Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Archives - Page 3 of 9

F-2017-1011

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions.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.

RE-2017-1128

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:RE

**OKLAHOMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **Case No. RE-2017-1128** **Elizabeth Kay Sears, Appellant,** **v.** **The State of Oklahoma, Appellee.** **FILED: MAY 16, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** **¶1** This matter is an appeal from the revocation of Appellant Elizabeth Kay Sears' suspended sentence in Logan County District Court Case No. CF-2013-295, presided over by the Honorable Louis A. Duel, Associate District Judge. **¶2** On January 14, 2014, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to two counts of Child Neglect (21 O.S.2011, § 843.5(C)) and one count of Harboring a Fugitive (21 O.S.2011, § 440). She was sentenced to eight years imprisonment for each count, with the first three years of each sentence to be served, while the remaining years were suspended. On October 3, 2014, the District Judge modified Appellant's sentence to five years imprisonment for each count, all suspended, to be served concurrently. **¶3** The State filed a 2nd Amended Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence on December 29, 2016, citing several probation violations, including new charges of Second Degree Burglary and Possession of Paraphernalia, arising from Logan County District Court Case No. CF-2016-404. **¶4** Appellant was arraigned on January 26, 2017, entered a plea of not guilty, and subsequently requested a continuance for her revocation hearing, which was ultimately heard on October 25, 2017. The court revoked Appellant's five-year suspended sentences in full after considering the evidence and arguments presented. **¶5** In her first proposition of error, Appellant contends that the revocation order should be reversed and dismissed. She argues that there was no valid waiver of the required twenty-day hearing period following her plea of not guilty, as stipulated in 22 O.S.Supp.2016, § 991b(A). She maintains that the record does not sufficiently show she was informed of this requirement; thus, the motion to revoke should be dismissed. **¶6** However, Appellant's request for a continuance of her revocation hearing undermines her argument. The legal precedent established in *Grimes v. State*, 2011 OK CR 16, clearly states that a defendant who acquiesces in or seeks a continuance cannot later claim entitlement to relief based on noncompliance with the twenty-day requirement. Moreover, Appellant does not claim ineffective assistance of counsel regarding this issue, and it is presumed that her attorney acted competently. **¶7** In her second proposition of error, Appellant seeks clarification of the trial court's revocation order, specifically, concerning the credit for time served. Although the State acknowledges a potential misstatement by the trial court about the duration of time credited, Appellant did not raise this issue for correction in the trial court before bringing it to this Court. Typically, we do not intervene without a preliminary determination by the District Court. **¶8** However, we will modify the procedural requirement that previously necessitated an appellant to file a separate motion to address this issue. In the absence of clear clerical error, we remand this matter back to the District Court of Logan County to allow Appellant to seek an order nunc pro tunc regarding the time served, as outlined in her second proposition of error. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Logan County District Court Case No. CF-2013-295 is AFFIRMED. This case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion. A mandate will be issued following the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** **Counsel for Defendant:** Lisbeth L. McCarty, Oklahoma City, OK **Counsel for Appellant:** Lane Fitz, Norman, OK **Counsel for State:** Emily Kirkpatrick, Asst. District Attorney, Guthrie, OK **Counsel for Appellee:** Mike Hunter, Oklahoma Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2017-1128_1734708375.pdf)

F-2018-202

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-202, the appellant appealed her conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, conspiracy to commit a felony, kidnapping, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. The case involved Katherine Marie Houser, who was found guilty by a jury for several serious crimes. The jury gave her a variety of sentences, including five years for robbery, two years for possession of a firearm during a felony, and six months for kidnapping. Some of these sentences were set to run at the same time, which is called concurrent sentences. Katherine argued that her lawyer did not represent her well, especially by not challenging one of the counts against her (the possession of a firearm). Although this count was eventually dismissed by the state, she felt that just being tried for it affected the jury’s decisions on other counts. The court looked at this claim and decided that even if the lawyer made a mistake, it wouldn’t have changed the outcome. The evidence against her for the other charges was strong, and the jurors weren’t likely swayed by having one extra charge against her. In her second argument, Katherine said that a fine imposed on her should not count because the judge did not mention it during the sentencing, even though she hadn’t complained about it at that time. The court found that since she didn’t raise an issue at the right time, she had a harder time proving there was an error worth correcting. Ultimately, both of Katherine's arguments were denied, and the court decided to uphold her convictions and sentences.

