Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 982a Archives

RE-2021-1042

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 19, 2023
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2021-1042, Matthew Bryan Buttery appealed his conviction for a series of crimes including distribution of controlled substances and petit larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered that his new sentence run concurrently with a prior sentence from another case. One judge dissented on the issue of how the sentences should relate to one another. Matthew Buttery had previously pled guilty to several charges. He was given a ten-year suspended sentence, which means he didn't have to serve time in prison at that moment but had to follow certain rules. If he broke any rules, the court could take back that suspended sentence and send him to prison. The state claimed that Buttery did not report as required, did not pay his probation fees, and committed a new crime, for which they wanted to revoke his suspended sentence. During the hearing, the court found Buttery had violated the terms of his probation and revoked his suspended sentence. Buttery argued that the court made a mistake by not giving him credit for time he had already served and by ordering that his new sentence run after a different sentence from another county. The court explained that it had the right to revoke Buttery's suspended sentence because he violated the rules. They stated they didn't have to give him credit for time served because the suspended sentence is not changed by the violation. They also found that the judge improperly decided his new sentence would run after the one from the other county rather than at the same time. The judges clarified that when a sentence is revoked, it should not change how sentences from different cases affect each other. In the end, Buttery's appeal led to some changes. The court ordered that his new sentence should run concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time, rather than one after the other. However, the court upheld the overall decision to revoke his suspended sentence for breaking the rules of his probation. One judge agreed with the decision to affirm the revocation but disagreed with other parts of the analysis regarding the relationship between the sentences. So, to summarize, the main points from the case are that Matthew Bryan Buttery's suspension was revoked because he violated probation rules, but the court made a mistake when deciding how his new sentence should relate to an older sentence. He is to serve them at the same time now, according to the latest court ruling.

F-2018-901

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 13, 2020
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. F-2018-901** **NAJEE JAMALL COX, Appellant,** **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Najee Jamall Cox, appeals from the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2014-5486 in Oklahoma County, presided over by Judge Ray C. Elliott. On January 30, 2017, Cox entered a guilty plea to Burglary in the First Degree, and his judgment and sentencing were deferred for seven years, with probation conditions effective until January 29, 2024. On March 20, 2018, the State filed an application to accelerate the deferred sentence, citing multiple violations, including new criminal charges and failure to pay court costs. At the hearing on August 14, 2018, Judge Elliott denied Cox's request for a continuance to allow his co-defendant to testify, after which the hearing proceeded with the State's presentation of evidence from probation officers and law enforcement. **FINDINGS:** 1. **Evidence of Possession**: The court found sufficient evidence supporting that Cox had constructive possession of marijuana and related paraphernalia based on the circumstances surrounding the traffic stop and subsequent findings in his vehicle. 2. **Right to Present Testimony**: Cox was given the opportunity to present a defense but failed to secure the presence of his co-defendant through proper procedural channels. His claim of due process violation was denied due to lack of shown prejudice. 3. **Notice of Reimbursement Fee**: Sufficient evidence demonstrated that Cox was aware of his obligation to pay the District Attorney's fees. 4. **Judicial Notice**: The court's reference to Cox's counsel's reputation did not negatively impact his rights, as the violation found was supported by sufficient evidence regardless. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Cox did not demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient enough to have affected the outcome. Based on the analysis of these propositions, the order of acceleration issued by the District Court is **AFFIRMED**. **CONCLUSION**: The mandate will be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **Representatives:** - **Counsel for Appellant**: Matthew Tate Wise - **Counsel for State**: Kirk Martin, Mike Hunter **Decision by**: LEWIS, Presiding Judge **Concurrences**: KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. [Click here to download the full PDF of the opinion.](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-901_1735118825.pdf)

