Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-401

RE-2021-1042

  • Post author:
  • 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 So, to summarize, the main points from the case are that Matthew Bryan Buttery's suspension was revoked because he violated probation rules, but the court made a mistake when deciding how his new sentence should relate to an older sentence.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.

Continue ReadingRE-2021-1042

F-2020-291

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2020-291, Christopher Alan Vaughn appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. No one dissented. Vaughn was found guilty by a jury after being accused of trafficking drugs. During the trial, there was a mistake with how the jury understood the punishment for his crime. The jury first marked that he had multiple prior convictions incorrectly, which was fixed when the judge voided it and asked the jury to fill out a proper verdict form. Eventually, the jury marked his prior felony convictions correctly but failed to suggest a sentence. The judge then decided to give him a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Vaughn argued that the judge gave the jury wrong instructions about what the punishment should be. He claimed that the law at the time of his crime said that punishment could range from 20 years to life or life without parole, not just life without parole. The State agreed that there was a mistake in how Vaughn was sentenced. The court reviewed the arguments and found that the jury should have been given proper instructions about the range of punishment. The law in effect when Vaughn committed his crime said that if someone had two or more previous felony convictions, the person could receive a sentence of at least 20 years to life or life without parole, but his prior convictions were not for trafficking, so the incorrect instructions could lead to an unfair sentence. Because of this issue, the court decided to reverse Vaughn’s sentence and sent the case back to the lower court for him to be resentenced properly under the correct guidelines.

Continue ReadingF-2020-291

F-2019-82

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-82, Spencer Thomas Cato appealed his conviction for various crimes including possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm after a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed and dismissed one count against Cato. A judge dissented regarding the dismissal of that count. Cato had been found guilty of several offenses, including having a controlled substance and firearms while being a convicted felon. During the trial, the jury sentenced him to a total of several years in prison along with fines. The judge decided some of these sentences would be served at the same time, while others would be served one after the other. Cato appealed, arguing that his rights were violated because he was punished twice for what he saw as the same action. Specifically, he felt the charges of possessing a firearm after a felony and possessing a firearm while committing a felony were not separate. Cato believed that the law should prevent him from being punished for both crimes since they stemmed from the same act of possessing the same gun with no significant break in time between the two actions. Upon reviewing the case, the court agreed with Cato’s argument. They found that there was no new evidence that suggested he had used the firearm for a different purpose at different times. The trial revealed that Cato had the gun and drugs at the same time which led to the conclusion that punishing him for both counts was not appropriate. The court decided to reverse the lesser charge and direct that it be dismissed. In summary, while some of Cato's convictions and their sentences were confirmed, the court found that he could not be punished for both possessing a firearm after a felony and possessing it while committing another felony under the circumstances of his case. Hence, they instructed the lower court to dismiss the one charge.

Continue ReadingF-2019-82

F-2018-1137

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the appeal of Parron Lavon Burrus. Burrus was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, after being found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Caddo County. The court sentenced him to 30 years in prison for the first count and 25 years for the second, running consecutively. In the appeal, Burrus contended that the sentences were excessive and should be modified. He argued that the offenses were interconnected and that the trial court exhibited prejudice against him during sentencing, referencing the requirement for his testimony to be under oath and the judge's prior role in prosecuting him. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment and sentence. The court noted that the sentences fell within the statutory range, that there is no constitutional right to concurrent sentences, and that Burrus did not demonstrate that the trial judge's actions or previous involvement in prior prosecutions caused an unfair sentencing outcome. The court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in sentencing, emphasizing the separate nature of the offenses committed by Burrus. In essence, the appeal was denied, and the court's decision was upheld, confirming the sentences imposed on Burrus.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1137

C-2013-254

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2013-254, Gina Diane Eslick appealed her conviction for multiple drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her petition for certiorari, meaning they agreed to look at her case closely. The court found that she did not have effective help from her lawyer when she tried to change her guilty plea, as her lawyer had a conflict of interest. The court ordered that her case be sent back to the District Court so she could have a new hearing with a lawyer who did not have a conflict. No one dissented in this decision.