F-2018-112

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-112, Christopher Lewis Whinery appealed his conviction for first-degree murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. No one dissented. Mr. Whinery was found guilty by a judge without a jury. The case took place in Creek County, where he was sentenced to life in prison and fined $500. His main argument was that the judge made a mistake by allowing his statements to the police to be used against him during the trial. He said that he was in custody and had not been told his rights, which needs to happen before police can question someone. However, the court looked at what happened and found that Mr. Whinery was not in custody when he spoke to the police. This means he wasn’t formally arrested, and his freedom wasn't limited like it would be if he were arrested. Because of this, the police did not need to read him his rights at that time. Since the court agreed that there was no error in allowing his statements, they decided to keep his conviction as is, meaning he will remain in prison for life.

F-2018-103

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-103, the appellant appealed his conviction for manslaughter in the first degree, heat of passion. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. David Wayne Ellis was charged with first degree murder, but the jury found him guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter in the first degree. This happened after a trial in which the jury decided on a sentence of life imprisonment. The judge took into account the time Ellis had already served in jail. Ellis raised several issues in his appeal: 1. He argued that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self-defense when he stabbed the victim. The court looked at the evidence and decided that the jury had enough information to find that Ellis was not acting in self-defense. The court noted that Ellis had confronted the victim with a knife and had made threats, showing he was the aggressor. 2. Ellis claimed that the prosecutor made a mistake by calling the decedent's death a murder during the trial. He believed this was wrong because it was up to the jury to decide on the nature of the death. However, the court found that since the jury had been instructed correctly and had not convicted him of murder but rather manslaughter, this was not a mistake that would affect the trial's fairness. 3. Ellis argued that he did not receive effective legal help during the trial. The court considered this argument but found that his lawyer’s performance did not fall below what is acceptable. Moreover, since there was no error established in the previous points of appeal, this claim also failed. 4. Finally, he objected to the admission of a photograph of the decedent that he felt was unfairly prejudicial. The court determined that the photo was allowed under the law because it provided context about the victim and was relevant to the trial. They did not find any error in allowing it. Overall, the court affirmed the conviction and determined that there were no significant mistakes made during the trial that would change the outcome.

C-2018-225

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:C

**COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. C-2018-225** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Petitioner:** STEVEN LEON GRIMMETT **Respondent:** THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **Opinion by: LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Steven Leon Grimmett (Petitioner) was charged with multiple felony counts and entered a blind plea of no contest. After sentencing, he sought to withdraw his plea, claiming coercion and misunderstandings regarding his sentence. His motion was denied, and he appealed the decision, raising several propositions of error. 1. **Coercion and Voluntariness of Plea**: Petitioner claimed his plea was coerced and involuntary. The court evaluated whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently, emphasizing the importance of confirming that the plea was not the result of force or threats. The court concluded that evidence demonstrated the plea was voluntary. 2. **Advice on Sentencing Requirements**: The Petitioner contended he was not adequately informed about the 85% rule applicable to his sentence or the post-imprisonment supervision requirement. However, since these claims were not raised in his Motion to Withdraw Plea, the appellate court found he waived the right to contest these issues. 3. **Clerical Error Argument**: Petitioner argued there was a clerical error in the judgment regarding the requirement of post-imprisonment supervision. The court did not find this to be an obvious error but remanded the matter to the district court to address the claim. 4. **Effective Assistance of Counsel**: The court assessed his claims of ineffective assistance of both plea and withdrawal counsel using the Strickland test, which evaluates counsel's performance and whether any deficiencies prejudiced the defense. The court determined that Petitioner was sufficiently informed about his plea and that withdrawal counsel's performance did not constitute ineffective assistance. **DECISION**: The court affirmed the denial of the Motion to Withdraw Plea and remanded for the district court to address the clerical error regarding post-imprisonment supervision. **Counsel Information:** - **Counsel for Petitioner at Trial and Appeal**: Shelley Levisay, Kimberly D. Heinze - **Counsel for the State**: Adam Panter, Mike Hunter, David Hammer, Joshua Fanelli **Opinion filed: May 9, 2019** **Mandate ordered upon filing**. For full opinion documents, refer to [the PDF link here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-225_1734103367.pdf).

