Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 2 Archives

C-2018-1050

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

This document appears to be a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding James Michael Simmons, who sought a writ of certiorari after pleading nolo contendere to a misdemeanor charge of making threats by electronic device. ### Key Points of the Summary Opinion: 1. **Case Information**: - **Petitioner**: James Michael Simmons. - **Respondent**: The State of Oklahoma. - **Case Number**: C-2018-1050. - **Trial Court**: Mayes County, Case No. CF-2017-350. 2. **Background**: - Simmons pled nolo contendere (no contest) to the charge and was granted deferred judgment for one year under probation conditions. - He later filed a motion to withdraw the plea, which the trial court denied. 3. **Propositions of Error**: - **Proposition 1**: Failure to use the uniform guilty plea form. - The court found no prejudice from the omission of the uniform form since the record was adequate for review. - **Proposition 2**: Claim of not understanding the plea’s consequences. - The court determined that the trial court provided sufficient advice regarding the plea's nature and consequences. - **Proposition 3**: Insufficient factual basis for the plea. - The court concluded there was a sufficient factual basis for the plea, affirming that the plea was entered correctly. - **Proposition 4**: Denial of effective assistance of counsel for both the plea and withdrawal process. - The court found no deficient performance by counsel or resulting prejudice. 4. **Decision**: - The petition for a writ of certiorari was denied, and the judgment and sentence were affirmed. 5. **Appearance**: - Various attorneys represented Simmons throughout the trial and appeal processes. ### Conclusion: The Court of Criminal Appeals ultimately affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no basis for reversing the judgment based on the claims presented by Simmons. The opinion indicates that procedural and substantive requirements were satisfactorily met during the plea process.

C-2010-287

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 2, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-287, Juan Carlos Hernandez-Montanez appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Second Degree Burglary, Kidnapping, and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his ten-year sentence for Second Degree Burglary to seven years but upheld the rest of the convictions and sentencing. One judge dissented regarding the review process. Hernandez-Montanez was initially charged with many serious crimes but agreed to a plea deal that changed the charges. He pleaded guilty to the amended counts and was sentenced to serve a total of time in prison and jail. After a short period, he wanted to take back his guilty plea, claiming it wasn't done correctly. The case was reviewed, and the court looked closely at the reasons Hernandez-Montanez gave for wanting to withdraw his plea. He said his ten-year sentence was too long and that the court did not fully check if he understood his guilty plea. He also claimed he did not get proper help from his attorney during the process. After reviewing everything, the court found that Hernandez-Montanez's arguments did not hold up. They decided that there was a good reason to accept his guilty plea and that he understood what he was doing. The court modified one part of his sentence but left the rest as it was. The judges agreed on most points, but one judge had a different opinion about some legal processes.

M-2004-802

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 21, 2005
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2004-802, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was stopped by a police officer early in the morning because his car was parked in a lot with its lights on, near a closed restaurant. The officer got suspicious due to a series of burglaries happening in the area recently. When the officer approached the car, it began to move. The officer then decided to stop the vehicle to ask what the appellant was doing there. During the trial, the appellant argued that the stop was illegal. He believed that the officer did not have enough reason to suspect that he was doing something wrong. The officer admitted during the hearing that he did not know for sure if the appellant was involved in criminal activity when he made the stop. The court reviewed the situation and concluded that the officer did not have a good reason to think the appellant was doing anything suspicious. They pointed out that the appellant's actions could easily be seen as innocent. The conclusion was that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion, which is necessary to make a legal stop, and therefore the evidence collected after the stop should not have been used against the appellant. Ultimately, the court reversed the conviction, meaning that the case would not proceed further and the appellant's charges would be dismissed. One judge disagreed with the decision, arguing that the officer had good reasons to make the stop based on the circumstances around the time and location.