Continue ReadingC-2013-254

C-2018-415

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **TALISA NICOLE BANKS, Petitioner,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-415** **October 31, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION GRANTING CERTIORARI** Judge Hudson presiding: On November 8, 2016, Talisa Nicole Banks entered blind pleas of guilty to the following charges: Count 1 - Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance - Marijuana; Count 2 - Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug, Marijuana, With Intent to Distribute; and Count 3 - Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance - Methamphetamine in the District Court of Texas County, Case No. CF-2016-64. Sentencing occurred on February 28, 2018, resulting in a combined fifteen-year sentence with conditions on Counts 1, 2, and 3. After sentencing, on March 7, 2018, Banks filed a motion to withdraw her guilty pleas, which was supported by an additional pro se letter outlining her reasons. A hearing on this motion was held on April 4, 2018, but was denied by the Honorable Jon Parsley, District Judge. Banks appealed, arguing she faced multiple forms of conflict regarding her legal representation, which adversely affected her ability to receive effective assistance during her plea withdrawal hearing. This Court has previously established the right to effective counsel at plea withdrawal hearings. The arguments presented by Banks indicated an actual conflict of interest, as her counsel simultaneously represented conflicting interests regarding claims made against his own effectiveness. The evidence suggests Banks was denied the opportunity for conflict-free representation, and thus a new hearing is warranted for the motion to withdraw her guilty pleas. **DECISION** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. The case is REMANDED to the District Court for the appointment of new counsel for Banks’ motion to withdraw her guilty pleas and to conduct a new hearing regarding that motion. **Parties Appeared Below** - **Defense Counsel**: Robert H. Jaques - **Respondent Counsel**: Assistant District Attorney Buddy Leach; Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter **OPINION BY**: HUDSON, J. **CONCUR**: LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J. **[Download Full Decision](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-415_1734109426.pdf)**

Continue ReadingC-2018-415

F-2018-940

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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.

Continue ReadingF-2018-940

RE-2018-435

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOSE FIGUEROA MESTA,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-435** **FILED** IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA JUN 20 2019 JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK **SUMMARY OPINION** LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Appellant appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Texas County District Court Case No. CF-2015-1. On March 4, 2016, Appellant entered a plea of no contest to Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance Within 1,000 Feet of a Park, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2012, § 2-402(C)(1). The Honorable Jon Parsley, District Judge, convicted Appellant and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment, with all but the first eighty days suspended. On February 27, 2018, the State filed an Amended Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence alleging Appellant failed to submit probation reports; failed to report his arrest for public intoxication; moved back into Oklahoma without reporting it to the district court; and committed new crimes of Possession of a Controlled Drug, Marijuana, Within 2000 Feet of a School or Park, With Intent to Distribute (Count 1), and Possession of CDS Without a Tax Stamp Affixed (Count 2) as alleged in Texas County District Court Case No. CF-2018-58. Following a hearing, Judge Parsley revoked Appellant's remaining suspended sentence in full. **Proposition I:** Appellant alleges the trial court erred in assessing him attorney fees of $500, which he claims exceeds the amount allowed by statute. **Proposition II:** Appellant argues he cannot be assessed the costs of his incarceration because he is mentally ill. These claims are outside the scope of a revocation appeal. The consequence of judicial revocation is to execute a penalty previously imposed in the judgment and sentence. The scope of review in a revocation appeal is limited to the validity of the revocation order executing the previously imposed sentence. As noted on numerous occasions, arguments regarding attorney fees and incarceration costs are administrative and not properly presented as part of the appeal of an order revoking a suspended sentence. Thus, we deny Propositions I and II. **Proposition III:** Appellant objects to the inclusion of post-imprisonment supervision in the revocation order. The State concedes this point, arguing the issue is moot because Judge Parsley entered an amended revocation order on January 17, 2019, deleting post-imprisonment supervision from the revocation order. We agree that this proposition is moot. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence in whole or part is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof. Appellant has not established that Judge Parsley abused his discretion. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Texas County District Court Case No. CF-2015-1 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** AT REVOCATION **VONDA WILKINS** P.O. BOX 1486 GUYMON, OK 73492 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT ON APPEAL **LISBETH McCARTY** P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **TAOS SMITH** ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 319 N. MAIN GUYMON, OK 73942 COUNSEL FOR STATE **MIKE HUNTER** OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL KEELEY MILLER ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21st ST. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE **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/RE-2018-435_1734691413.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-435

