In OCCA case No. F-2021-522, Trevor Leif Toppah appealed his conviction for Aggravated Assault and Battery, After Former Conviction of Three Felonies (Count 1), and Conspiracy to Commit Assault and Battery (Count 2). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court but modified the indigent defense fee. One judge dissented regarding the evidence for the conspiracy conviction.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-336, Donnie Graham appealed his conviction for first degree rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to include three years of post-imprisonment community supervision but otherwise affirmed the conviction. One judge dissented. The case began when Donnie Graham was found guilty of first degree rape after a jury trial. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and a fine. The case was heard in the District Court of Comanche County. Graham's main argument was about his right to have effective legal help during his trial. He claimed that his lawyer did not investigate earlier rape claims made by the victim and did not present evidence that could have proved those claims were false. He insisted that because of his lawyer's mistakes, he did not get a fair trial. The court looked closely at this claim. They first checked if Graham’s lawyer did not do their job properly according to professional standards. They needed to see if the lawyer's performance was bad enough to have affected the trial's outcome. After reviewing everything, the court decided that Graham did not show enough proof that his lawyer was ineffective. They denied Graham's request for a hearing to further examine his claims. Overall, the court changed his sentence to include three years of supervision after his prison time but upheld the decision regarding his guilt.
In OCCA case No. F-2019-605, Jerome Matthew McConell appealed his conviction for Obtaining Merchandise by False Pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court, except for certain parts which were stricken. One member of the court dissented. McConell was found guilty after a bench trial in the District Court of McCurtain County. He was sentenced to thirty months in prison, but he argued that his trial was unfair for three main reasons. First, he claimed he was not allowed to confront some witnesses properly because hearsay evidence was permitted. Hearsay is when someone testifies about what another person said outside of court, which usually isn't allowed as direct evidence. However, the court found no real error in this situation because McConell's lawyer brought up the same issues during questioning. Therefore, the court did not see a violation of his rights. Second, McConell argued that evidence from another incident should not have been allowed by the court because the state did not give proper notice about it. However, the court decided that the evidence was relevant and no mistakes were made in permitting it. Lastly, McConell noted that the written sentence and conditions after his trial did not match what was discussed in court. The judge had ordered conditions that he should not enter a casino and also mentioned costs for prosecution that were not allowed under the law. The court agreed that these parts of the judgment were incorrect and decided to strike them from his sentence. In summary, the appeals court did affirm McConell's conviction, meaning they upheld the trial's decision, but they corrected some errors in how his sentence was recorded and ordered the lower court to make those changes.
The document outlines a legal case involving Leslie Anne Gregersen who was convicted of Conspiracy Against the State in the District Court of Bryan County, Oklahoma. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed her conviction and sentence on October 31, 2019. The case revolved around several allegations made by Gregersen pointing to various errors during the trial, including insufficient evidence for conspiracy, improper admission of evidence from other crimes, ineffective assistance of counsel, improper jury instructions, excessive sentencing, and cumulative errors. Key findings from the case: 1. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of conspiracy, affirming that a rational trier of fact could have concluded that Gregersen was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. **Admission of Evidence**: The testimony regarding other crimes was deemed proper as res gestae evidence, necessary to provide context and understanding of the events surrounding the charged crime. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: The court ruled that Gregersen failed to demonstrate that her counsel's performance was deficient or that it prejudiced her defense. 4. **Jury Instructions and Responsibilities**: The trial court's handling of jury questions regarding sentencing did not mislead the jury about their responsibilities, and any potential errors did not affect the fairness of the proceedings. 5. **Excessive Sentence**: The court concluded that Gregersen's four-year sentence was not shockingly disproportionate to her crime. 6. **Plea Bargaining Deadline**: The court found no error regarding the deadline set for plea bargaining, noting that Gregersen had rejected a plea offer prior to the deadline and had not shown how she was prejudiced. 7. **Cumulative Error**: Since the court did not find merit in any of the individual claims of error, the cumulative error claim was also denied. Overall, all propositions of error were denied, and the judgment and sentence were affirmed.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CALVIN TAYLOR HERRIEN,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-426** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 19 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Calvin Taylor Herrien, appeals from the revocation of four years of his twenty-five year suspended sentences in Case No. CF-2011-4693 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, presided over by the Honorable Cindy H. Truong. **Background:** On November 2, 2012, Appellant entered a guilty plea to two counts of Lewd Acts With a Child Under Sixteen, resulting in a twenty-five year sentence for each count, both suspended under specific probation conditions. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence on November 1, 2017, alleging Appellant violated probation by failing to reside in a lawfully approved residence and not truthfully answering inquiries from the DOC and law enforcement. A hearing commenced on November 21, 2017, where evidence was presented, including testimony from police chief Allen Lane, who testified regarding Appellant's residence proximity to a park and his notification to Appellant to relocate. Further testimony came from probation officer Daniel Straka, who reported Appellant's admission about the residence, discrepancies about probation requirements, and additional violations not included in the revocation application. Appellant testified on his own behalf, offering explanations but ultimately, after considering arguments, Judge Truong found that Appellant had committed the two breaches alleged in the application. Following a continuance, on December 1, 2017, Judge Truong revoked four years of the suspended sentence. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Inadequate Notice:** Appellant contends that the consideration of testimony regarding uncharged violations denied him adequate notice, which impeded his ability to prepare a defense. 2. **Right to Confront:** Appellant alleges deprivation of his right to confront witnesses and due process during the hearing. 3. **Excessive Sentence:** Appellant argues that the four-year revocation of his suspended sentence is excessive. **Analysis:** The evidence presented at the revocation proceedings clearly showed that Appellant violated the terms of his probation. Appellant does not contest the findings concerning the recognized violations. He does not argue that he was unaware of the specifics related to the alleged probation violations or that he lacked the opportunity to defend himself against those violations. In regards to Propositions I and II, while Appellant claims other violations were improperly admitted, the court's finding that he committed the alleged violations outlined in the application suffices to validate the revocation. Furthermore, due process entitles Appellant to argue mitigating circumstances, which was provided by Judge Truong. Concerning Proposition III, revocation decisions are primarily at the discretion of the trial court and will only be overturned in cases of demonstrable abuse of that discretion. Appellant has not shown that the four-year revocation was disproportionate relative to the violations committed. **Decision:** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking four years of Appellant's twenty-five year suspended sentences in Case No. CF-2011-4693 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. --- **Appearances:** **For Appellant:** Joshua C. Smith Attorney at Law 217 N. Harvey, Ste. 108 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **For Appellee:** Ryan P. Stephenson Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma County 320 Robert S. Kerr, Ste. 505 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **CONCUR IN RESULTS:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. *Click Here To Download PDF*
**In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case No. RE-2018-484** **Summary Opinion** **Appellant:** Orville Tabe Keith, Jr. **Appellee:** The State of Oklahoma **Judge Hudson:** Orville Tabe Keith, Jr. appeals the revocation of his concurrent twelve-year suspended sentences following a revocation hearing where the State alleged that he violated probation by committing Manslaughter in the First Degree. **Background:** On March 5, 2009, Appellant pled guilty to two counts of Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon. He was sentenced to twelve years on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently and suspended under specific probation conditions. The State filed a Motion to Revoke on March 23, 2017, based on allegations that Appellant committed Manslaughter in connection with the death of Brandon Martinez during an altercation on June 27, 2015. Evidence presented included DNA matching Appellant to items found at the crime scene and testimony from a neighbor, Donna Underwood, who claimed Appellant admitted to killing Martinez. **Revocation Hearing:** The revocation hearing took place on May 1, 2018. The court reviewed evidence including: - DNA analysis linking Appellant to the crime scene. - Testimony from Underwood about Appellant’s self-incriminating statements. Judge Fry found that Appellant violated his probation conditions, leading to a full revocation of his suspended sentences. **Appellant's Argument:** Keith appeals on the grounds that the evidence presented was insufficient to justify the revocation of his suspended sentences. He challenges the credibility of Underwood's testimony and suggests that another individual, Paul Anderson, may have committed the homicide. **Analysis:** Oklahoma law requires that alleged violations of probation conditions be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The appeals court found that Underwood's testimony and the DNA evidence were adequate for a rational trier of fact to conclude that Appellant had violated the terms of his probation. **Decision:** The court affirmed the trial court's decision to revoke Appellant's concurrent twelve-year suspended sentences, concluding there was no abuse of discretion in Judge Fry's ruling. **Order:** The order of the District Court of LeFlore County is **AFFIRMED**. **Opinion by**: HUDSON, J. **Concurrences by**: LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J. --- For further details, you can [**download the PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-484_1734542820.pdf).