RE-2018-604

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 10, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **LEROY ALEXANDER, JR.,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-604** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **OCT 10 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Leroy Alexander, Jr., was sentenced to a total of fifteen years for the crime of Rape in the Second Degree, with all but the first year suspended. This appeal arises from the revocation of the remainder of his suspended sentence by the Honorable George W. Butner, District Judge of Seminole County. **Facts:** On April 5, 2018, the State of Oklahoma filed a motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence, alleging violations related to failure to attend sex offender treatment and failure to submit to required polygraph examinations. An amended motion on June 1, 2018, added allegations of inappropriate employment at a children's carnival ride during a festival. During the revocation hearing, the State's probation officer testified that Appellant had initially attended treatment sessions but was terminated for non-attendance. Appellant claimed his violations stemmed from financial hardship and lack of transportation. The Court ultimately found that Appellant had not made genuine efforts to comply with the terms of his probation. **Points of Error:** 1. **Proposition I:** Appellant argues that the trial court lacked authority to revoke more than the actual suspended portion of his sentence. He claims the written order incorrectly states that all of the fifteen years was revoked. However, the oral pronouncement during the hearing indicated the revocation was for the remainder of the suspended sentence. The court later issued an amendment to clarify the written judgment, aligning it with the oral ruling. 2. **Proposition II:** Appellant contends the full revocation of his suspended sentence was excessive, arguing that his violations were a result of indigence and lack of resources. The court's discretion in revoking a suspended sentence is established unless there is an abuse of discretion. Judge Butner found the violations were due to Appellant's lack of effort rather than financial difficulties, which was supported by evidence in the record. **Decision:** The order of the District Court of Seminole County revoking the remainder of Appellant's fifteen-year suspended sentence is AFFIRMED. The Mandate is ordered issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **ATTORNEYS:** - **ZACHARY L. PYRON** - **CHAD JOHNSON** (Appellate Defense Counsel) - **CHRISTOPHER G. ANDERSON** - **MIKE HUNTER** - **THEODORE M. PEEPER** (Assistant District Attorney / Attorney General of Oklahoma) **OPINION BY:** **KUEHN, V.P.J.** **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** --- [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-604_1734429602.pdf)

RE-2018-662

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 29, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **RYAN MITCHELL CRONIC,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-662** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA AUG 29 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Ryan Mitchell Cronic, pleaded guilty to three felony counts of Concealing Stolen Property in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2013-2184. He was sentenced to five years suspended on each count and was ordered to pay restitution. Additionally, he pleaded guilty to one felony count of Concealing Stolen Property in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2015-580, which resulted in a five-year imprisonment sentence, also suspended in full and ordered to run concurrently with Case No. CF-2013-2184, with credit for time served. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence for each case, alleging Appellant failed to pay supervision fees and restitution. Appellant stipulated to these allegations and received a sentence of thirty days in the custody of the Oklahoma County Sheriff. The applications to revoke were later dismissed by the State's motion. A second Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence was filed alleging that Appellant again failed to pay supervision fees and restitution, as well as including new charges: Aggravated Attempting to Elude a Police Officer, Driving While Revoked, and Failure to Provide Proof of Security Verification. After a hearing, the Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge, ordered Appellant's suspended sentences revoked in full. Appellant appeals this revocation, claiming it was an abuse of discretion. We affirm the order of the District Court regarding the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences. The decision to revoke suspended sentences lies within the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed unless there is an abuse. An abuse of discretion is described by this Court as a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented. Appellant has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion in the present case. However, there is a discrepancy in the record regarding Appellant's sentences. The Judgment and Sentence for both cases states Appellant was given a ten-year suspended sentence, while all other documents refer to a suspended sentence of five years. Consequently, we remand this matter to the District Court to address this inconsistency. **DECISION** The District Court's revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2013-2184 and CF-2015-580 is **AFFIRMED**, but the case is **REMANDED** to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. 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 delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY R. HENDERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT APPEAL REVOCATION HEARING** **RICHARD HULL** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **HALLIE E. BOVOS** **611 COUNTY OFFICE BLDG.** **OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102** **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** **KELLY COLLINS** **OKLAHOMA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY** **MIKE HUNTER** **ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA.** **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J.: **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR**