C-2018-1002

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**Summary of Case No. C-2018-1002: Carey James Buxton v. The State of Oklahoma** **Court:** Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals **Date Filed:** June 13, 2019 **Parties:** - **Petitioner:** Carey James Buxton - **Respondent:** The State of Oklahoma **Background:** Carey James Buxton entered a negotiated plea of no contest on multiple criminal charges across three cases in the District Court of Kay County. The charges included unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, second-degree burglary, and knowingly concealing stolen property. The plea agreement included entering a drug court program, which promised potential leniency upon completion. **Plea Agreement Details:** - **Successful Completion:** District Attorney would recommend dismissal of certain charges and suspended sentences. - **Failure:** Imposition of lengthy prison time. The State later filed a motion to terminate Buxton from the drug court program, which was granted after a hearing. Consequently, Buxton was sentenced according to the plea agreement. Attempting to contest this outcome, Buxton filed a motion to withdraw his plea, claiming it was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. **Issues on Appeal:** Buxton appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by not allowing him to withdraw due to the involuntariness of his plea. **Court Findings:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the district court's decision, determining that: 1. The review of the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea is for an abuse of discretion. 2. It is the petitioner's burden to prove that there was a defect in the plea process. 3. The district court based its ruling on a comprehensive review of the record, included plea forms, and Buxton's testimony. Ultimately, the appeal court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Buxton's request to withdraw his plea, affirming the decision. **Decision:** - The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. - The district court's denial of Buxton's Motion to Withdraw Plea is AFFIRMED. **Mandate:** The mandate will be issued following the filing of this decision as per the applicable court rules. **Opinion Author:** Judge Rowland **Concurring Judges:** Lewis, Kuehn, Lumpkin, Hudson

Continue ReadingC-2018-1002

C-2018-927

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SAHIB QUIETMAN HENDERSON,** **Petitioner,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-927** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 30, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Sahib Quietman Henderson entered a blind plea of guilty to Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance within 2,000 feet of a School in the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CF-2016-393. The plea was accepted by the Honorable Ken J. Graham, District Judge, on April 30, 2018, with sentencing delayed until July 25, 2018. On that date, Petitioner was sentenced to thirty (30) years in prison, with the first fifteen (15) years to be served and the remaining fifteen (15) years suspended, alongside a fine of $2,500.00. On August 2, 2018, represented by counsel, Petitioner filed an Application to Withdraw Plea of Guilty. At hearings on August 20 and 22, 2018, Judge Graham denied the motion to withdraw. Petitioner appeals the denial and raises the following propositions of error: 1. Failure of the State and District Court to honor the promised consideration for Appellant's plea requires modification of his inflated sentence, or an opportunity to withdraw his plea. 2. The sentence is shockingly excessive given the circumstances of the case. 3. Ineffective assistance of counsel in identifying, presenting, and preserving issues for review. After thorough review of these propositions and the entirety of the record, including original record, transcripts, and briefs, we find that neither reversal nor modification is required. Our primary concern in evaluating the validity of a guilty plea is whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently. Petitioner carries the burden of proving his plea was entered unadvisedly, through influence, or without deliberation. Voluntariness is assessed through the entire record. In **Proposition I**, Petitioner claims that the plea lacked a knowing and voluntary nature due to non-fulfillment of a promise that he would be sentenced as a first-time offender and because of purported drug buys by his wife reducing his sentence. Contrary to this argument, the record shows Petitioner was treated as a first-time offender, with the court considering the mitigating factors at sentencing. His dissatisfaction with the resulting sentence does not provide grounds for withdrawal of the plea. In **Proposition II**, Petitioner contends the sentence is excessive. However, as he did not raise this claim in his Application to Withdraw Guilty Plea to the trial court, it is waived on appeal. In **Proposition III**, Petitioner argues ineffective assistance of counsel during both the plea and withdrawal hearings. A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is only established by showing that counsel's performance was deficient and that it resulted in prejudice to the defendant. The record does not support that withdrawal counsel's performance was deficient or that it affected the outcome—Petitioner maintained he did not wish to withdraw his plea but rather sought a sentence modification. **DECISION** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon this decision. --- **APPEARANCES IN DISTRICT COURT:** Grant D. Shepherd 601 S.W. C Ave., Ste. 201 Lawton, OK 73501 Counsel for the Defense **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** Kimberly D. Heinze P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 Counsel for Petitioner at the Plea Hearing Ronald L. Williams P.O. Box 2095 Lawton, OK 73502 Counsel for the Defense at the Withdrawal Hearing Jason M. Hicks District Attorney Cortnie Siess & Greg Steward Assistant District Attorneys Stephens Co. Courthouse 101 S. 11th St., Duncan, OK 73533 Counsel for the State **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-2018-927_1734182885.pdf)

