Okla. Stat. tit. 57 § 332.7 Archives

F-2018-1222

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 30, 2020
Post category:F

The document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding Larry Donelle Brown, Jr.'s appeal following his resentencing for a first-degree murder conviction. Here's a brief breakdown of the key points: 1. **Background**: - Larry Donelle Brown, Jr. was convicted of first-degree murder as a juvenile and initially sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. - This sentence was later challenged, and the Oklahoma Court granted post-conviction relief, allowing Brown to be resentenced. 2. **Resentencing**: - Upon resentencing by Judge Sharon K. Holmes, Brown received a life sentence with the possibility of parole, with credit for time served. 3. **Appeal**: - Brown's appeal argues that his life sentence effectively amounts to a life sentence without parole, violating his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. - He cites the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in *Miller v. Alabama* and *Graham v. Florida*, which assert that juveniles should have a meaningful opportunity for parole based on their maturity and rehabilitation. 4. **Court Findings**: - The court found no constitutional violation in Brown's sentence. - It reiterated previous rulings that a life sentence with the possibility of parole does not violate the standards set by the Supreme Court regarding juvenile offenders. - The court noted that Brown, having served over 21 years, appears eligible for parole consideration and affirmed that he had not been denied fair notice or opportunity in the parole process. 5. **Conclusion**: - The sentence was affirmed, indicating that the court found the sentencing to be constitutional and appropriate given the circumstances surrounding Brown's case. Overall, the Court concluded that Brown's concerns regarding parole and the juvenile sentencing principles established by prior Supreme Court rulings were sufficiently addressed by his current life sentence with the possibility of parole.

PC-2018-723

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 5, 2019
Post category:PC

**Summary of Court Decision: Shawn A. Detwiler v. The State of Oklahoma** *Case Overview:* Shawn A. Detwiler sought post-conviction relief related to multiple convictions stemming from offenses committed as a juvenile, including armed robbery and shooting with intent to kill. After initially pleading guilty to several charges and receiving concurrent sentences, he argued that the combination of his consecutive sentences constituted a de facto life without parole sentence, violating his Eighth Amendment rights. *Key Points of Rulings:* 1. **Case Summation:** Detwiler was convicted on several counts involving crimes such as burglary, robbery, and assault. His sentences ranged from 5 years to life imprisonment, some being discharged over time. 2. **Legal Precedents Cited:** Detwiler's argument was heavily reliant on the legal interpretations established in *Graham v. Florida*, *Miller v. Alabama*, and *Montgomery v. Louisiana*, which emphasize that juvenile offenders should not be sentenced to life without parole for non-homicide crimes. 3. **District Court's Findings:** The District Court found that since Detwiler was not sentenced to life without parole or its functional equivalent, the Eighth Amendment protections cited in those cases did not apply. 4. **Aggregate Sentencing Argument:** Detwiler contended that his sentences, when viewed collectively, equated to a de facto life sentence. However, the court maintained that each sentence should be evaluated independently. 5. **Response to Tenth Circuit Precedent:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals referred to a prior ruling (Martinez v. State) which rejected the idea of viewing multiple sentences in aggregate for Eighth Amendment analysis. 6. **Conclusion by the Court:** Detwiler's post-conviction relief was ultimately denied. The court established that he has the potential for parole consideration and has not received sentences that deal with him as if he was sentenced to life without parole as per the noted precedents. *Dissenting Opinions:* 1. Judge Lewis dissented, arguing that consecutive sentences for multiple serious offenses committed as a juvenile effectively mean a lifetime sentence without a realistic chance for release, which may constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 2. The dissent emphasized that juveniles should be given a chance to demonstrate maturity and rehabilitation, which the current sentencing practices do not permit. 3. It was asserted that the framework of Graham should extend to prevent the imposition of excessively punitive aggregated sentences for juveniles, thereby relieving them of permanent confinement without the chance for parole. *Final Notes:* The court's ruling underscores ongoing debates about sentencing juveniles, the interpretation of constitutional protections, and the lengths of sentences impacting juvenile offenders. The dissent highlights the critical need for opportunities for rehabilitation and review in cases involving young individuals.

F-2001-1372

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 10, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1372, #Welch appealed his conviction for #First Degree Burglary and Peeping Tom. In an (unpublished) decision, the court decided #to affirm the conviction but vacate the fine imposed. #No one dissented. Tony Wayne Welch was found guilty of breaking and entering a building and also for being a Peeping Tom. The court sentenced him to thirty years in prison for burglary and one year in jail for the Peeping Tom charge, which would be served at the same time. Welch challenged several things about his trial. First, he said the jury should have been told they could consider a lesser charge of breaking and entering, but the court said that was not appropriate. Then, he argued that the prosecution misled the jury, but the court disagreed, stating that the prosecution's remarks did not unfairly influence the jury. Welch also claimed his lawyer did not represent him well, but the court found no evidence that this hurt his case. The court did determine, however, that there was a mistake in how the punishment for Peeping Tom was explained to the jury, which was considered a serious error. Since Welch had already served his jail time since the trial, there wasn’t much that could be done about it. The court decided to take away the $500 fine from the Peeping Tom charge. Lastly, the court found that it was not required to inform the jury about how much time Welch would have to serve before he could be released on parole. They decided that his overall sentence was fair, and nothing about the trial significantly harmed his chances for a fair outcome. In the end, the court upheld the verdict of the jury but removed the fine, stating that despite some issues during the trial, they did not impact the fairness of his conviction.