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CHRISTOPHER CHARLES DOWNUM,** **Appellant,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-630** **FILED JUN 20 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** On July 14, 2017, Appellant Downum, represented by counsel, entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of Malicious Injury to Property in McIntosh County Case No. CM-2017-317. Downum was sentenced to one (1) year in the McIntosh County jail, all suspended, subject to terms and conditions of probation. On October 18, 2017, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Downum's suspended sentence alleging he committed the new offenses of Public Intoxication and Obstructing An Officer in McIntosh County Case No. CM-2017-457. The District Court of McIntosh County, presided over by the Honorable James D. Bland, held a combined revocation hearing and preliminary hearing on May 31, 2017, and revoked ten (10) days of Downum's suspended sentence in Case No. CM-2017-317. From this Judgment and Sentence, Downum appeals with the following propositions of error: 1. The trial court used the wrong legal standard in revoking Downum's suspended sentence. 2. The evidence was insufficient to show that Downum committed the acts of public intoxication and obstructing an officer. 3. The sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive. The revocation of Downum's suspended sentence is **AFFIRMED**. The scope of review in a revocation appeal is limited to the validity of the revocation order executing the previously imposed sentence. The Court examines the basis for the factual determination and considers whether the court abused its discretion. Downum agues in Proposition I that Judge Bland used the wrong standard in revoking his suspended sentence by confusing the burden of proof for revoking a suspended sentence with that required for a preliminary hearing. This concern relates to Proposition II, where Downum claims there was insufficient evidence even if the appropriate standard had been applied. However, alleged violations of conditions of a suspended sentence need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court finds no evidence in the appeal record supporting Downum's claim that Judge Bland did not apply the correct standard. The record shows competent evidence was presented at the revocation hearing, allowing the court to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Downum violated his probation terms. Consequently, Propositions I and II are denied. In Proposition III, Downum argues that the ten-day revocation is excessive, citing no supporting authority. The Court has established that violation of any condition of probation can justify revocation of a suspended sentence. No abuse of discretion is found in Judge Bland's decision to revoke ten days of Downum's suspended sentence. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of McIntosh County revoking ten (10) days of Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CM-2017-317 is **AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MCINTOSH COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE JAMES D. BLAND, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** WARREN GOTCHER GOTCHER & BEAVER 323 E. CARL ALBERT PKWY. P.O. BOX 160 MCALESTER, OK 74502 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** WARREN GOTCHER GOTCHER & BEAVER 323 E. CARL ALBERT PKWY. P.O. BOX 160 MCALESTER, OK 74502 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT GREGORY R. STIDHAM ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY MCINTOSH COUNTY 110 NORTH FIRST STREET EUFAULA, OK 74432 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE MIKE HUNTER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA THEODORE M. PEEPER ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21ST STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** **[END OF DOCUMENT]** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-630_1734428440.pdf)
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Darmaecia Brendette Hill, Appellant,** **vs.** **The State of Oklahoma, Appellee.** **No. RE-2017-1287** **Summary Opinion** **Filed June 6, 2019** **Judge Lewis, Presiding** **ORDER** This appeal arises from the revocation of three and one-half years of suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2014-506 and CF-2015-773 in the District Court of Payne County, presided over by Honorable Stephen R. Kistler. **BACKGROUND** In Case No. CF-2014-506, Appellant was convicted of Child Neglect (felony) and Unlawful Possession of Marijuana (misdemeanor), receiving a seven-year sentence with all but the first 120 days suspended. Case No. CF-2015-773 involved a conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) (felony), also sentenced to seven years with similar suspension conditions. Multiple motions to revoke were filed due to alleged probation violations, including positive drug tests and failure to comply with GPS monitoring. The final revocation hearing on July 25, 2017, resulted in the court revoking three and one-half years of Appellant's suspended sentences. **PROPOSITIONS OF ERROR** 1. **Jurisdictional Issue**: Appellant argues that the District Court unlawfully extended her original sentence by imposing a twelve-month post-confinement supervision after the suspended sentence was revoked. 2. **Excessive Revocation**: Appellant contends that the revocation of three and one-half years of her suspended sentences is excessive considering the circumstances of her case. **ANALYSIS** **Proposition I**: The court finds Appellant’s argument unpersuasive due to the twelve-month post-confinement supervision being within the balance of her original sentences. The initial seven-year sentence, with revocations, allows for this additional supervision under Title 22, § 991a. **Proposition II**: The court concludes that Judge Kistler acted within his discretion in revoking three and one-half years of Appellant's suspended sentences based on the repeated violations of her probation terms. The evidence presented supported the court’s decision as Appellant was granted multiple opportunities for compliance. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Payne County revoking three and one-half years of Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2014-506 and CF-2015-773 is ***AFFIRMED.*** **MANDATE**: Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the mandate is ordered issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** - **For Appellant**: Sarah J. Kennedy (Appellate Defense Counsel), Danny Joseph (Appellate Defense Counsel) - **For Appellee**: Karen Dixon (Attorney General of OK), Mike Hunter (Assistant District Attorney), Cierra Saltan (Assistant Attorney General) **OPINION BY**: LEWIS, P.J. **KUEHN, V.P.J.**: Concur **LUMPKIN, J.**: Concur **HUDSON, J.**: Concur **ROWLAND, J.**: Concur **Download PDF**: [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2017-1287_1734707641.pdf)
