In OCCA case No. F-2016-453, Grant N. Jackson, IV appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Jackson due to the circumstances of the case. Jackson's conviction was found to be invalid, and the court instructed to dismiss the case. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. CF-2012-206, the appellant appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court affirmed the revocation of his suspended sentence. The appellant failed to pay restitution and supervision fees, and he was found guilty of a new crime, Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the sentence based on these violations. One judge dissented, arguing that the appellant’s failure to pay was not willful and should have been considered.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ANTHONY CURTIS CREEK,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. RE-2018-932** **SUMMARY OPINION** **Filed January 23, 2020** ROWLAND, JUDGE: Anthony Curtis Creek, Appellant, entered a guilty plea on March 16, 2015, in Garfield County District Court Case No. CF-2013-393, to Count 1 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, a misdemeanor, and Count 2 - Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a misdemeanor. He received a sentence of one year in the County Jail on Count 1, with 90 days to be served and the remainder suspended; Count 2 was sentenced to one year suspended, with penalties running consecutively. He was also fined $500.00. On January 20, 2017, the State applied for the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence on Count 2, alleging violations: (1) possession or consumption of alcohol; (2) DUI-A, a misdemeanor; and (3) Defective Equipment, a misdemeanor, in Oklahoma County Case No. CM-2016-2776. During the revocation hearing on June 2, 2017, Appellant admitted to the first allegation. The trial judge, Honorable Dennis Hladik, determined that the State proved the other allegations and revoked six months of Appellant's suspended sentence. Appellant appeals this decision, raising several propositions of error: 1. **Abuse of Discretion:** The trial court allegedly utilized a strict liability standard, resulting in a cruel and excessive sentence. 2. **Prosecutorial Misconduct:** Claiming that Appellant was deprived of a fundamentally fair proceeding due to misconduct. 3. **Plain Error:** The trial court's finding on the State's evidence and the standard of proof was erroneous. 4. **Equal Protection Violation:** Appellant asserts he was denied equal protection under the law. 5. **Cumulative Error:** The accumulation of errors deprived Appellant of due process. Upon review, the Court affirms the District Court's order revoking six months of Appellant's suspended sentence. 1. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence is within the substantial discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. The evidence supported Judge Hladik’s decision to revoke only part of the sentence after considering a stipulation and witness testimonies. 2. The Court agrees with Appellant's counsel that prosecutorial misconduct is more appropriate for post-conviction matters. The record does not support claims of misleading behavior by the prosecutors. 3. The standard of proof for such violations is a preponderance of the evidence, adequately satisfied in Appellant's case. Revocation is valid with any proven violation. 4. The trial court's exclusion of evidence does not equate to an equal protection violation. The ruling was consistent and reasonable. 5. As there were no individual errors identified, the argument for cumulative error also fails. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Garfield County District Court Case No. CF-2013-393 is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is ordered to be issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** **David J. Batton** Counsel for Defendant **Tallena Hart** Carter Jennings Assistant District Attorney Counsel for the State **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J:** **LEWIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **LUMPKIN, J: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-932_1734358983.pdf)
The document you provided outlines a legal case involving Jose Santiago Hernandez, who had his suspended sentences revoked due to alleged perjury. Here’s a summary of the key points: 1. **Background**: Hernandez entered a guilty plea to charges of robbery with a firearm and conspiracy in January 2017, resulting in a ten-year sentence with the last five years suspended. 2. **Revocation**: The State filed an application to revoke his suspended sentences on the grounds that he committed perjury by providing false statements regarding his co-defendant's involvement in the robbery during court proceedings. 3. **Hearing**: A revocation hearing took place on December 19, 2018, where the judge found that Hernandez did not provide truthful testimony. The judge ruled in favor of the State's application to revoke his suspended sentences. 4. **Appeal**: Hernandez appealed the revocation, arguing that the State did not present sufficient evidence of perjury, violating his due process rights. 5. **Court's Decision**: The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that violations of suspended sentences need only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation and found no abuse of discretion by the trial court. 6. **Conclusion**: The revocation of Hernandez's suspended sentences was upheld. For any further inquiries or specific details about the case, feel free to ask!