C-2018-861

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 16, 2019
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BOBBY RAY LEWIS,** **Petitioner,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-861** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA JUN 16 2019** --- **OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **JOHN D. HADDEN LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner, Bobby Ray Lewis, faced charges in two separate cases in the District Court of Okfuskee County. Case No. CF-2017-17 included charges of *Driving Under the Influence*, *Leaving the Scene of an Accident with Injury*, and *Failure to Report a Personal Injury Accident*. Case No. CF-2018-21 involved charges of *Assault and Battery on a Police Officer* and *Assault and Battery on an Emergency Medical Care Provider*. **I. Procedural Status of Appeal** The Court notes that the Petitioner's Petition For Writ of Certiorari is not properly before it. According to established law, appeals from judgments following a plea must proceed via a writ of certiorari. The relevant statutes and court rules state that a defendant must file an application to withdraw the plea within ten days of the judgment's pronouncement. In this case, the District Court pronounced judgment and sentence on June 27, 2018. The Petitioner failed to file a motion to withdraw his plea within the required ten-day window. As a result, the conviction became final, and the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case. The Petitioner’s motion, filed on July 17, 2018—twenty days post-judgment—was therefore untimely, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. Accordingly, since the Petitioner's petition is not properly before the Court, this appeal is dismissed. **DECISION** The Petitioner's Petition For Writ of Certiorari is dismissed as it is not properly before the Court. Pursuant to Rule 3.15 of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** Curt Allen, Indigent Defense System, Okmulgee, OK Arlan Bullard, Attorney at Law, Pauls Valley, OK **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** Robert W. Jackson, Indigent Defense System, Norman, OK Emily Mueller, Assistant District Attorney, Okemah, OK --- **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/C-2018-861_1734181193.pdf)**

RE-2017-964

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2019
Post category:RE

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case No. RE-2017-964** **Antonio Depew Rhone, Appellant** **State of Oklahoma, Appellee** **Filed: April 4, 2019** **Summary Opinion:** Judge Hudson delivers the opinion of the court, affirming the revocation of Rhone's suspended sentence. ### Background: - On May 19, 2004, Antonio Depew Rhone pleaded guilty to Robbery with a Firearm and Kidnapping. - He received a 20-year sentence for the robbery (12 years suspended) and a concurrent 10-year sentence for kidnapping. - In July 2016, the State filed a motion to revoke his suspended sentence due to multiple probation violations, including new criminal charges. - After a revocation hearing on July 10, 2017, the District Court revoked Rhone's suspended sentence in full. ### Propositions of Error: 1. **Denial of Counsel of Choice:** Rhone claimed the trial court erred by not allowing him to hire his chosen attorney and denied his motion for a continuance. The court found no abuse of discretion, noting that Rhone had ample time to secure counsel but did not do so and had not shown any conflict with the appointed counsel. 2. **First Amendment Rights:** Rhone argued that his Facebook posts, which included threats, constituted protected speech. The court noted that Rhone did not object to the evidence's admissibility at the hearing, limiting review to plain error. The court ruled the statements were threats and not constitutionally protected speech. 3. **Insufficient Evidence for Revocation:** Rhone asserted the evidence against him was insufficient to support his revocation based on new criminal charges and other alleged probation violations. The court found that the State only needed to prove violations by a preponderance of the evidence and was satisfied the evidence presented justified the revocation. 4. **Abuse of Discretion in Revocation Decision:** Rhone contended that completely revoking his suspended sentence was excessive. The court reiterated that even one violation can justify a full revocation and found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision. ### Decision: The court affirmed the District Court's decision to revoke Rhone's suspended sentence. **Concurring Opinion (Kuehn, V.P.J.):** Kuehn concurred with the result, emphasizing that the evidence for the new drug charge alone justified the revocation. The other propositions were deemed moot. Kuehn agreed with the majority's analysis regarding the First Amendment claim, concluding there was no error in charging Rhone for his statements. **Conclusion:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the revocation of Rhone’s suspended sentence, affirming the trial court's findings and rulings across all raised propositions. **[Download PDF of the full opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2017-964_1734708773.pdf)**