This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of David Duane Albright, a petitioner who sought to withdraw his guilty pleas related to charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of a controlled substance, and maintaining a place for keeping/selling controlled substances. ### Key Points: 1. **Background**: - Albright was originally charged in Delaware County with multiple drug-related offenses in 2010. - He entered a guilty plea in December 2010 and was accepted into the Delaware County Drug Court Program. - After being terminated from the program for non-compliance, he was sentenced in September 2013 to life imprisonment on two counts and 20 years on another, with fines imposed. 2. **Procedural Posture**: - Albright filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas shortly after sentencing, which was denied. - He initially failed to appeal but was granted an appeal out of time in 2018. 3. **Claims on Appeal**: Albright raised several propositions of error: - **Proposition I**: He argued his plea lacked an adequate factual basis. - **Proposition II**: Claimed his pleas were not entered knowingly and voluntarily. - **Proposition III**: Contended the $50,000 fine was unauthorized by statute. - **Proposition IV**: Asserted he should have received credit for jail time, violating his due process. - **Proposition V**: Claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. 4. **Court's Analysis**: - **Proposition I and II**: The court found Albright waived appellate review by not raising these claims in his motion to withdraw his plea. - **Proposition III and IV**: These claims were also deemed waived for similar reasons, not raised in the motion to withdraw. - **Proposition V**: While the court reviewed the ineffective assistance of withdrawal counsel, they found no evidence of deficiency or that it prejudiced Albright's case. 5. **Decision**: - The court affirmed the lower court's denial of Albright's Motion to Withdraw Plea, concluding that he did not demonstrate a valid basis for the claims made. 6. **Concurring Opinion**: - Judge Rowland specially concurred, expressing concern regarding the adequacy of the factual basis for the plea related to maintaining a place for keeping/selling a controlled dangerous substance. While recognizing the issues, he noted that because the facts weren’t adequately challenged during the proceedings, the claims were not actionable in this appeal. ### Conclusion: The petitioner's appeal was denied, and the trial court's decision stands, allowing the guilty pleas to remain in effect due to procedural waivers and the lack of substantive evidence to support the claims raised on appeal. The opinion highlights the importance of raising issues timely and thoroughly in the proper forums to preserve them for review.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-559, Jonas Jorge Conroy-Perez appealed his conviction for Harboring a Fugitive From Justice. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing. One judge dissented. The case started when Conroy-Perez entered a guilty plea in 2015, which allowed him to avoid immediate penalties but required him to follow certain rules for two years. One of these rules involved paying fees. Later, the state claimed he violated these rules by not only missing payments but also due to new felony charges. In 2017, after a hearing, the judge decided that Conroy-Perez had violated his probation and increased his sentence to a 10-year term, with time suspended except for the first 90 days in jail. Conroy-Perez argued that he couldn’t pay the fees because he was unable to work after a vehicle accident and was receiving worker's compensation. The court looked into his arguments. On one hand, the court agreed that while the state proved he owed money, they should also have checked whether he was willfully not paying. The state did not show he could afford to pay the fees, thus the court ruled it was not right to increase his sentence based solely on that. Therefore, they sent the case back for further examination. On other points of appeal, the court found that there was no evidence his legal representation was inadequate and did not rule on the length of the new sentence since they had already reversed it. The dissenting judge noted concern about the implications of the ruling, emphasizing the importance of understanding a person’s ability to pay before increasing sentences for not paying fees.