This document is an official order from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, identifying changes made to Rule 3.5 C regarding the citation of authorities. The substantial amendments aim to standardize citation formats for legal opinions from the court and establish official guidelines for referencing these opinions, including those prior to and after the issuance of mandates. ### Key Points of the Amendment: 1. **Purpose of Amendment**: - To enhance clarity in legal citations by establishing a consistent format. 2. **Citation Format**: - Separate citation formats are provided for opinions before and after January 1, 1954. - Opinions in which mandates have issued prior to January 1, 1954, need both the official paragraph citation and Pacific Reporter citation, with additional mention of Oklahoma Criminal Reports. - For opinions issued after this date, there’s a focus on the official public domain format along with required citations to the Pacific Reporter. - New guidelines also specify citation styles for opinions issued for publication, including using the Oklahoma Bar Journal. 3. **Online Publication**: - Clarifies that opinions will be published online on the Oklahoma State Courts Network (OSCN) and will serve as the official version once mandates are issued. 4. **Citations to the United States Supreme Court**: - Clear guidelines are provided for citing U.S. Supreme Court cases with an emphasis on including pinpoint citations. 5. **Effective Date**: - The amendments become effective immediately as of the order date, December 5, 2019. ### Conclusion: This revision reflects the Court's commitment to improving legal documentation practices, ensuring legal professionals can accurately reference past cases in compliance with established standards. These changes will promote consistency in legal writing and enhance the clarity of legal references within the Oklahoma judicial system.
In the case of LeJeanna Sue Chronister v. State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed several appeals raised by the appellant following her conviction for Aggravated Manufacture of a Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine) and her subsequent sentencing to twenty years in prison. The appellant raised three primary propositions of error: 1. **Violation of Rights Regarding the 85% Rule**: The appellant contended that her sentence was unconstitutional because she was not informed that the 85% Rule (requiring her to serve 85% of her sentence before becoming eligible for parole) applied to her case. The court concluded that this argument did not hold merit in a non-jury trial setting, stating that the judge, not a jury, was responsible for sentencing and presumed to know the law. The court found no plain error as the sentence was within the statutory range and was the minimum allowed. 2. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: The appellant claimed her counsel was ineffective for not informing her about the 85% Rule, impacting her decision-making during her trial. The court applied the Strickland standard to evaluate the ineffectiveness claim, concluding that the appellant did not demonstrate how the alleged deficiency in counsel's performance prejudiced her case or altered the outcome. 3. **Cumulative Error**: The appellant argued that the combination of errors denied her a fair trial. The court determined that since none of the individual claims of error warranted relief, the cumulative error argument also lacked merit. Ultimately, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court of LeFlore County, stating that the appellant had not demonstrated any error that would necessitate modifying the sentence or overturning the conviction. The ruling emphasizes the distinction between non-jury trials and jury trials concerning informing defendants about parole-related laws and the importance of counsel's performance under the criteria established by the Strickland case.
**FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS / OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 12 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** --- **MISTY DAWN BARRETT,** **Appellant,** **V.** **No. RE-2018-868** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Misty Dawn Barrett appeals from the revocation of her suspended sentences in Muskogee County District Court Case Nos. CF-2016-439, CF-2017-126, CF-2017-127, and CF-2017-129. Appellant faced multiple charges across these cases, including Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Larceny of an Automobile, and Identity Theft, among others. After entering pleas and being convicted, she received several sentences which were subsequently suspended to be served concurrently. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence in all four cases, leading to a partial revocation of five years of her suspended sentences on October 25, 2017. A second Application to Revoke was filed on July 25, 2018, for new alleged crimes, leading to a revocation hearing where the trial court, presided over by Judge Mike Norman, revoked her remaining suspended sentences in full. In her appeal, Appellant argues that the full revocation was excessive, asserting that her past actions should have been anticipated due to her struggles with drug addiction, and claiming that incarceration is not an effective remedy for her situation. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence falls within the sound discretion of the trial court. A revocation will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion (Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, ¶ 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565). The State established sufficient grounds for revocation through competent evidence presented during the hearing. Appellant had previously benefited from leniency when only part of her suspended sentence was revoked. After reoffending post-incarceration, Appellant demonstrated that a suspended sentence is a privilege rather than a right (Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, ¶ 8, 990 P.2d 894, 897). **DECISION** The full revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Muskogee County District Court Case Nos. CF-2016-439, CF-2017-126, CF-2017-127, and CF-2017-129 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 to be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MUSKOGEE COUNTY, THE HONORABLE MIKE NORMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT REVOCATION** **DANIEL MEDLOCK** 620 W. BROADWAY MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** **NICOLLETTE BRANDT** P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** **TIMOTHY KING** ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 220 STATE ST. MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 **COUNSEL FOR STATE** **MIKE HUNTER** OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL **CAROLINE HUNT** ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21st STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE** --- **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **HUDSON, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR RA/F --- [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-868_1734360560.pdf)
In OCCA case No. F-2018-194, the appellant appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child under twelve and child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. The appellant, William Harold Pittman, was convicted by a jury for serious crimes against children. The jury gave him a punishment of thirty years in prison for each crime, and both sentences were meant to be served one after the other. The judge who oversaw the trial also ordered the appellant to pay various costs and fees. Pittman appealed his conviction, claiming that the trial court made a mistake by allowing expert testimony about something called the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS). He argued that this evidence was not relevant and should not have been allowed, saying it was not proven to be reliable. The court explained that the decision to allow expert evidence is usually up to the trial judge. If a specific objection is made during the trial, then the appeal cannot rely on a different argument later. Pittman did not object during the trial to the CSAAS evidence based on its relevance or reliability, which made his chance for appeal more difficult. To win an appeal based on a plain error, the appellant needs to show three things: that there was a real error, that it was obvious, and that the error affected the case's outcome. The court found that Pittman could not prove any such errors in this case. The court stated that previously, CSAAS had been accepted as reliable evidence in prior cases. This evidence can help explain why some children might take a long time to talk about the abuse or might change their statements after initially making claims. In this case, the court confirmed that the CSAAS evidence was relevant to the victim's delay in talking about the abuse. Pittman also claimed that there wasn't enough data to prove CSAAS was reliable and asked the court to reconsider accepting it as reliable evidence. However, the court refused to change its stance, stating that it would not revisit this issue. Lastly, Pittman argued that the CSAAS testimony was too supportive of the victim's story and could not be considered harmless. The court pointed out that this evidence was permissible because it only served to support what the victim and other witnesses testified about. The court ultimately found no errors in the trial regarding the way CSAAS evidence was handled, and therefore affirmed the judgments and sentences against Pittman.