PC-2017-322

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:CF

In OCCA case No. CF-2004-4488, the petitioner appealed his conviction for murder and shooting with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed the conviction, stating that his consecutive sentences do not violate constitutional protections against cruel punishment. One judge dissented on the reasoning. [occa_caption]

RE-2018-342

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOSHUA ERIC ARMSTRONG,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. No. RE-2018-342 **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY - 9 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant Joshua Eric Armstrong appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence from the Woodward County District Court Case No. CF-2017-5, overseen by the Honorable David A. Work, Associate District Judge. ### Background On March 31, 2017, Appellant pled no contest to the charge of Possession/Concealing Stolen Property, leading to a five-year sentence, with all but the first two months suspended. On March 8, 2018, the State sought to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence on various grounds: failure to report, providing a false address, testing positive for methamphetamine, failing to pay court costs, prosecution reimbursement fees, restitution, and committing Grand Larceny (Case No. CF-2018-11). At the March 27, 2018, hearing, Judge Work revoked four years of Armstrong's suspended sentence. ### Appellant's Claims 1. **Proposition I**: Judge Work’s pronouncements were insufficient regarding the alleged probation violations. - **Finding**: No statutory requirement exists for detailed findings at revocation. The petition sufficiently informed Appellant of the grounds. 2. **Propositions II, III, and V**: The State did not prove certain alleged violations. - **Finding**: The State proved other violations; only one is necessary for revocation. 3. **Proposition IV**: Insufficient evidence to prove a false address. - **Finding**: Evidence indicated Appellant likely provided a false address. 4. **Proposition VI**: Improper revocation for unemployment not alleged in the petition. - **Finding**: Appellant failed to object during the hearing, waiving the issue for all but plain error review, which he did not establish. 5. **Proposition VII**: The trial court abused discretion in revoking part of the suspended sentence instead of requiring treatment. - **Finding**: Evidence supported the violations alleged in the petition, and there was no abuse of discretion. ### Decision The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Woodward County District Court Case No. CF-2017-5 is **AFFIRMED**. Mandate to be issued upon filing of this decision. **Appearances**: **Counsel for Defendant**: Ryan D. Recker **Counsel for Appellant**: Sarah MacNiven **Counsel for the State**: Kate Loughlin, Mike Hunter, Keeley L. Miller **OPINION BY**: HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.**: CONCUR **KUEHN, V.P.J.**: CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.**: CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.**: CONCUR [Download PDF of Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-342_1734697264.pdf)