Continue ReadingC-2018-927

F-2017-1011

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1011, Johnny Ray Hopes appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute and two counts of Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. Johnny Ray Hopes was found guilty by a jury for having illegal drugs and for attacking police officers. The jury decided he should go to prison for four years for the drug crime and for thirteen months in jail with a $500 fine for each of the two assaults. The judge ordered that all of these punishments would happen one after the other, not at the same time. Hopes had a few reasons for his appeal. First, he said that the trial court did not properly explain what it meant to represent himself in court. He believed that because he was not fully informed, his choice to represent himself was not made knowingly or voluntarily. The court looked at the facts and found that Hopes was well informed about what it meant to represent himself. They agreed that he made a clear decision and understood the risks involved in not having a lawyer. Therefore, the court decided that he had made a valid choice to represent himself. Second, Hopes claimed that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing the jury to hear about a lesser crime called Resisting Arrest. The court explained that for a jury to receive instructions about a lesser crime, there must be enough evidence for a reasonable jury to be able to find the person guilty of that lesser crime instead of the more serious crime they were charged with. The court found that there wasn’t enough evidence to support a charge of Resisting Arrest because Hopes had attacked the officers rather than just resisting their attempts to arrest him. So, they decided the trial court did not make a mistake by not including that lesser charge. Lastly, Hopes argued that the trial court shouldn’t have made his punishments run consecutively. The court explained that there is no rule saying he must receive concurrent sentences, meaning they cannot run at the same time. They confirmed that the judge had the right to decide that Hopes should serve his time one after the other. The court found that there was no evidence showing that the judge didn't consider all the facts when making that decision. In conclusion, the court upheld Hopes’ convictions and punishments. The appeal did not change the earlier decision. One judge disagreed, believing there were reasons to reconsider the case.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1011

C-2018-315

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

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.

Continue ReadingC-2018-315

C-2018-441

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2018-441, Clinton Lee Myers appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute near a school. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal. One judge dissented. Clinton Lee Myers entered a plea of guilty to two serious charges. He was sentenced to a long time in prison and had to pay a large fine. After he was sentenced, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, but the court said no after listening to evidence in a hearing. Myers complained that his punishment was too harsh and that the prosecutor shouldn't have talked about his past crimes during the sentencing. He felt this information was unfair and should not have been used against him. However, the court explained that this type of information can be considered at sentencing. They also decided that his sentence was within legal limits and did not shock their conscience, so they would not change it. Additionally, Myers believed that there was a mistake in the written records of his sentence regarding the amount of the fine. The court found that there was, in fact, a clerical error in the documents about the fine amount. They agreed that the error should be corrected to match what the judge said during the sentencing. In conclusion, the court denied Myers' request to change his sentence, but they agreed to correct the written record to reflect the right fine amount.