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-77, Jose M. Diaz appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Diaz's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Diaz was tried by a jury in Tulsa County. The jury found him guilty of the crime and recommended he spend thirty years in prison. The trial was overseen by a district judge, who followed the jury's recommendation for sentencing. Three main points were raised by Diaz in his appeal. First, he argued that the court made a mistake by allowing certain testimony from victims' family members, which he believed unfairly impacted the jury's feelings about the case. Second, he claimed that the prosecutors made improper statements during their closing arguments that harmed his right to a fair trial. Lastly, he argued that the issues combined created a situation where he could not receive a fair trial. The court looked carefully at all the evidence from the trial and the records of the case. For the first point about the victim's family's testimony, the court decided that it was relevant to the case. It helped the jury understand the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the victim, which connected to the nature of the crime. The court found no mistake in allowing that testimony. In the second point about the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments, Diaz did not object to some of the comments during the first closing statement, which limited his ability to challenge them later. The court noted that most of what the prosecutor said was based on evidence presented during the trial. Although one comment about the victim not being able to have children was deemed inappropriate, the overall context did not make the trial unfair. For the last point on cumulative error, the court stated that there were no significant mistakes to consider together that would change the outcome of the trial. Ultimately, the court decided that Diaz received a fair trial and did not find any major errors in the way the trial was conducted. As a result, they upheld the original judgment and sentence given to him.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-465, Wytch appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Feloniously Pointing a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. No one dissented. Wytch was found guilty of killing Julius Templeton and threatening his former girlfriend, Miranda Orr, with a gun. The events took place on December 9, 2016, after Wytch was jealous of Orr's friendship with Templeton. During a confrontation at Orr's apartment, Wytch argued with her, slapped her, and pointed a gun at her head. When Templeton tried to intervene, Wytch fatally shot him. Wytch claimed he acted in self-defense, saying that Templeton was the first aggressor. No weapon was found on Templeton, and the jury did not believe Wytch's self-defense argument. Wytch argued that evidence from previous incidents where he threatened Orr should not have been allowed in the trial, but the court found the evidence relevant to show motive and intent. Wytch also claimed that the prosecutor's arguments unfairly suggested he had to prove his innocence, but the court ruled the prosecutor's comments were appropriate, aiming to highlight the lack of evidence supporting Wytch's testimony. Finally, Wytch complained that his sentences were too harsh. He was given life without parole for murder and ten years for pointing a gun at Orr, which were the maximum sentences. The court disagreed and did not find the sentences excessive based on the nature of the crimes. Overall, the court upheld Wytch's convictions and sentences, affirming the findings of the lower court.
**State v. Cousan: Summary of the Court's Decision** In the case of *State of Oklahoma v. William Lee Cousan*, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed the legality of the police actions leading to the arrest of Cousan and the subsequent search of his person that resulted in the discovery of crack cocaine. **Background:** William Lee Cousan was charged with Illegal Drug Trafficking, Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. The charges arose from a police investigation initiated by an anonymous tip suggesting that Cousan was dealing drugs from a Motel 6 room. Following a surveillance operation and gathering additional evidence, police obtained a search warrant for Cousan's motel room. While executing the warrant, Cousan left the motel in a vehicle, and police conducted a traffic stop approximately eight blocks away. During this stop, officers found cocaine on him and placed him under arrest. Cousan argued that the officers exceeded the scope of the search warrant during his detention and that the subsequent search of his person was unlawful. **District Court Ruling:** The district court agreed with Cousan's motion to suppress evidence, stating that the search was not justified as incident to the execution of the search warrant since it occurred outside the immediate vicinity of the premises. **Court of Criminal Appeals Decision:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the district court's ruling, holding: 1. **Probable Cause:** The court found that the officers had probable cause to arrest Cousan at the time of his detention based on the tips and surveillance evidence indicating he was dealing drugs. 2. **Lawful Search Incident to Arrest:** The search of Cousan's person was deemed lawful as a search incident to arrest because probable cause existed for that arrest, independent of the execution of the search warrant. 3. **Inevitability Doctrine:** Even if the court did not find probable cause at the time of the stop, the officers could have made a valid investigative stop based on reasonable suspicion. Given the circumstances, the evidence inevitably would have been discovered after the execution of the warrant. 