Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 798

C-2017-998

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-998, Arnold Dean Howell appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate Howell's convictions and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented. Howell had pleaded guilty to the charges in the District Court of Creek County and was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction and twenty-five years for the robbery conviction, with both sentences served one after the other. After the guilty plea, Howell filed a motion to withdraw it, which the district court denied. Howell then raised several issues in his appeal, questioning the state's authority to prosecute him, his competency to plead guilty, if his plea was made knowingly and voluntarily, whether he received good legal help, and if his sentence was too harsh. The important part of the appeal was Howell's claim regarding jurisdiction. He argued that the state did not have the right to prosecute him because he is considered an Indian under federal laws and the crimes happened within the Muscogee Creek Nation Reservation. This argument was based on a specific legal case called McGirt v. Oklahoma, which changed how certain cases with Indian individuals should be treated. In response to Howell's appeal, the court ordered a review of his case to determine if he was an Indian and if the crimes occurred on the reservation. During this review, both sides agreed on a few facts: Howell has Indian blood, is a registered citizen of the Muscogee Creek Nation, and the crimes did occur within the reservation. The district court accepted these facts. Following this information, the court concluded that Howell is legally an Indian and that the state did not have authority over the case. As a result, the court decided Howell's conviction could not stand, and they vacated the lower court's judgment and ordered the case to be dismissed. In conclusion, Howell's legal challenges about how his case was handled were significant enough to require a reversal of his convictions based on the jurisdictional issues brought up by the McGirt decision. This decision demonstrates how important it is to understand the laws regarding tribal lands and individual rights within the legal system.

Continue ReadingC-2017-998

F-2017-758

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-758, Shawn Conrad Freeman appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including Kidnapping, Forcible Sodomy, Rape in the First Degree, and Robbery in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the District Court. The court did, however, instruct the District Court to correct a clerical error regarding the fine for one of the robbery counts. Freeman was tried by jury and was found guilty on multiple counts involving four separate women. The jury sentenced him to long prison terms and significant fines. The trial court followed the jury's recommendations for sentencing. Freeman raised several arguments on appeal. He argued that having multiple convictions for crimes like Kidnapping, Rape, and Forcible Sodomy at once was unfair and violated laws against double punishment. However, the court found that the crimes were separate and showed that each act occurred at different times, meaning he could be punished for all of them. He also claimed that trying all fourteen counts together was wrong because it might have led the jury to convict him based on the total evidence rather than on proof for each individual charge. The court determined that the offenses were connected enough to be tried together and that no error occurred. Another point of contention was that one of the victims couldn't testify in court, and the jury was allowed to hear her previously recorded testimony instead. The court upheld this decision, stating that Freeman had previously had the chance to question her during an earlier hearing. Freeman argued that the evidence was not enough to support his robbery conviction. The court disagreed, stating that the evidence clearly showed he unlawfully took property from a victim. He raised questions about misconduct by the prosecutor, ineffective assistance of counsel, and that his sentences were too harsh. The court found no evidence to support his claims of improper actions or ineffective counsel. It ruled that his sentences were not excessively severe given the nature of the crimes he was convicted for. Finally, Freeman claimed that the combined issues during the trial denied him a fair trial. However, the court noted that it found no individual errors that would warrant a new trial. In conclusion, the court affirmed Freeman's convictions and sentences but ordered a correction to a minor error in the judgment regarding the fine imposed for one count of robbery. There was a dissenting opinion from one of the judges.