Continue ReadingC-2018-441

S-2015-771

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-771, the defendant appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower courts' rulings. One judge dissented. Carl Edward Prince, also known as Carl Edward Harper, was arrested for having marijuana and other related charges. He was charged with three main offenses regarding drug possession and use of a police radio. During the early stages of the trial, a magistrate judge decided there wasn't enough evidence for one of the charges, which was about maintaining a place used for selling drugs. The prosecution believed that this decision was wrong and appealed it. The appeal against the magistrate's decision went to another judge who agreed with the first judge, stating that the evidence given by the prosecution was not strong enough to prove that Prince had maintained a location where marijuana was kept with the intent to distribute it. Because of this, they could not prove that there was a pattern or habit of drug use or sales at the location. The case was taken to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The main issues raised by the prosecution were about whether the requirement for a pattern of activity (habitualness) should be considered a fact that needed to be proven and whether there was enough evidence to bring the case to a jury. The Appeals Court decided that the past decisions regarding drug cases required proof of more than just a single event of drug possession. They reasoned that a location must show a pattern of illegal drug activity or use before a person can be convicted under this law. The court looked carefully at what evidence was presented while considering the arguments from both sides. They concluded that there were no clear mistakes made by the lower courts. The evidence didn’t meet the standard needed to prove that Prince’s home was used primarily for drug activity. They upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which means that Prince was not found guilty of that charge. One judge disagreed with this final decision, feeling that the lower courts made a mistake in throwing out the charge about maintaining a place for drugs. This dissenting opinion argued that the law should allow for flexibility and not just rely on showing repeated actions or habits to prove the case. The dissenting judge expressed that the current interpretation of the law was too strict and made it difficult to prosecute based on the evidence presented. In summary, the Appeal Court confirmed that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge Prince with maintaining a place for drug distribution, leading to the upholding of his preliminary ruling.

Continue ReadingS-2015-771

RE-2018-357

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**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)**

Continue ReadingRE-2018-357

F-2016-1015

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DERRECK RYAN GRAY,** Appellant, Case No. F-2016-1015 **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Derreck Ryan Gray was convicted by jury of Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) With Intent to Distribute (Count I) and Obstructing an Officer (Count II) in the District Court of Payne County. The jury recommended a sentence of twenty-four years for Count I and one year in jail with a $500 fine for Count II. The trial court sentenced Appellant according to the jury's recommendations, though it reduced the fine in Count II to $100. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appellant appeals, raising one proposition of error: 1. The trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during what he contends was an illegal seizure. After reviewing the details of the case and the arguments presented, we conclude that no relief is warranted. During the traffic stop for a violation, neither the driver nor Appellant had valid driver's licenses. Consequently, the vehicle was to be impounded. Upon concluding the traffic stop, Appellant was free to leave, but officers instructed him to exit the vehicle to inventory it. As he did, Officer Cluck observed a plastic bag drop to the floor. When instructed not to touch it, Appellant ignored this and attempted to flee with the bag. Officer Cluck arrested Appellant for Obstructing an Officer, which permitted retrieval of the bag. Subsequent analysis of the bag revealed it contained methamphetamine. Appellant asserts that the seizure of the bag was improper; however, he does not dispute the legality of the traffic stop or the imminent impoundment. His attempt to flee with the bag constituted obstruction, providing probable cause for his arrest. This established legal basis nullifies his argument against the seizure of the evidence. In reviewing the trial court's actions regarding the suppression motion, we find no abuse of discretion. The trial court's denial of the motion to suppress is affirmed, as Appellant's conduct provided justification for his detention and the subsequent evidence seizure, which does not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. **DECISION** The JUDGMENT and SENTENCE is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** Royce Hobbs, Stillwater, OK, Counsel for Defendant **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** Robert W. Jackson, Norman, OK, Counsel for Appellant Laura Austin Thomas, Payne County District Attorney **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, P.J. **Concur:** LEWIS, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; KUEHN, J.; ROWLAND, J.