4. **Categorical Detention Rules:** The appeals court acknowledged that while the detention of Cousan was not justifiable under the Summers rule (as it did not occur immediately near the premises), the officers still had the right to detain Cousan based on the totality of circumstances, including the undercover work that had identified him as a key suspect. **Conclusion:** The appellate ruling overturned the district court's decision to suppress the evidence found on Cousan, allowing the State of Oklahoma to continue its prosecution for illegal drug trafficking and associated charges. **Final Note:** The opinion reflects on the importance of understanding both the probable cause standard for arrest and the rules surrounding lawful searches and seizures, emphasizing the balance between individual rights and public safety in law enforcement practices.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JULIUS LAMAR WRIGHT,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE 2018-0144** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JUL 11 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant Julius Lamar Wright entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2009-228, for Count 1 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute (Marijuana) and Count 2 - Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. On April 28, 2009, Appellant received a five-year deferred sentence on each count. On March 6, 2012, Appellant pled guilty to allegations in the application to accelerate his deferred sentences, resulting in a ten-year suspended sentence (first five years in custody) for Count 1, and one year in the Oklahoma County Jail for Count 2. These sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other and with CF-2011-1457. Appellant was charged with Domestic Abuse by Strangulation on December 9, 2015, in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2015-8860. He entered a no contest plea and was given a ten-year suspended sentence with probation conditions, which ran concurrently with the earlier cases and included credit for time served. The State's motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2009-228 due to the new charge and failure to pay restitution was dismissed on June 28, 2016, as part of the plea agreement in Case No. CF-2015-8860. On June 29, 2017, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in Cases CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860, alleging a new crime of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2017-2733. After a revocation hearing on January 31, 2018, Appellant's suspended sentences in both cases were revoked. Appellant appeals the revocation of his suspended sentences, raising two propositions of error: 1. The evidence presented during his revocation hearing should have been excluded as it was obtained through egregious police conduct violating his Fourth Amendment rights. 2. The trial court abused its discretion by revoking Appellant's sentences in full, constituting a violation of his due process rights and resulting in an excessive sentence. We affirm the District Court's decision to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in full. Appellant's first argument was not raised at the revocation hearing, leading us to review for plain error. To claim relief under the plain error doctrine, Appellant must prove: (1) an actual error occurred; (2) the error is clear and obvious; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights, impacting the outcome of the hearing. We find no plain error and conclude that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in finding Appellant violated the conditions of his suspended sentences. Regarding the second argument, the court has broad discretion in revoking suspended sentences, and this discretion will not be disturbed without showing an abuse thereof. Appellant has not demonstrated any such abuse. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860 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 filing of this decision. **REVOCATION APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS** **THOMAS HURLEY** **MARVA A. BANKS** Assistant Public Defender Oklahoma County Public Defender's Office 611 County Office Building 320 Robert S. Kerr Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for Defendant **KIRK MARTIN** Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma County 320 Robert S. Kerr Suite 505 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for the State **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur **[PDF VERSION AVAILABLE HERE](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/M-2018-335_1734421708.pdf)**
In OCCA case No. F-2018-375, Jones appealed his conviction for multiple offenses including possession of controlled substances and public intoxication. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of Jones from Drug Court and his sentencing, while also remanding a separate charge for correction regarding sentencing length for public intoxication. One judge dissented. Jones had multiple guilty pleas and was given the chance to participate in a Drug Court program with the understanding that if he successfully completed it, his charges would be dropped. However, if he failed, he would face prison time. Although he had some chances and was sanctioned when he did not adhere to the program, he repeatedly tested positive for drugs, which caused the state to move for his termination from the program. During the hearings, witnesses from the state presented evidence that showed Jones had a new arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol and had failed multiple drug tests. Jones's defense argued that he had made progress and changed for the better, but the judge decided to terminate him from the Drug Court program based on the evidence of his continued drug use and new charges. The court found that his actions justified the termination. Additionally, the court recognized an error in Jones's sentencing for public intoxication because it exceeded the maximum allowed by law. The court ordered that part of the case be sent back to correct the sentence. The final decision was to uphold the termination from Drug Court but allow a correction on the public intoxication charge's sentencing in a separate order.