Continue ReadingF-2017-758

C-2017-1050

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma Summary Opinion** **David Neil Dunn v. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No. C-2017-1050** **Filed November 8, 2018** **Summary:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the case of David Neil Dunn, who sought to withdraw his no contest plea for various serious charges. Dunn appealed on the basis that he was denied his due process right to be present during the evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw the plea, and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. **Key Points:** 1. **Charges and Plea**: Dunn was charged with multiple felonies, including First Degree Robbery and Burglary. He entered a blind plea of no contest, which resulted in significant prison sentences. 2. **Motion to Withdraw Plea**: Dunn filed a motion to withdraw his plea shortly after sentencing, claiming various legal grounds, including concerns about the validity of his plea. An evidentiary hearing was held, but Dunn was not present as he had been transported to the Department of Corrections. 3. **Court's Ruling**: The Court found that Dunn had a due process right to be present during this critical stage of the proceedings. The absence of Dunn hindered a fair and just hearing, particularly concerning his claims about the voluntariness of his plea. 4. **Counsel’s Role**: The court clarified that defense counsel's belief that Dunn's presence was unnecessary does not equate to a valid waiver of his right to be present. The decision emphasized that Dunn's testimony was crucial for effectively contesting the plea's validity. 5. **Outcome**: The Court granted Dunn's petition for certiorari and remanded the case back to the District Court for a proper evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw the plea, ensuring he would be present. 6. **Dissenting Opinion**: One judge dissented, arguing that the absence of Dunn did not constitute a violation of his rights, noting that his counsel had effectively represented him at the hearing. It was contended that the procedural complexities of representation should not be interpreted as waivers of due process. **Conclusion**: The Court ruled in favor of Dunn, stressing the importance of a defendant's presence in legal proceedings, particularly when their rights and pleas are being challenged, which underscores the principles of fairness and due process within the judicial system. For a detailed reading, [click here to download the PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2017-1050_1733996496.pdf).

Continue ReadingC-2017-1050

F-2011-407

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-407, Kevin Maurice Brown appealed his conviction for multiple counts of robbery and firearm possession. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions on all counts except for one count of possession of a firearm, which was reversed. One judge dissented. Kevin Brown was found guilty of robbing several businesses in Tulsa, using a firearm during these crimes. The jury decided on severe punishment, including life imprisonment and hefty fines. The trial also took note of Brown's previous felonies, which influenced the decisions. During the case, issues arose regarding double punishment for two counts of firearm possession that were related to the same gun. Brown’s defense argued that charging him with both counts violated the principle against double jeopardy, which protects individuals from being punished multiple times for the same crime. The court agreed that the evidence showed he was being punished twice for the same offense, which is not allowed, and reversed the conviction for one of those counts. Brown also felt he didn’t receive good legal help during his trial because his lawyer didn’t challenge the double counting of the firearm charges. However, since one count was reversed, this concern was considered resolved. Additionally, Brown thought his sentences were too harsh, especially since no one was hurt in the robberies. The court stated that while the sentences were serious, they were within the law, and given his past convictions, they did not seem extreme or unjust. Brown submitted additional concerns in a separate brief, but these were not accepted because they did not follow required guidelines. As a result, the court denied those arguments. In summary, while Brown's convictions for robbery and firearms were mostly upheld, one of the firearm possession counts was overturned due to improper double punishment. The court found no errors significant enough to change his overall sentence, which reflected the severity of the crimes committed.

Continue ReadingF-2011-407

F-2008-1066

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1066, Rodney Dennis Evans appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirteen years to eight years imprisonment. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2008-1066

F-2004-767

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-767, Reginald Lamond Brazell appealed his conviction for Robbery in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to thirty years imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. Brazell was found guilty of committing a robbery, and the jury sentenced him to forty years in prison. He challenged this conviction by arguing that the evidence against him was not strong enough, that he should have been given instructions about a lesser crime (second-degree robbery), and that the jury should have been told about parole eligibility under the eighty-five percent rule. The court reviewed the evidence and decided it was sufficient to support the conviction. They also agreed that the jury did not need to hear about the second-degree robbery since the evidence did not support that claim. However, they found that the jury should have been instructed about the eighty-five percent rule, which relates to how much of the sentence a person must serve before being eligible for parole. As a result, the court affirmed the conviction but shortened Brazell's sentence to thirty years.

Continue ReadingF-2004-767