Continue ReadingF-2016-1015

S-2016-169

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-169, Patrick Lee Walker appealed his conviction for distributing a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine) within 2,000 feet of a school. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that granted Walker's motion to quash and dismissed the case. One judge dissented. The case began when Walker was charged in Kay County District Court with distributing methamphetamine after a controlled purchase was made by a confidential informant. A deputy had coordinated this controlled buy and testified that the informant bought meth from Walker at a location in Kay County. The informant was searched before the transaction to ensure she had no drugs. After meeting Walker, they drove together to Osage County where the exchange happened. There was a lack of evidence presented about the exact location where the drugs were handed over, which was crucial to prove that the crime occurred within the required distance of a school. During the preliminary hearing, the judge decided that while the distribution started in Kay County, there wasn't enough evidence to show that the drugs were handed over in that county or within 2,000 feet from a school. Because of this, the judge dismissed the case when Walker's defense claimed that the evidence was insufficient. The court discussed whether the trial court had made an error in dismissing the case. The main two arguments from the State's appeal were that the district court wrongly decided it didn't have the required evidence for venue and that it unfairly denied the State's request to amend the Information (the official charge). The court explained that the State must show probable cause that a crime happened and clarify where that crime occurred. They noted that although it was shown that a crime likely happened, it was not in the form correctly charged due to not proving all essential elements of the offense, as required under Oklahoma law. While the trial court's decision to dismiss the case was recognized as legally incorrect, it did not lead to a different outcome because the State did not ask to amend the charge during the hearing. Therefore, even though the lower court may have acted without the right understanding of the law regarding amendments, it did not influence the decision because of the procedural issues involved. The court ultimately upheld the dismissal of the charges against Walker, agreeing with the lower court's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of the crime occurring within the jurisdiction required by law. The ruling was affirmed, and thus the case remained closed without further proceedings.

Continue ReadingS-2016-169

S-2015-972

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-972, Marco Callejas appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm after juvenile adjudication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to grant Callejas' motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges. One judge dissented. Marco Callejas was charged with two crimes in Tulsa County. The charges included unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and having a firearm after being a juvenile delinquent. During his preliminary hearing, the official decided that the stop made by the officer was valid but dismissed one of the charges while moving forward with the other. Before the actual trial began, Callejas argued that there wasn't enough evidence against him and that the evidence collected during the stop should not be used. The judge agreed and dismissed both charges, so the State decided to appeal the judge's decision. The State argued that the judge made errors during the hearing, especially in determining that there wasn't a valid reason for the traffic stop. They explained that the officer interpreted a local traffic law to mean that drivers must hesitate before changing lanes. However, the judge decided that this interpretation of the law was incorrect and that Callejas did not break any laws because he signaled before changing lanes safely. The appeals court looked closely at the traffic law in question and agreed with the judge that the law did not say drivers had to pause before changing lanes. The court pointed out that the officer could see Callejas signaled before making the lane change and that no other traffic was affected by his action. Therefore, there was no valid reason for the officer to stop Callejas. The State also tried to argue that a past decision, involving another case, should apply here, but the court concluded that the current law was clear and did not have the same ambiguities as the previous case. Ultimately, the appeals court confirmed that the traffic stop was based on a misunderstanding of the law. The court affirmed the original decision to suppress the evidence gathered from the stop and to dismiss all charges against Callejas. This means that Callejas did not face criminal charges due to the invalidity of the stop. In summary, the court found that the trial judge made the right call in dismissing the case because the police officer did not have a good reason to stop Callejas.

Continue ReadingS-2015-972

F-2014-939

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-939, Ryan Lee Nixon appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold Nixon's conviction for Manufacturing but reversed his conviction for Possession. One judge dissented. Nixon was found guilty after a trial, where the jury determined he should serve fifteen years for Manufacturing and two years for Possession, alongside hefty fines. However, the judge suspended one of the fines and ordered the sentences to run together. Nixon's appeal included two main arguments. First, he argued that there wasn't enough evidence to show he possessed methamphetamine found in a bedroom. The court agreed with this argument. They explained that having drugs in a place doesn't mean the person had control over them unless there are other facts to prove possession. The court found there wasn't enough evidence to support the idea that Nixon had control over the drugs. Second, Nixon claimed the prosecutor made comments during closing arguments that were unfair. However, the court decided that these comments were acceptable and did not affect the trial's fairness since they were part of the argument about the evidence. In conclusion, while Nixon's conviction for Manufacturing was upheld, the court reversed his conviction for Possession and ordered that charge to be dismissed.

