kinter asked for a public defender but was denied. Kinter then pleaded guilty to the charges because he felt pressured and did not want to represent himself at trial. After pleading guilty, Kinter quickly sought to withdraw his plea, claiming he was not given fair legal help. He argued that his rights were violated because he was not allowed to have a lawyer he could trust and that he was forced to plead guilty under pressure. The court found that Kinter did not get a chance for a proper assessment of his financial situation and that the denial of counsel affected his decision to plead guilty. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with Kinter, stating that he was denied a fair right to legal representation. They ruled in his favor, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea and giving him a chance for a new trial. The case highlights the importance of having a lawyer who can represent a defendant without any problems and ensures they understand their rights fully.

Continue ReadingC-2010-431

F-2009-399

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-399, Jeffery Robert Johnson appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Johnson's conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Johnson was convicted of stabbing his roommate, Maurice Sartor, after a dispute over money. Johnson claimed he was acting to defend his girlfriend, Malinda Brookey, who was being threatened by Sartor. During the trial, there was a disagreement over how the events happened, especially regarding whether Sartor was the aggressor. The key issue in Johnson's appeal was about a mistake in the jury instructions. The trial court gave the jury a modified instruction about the defense of property that led to confusion. This instruction suggested that Sartor had the right to use force to get his property back, which Johnson argued was not true since he believed he was defending his girlfriend from Sartor's aggression. Johnson's lawyer objected to the instruction at the time of the trial, which meant they could raise this issue in the appeal. The higher court found that this error in the jury instructions was significant enough that it likely affected the fairness of the trial. Because of this, they reversed Johnson's conviction and ordered a new trial while not addressing Johnson's other claims or his request for a new trial based on new evidence. This decision means Johnson will get another chance to present his case in front of a new jury, with the hope that the instructions will be clearer and fairer this time. The dissenting judge disagreed with the majority's decision, believing the original instructions were appropriate and did not compromise Johnson's defense.

Continue ReadingF-2009-399

C-2009-1192

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-1192, Valentine Palos-Tellos appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill and Attempted Kidnapping. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition for a writ of certiorari and remanded the case for a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2009-1192

F-2009-335

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-335, Jermaine Darnell Jeffery appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder and other charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Shooting With Intent to Kill and affirmed the other convictions. One judge dissented. Jermaine was found guilty of several serious crimes related to a shooting incident. During the trial, the jury decided on punishments for his actions, including life in prison for murder. Jermaine argued that there wasn't enough proof to connect his shooting with the death of the victim and that he was punished unfairly for the same crime more than once, which is known as double jeopardy. He also claimed that his rights were violated when the court allowed evidence about his silence after being arrested and that hearsay statements from other witnesses should not have been allowed. Jermaine felt he did not get a fair trial because the prosecutor talked about things not proven in court and that his punishment was too harsh. Additionally, he argued that his lawyer did not do a good job by not pointing out mistakes during the trial. The court reviewed all the evidence and arguments. They agreed that there was enough proof for the murder charge but recognized a mistake in charging Jermaine with both murder and the shooting he did, leading to the reversal of that specific charge. The court found that some errors did happen, but most were not serious enough to change the outcome of the trial. In the end, they upheld the punishments for the other crimes while agreeing to dismiss the shooting conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2009-335

C 2008-1183

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2008-1183, Kory Williams appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including shooting with intent to kill and possession of a firearm. In a published decision, the court decided that his plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily, leading to the granting of his petition for certiorari. The judgment and sentence were vacated and the case was sent back for further proceedings. One member dissented.

Continue ReadingC 2008-1183

C-2008-938

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2008-938, William Eugene Henderson appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including robbery, shooting with intent to kill, kidnapping, larceny of an automobile, third-degree arson, and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided that Henderson's pleas of guilty were knowing and voluntary, affirming the sentences for most of the counts. However, the court found that the kidnapping charge was not separate from the robbery and reversed that conviction, ordering it to be dismissed. One judge dissented on the issue of the kidnapping conviction.