F-2017-356

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 2, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-356, Elizabeth A. Jennings appealed her conviction for Permitting Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed her conviction. One judge dissented. The case took place in Tulsa County, where Jennings was found guilty of allowing child sexual abuse to happen, which is against the law. The jury decided she should go to prison for 14 years. She was very unhappy about this and wanted to challenge the ruling. Jennings raised three big points in her appeal: 1. She said the prosecutor made a wrong hypothetical question during jury selection, which is called voir dire, and that this violated her rights. 2. She also argued that a lot of evidence was shown about her co-defendant's sexual misconduct, which she thought made it hard for her to get a fair sentence. 3. Lastly, she complained that the judge didn't tell the jury that she would have to register as a sex offender after her conviction, which she thought was an important piece of information. The court looked at everything carefully, including the evidence, the transcripts, and the arguments from both sides. It decided that Jennings did not deserve any relief from her conviction based on her arguments. For the first point, the court said that the prosecutor's question was okay. It was meant to see if jurors could be fair and follow the law without making decisions before hearing all the evidence. In the second point, the court agreed that the evidence about the co-defendant was relevant and helped to show Jennings' knowledge of the situation. The court found that this evidence was not unfairly hurtful to her case. On the third point, the court decided that it was not wrong for the judge to skip giving out the information about sex offender registration because it wasn't necessary for the case. In the end, the court upheld Jennings' sentence of 14 years in prison. The judges considered all the arguments but concluded that everything was handled correctly during the trial.

F-2016-375

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 25, 2019
Post category:F

This document is the opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the appeal of James Stanford Poore from his convictions of four counts of First Degree Murder and two counts of Robbery with a Firearm, which occurred in Tulsa County District Court. The jury recommended sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder convictions and life imprisonment for the robbery charges. The opinion outlines the factual background of the case, including the brutal murders of four victims during a robbery and the subsequent evidence linking Appellant Poore and his brother Cedric Poore to the crime. Key pieces of evidence included witness testimonies, DNA analysis, and ballistic evidence connecting the Poores to both the murders and an earlier robbery. The appellate court addressed several propositions raised by Poore, reviewing the admission of expert testimony, the exclusion of certain third-party perpetrator evidence, the relevance of other crimes evidence, the legality of the search warrant executed at Poore's mother's residence, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. After careful consideration, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence or denying Poore's requests for different evidence and upheld the sufficiency of the search warrant. The court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court, providing a detailed legal rationale for its decisions. The final decision includes an order for the mandate to be issued upon the filing of this opinion. The judgment for both the defendant and the state was documented, with all judges concurring in the decision. For those interested in viewing or downloading the original document, a link is provided at the end of the summary.

F-2018-617

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 25, 2019
Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of Douglas Edward Scott. Scott was convicted of Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation and Petit Larceny in a non-jury trial and was sentenced to eight years in prison for the first charge and six months in county jail for the second, with both sentences running concurrently. ### Key Points from the Opinion: 1. **Proposition I - Sufficiency of Evidence**: - Scott challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his domestic assault conviction. - The court reviewed the evidence favorably toward the prosecution and concluded that a rational trier of fact could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. - The trial court rejected Scott's claim of innocence, and the court affirmed that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. 2. **Proposition II - Sentence Excessiveness**: - Scott argued that his eight-year sentence was excessive. - The court noted that the sentence was within the statutory range and considered the facts of the case. - The court determined that the sentence did not shock its conscience and denied the proposition of excessive sentencing. ### Conclusion: - The court affirmed Scott's judgment and sentence, denying both of his propositions of error. - The mandate for the decision was ordered upon the delivery and filing of the opinion. ### Representations: - The trial representation included Charles Michael Thompson for the appellant and Richard Smothermon as the District Attorney for the State. - The opinion was written by Judge Lumpkin, with all other judges concurring. For more detailed information or legal context, you can download the full PDF of the opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-617_1735229379.pdf).