This text appears to be a legal opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the case of Jonathan D. McKee, who was convicted of Child Abuse. The judgment affirms the conviction and address various propositions raised by the appellant concerning the conviction and the trial process. The summary of the opinion includes analysis of the following propositions: 1. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a rational juror to convict McKee of child abuse based on medical expert testimony. 2. **Evidentiary Rulings**: The court reviewed multiple evidentiary rulings that McKee argued were erroneous. They concluded that while McKee's refusal to speak with authorities could raise Fifth Amendment concerns, it did not constitute plain error affecting the trial’s outcome. Additionally, evidence concerning drug paraphernalia was found relevant to the case. 3. **Judicial Bias**: Appellant’s claim of judicial bias was rejected as the court found no evidence of actual bias or any violations affecting due process. 4. **Cumulative Error**: The court stated that because none of the individual propositions were sustained, the cumulative error argument had no merit. The opinion also includes concurring opinions from Judges Kuehn and Rowland. Judge Kuehn expressed some reservations about the relevance of mentions of a request for legal counsel, while Judge Rowland emphasized that McKee's conduct and refusal to speak were relevant in assessing guilty knowledge, even though they did not implicate any constitutional violations. The final decision affirmed the judgment and sentence, with the court ordering the mandate issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. For further details, one may refer to the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2017-68_1734271673.pdf).
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1031, a person appealed his conviction for first-degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One member of the court dissented. Dakota Joe Spainhower was found guilty of first-degree murder for killing his friend, who was a juvenile. The incident occurred after their shift at a local restaurant in July 2016. After receiving a ride home from the victim, Spainhower's mother noticed something strange outside and found a body next to a car, which belonged to the victim. Initially, Spainhower told his mother that the victim had tried to rob him and stabbed him first, prompting him to fight back and stab the victim multiple times. Evidence showed that Spainhower had blood on him and took the victim's keys after the incident. Spainhower's confession to the police was a crucial part of the trial. The court had to determine if this confession was made voluntarily and if he understood his rights when he waived them. There were questions regarding his mental health, education level, and the long duration of his questioning by police, all of which were argued to undermine the validity of his confession. However, the court found sufficient evidence that his confession was voluntary. The court also evaluated whether the evidence presented during the trial was enough to support the murder conviction. They determined that the evidence, including the victim's numerous injuries, was compelling enough for a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Spainhower was guilty of intent to kill. Spainhower raised concerns about prosecutorial misconduct, claiming that the prosecutor made improper statements during closing arguments. The court assessed these claims and found that any mistakes did not significantly affect the outcome of the trial. Additionally, Spainhower argued that he received ineffective assistance from his counsel. However, the court determined that his counsel acted adequately throughout the trial. Finally, Spainhower claimed that the combination of all the errors he identified deprived him of a fair trial. The court concluded that since no individual errors were found that warranted relief, the cumulative effect of claims also did not provide grounds for a new trial. Thus, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence against Spainhower, maintaining his conviction for first-degree murder with no opportunity for parole.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-639, Christopher Lantz Wildman appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided that his conviction would be upheld. One judge dissented. Christopher Wildman was found guilty by a jury of killing someone and was sentenced to 12 years in prison. He was awarded credit for the time he served before the trial. Wildman argued several points in his appeal, claiming that his rights were violated during the trial. First, he said the evidence didn’t prove he wasn’t acting in self-defense, which is an important legal argument in these cases. He believed that if the evidence did not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with wrongful intent, he should not have been convicted. However, the court found that there was enough evidence suggesting he did not act in self-defense. Wildman also claimed that his trial was unfair because some evidence showed bad character, and that the trial court did not properly instruct the jury on how to consider that evidence. The court reviewed this point and decided that the evidence presented was not overly prejudicial, so it allowed the trial to continue without a limiting instruction. He argued prosecutorial misconduct, which means he felt the prosecutor acted inappropriately during the trial. Wildman argued that remarks made by the prosecutor affected his right to a fair trial. The court noted that comments made by the prosecutor were not serious enough to change the outcome of the trial and were in response to claims made by Wildman. Wildman believed that his attorney did not perform well and that he should have had a better defense. The court examined this claim closely. It stated that for someone to prove their lawyer was ineffective, they need to show that their lawyer's performance was very poor and that it influenced the trial's outcome. The court found that Wildman's lawyer did not make serious mistakes. Additionally, he felt that some evidence about the victim’s habits was improperly allowed into the trial. However, since he did not object to this evidence during the trial, it made it harder for him to appeal this point later. Finally, Wildman argued that all these errors combined led to an unfair trial. The court did not find any significant errors, so they upheld the conviction. In conclusion, the court affirmed Wildman's conviction and sentence, stating that the original trial was fair and proper according to the evidence and legal standards.