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-902, Kaylin Mixon appealed his conviction for Second Degree Depraved Mind Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and uphold the sentence. One judge dissented. Kaylin Mixon was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to 30 years in prison, along with a $100 fine. Mixon argued that his trial was unfair for three reasons. First, he believed that the jury should have been individually asked about their verdict to ensure all members agreed. However, the court found that since no one complained during the trial, there was no clear error. They determined that the jury's agreement was evident enough without needing to poll each member individually. Second, Mixon contended that photos from the autopsy shown at trial were too upsetting and should not have been allowed as evidence, claiming they were not necessary since the cause of death was not disputed. The court ruled that the photos were relevant to the case and helped to explain the details of the crime, so the inclusion of the photos did not unfairly influence the jury. Lastly, Mixon challenged the $100 fine imposed by the judge, arguing that it wasn’t proper since the law didn’t specifically mention a fine for his type of conviction. However, the court referenced past rulings that allowed judges to impose fines in felony cases, concluding that the fine was valid. After reviewing these issues, the court found no substantial errors that would warrant a new trial or change in the sentence. Therefore, they affirmed the original decision and the appeal was denied.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CASE NO. RE-2018-357** **JAMES MONROE JONES, Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** James Monroe Jones (Appellant) appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290, and CF-2013-6519, adjudicated by the Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge, in the District Court of Oklahoma County. On June 16, 2010, Appellant pled guilty in Cases CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, and CF-2010-290, receiving concurrent sentences with significant portions suspended. Specifically, in CF-2008-7440, he was convicted of two counts of Concealing Stolen Property and sentenced to fifteen years on each count, with the first five years served. Similar sentences were imposed for offenses stemming from the other cases. On May 1, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated nolo contendere plea in CF-2013-6519 for an amended count of Concealing Stolen Property, resulting in a ten-year sentence with the first year served. On August 26, 2016, the State filed applications to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences due to reported violations, including failure to report, change of address, and new criminal activity related to Domestic Assault and Battery. Enhanced allegations were added on March 7, 2018, encompassing additional crimes attributed to Appellant. A hearing was conducted on April 2, 2018. Appellant's counsel objected to the State's evidence, citing inadequate discovery. The trial court, however, noted Appellant had received relevant documents previously, and dismissed the objections after reviewing the evidence. Judge Henderson ultimately found Appellant had violated his probation through specific new criminal conduct and revoked his suspended sentences in full. Appellant presents two propositions of error on appeal: **PROPOSITION I:** The trial court violated Jones's right to due process and a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II § 7 of the Oklahoma State Constitution. **PROPOSITION II:** Defense counsel failed to prepare adequately for trial, resulting in ineffective assistance of counsel. **ANALYSIS** In addressing Proposition I, Appellant contends that the overruling of his objections regarding discovery violations deprived him of due process. It is established that defendants have minimal due process rights in revocation hearings, including evidence disclosure. However, since Appellant’s counsel did not request discovery prior to the hearing, the burden falls on them for preparation. The trial court did not deny Appellant the opportunity to defend—therefore, Proposition I is denied. Regarding Proposition II, Appellant asserts his counsel's ineffectiveness based on a lack of preparedness stemming from unrequested discovery. The Strickland standard evaluates ineffective assistance claims through performance deficiency and resultant prejudice. Appellant has not substantiated claims that better-prepared counsel would have altered the outcome, as evidence showed several violations were confirmed. Thus, Proposition II is also denied. **DECISION** The order from the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290, and CF-2013-6519 is **AFFIRMED**. --- **APPEARANCES:** **AT TRIAL** Katie Samples, Assistant Public Defender Marva A. Banks, Assistant Public Defender **ON APPEAL** David Nichols, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Attorney General Keeley L. Miller, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. **[Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-357_1734695459.pdf)**
This is a summary of a legal opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding Richard Leroy Felton's appeal following the revocation of his suspended sentences. Felton had previously entered guilty pleas to several misdemeanor charges, leading to consecutive suspended sentences of one year and six months. His probation was later revoked because he allegedly violated several probation conditions. Notably, he was accused of failing to pay supervision fees, maintaining employment, answering questions truthfully, and violating a protective order. During the revocation hearing, evidence was presented regarding Felton's threats against probation officers, his failure to report to them, and multiple documented violations of the protective order. The court concluded that even just his threats to the officers were sufficient grounds for revocation, thereby affirming the district court's decision. Felton raised five propositions of error on appeal, including claims of insufficient evidence for the state’s allegations, denial of due process, ineffective assistance of counsel, and abuse of discretion in revoking his sentences. The court found these arguments without merit, affirming the revocation on the basis that sufficient evidence supported the action taken by the district court. The court's ruling highlighted that violations of probation do not require the same standards as criminal prosecutions and that the existence of threats and failures to comply with probation conditions justified the decisions made at the lower court level. The order of revocation was thus upheld.