Continue ReadingF-2014-939

S-2015-446

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-446, James Leonard Martinez appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and operating without mud flaps. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the District Court's ruling that suppressed evidence in the case. One judge dissented. The case began when Officer Porter stopped Martinez's vehicle because he believed it lacked the required mud flaps, which the officer thought was a violation of the law. However, the trial court found that Martinez's car had fenders, and according to the statute, if a vehicle has fenders, it does not need mud flaps. Thus, the officer's stop was not justified. The State argued that even if the law did not apply to Martinez's vehicle, Officer Porter had a reasonable but mistaken belief about the law when he stopped Martinez. However, the trial court ruled that the officer's misunderstanding of the law was not reasonable because the law's language was clear. The court reviewed the officer's actions and concluded that he made a mistake of law, which means he misunderstood the actual law regarding mud flaps. Because of this, the court agreed with the trial court's decision to suppress evidence gathered during the stop and to dismiss the case against Martinez. Ultimately, the court confirmed that the stop was not lawful and upheld the trial court's ruling.

Continue ReadingS-2015-446

F-2014-310

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-310, Jeffery Alan Patton appealed his conviction for Manufacture of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, but reversed the conviction for possession of a firearm after felony conviction. One judge dissented on the decision regarding the firearm convictions. Appellant Patton was found guilty by a jury of manufacturing methamphetamine and possessing firearms while committing a felony, as well as possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first charge, and ten years and two years for the other firearm charges, respectively. Patton argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough and that his lawyer did not effectively defend him. The court reviewed his claims that there was not enough proof that he manufactured methamphetamine and did not actually possess the firearms during the crime. However, the court found that there was enough evidence presented at trial, which could lead any reasonable person to believe he was involved in the crime. The first two propositions were denied, meaning they did not agree with Patton on those points. In regards to his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court found that his lawyer's actions during the trial did not fall below the necessary standards of proper legal representation. Therefore, this proposition was also denied. One of Patton's major contentions was about double jeopardy, saying he should not have been convicted for both firearm charges that arose from the same incident. The court agreed, recognizing that both convictions came from the same act, leading them to dismiss the second firearm possession conviction. As for Patton’s claim that his sentences were too harsh, the court concluded they were within legal limits and not excessively severe. They also noted that Patton didn’t ask for his sentences to run at the same time, leading them to decide there was no error in making his sentences consecutive. Patton also argued he should receive credit for time served before his sentencing; however, because he did not bring this up in court earlier, he could not successfully appeal this point. Lastly, he claimed the evidence should have been suppressed since the search was illegal, but the court determined that the deputies had a good reason for their actions due to public safety concerns. In summary, the court upheld most of Patton's convictions and sentences, highlighting the principle that sufficient evidence and procedural rules were followed during his trial, while reversing one conviction related to firearm possession.

Continue ReadingF-2014-310

S-2014-786

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2014-786, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Douglas Raymond Norwood for misdemeanor possession of marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which dismissed the felony charge that the State had brought against him. The court also accepted Norwood's guilty plea for the misdemeanor charge. One judge dissented. The case began when the State charged Norwood with felony possession of marijuana because he had three prior convictions related to drug offenses. Norwood argued that because his past convictions were not from the specific law under which the State was trying to charge him this time, his current charge should be treated as a misdemeanor instead of a felony. The trial court agreed with Norwood and dismissed the felony charge, allowing him to plead guilty to the lesser charge. The State then appealed, but the court explained that its ability to appeal was limited by law. They could only do so in specific situations, one of which is if there has been a dismissal that prevents further prosecution. The court indicated that the trial court had correctly dismissed the felony charge because the law only allows such enhancements to felony charges when a person has previous convictions specifically under that law. The court referred to a similar earlier case, showing that they had already decided against the State in a comparable situation. They reaffirmed that in order to enhance a charge to a felony, the previous convictions must originate from the same specific law, which was not the case for Norwood. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision of the lower court to dismiss the felony charge and accepted Norwood's guilty plea for misdemeanor possession. Thus, the appeal was rejected, and the original ruling was confirmed, with one judge explaining why he disagreed with the outcome.

