In OCCA case No. N 2014-153, Harris appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court affirmed the death sentence, finding sufficient evidence of his crime and rejecting claims of an incomplete trial record. One judge dissented. [occa_caption]
In the case of LeJeanna Sue Chronister v. State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed several appeals raised by the appellant following her conviction for Aggravated Manufacture of a Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine) and her subsequent sentencing to twenty years in prison. The appellant raised three primary propositions of error: 1. **Violation of Rights Regarding the 85% Rule**: The appellant contended that her sentence was unconstitutional because she was not informed that the 85% Rule (requiring her to serve 85% of her sentence before becoming eligible for parole) applied to her case. The court concluded that this argument did not hold merit in a non-jury trial setting, stating that the judge, not a jury, was responsible for sentencing and presumed to know the law. The court found no plain error as the sentence was within the statutory range and was the minimum allowed. 2. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: The appellant claimed her counsel was ineffective for not informing her about the 85% Rule, impacting her decision-making during her trial. The court applied the Strickland standard to evaluate the ineffectiveness claim, concluding that the appellant did not demonstrate how the alleged deficiency in counsel's performance prejudiced her case or altered the outcome. 3. **Cumulative Error**: The appellant argued that the combination of errors denied her a fair trial. The court determined that since none of the individual claims of error warranted relief, the cumulative error argument also lacked merit. Ultimately, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court of LeFlore County, stating that the appellant had not demonstrated any error that would necessitate modifying the sentence or overturning the conviction. The ruling emphasizes the distinction between non-jury trials and jury trials concerning informing defendants about parole-related laws and the importance of counsel's performance under the criteria established by the Strickland case.
**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)**
In OCCA case No. PC-2015-6, Kendall Wayne Edwards appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that granted post-conviction relief, vacating Edwards's murder conviction and ordering a new trial based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence. One judge dissented. The case stemmed from an incident on March 9, 2001, where Edwards was accused of shooting Gerald Lamont Ford during a fight outside a convenience store. Edwards was convicted at trial and sentenced to life imprisonment, but he sought post-conviction relief in 2012, claiming several errors occurred during his trial, including improper admission of evidence and ineffective legal representation. The court's analysis focused primarily on the newly discovered evidence claim, which was that another witness, Larika A. Alexander, could potentially exonerate him by stating she saw him being beaten and heard the gunshot without witnessing him fire the weapon. The lower court agreed that this evidence was significant enough to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial and held that Edwards deserved a new trial. While the majority opinion supported this conclusion, a dissenting judge argued that the new evidence did not sufficiently meet the standard required to warrant a new trial since it was cumulative and lacked materiality. The dissent emphasized that the jury had already evaluated the credibility of the witnesses during the original trial. Ultimately, the court's decision to uphold the lower court's granting of a new trial was based on the notion that justice required the possibility of a different outcome with this new testimony. Thus, Edwards was granted the opportunity for a re-examination of the case.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-385, Jeffrey Eugene Rowan appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse by a Person Responsible for a Child's Health, Safety, or Welfare. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Rowan's motion for a new trial and dismissed the appeal because the case would be retried. One judge dissented. Rowan was convicted in the District Court of Pittsburg County and sentenced to thirty-five years in prison. His conviction was based on various testimonies, including his own admission to investigators about inappropriate behavior with his stepdaughter and medical testimony suggesting signs of abuse. However, after the conviction, new evidence came to light regarding the medical witness that may have affected the credibility of the case against Rowan. The new evidence showed that the physician assistant who examined the child had her medical license suspended due to drug abuse and misconduct. This detail raised concerns about the reliability of her testimony, which was crucial to the prosecution's case. The court found that this new evidence could change the outcome of the original trial and therefore ordered a new trial. Rowan's original appeal was deemed moot because the case would be retried, and there was no need to evaluate the specific claims raised in that appeal. As a result, the motion for a new trial was granted, and the case was sent back to the lower court for another trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-15, Alfred Burke, Jr. appealed his conviction for Kidnapping and Forcible Oral Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Burke was found guilty in Oklahoma County and received a very long sentence of 273 years for each crime, to be served one after the other. This was due to previous convictions he had. Burke disagreed with his punishment and claimed there were several mistakes made during his trial. He argued that a law he was judged under was unfair and went against his rights. He also said that evidence from a previous case should not have been shown in court. He thought his sentence was too harsh and believed that evidence from other crimes made the trial unfair. Finally, he believed that all the errors combined made it impossible for him to have a fair trial. The court looked closely at all of Burke's arguments. They found that the law he challenged was not unconstitutional. Most of the evidence against him was strong, especially the testimony from the person he victimized and DNA proof of his actions. However, the court agreed that showing evidence of his past crime likely impacted the jury's choice on punishment more than it should have. As a result, they changed his punishment to life imprisonment for both crimes, but now those sentences would be served at the same time instead of one after the other. The judges concluded that while there were some mistakes, they did not think these mistakes were enough to change his convictions. One judge did not agree with changing the sentences at all, believing the previous evidence was important for the case.