RE 2016-0218

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

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

S-2013-315

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 21, 2014
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-315, David Johns appealed his conviction for larceny. In a published decision, the court decided that a trial court cannot modify the terms and conditions of a negotiated deferred judgment without the consent of the State. The case involved Johns, who had entered a guilty plea and was placed on deferred judgment for five years. He filed a motion to change the terms of his deferred judgment, and the trial court agreed to shorten it and dismiss the case, which the State appealed. The court explained that under current laws, the trial court does not have the authority to shorten the deferment period once a plea agreement is in place. This ruling was made to prevent issues that could discourage prosecutors from agreeing to deferred judgments in the future. The court emphasized that any changes to the terms of a deferred judgment must follow statutory guidelines, and the trial court may only act when the conditions are met at the end of the deferment period. It upheld the idea that modifying an agreement without proper authority is not allowed. Therefore, the original decision to cut Johns' probation short was not supported by the law. The court's answer to the reserved question of law confirmed that the trial court was not authorized to cut short the period of deferment after the terms of the plea agreement had been established. #n dissented.

RE-2011-606

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 4, 2013
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2011-606, Douglas Raymond Norwood appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug (cocaine) with intent to distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking Norwood's suspended sentences but vacated the portion of the order that unlawfully lengthened his sentences. One judge dissented. Here's a simple summary of what happened in the case: Norwood was given a six-year sentence for possessing cocaine, but this was suspended, meaning he didn’t have to go to jail right away if he followed certain rules. Later, he had problems following those rules, which led to more charges against him for drug possession. He confessed to these new charges and took a plea deal, which resulted in longer sentences. After some time, a judge reviewed his case and decided to reduce his sentences but required him to go to a program called Avalon after he got out of jail. Norwood didn’t manage to get into Avalon because he couldn't pay the admission fees, which led the judge to completely revoke his suspended sentences. Norwood argued in court that the judge shouldn’t have done that because he had followed some of the rules, and he claimed he didn't intend to break those rules. However, the court found that he didn’t follow the requirement to report to Avalon properly. In the final decision, the court agreed with Norwood about a mistake in how his sentence was handled, stating that the judge had taken away more time than he should have. But overall, the court decided that Norwood had violated his probation, so he had to serve his time in jail as determined by the judge.

RE 2012-0259

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 4, 2013
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0259, the appellant, Samuel David Murich, appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In a published decision, the court decided that the revocation of Murich's suspended sentences was not valid because the State did not prove the finality of the conviction it used to revoke his probation. The court agreed with Murich’s argument and reversed the revocation. One judge dissented.

F-2012-499

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 15, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-499, Richard Harold Bazemore appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child (Counts I-VI) and Lewd or Indecent Acts With a Child Under Sixteen (Count VIII). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the presentence investigation fee to $250.00. One judge dissented.

F-2008-289

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 3, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-289, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug, marijuana, and paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the termination of the appellant from the Drug Court Program, agreeing that the trial court abused its discretion in the decision, and reinstated the appellant to the Drug Court Program. One judge dissented. The case involved the appellant, who had entered a Drug Court Program after pleading guilty to drug charges. Initially, the appellant struggled with substance abuse but made significant progress over the years, living a more stable life and regaining custody of her children. However, the situation changed when she was arrested for driving under the influence after having two drinks on a night out. At a court hearing, her termination from the Drug Court Program was discussed. Some witnesses testified that the appellant's actions should not classify as a relapse in her recovery process since she had remained sober for over 400 days before the incident. They argued that even though she made a poor choice by drinking and driving, it did not warrant her removal from the program, especially since she showed great progress in her life. However, the court disagreed with the trial judge's decision to terminate the appellant. The appellate court found that the termination was not justified since the overall evidence suggested that the appellant could successfully complete the Drug Court Program despite the DUI incident. The court emphasized the importance of allowing participants ample time to change their behaviors and succeed in treatment. As a result, the appellate court reversed the termination order and instructed the lower court to reinstate the appellant in the Drug Court Program, allowing her to continue working toward completing her treatment plan.