Continue ReadingS-2014-786

F-2013-788

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-788, Travis Lenard Mikado appealed his conviction for Attempting to Elude a Police Officer and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance for both Marijuana and Methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for the misdemeanor Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance while affirming the convictions for Attempting to Elude a Police Officer and the felony possession of Methamphetamine. One judge dissented. The case began when two police officers saw Mikado driving erratically, crossing the centerline. They activated their lights and followed him into a parking lot. Instead of stopping, Mikado accelerated, jumped the curb, and took off down the street, leading the officers on a high-speed chase. The pursuit ended when Mikado lost control of his car, which flipped multiple times. He was thrown from the vehicle but was conscious when officers reached him. A search revealed he had Methamphetamine and Marijuana in his pockets. Mikado challenged his convictions for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, claiming they violated laws against multiple punishments. However, he hadn’t raised this challenge before the trial, so the court evaluated it for plain error, which occurs when there is an obvious mistake that impacts the fairness of the trial. The court found that Mikado's two drug possessions were part of a single act since both drugs were found in one location. The ruling referenced past decisions where individuals could not be punished more than once for the same offense if it was part of one action, as in Mikado’s case. The court decided that since the Methamphetamine and Marijuana were both in the same pocket, it counted as one act of possession. Therefore, the conviction for one of the drugs was reversed. In summary, the court affirmed most of Mikado’s convictions but recognized that he should not have been punished for both drugs separately, leading to a significant change in his sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2013-788

S-2013-718

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-718, Tutson and Heartfield appealed their conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana) With the Intent to Distribute and other related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling to suppress evidence, which means they agreed that the evidence should not be used against Tutson and Heartfield because the consent to search was not clearly given. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2013-718

F-2012-732

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-732, Omar Sharrod Pollard appealed his conviction for Unlawful Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (crack cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Pollard's conviction but modified his sentence. One Justice dissented. Here’s a breakdown of what happened in this case: 1. **Background**: Pollard was tried by a jury and found guilty of selling crack cocaine. He had prior felony convictions, which were used to enhance his sentence. The jury decided on a punishment of forty years in prison. 2. **Issues on Appeal**: Pollard raised several points in his appeal: - He claimed that he did not receive a fair trial due to the admission of multiple felony convictions from the same event to enhance his sentence. - He alleged prosecutorial misconduct that he believed made his trial unfair. - He argued that he did not receive effective help from his lawyer during the sentencing phase. - He said that information about his previous suspended sentences should not have been shared with the jury during the trial. - He questioned whether there was enough evidence for his conviction. - He thought his sentence was too long. - He claimed the accumulation of errors in his trial prevented a fair process. 3. **Court's Findings**: The court reviewed Pollard's claims. They concluded that while he did not need to reverse the conviction, his sentence needed to be adjusted. The court acknowledged two specific errors concerning how the State presented Pollard's prior convictions and the details of his past sentences to the jury. 4. **Errors Identified**: - It was wrong for the jury to hear about Pollard’s multiple felony convictions from the same incident. The law states that for estimating punishment, the jury should only be aware of one conviction from a single event. - Additionally, disclosing that some of his previous sentences were suspended was inappropriate. This information could have biased the jury against him and influenced their decision on sentencing. 5. **Conclusion**: The court felt that these mistakes likely swayed the jury's decision on Pollard's punishment. Therefore, they decided to reduce Pollard's prison sentence from forty years to twenty-five years. The judgment of the district court was affirmed, but Pollard's sentence was modified to a lesser term of 25 years in prison.

Continue ReadingF-2012-732