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-146, Luke Sinclair appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that his conviction would be upheld, but he would be resentenced. One judge dissented. Luke Sinclair was found guilty of murdering James Robbins by shooting him four times in the chest. The incident happened in the early hours after Sinclair and his friends had been drinking at a bar. Robbins, a retired Army veteran, approached Sinclair and his friends in the parking lot, trying to engage them in conversation. Sinclair and his friends found Robbins to be strange and made dismissive comments. Sinclair even jokingly suggested that Robbins should be shot. Believing they were joking, Sinclair's friends egged him on when he drove after Robbins, blocked his van, and then shot him. After the shooting, Sinclair instructed his friends to keep quiet about the incident. Sinclair admitted on appeal that the evidence against him was strong and that he was guilty. Sinclair raised several issues in his appeal, particularly concerning the sentencing process. He argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence about his character during sentencing and that his lawyer did not provide effective representation. The court found these claims unpersuasive, noting that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and suggesting that presenting this character evidence could have hurt Sinclair's case more than helped it. One of the significant points in Sinclair’s appeal related to whether the jury was instructed about the state law that required defendants convicted of murder to serve 85% of their sentences before being eligible for parole. Sinclair argued that jurors mistakenly believed a life sentence meant he could be released after a few years. The court agreed with Sinclair regarding the instructions on the 85% rule, so they decided to reverse the sentence and remand the case for resentencing. Additionally, Sinclair complained about the prosecutor's arguments in closing that he was a dangerous man lacking conscience, which were not supported by the evidence. The court found that the prosecutor's statements were problematic and influenced the jury in reaching their sentencing decision. In conclusion, while Sinclair's conviction remained intact, the court ruled that he should be resentenced due to the errors in the jury instructions and the inappropriate comments made during his trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-825, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to twenty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, Craig LaFranz Taylor, was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Comanche County, where the jury sentenced him to life in prison after the conviction. The appellant argued that his rights were violated in several ways. He claimed that the jury received wrongful outside information about him being arrested for another charge, which he believed affected their decision on his sentence. He also argued that the identification of him as the robber was not reliable and that there were problems with how the identification was made. Furthermore, he mentioned that one juror saw him in handcuffs and leg irons, which he thought unfairly influenced the juror's opinion of him. Lastly, he felt that the prosecutor asked inappropriate questions during the trial that hurt his chances for a fair trial. The court reviewed all the information presented and decided to maintain the conviction. They believed that there were enough checks in place during the trial for the jury to evaluate the eyewitness testimony fairly. They also felt that the juror's brief view of the appellant in restraints was not enough to interfere with the trial, especially since the appellant did not mention this to his lawyer until after the trial was over. The defense raised concerns about the prosecutor’s questions, but the court noted that most of the objections were upheld, meaning the unfair questions did not significantly harm the appellant’s case. However, the court agreed that there were issues with how the jury handled sentencing. The jury's initial recommendation was not clear, and they had received outside information that affected their decision. Because of this, the court decided to change the life sentence to a shorter term of twenty years instead, allowing the appellant to have a fairer outcome in that regard. In the end, the decision confirmed that while the conviction stood, the punishment was adjusted to ensure fairness, leading to a modified sentence of twenty years of imprisonment.
In OCCA case No. C-2004-1018, Eric Poe appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery upon a Police Officer and Public Intoxication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to allow Poe to withdraw his plea due to newly discovered evidence. One judge dissented, arguing that Poe was aware of the evidence before entering his plea.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-106, Billy Mack Downey appealed his conviction for Murder in the Second Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence, sending the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented. Billy Mack Downey was convicted of murder by a jury in Carter County. He was sentenced to forty years in prison. Downey appealed his conviction, raising thirteen different complaints about how the trial was conducted and claims that he did not receive a fair trial. Here are the main issues Downey raised in his appeal: 1. He argued that it was wrong for the trial court to allow victim impact evidence during the trial, which should only be presented during the sentencing phase. 2. He claimed that the prosecution unfairly increased the credibility of its main witnesses. 3. Downey believed his father should have been allowed to testify, and that the prosecutor took advantage of this situation during closing arguments. 4. He also said the prosecutor acted improperly in a way that affected his chance for a fair trial. 5. Downey filed a motion for a new trial, which he claimed the trial court incorrectly denied. 6. He pointed out errors in how the State impeached one of his defense witnesses. 7. Downey thought the trial judge wrongly instructed the jury on matters related to the law and the testimonies of his co-defendants. 8. He believed certain comments from the judge during the trial may have influenced the jury’s opinion about his guilt. 9. Downey felt he should have been told that his co-defendants were accomplices, which could have affected how the jury viewed their testimonies. 10. He claimed the judge gave an instruction during closing arguments that confused the jury. 11. Downey argued that the collection of errors during the trial ultimately deprived him of a fair verdict. 12. He mentioned the judge wrongly ordered him to pay restitution without sufficient evidence of loss. After reviewing the evidence and considering all of Downey's claims, the court found that he had been deprived of a fair trial due to multiple serious errors. Particularly, it highlighted the combined effect of several of the errors as being significantly damaging to Downey's case. The court specifically identified that the trial court should not have allowed victim impact evidence during the guilt phase of the trial and agreed that Downey was wrongly denied the opportunity to have his father testify. The court believed these issues could have changed the outcome of the trial. Ultimately, the court overturned the original decision and ordered that a new trial be held for Downey, where he would have the chance to address these issues. This ruling aimed to ensure that he could receive a fair trial as guaranteed to him under the law.