In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, Milton Roger Hornsby appealed the revocation of his suspended sentence from the McIntosh County District Court, overseen by Judge James D. Bland. This appeal arose from convictions in two cases, CF-2012-45 and CF-2012-60, covering multiple charges including possession of a firearm after conviction and assault with a dangerous weapon. Hornsby initially received a twenty-year suspended sentence for one charge and six-month suspended sentences for others, all to be served concurrently. The State's motion to revoke the suspended sentences, filed on September 19, 2016, was due to an alleged new crime involving assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Following a hearing on December 29, 2016, Judge Bland revoked ten years of Hornsby's suspended sentences. Hornsby raised several legal arguments on appeal: 1. **Burden of Proof**: He argued that Judge Bland imposed a lower burden of proof than required. However, the court affirmed that Judge Bland properly articulated the standard during the hearing, which was that the State needed to show it was more likely than not that Hornsby violated his probation. 2. **Suppressed Evidence**: Hornsby contended that evidence pertaining to the use of a knife, previously suppressed in a related case, was improperly considered at the revocation hearing. The court noted that Hornsby did not object during the hearing and thus waived his right to raise this issue on appeal apart from claiming plain error, which he failed to establish. 3. **Intent to Harm**: Hornsby claimed there was insufficient evidence to prove he intended to inflict bodily harm. The court stated that the evidence presented was sufficient to suggest that it was more likely than not that Hornsby had such intent. 4. **Cumulative Errors**: Lastly, Hornsby argued that the accumulation of errors deprived him of a fair hearing. The court found no merit in this argument, as each proposition raised was without merit. The Court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in Judge Bland's decision to revoke the suspended sentence, affirming the revocation. The mandate was ordered to issue following the filing of the decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-970, Angelica C. Coats appealed her conviction for several crimes including drug possession and obstruction of an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court’s decision to accelerate her deferred judgment and sentence because she had violated probation by failing to pay required fees. One judge dissented, arguing that she was not willfully failing to pay because she had been declared indigent in court and there was no inquiry into her ability to pay.
In OCCA case No. C-2018-648, Denisa Dawn Duvall appealed her conviction for domestic assault and battery in the presence of a minor. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her request for a new hearing to withdraw her plea. One judge dissented. Duvall was charged with a misdemeanor and decided to enter a plea of no contest. The court accepted her plea and gave her a deferred sentence, which included supervision and counseling. Later, Duvall filed a request to withdraw her plea, saying she wanted an attorney to help her. However, when the court held a hearing, it was unclear if she was offered a lawyer or if she had decided to represent herself. Duvall claimed that she didn’t understand the charges or the meaning of her plea when she first entered it. The court didn’t allow her a lawyer during the hearing to withdraw her plea, which is against her rights under the Constitution. The court recognized that Duvall should have had legal help during that critical moment. The State agreed that Duvall didn’t receive a fair process because she was not represented by counsel. The court decided that they needed to redo the hearing where Duvall could have a lawyer present, and she should be allowed to explain why she wants to withdraw her plea. The court ordered that Duvall be given a new chance to file a motion for withdrawing her plea with her new lawyer and scheduled an evidentiary hearing on that motion. If her request to withdraw her plea is denied again, her lawyer must help her with an appeal. The decision from the court resulted in Duvall getting a new hearing, where she can properly address her plea's withdrawal with the support of an attorney.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-950, Terry Lyn Elkins appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine and Resisting an Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but remand for resentencing on the possession count. One judge dissented. Terry Lyn Elkins was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine and for resisting a police officer. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison for the drug charge and fined $500 for resisting the officer. The jury did not find him guilty of assaulting a police officer. Elkins argued that the trial was unfair because the jury saw evidence that was not relevant to his case, which might have affected their decision about his punishment. The evidence included a document from the Department of Corrections that had many details about Elkins’ past, including other crimes he committed many years ago. Some of this information was not needed for the current case and could have made the jury think more negatively about him. The judges decided that while the evidence showing Elkins’ past convictions was correctly used, parts of the additional information were not relevant and should not have been presented to the jury. They believed that this extra information could have influenced how the jury decided on the punishment. Therefore, they decided to keep the convictions as is, but send the case back to lower court for a new review of his punishment for the meth charge. In a separate opinion, a judge agreed with keeping the conviction but believed that sending the case back for resentencing was not necessary since Elkins did not receive the maximum punishment possible.