F-2008-438

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 26, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-438, Marcus Laquine Petty appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the District Court, but found that a hearing was needed regarding the amount of the Victim's Compensation Assessment. Two members of the court dissented regarding the second count of the conviction.

RE 2006-0482

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 23, 2008
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2006-0482, Juston Dean Cox appealed his conviction for multiple charges related to the concealment of stolen property and other offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Cox's suspended sentences but remanded the cases for resentencing to correct the terms to what was originally ordered. One judge dissented.

F-2006-648

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 19, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-648, Cynthia Fern Izon appealed her conviction for embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction but modify her sentence. One judge dissented. Cynthia Fern Izon was accused of embezzling money while working as an officer, and a jury found her guilty. After the jury couldn't agree on her punishment, the judge decided that she should serve 40 years in prison. However, 15 of those years were suspended, meaning she would not have to serve them right away, and she was also fined $1,000 and told to pay back $81,000. Cynthia felt that her trial had several problems, and she raised many points during her appeal. First, she said she didn't get proper representation because she chose to represent herself without understanding the risks involved. However, the court found that she clearly stated her wish to represent herself, received help from a standby lawyer, and understood what she was doing. Cynthia also claimed misconduct by the prosecutors made her trial unfair, but the court ruled that these actions didn't deny her a fair trial. She argued that her sentence was too harsh, and the court agreed that there had been an error in how long she could be punished for embezzlement. The original laws meant her punishment should not exceed 10 years, and the court modified her sentence accordingly. Another point Cynthia made was about whether paying restitution would hurt her family financially. The court noted that the trial judge should have considered this but decided that the restitution order was still valid. In addition, Cynthia claimed she faced double punishment because of the restitution and prison time, but the court found this did not violate any laws. The court also mentioned that she was warned about not testifying on her behalf and said there was no evidence that stopped her from presenting evidence. Regarding her husband, who she believed might have lied on the stand, the court ruled that she didn't raise this issue properly during the trial, so it couldn't be revisited now. Cynthia argued that she was denied a speedy trial, but the court decided that the delays were largely due to her actions. While several of her claims were dismissed, the court did agree to lower her sentence to comply with the law regarding embezzlement. In the end, the court upheld Cynthia Fern Izon's conviction but changed her sentence to 10 years in prison, along with the fine and restitution.

C-2006-863

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 17, 2007
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-863, the petitioner appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the petitioner's request for further review. One member of the court dissented. To explain further, the case began when the petitioner, Wilkerson, entered a blind plea, meaning he agreed to plead guilty without any deal from the prosecutor, to a serious charge of First Degree Manslaughter. This happened in the Tulsa County District Court. In June 2006, the court accepted his plea and decided that he would spend life in prison, but he would only have to serve 20 years of that sentence right away. The court also ordered him to pay $10,000 as restitution. A little later, in July 2006, Wilkerson wanted to take back his plea and filed a motion to withdraw it, but the court said no after a hearing in August. Following this, Wilkerson decided to appeal and asked for a special review from the OCCA. During the appeal, Wilkerson pointed out three main areas he felt were wrong: 1. He believed his sentence was affected by bias and improper evidence presented in court, leading to a sentence that was too harsh. 2. He argued that he should not have to pay the $10,000 fine since it was not mentioned correctly in the sentence. 3. He wanted the official records to show the date his sentence was first pronounced, which was June 23, 2006. After looking at all the records, it was determined that Wilkerson's plea was made willingly and his sentence was not excessive. The court agreed that the $10,000 fine was wrongly imposed and should be removed, but they also acknowledged that the trial court had done the right thing by dismissing the restitution order since no evidence supported it. The decision concluded with the court denying Wilkerson’s request for a special review but correcting the record to eliminate the fine and officially reflecting the correct date of sentencing.