In OCCA case No. F-2015-886, Russell Carl McCrillis appealed his conviction for two counts of Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the case for the trial court to assess a specific term of years for post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. McCrillis was convicted in a jury trial and received a twenty-year prison sentence and a $20,000 fine for each count of lewd molestation. The sentences were ordered to be served at the same time. McCrillis raised several issues in his appeal. He claimed that his statement to the police should not have been allowed at trial because it was not made freely and voluntarily. He also argued that the jury should have been instructed about the voluntariness of his statement. Additionally, he pointed out that the trial court could not change his sentence to an indefinite probation after prison. Finally, he believed his sentences were too harsh. The court looked closely at whether McCrillis's statement to the police was voluntary and found that he had waived his rights properly and given his statement willingly. This meant the trial court did not make a mistake when it allowed the statement to be presented during the trial. The court did notice that while the judge should have instructed the jury on the voluntary nature of his confession, the lack of instruction didn’t really have an impact on the trial's outcome, as there was strong enough evidence against McCrillis. Regarding the trial court's authority to modify the sentence, the court agreed that it should have set a clear term for post-imprisonment supervision, which means after McCrillis serves his time, he should be supervised for a set number of years. The law says people convicted of certain crimes, like lewd molestation, must have a period of supervision after serving time, usually between nine months and a year. However, there is also a specific law stating that in cases of sexual offenses, supervision could be longer. The court noted that the trial judge didn’t give a fixed duration for supervision, which was a mistake. In the end, while the court agreed with McCrillis on the need for a specified period of supervision upon release, it found that his twenty-year sentence was not too severe based on the details of the crimes committed. Therefore, the court upheld the conviction but sent the case back to have the trial court determine the proper length of post-imprisonment supervision.
In OCCA case No. F-2015-933, Thompson appealed his conviction for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment on Counts 1 and 2 but reversed the judgment on Count 3 with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Thompson was found guilty of three crimes related to stolen property after a jury trial. He was sentenced to six years in prison for unauthorized use of a vehicle and eight years for each count of concealing stolen property. The sentences were arranged so that the two eight-year sentences would run together, while the six-year sentence would be added afterward. He was also fined $100 for each offense. Thompson raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that he should not have been convicted twice for concealing stolen property. He believed that since he acted only once when hiding the stolen items, charging him with two counts was unfair. The court agreed with him on this point and found that it was a mistake to have separate charges for items taken from different people. Next, Thompson questioned whether there was enough proof to find him guilty of unauthorized vehicle use and concealing stolen property. The court looked at all the evidence and decided there was enough to support his guilty verdict for unauthorized use of a vehicle, so that part of his conviction was upheld. Thompson also claimed that the prosecution made mistakes during the trial that harmed his chance for a fair judgment. However, the court did not find these errors serious enough to change the outcome of the trial. On the fines imposed by the trial court, Thompson argued that judges can't add fines unless the jury decides to. The court determined that the fines were allowed since the law permitted judges to impose them, even if the jury did not. Thompson felt that the judge shouldn't have made him serve the sentences for Counts 2 and 3 back-to-back after the first sentence. However, the court found that the judge's decision was within his rights and not an abuse of discretion. Overall, the court decided that none of the claimed errors were significant enough to change Thompson’s convictions except for the second count of concealing stolen property, which was dismissed. They confirmed that the remaining counts were properly upheld, leading to affirmation of most of Thompson's convictions.
In OCCA case No. RE-2015-844, Cully appealed his conviction for Larceny of an Automobile, Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, and Driving Without A License. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Cully's suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Cully had entered a guilty plea in 2008 and was given suspended sentences in 2010. Later, he faced allegations of violating his probation, which led to a hearing and the eventual revocation of his suspended sentences in 2015. Cully claimed that the court should have specified that his sentences were to be served concurrently, and that the addition of post-imprisonment supervision was not allowed for him. The court concluded that while it could not add post-imprisonment supervision to his sentence due to the timing of the laws, the decision to revoke his suspended sentences was valid. Cully's request for a change to the order to show that his sentences were to be served concurrently was denied, and the case was sent back to the District Court to correct the judgment as per the court's rules.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-1019, Charles Leonard Bennett, III appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the district court. One judge dissented. Bennett was found guilty after a trial where the judge, not a jury, listened to the case. He received a sentence of fifteen years in prison. Bennett raised several issues on appeal. He first argued that the evidence did not prove he did not act in self-defense. The court found enough evidence that a reasonable person could decide he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This means they believed the victim and the facts presented at the trial supported the conviction. Bennett also wanted to argue other issues that could lead to a new trial. However, he decided to withdraw those arguments and only focus on the issues that might lead to his case being dismissed or his sentence being changed. He signed a document saying he knew what he was doing by waiving those rights. Another issue was about restitution, which is when a person convicted of a crime has to pay the victim for their losses. Bennett contested the court's order for him to pay restitution because the required paperwork showing the victim's losses was not properly presented during the trial. Since no proof of the victim's financial losses was provided, the court agreed that the restitution order was arbitrary and sent the case back to the district court to properly determine the victim's losses. Overall, while Bennett's conviction was upheld, the court required a re-evaluation of the restitution owed to the victim. The case was sent back to the district court for this purpose, but other than that, the court found no significant errors that would change the outcome of the case.