In OCCA case No. C-2017-33, a person appealed his conviction for manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to run concurrently with another sentence. One judge dissented. In this case, the person, who we'll refer to as the appellant, had entered a guilty plea to first degree manslaughter. He ended up being sentenced to twenty-three years in prison. After some time, the appellant decided he wanted to take back his guilty plea. He claimed he didn't fully understand the consequences of his plea when he entered it, and he felt he was pressured into making that choice. The court held three hearings to talk about the appellant’s request to withdraw his guilty plea. Ultimately, the judge denied his request, finding that his plea was made voluntarily and knowingly. The appellant raised two main arguments in his appeal. First, he argued that his plea was not given voluntarily or knowingly. Second, he said he did not get proper legal help from his attorney, which affected his case. The court looked closely at the entire record, including the hearings and the agreements made during the plea process. They found that even though the appellant felt he was pressured, he actually understood what he was doing when he entered his plea. They decided that the plea was valid and should not be withdrawn. However, the court also recognized that the state did not follow the agreement regarding a related case. The state had promised not to seek a revocation of the appellant's other suspended sentence, but after the appellant filed to withdraw his plea, the state moved to revoke that sentence anyway. The court determined that this was a significant breach of the plea agreement, which affected the fairness of the situation. Since the appellant was also facing the loss of additional years in prison because of the state's actions, the court decided to modify his sentence. Instead of having the two sentences run one after the other, the court ordered them to run at the same time. This way, the appellant would not be unfairly punished because of the state’s breach of their agreement. In conclusion, the court agreed the appellant’s plea was valid and was made knowingly and voluntarily. However, to correct the mistake made by the state regarding the plea agreement, they modified his sentence to ensure fairness. One judge disagreed with some parts of the decision.
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.
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.
In OCCA case No. F-2016-55, James Curtis Cox appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Here's a summary of what happened: Cox was tried by a jury and found guilty of two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child. The judge sentenced him to a long time in prison: twenty-five years for the first count and life imprisonment for the second count, along with fines. He had to serve eighty-five percent of his sentences before he could be considered for parole. Cox appealed because he thought several things went wrong during his trial. First, he complained that his lawyer did not do a good job. He also said the trial court made mistakes by not instructing the jury properly about certain evidence and that they considered witness statements that shouldn’t have been allowed. The court reviewed everything his lawyer did and decided that Cox was not able to show that he had suffered because of his lawyer's performance. They ruled that even if his lawyer didn’t object to some evidence or didn’t ask for certain instructions, it did not ruin his chance for a fair trial. The judges also looked at whether the trial court made mistakes about some evidence being used during the trial. They found that while some evidence shouldn’t have been used, it didn’t change the outcome of the trial. However, when it came to sentencing, the judges found a significant problem. The trial court should not have considered certain statements from victims who were not part of the case. They concluded that the judge was influenced by these statements, which were not allowed, while deciding how long Cox should stay in prison. In the end, the judges decided that Cox’s sentences should be changed to run concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time instead of one after the other. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences so Cox would have a slightly lighter sentence to serve compared to what they initially decided. The appeal allowed Cox to get a better outcome in terms of his sentences, even though he still faced serious charges.
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.