Continue ReadingC-2008-938

F-2008-763

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-763, Armand Rashawn Johnson appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including robbery with a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, burglary, and kidnapping. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand the case for a new trial. One member dissented. Johnson was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to a total of 30 years in prison for some counts, while others had sentences ranging from 20 to 40 years. The main reasons for his appeal focused on concerns about how the jury was instructed and treated during the trial. Johnson argued that the trial court's actions could have influenced the jurors' decisions, which should be based on facts and law alone. The court agreed with Johnson on several points. It found that the trial judge's comments and guidance during jury selection were inappropriate and could have pressured the jurors into making decisions against their personal beliefs. This meant that the fairness of his trial was in question. Since the court decided to reverse Johnson's convictions, there was no need to examine the other claims he made about the evidence and the fairness of his sentence. The court emphasized that jurors should only be focused on the law and evidence presented to them and not on any frustrations that might come from court procedures. As a result, Johnson will get a new trial, where the procedures may be handled in a way that better protects his rights.

Continue ReadingF-2008-763

F-2007-526

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-526, Chavis Lenard Day appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and Attempted Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence from the District Court. One judge dissented. Chavis Lenard Day was found guilty by a jury for two crimes: shooting someone with the intention to kill and attempting to rob that person using a dangerous weapon. The jury decided that he should serve life in prison for both crimes, but these sentences would happen at the same time, not one after the other. During his appeal, Day raised several concerns about his trial. First, he argued that he should not be punished separately for both crimes because it might violate rules against double jeopardy, which means being tried for the same crime twice. However, the court found that it was okay to punish him for both offenses. Day also questioned if the person who identified him as the shooter was telling the truth. The court looked at the evidence and determined that the jury was allowed to trust this witness's testimony, even if it was challenged during the trial. Another issue Day raised was about the advice given to the jury. He claimed the judge didn’t give certain instructions, like reminding them that eyewitnesses can make mistakes. The court decided that these instructions were not necessary and that the trial was fair. Day also thought a witness should not have talked about changing a photo used in the trial because it could confuse the jury. The court explained that mentioning this did not mean Day had done something wrong or had been involved with gangs. Additionally, Day argued that the jury should have been told about how long he would have to serve in prison before being eligible for parole. However, the court found that the law did not require that information for his specific charge. Finally, Day pointed out that a mistake was made in official documents. They stated he was guilty of robbery when he was actually guilty of attempted robbery. The court agreed and said they would fix this error in the official records. In conclusion, the court affirmed Day's punishment but ordered that the documents reflect the correct details of the conviction. Overall, the court found that none of Day's complaints were enough to change the outcome of the trial except for the clerical correction.

Continue ReadingF-2007-526

C-2006-649

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-649, Robert Earl Richardson appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Richardson's request to withdraw his guilty plea, which means he will get another chance for a trial. One judge disagreed with this decision. Richardson had originally pleaded guilty to a crime and was sentenced to twenty years in prison. After his sentencing, he wanted to change his mind about the guilty plea and asked to withdraw it. However, there were delays in hearing his request. Nearly four years after he first asked, a different judge finally listened to his case but did not allow him to withdraw his plea. Richardson argued that he didn’t fully understand what he was agreeing to when he pleaded guilty. Specifically, he claimed he was not informed that he would need to serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole, which is known as the 85% Rule. This is important because it means a person might spend a long time in prison before they could have a chance to be released early. During the hearing about his request, Richardson’s lawyer said he usually informs clients about this rule but could not remember if he did so with Richardson. Since there was no clear proof that Richardson was informed about it, the court ruled that he could withdraw his guilty plea. The decision was to reverse the lower court's ruling, allowing Richardson to try again and have a fair trial where he can present his side of the story.

Continue ReadingC-2006-649