In OCCA case No. RE-2014-810, Simpson appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Simpson's suspended sentence but vacated the imposition of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. Simpson had entered a guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance in 2013 and was given a ten-year suspended sentence. His sentence was suspended as long as he followed the rules of probation. However, in 2014, the State accused him of violating these rules by committing a new offense of possession of a controlled substance. After a hearing, the judge decided to revoke Simpson’s suspended sentence and send him to jail for ten years. Simpson raised three main issues in his appeal. First, he argued that the judge's decision to revoke the whole sentence was too harsh given his situation. He was struggling with drug addiction and believed that this should be taken into account. However, since he had previously had several felony convictions and had violated the terms of his probation, the court did not find this argument convincing. Second, Simpson claimed that the judge should not have added post-imprisonment supervision to his sentence after revoking it. The law states that this supervision is required only for those who are in prison after being sentenced, which was not the case for Simpson at the time of his original sentencing. Therefore, the court agreed with Simpson and removed the requirement for post-imprisonment supervision. Lastly, Simpson noted that he had already served ten days of his sentence before it was revoked and argued that the judge should not have ordered him to serve a full ten years in prison. The court acknowledged that the judge had indeed made an error by ordering a full ten years instead of the correct amount of nine years and 355 days, taking into account the time already served. In summary, the court upheld the revocation of Simpson’s suspended sentence, meaning he would go to prison. However, they corrected the total time he needed to serve to reflect the time he had already completed, and they took away the added supervision requirement after his prison term.
In OCCA case No. C 2014-920, John Edward Oxford appealed his conviction for several serious crimes including robbery, burglary, and conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but also ordered a hearing to review the amount of restitution he was ordered to pay. Oxford was charged with multiple counts and, on July 10, 2014, he entered a blind plea, which means he pleaded guilty without negotiating a deal, to all the charges. The court sentenced him to a total of over 70 years in prison and ordered him to pay about $67,539 in restitution to the victims. After his sentencing, Oxford tried to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he did not understand the charges and was not fully informed about his rights. The trial court held a hearing on this and ultimately denied his request. Oxford then appealed this decision, arguing several points. First, he believed he should not have been sentenced for certain counts because it violated laws against double punishment. However, the court noted that his arguments about double jeopardy were not raised in the earlier stages and thus were not considered. Second, he argued there wasn't enough evidence to support the restitution amount, but again the court found this issue had not been raised before and rejected it. Oxford also claimed he did not receive effective legal help during his plea and the hearing to withdraw it. The court agreed that there were problems with how his attorney handled the restitution order, focusing mainly on the lack of detailed documentation justifying the restitution amount. This lack of evidence meant the restitution order was not valid. While the court found that Oxford's guilty plea was made voluntarily, it did acknowledge inadequate support for the restitution order. Therefore, it denied his appeal regarding the guilty plea but vacated the restitution order, sending the case back to the lower court for a proper review of how much compensation was truly owed to the victims. One judge dissented, noting that the case should have been looked at more closely regarding the earlier claims. So, in summary, the appeal was mainly denied except for the part about restitution, which was sent back to the lower court for further review.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-801, Dotson appealed his conviction for Attempting to Elude a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the term of post-imprisonment supervision to twelve months. One justice dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-619, Carty appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the restitution order. One judge dissented. Carty was found guilty of using a dangerous weapon during a robbery. He was sentenced to ten years in prison and had to pay $625 in restitution to the victim. Carty thought that the trial court made a mistake when it decided how much he should pay as restitution. He argued that the court did not follow the correct rules when ordering the restitution. The court explained that when a victim suffers financial loss because of a crime, the trial court can order the defendant to pay restitution. However, this amount must be proven with reasonable certainty. This means that the victim needs to provide clear evidence of their financial loss, like how much they spent on medical bills or other costs resulting from the crime. The judges reviewed the records from Carty’s trial. They found that there was no evidence showing how the victim calculated their financial loss, and the victim did not share their losses during the sentencing. Because there was not enough proof provided to establish the victim's economic loss, the court agreed that the trial court made a mistake in deciding the restitution amount. The court ultimately upheld Carty's conviction but ordered that the restitution amount be looked at again to ensure it was determined correctly based on the victim’s actual losses.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-721, Deshaunte Devon Coulter appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Coulter's conviction and sentence but vacated the restitution order, directing a new determination of the victim’s loss. One judge dissented. Coulter was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to thirty years in prison, along with an order to pay $2,300 in restitution. He raised several issues on appeal, including claims of unfair trial due to the admission of other crimes evidence, DNA evidence issues, prosecutorial misconduct, and excessive sentencing. The court looked closely at each of Coulter’s arguments. For the first claim about other crimes evidence, the court found there was no actual error because the officers’ testimonies did not specifically reference other crimes involving Coulter. Since Coulter did not challenge this during the trial, he could only appeal on the grounds of plain error, which the court ruled did not occur. In the second argument about DNA evidence, the court noted that Coulter had not shown that the State had erred. The evidence was timely provided, and the court did not find a Brady violation regarding the lack of lab notes since Coulter did not request them in time. For the third claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the court found that there was no actual error. The prosecutor’s comments during the trial were not improper, and thus did not violate Coulter's rights. In the fourth argument, regarding the claim that his sentence was excessive, the court concluded that the sentence fell within the legal limit and was not shockingly inappropriate under the circumstances. In the fifth claim, which concerned the assessment of restitution, the court found that the trial court did not follow proper procedures. The evidence presented at the sentencing didn’t adequately prove the victim's financial losses, so the restitution order was vacated. Finally, Coulter claimed that the cumulative effect of all errors deprived him of a fair trial, but the court found that wasn't the case. The decision affirmed Coulter's conviction and sentence while remanding the restitution matter for proper evaluation.