RE-2006-1308

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 8, 2006
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-1308, an individual appealed their conviction for obtaining merchandise by false pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the order revoking the suspended sentence for one case was reversed because the court did not have the right to revoke it after it expired, but the revocation for the other case was affirmed. One judge dissented. Here’s a simpler breakdown of the case: The person involved, let's call her Appellant, got in trouble for pretending to be someone else and committing fraud. In 2001, she was given a three-year punishment, but it was suspended, meaning she didn't have to go to jail right away if she followed certain rules. In 2002, she got into more trouble with three more crimes of taking things without paying. Again, her punishment was suspended, allowing her some time to pay back the money she owed. However, by 2003, the Appellant wasn't paying back the money as she was supposed to, so the authorities filed to take away her suspended sentences. Over several years, Appellant was given multiple chances to fix her mistakes and to pay what she owed, but she continued to have problems and missed important hearings. In December 2006, the decision to take away her suspended sentences was finalized. The Appellant argued that the court should not have the power to do that because the time to punish her had already passed. The court agreed on one point: they couldn't revoke one of her sentences because it had expired. But the other case was still valid because some papers had been filed before that expiration. After going through everything, the court reversed the decision about one of the suspended sentences but agreed that the other sentence could still be revoked since she had not followed the rules. This means she would still face consequences for her actions there. In the end, it showed that if you don’t follow the rules when given a second chance, there can be serious consequences, and sometimes time limits can change what can happen in court.

C-2005-311

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 29, 2006
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-311, Emily Burns appealed her conviction for robbery with a firearm and false declaration of ownership in pawn. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her appeal and modify her sentence. One judge dissented. Emily Burns pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm and false declaration of ownership in pawn. A judge sentenced her to 25 years in prison for robbery and five years for the other charge, with both sentences running at the same time. Burns later asked to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing her long sentence was unfair. The court looked at how the sentence was decided. They said when someone pleads guilty, the judge must consider all possible punishments. Burns claimed the judge had a policy of giving at least 25 years for armed robbery without looking at her specific case. This concerned the appellate court because it seemed the judge might not have thought about all the facts before sentencing. Burns used a fake gun during the robbery, and no one was really hurt. The court believed that sentencing her to 25 years for using a fake gun in a non-violent way was extreme given her background as a young mother with no prior criminal record. The appellate court decided to change Burns's punishment, reducing her sentence to 10 years in prison because the original sentence was too harsh. They affirmed her convictions but modified the length of her sentence. Burns also argued that she was denied a chance to have her sentence reviewed after a year, which is a right she has by law. However, the court said she was not denied this right because the judge just needed her to file a motion if she wanted a review. In the end, the court granted her request to modify her sentence and reaffirmed her convictions, while one judge believed that the original sentence should stand.

RE-2004-812

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 3, 2005
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-812, Duckett appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of A Controlled Drug. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order of the District Court regarding the revocation of Duckett's suspended sentence and instructed the court to dismiss the case, leading to Duckett's immediate release. One judge dissented. The case began when Duckett entered a guilty plea for possessing crack cocaine and was given a three-year suspended sentence. However, in 2002, the state wanted to revoke this sentence due to alleged violations of probation. Duckett was arrested and confessed to violating the terms of his probation in early 2003, but his sentencing was postponed several times. When Duckett failed to appear for a hearing in June 2004, a warrant for his arrest was issued. After being taken into custody, he had his sentencing hearing on July 26, 2004, during which the court revoked his suspended sentence due to his absence at the earlier hearing. Duckett appealed this decision, arguing that the court could not revoke his probation after his three-year term had expired. The court agreed with Duckett's argument, stating that the District Court did not have the authority to sentence him after the probation had ended. Although the court had taken steps to help him, such as continuously supervising his probation, the law does not allow for a suspended sentence to be extended indefinitely. The ruling emphasized that once the suspended sentence expired, the District Court lost its power to revoke it. Therefore, the court reversed the earlier decision and instructed the District Court to dismiss the case, allowing Duckett to be released.

F-2001-558

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 27, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-558, Medlin appealed her conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree by Heat of Passion. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her judgment and dismiss the case. One judge dissented. The case began when a jury found Medlin guilty of Manslaughter for the shooting death of her husband, Jay Medlin. The jury sentenced her to four years in prison. Medlin argued that the trial court made a mistake by allowing instructions on a lesser charge of Manslaughter since she believed her actions were in self-defense due to previous abuse from her husband. Throughout their marriage, Medlin testified about the many times she and her children had been harmed by Jay. On the night of the shooting, after Jay verbally threatened the family and struck Medlin, she took a gun and shot him multiple times while he was asleep, believing she was defending herself and her children from further harm. At the appeal, the court determined that the evidence did not support a jury instruction on Manslaughter because Medlin had intended to kill her husband. The trial court's instructions to the jury were incorrect because they could only find that she had meant to cause death. Since the evidence only pointed to a conviction for murder, the court concluded that the previous conviction must be dismissed under the law. Thus, the court reversed the conviction and ordered the lower court to dismiss the case entirely, which also meant Medlin could not be tried for First Degree Murder again after the jury had found her not guilty of that charge. The dissenting opinion argued that the judge gave the jury a fair chance to decide based on the evidence presented and that the jury's actions were reasonable based on what they had seen and heard during the trial. In conclusion, the court's ruling in this case emphasized that if there is no substantial evidence showing that a lesser charge could apply, then that instruction should not be presented to the jury.

RE 2001-0663

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 11, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0663, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In a published decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. In this case, the Appellant had previously pled guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, possession of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. As a result, the Appellant was given a suspended sentence of five years for the first two counts and a one-year suspended sentence for the third count. A suspended sentence means that the person does not have to serve time in jail unless they break the rules. Later, the State wanted to take back the suspended sentences because they believed the Appellant broke the rules. They filed an application for revocation, and a hearing was held. The judge decided to revoke the five-year suspended sentences for the first two counts but found that the one-year sentence for the third count had already expired. The judge also ordered that the new sentences would run consecutively with any new cases the Appellant might have. This means that the Appellant would serve time for the revocation and also for any new offenses afterward without merging those sentences. However, the Appellant appealed this decision, arguing that the judge did not have the authority to order the five-year sentences to run consecutively with new cases. The higher court agreed with the Appellant's argument and said the judge made a mistake in this part of the decision. The court affirmed the revocation of the Appellant's suspended sentences but modified the sentence to remove the part about running consecutively. This means the Appellant would still be punished for breaking the rules, but they wouldn't have to serve their new sentences one after the other in this case. The court instructed the lower court to update the judgment to reflect this change. In summary, while the Appellant's suspended sentences were revoked, the way the new sentences were to be served was changed. The final decision supported the revocation, but clarified the terms of the punishment.

RE-2000-1034

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 15, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1034, an individual appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana in the presence of a minor child. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold the decision to revoke part of the individual’s suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when the individual was given a ten-year suspended sentence after pleading guilty in 1996. However, in 2000, the court found that he had violated the terms of his probation. The judge determined that the individual had committed offenses, including driving with a suspended license, and had also failed to make required payments for fines and costs. The individual argued that the court based its decision on prior allegations that the state had withdrawn. However, the court found that the individual did not provide sufficient legal reasons why those prior allegations couldn’t be used again. It also noted that the individual had not made required payments for his fines, having made less than one payment each year during the probation period. The judge emphasized that the individual had signed agreements for payment plans based on his ability to pay. Because he failed to follow through with these payments and was found to have violated other terms of his probation, the judge concluded there was enough reason to find that the individual had intentionally failed to comply. In the final decision, the court affirmed the revocation of a part of the individual’s sentence. However, it noted that the judge had improperly issued a new sentence instead of just executing the previous one. Therefore, while the revocation stood, the court ordered the lower court to correct this issue by properly recording the revocation without imposing a new judgment.