In OCCA case No. RE-2011-277, Johnson appealed his conviction for Feloniously Carrying a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated an additional Victim Compensation Assessment. Johnson dissented. The case began when Johnson entered a guilty plea on August 3, 2005, and was sentenced to ten years in prison, with six months of that sentence being served in jail and the rest suspended, meaning he wouldn't have to serve it unless he broke the law again. He was also fined and had to pay a fee for victim compensation to help those who had been hurt by crimes. Later, in November 2005, the State, which is like the government in this case, claimed Johnson broke his probation by getting into trouble again, which included resisting arrest and having drugs. Because of this, on March 10, 2006, the court decided to make him serve eighteen months of his suspended sentence. Johnson continued to have problems. He was charged with more crimes in 2008, including stealing from a house and having drugs. He went through a special program to help people with drug problems and successfully finished it. In June 2010, the court dismissed some applications to revoke his probation because of progress he made. However, on March 1, 2011, the State filed another application saying Johnson broke the rules again, claiming he tried to escape from the police, attacked a police officer, and had more drugs. A hearing was held on March 14, 2011, where the judge decided to revoke ninety months of Johnson's suspended sentence. Johnson argued in his appeal that the judge was wrong to make him pay another victim compensation fee during the revocation hearing. He believed this fee could only be applied when someone was first convicted, and since the revocation wasn't a new conviction, he shouldn’t have to pay it again. The State said it didn’t matter since the record only showed the original fee, but Johnson insisted the extra fee should be removed. The court agreed with Johnson, explaining that a victim compensation fee should only be applied at the time of the original sentencing, not at a revocation hearing. Therefore, the court decided to remove the $200 fee that was added during the revocation. In his final point, Johnson asked the court to lessen the time he had to serve because he had made improvements while on probation. However, the court found that the judge in charge did not abuse his discretion in deciding how long to revoke Johnson's suspended sentence. Overall, the court confirmed the revocation of Johnson’s sentence but dismissed the new Victim Compensation fee.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-457, Jacquelin Clariece Alexander appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence for one charge, but reversed the revocation for the other charge, sending it back for dismissal. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-1123, Chance appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Chance was found guilty of breaking into a building with the intent to commit a crime and also had illegal drug items in his possession. The jury decided his punishment: thirty years in prison for the burglary and one year in jail for the drug paraphernalia. The court added that these sentences would be served at the same time. Chance raised a few complaints. He argued the prosecutor made improper statements about probation and parole during the trial, which made it unfair for him. He also believed the procedures and instructions during his drug paraphernalia case were wrong and that the court didn't follow the right steps when deciding how much money he should pay back to the victim for restitution. After looking closely at the case, the court agreed that there were mistakes made. The court recognized that the references to probation and parole might have affected the jury's decision on sentencing. Because of this, they lowered Chance's prison sentence from thirty years to twenty years. For the drug paraphernalia charge, the jury was told the wrong information regarding potential punishment, which the court found to be a serious error. They changed Chance's sentence for this from one year in jail to thirty days instead. Lastly, the court agreed with Chance's complaint about the restitution process. They decided the original amount couldn’t stand and ordered the lower court to re-evaluate how much he needed to pay the victim. In summary, the court kept the guilty verdict but changed the length of Chance's sentences and ordered a new hearing for restitution amounts. One judge felt that the original prison sentence should not have been changed since there was no clear evidence of unfairness affecting the jury.