RE-2017-801

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 18, 2019
Post category:RE

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case Summary** **Appellant:** Donald Antwan Mayberry **Appellee:** State of Oklahoma **Case No:** RE-2017-801 **Judges:** John D. Hudson (Chief Judge), Lewis, Kuehn (Vice Chief Judge), Lumpkin, Rowland (Judges) **Date Filed:** April 18, 2019 **Overview:** Donald Antwan Mayberry appealed the full revocation of his ten-year suspended sentences imposed by the District Court of Oklahoma County, presided over by Judge Timothy R. Henderson. Mayberry had previously pleaded guilty to two counts of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, which resulted in concurrent ten-year suspended sentences under probation. **Revocation Proceedings:** The State filed an application to revoke Mayberry's suspended sentences, alleging several violations, including: 1. Committing new crimes (including Manufacturing or Possessing an Explosive Device). 2. Using methamphetamine while on probation. 3. Failing to pay probation fees. 4. Driving while his license was suspended. At the revocation hearing, the State presented evidence from law enforcement officers and Mayberry’s probation officer. Notable testimony included: - Sergeant Anthony Lee described a traffic stop of Mayberry's vehicle, where he discovered drugs and an ammo box containing bomb components. - Scott Dawson, a bomb technician, testified about the nature of the device found, indicating it could function as an improvised explosive device (IED). - Probation officer Brooke LeFlore reported Mayberry’s positive drug test for methamphetamine. Mayberry did not present any evidence in his defense. Judge Henderson concluded that Mayberry violated probation terms by committing the new crimes and using drugs, leading to the full revocation of his suspended sentences. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Insufficient Evidence for Manufacturing an Explosive Device:** - Mayberry argued that the State failed to establish his intent to use the bomb or to send it to another person, as required by statute. - The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to infer intent to intimidate or unlawfully damage property, and that one proven violation of probation was enough to justify revocation. 2. **Abuse of Discretion in Revocation Decision:** - Mayberry contended that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his sentence in full, arguing that the punishment was excessive. - The court maintained that the presence of bomb-making materials and other violations substantiated the revocation decision. **Conclusion:** The Court affirmed the trial court's decision to revoke Mayberry's ten-year concurrent suspended sentences in full, finding that the evidence was adequate to support the conclusions of the trial judge. **Final Order:** Appellant's revocation of suspended sentences is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is ordered to be issued. **Counsel for Appellant:** Pierce Winters, Marva A. Banks (Oklahoma County Public Defender’s Office) **Counsel for Appellee:** Kelly Collins, Mike Hunter (assistant district attorneys); Theodore M. Peeper (assistant attorney general) **Opinion Issued By:** Judge Hudson **Concurrences:** Judges Lewis, Kuehn, Lumpkin, and Rowland each concurred with the decision. [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2017-801_1734709994.pdf)

F-2018-145

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-145, Davis appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his termination from the Drug Court program. One judge dissented. On June 23, 2015, Davis pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine. He was given a chance to avoid prison by being put on probation for five years. However, in December 2016, the state said Davis was not following the rules of his probation, leading to his case being taken to Drug Court in March 2017. Drug Court was meant to help him, but it also had strict rules he had to follow. If he completed the program successfully, he could avoid serious penalties. In January 2018, the state said Davis had broken the rules of the Drug Court and asked to have him removed from the program. After a hearing, the judge agreed, and Davis was taken out of Drug Court. Davis appealed this decision, saying the state did not prove he should be terminated and that his mental health issues were not considered. However, the court found no evidence that further sanctions would have helped him follow the rules. Throughout his time in Drug Court, he repeatedly missed appointments and failed to participate, which meant he was not eligible for further leniency. On the issue of his mental health, Davis did not present any evidence in court to explain how his mental health affected his ability to comply with the Drug Court program. Therefore, the court did not find this argument convincing. Ultimately, the court decided that the judge did not make a mistake in removing Davis from Drug Court, and his appeal was denied.

F-2017-1259

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1259, Davis appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving with a suspended license. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of Davis from the Drug Court program and upheld his sentencing. One judge dissented.

F-2017-602

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 13, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-602, Kenneth Donald Knox appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Knox’s conviction and twenty-five-year prison sentence, but they modified the period of post-imprisonment supervision from three years to one year. One justice dissented. Knox was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for causing injuries to a four-month-old baby. The jury decided that he should spend twenty-five years in prison for this crime. Knox thought his lawyer didn’t help him properly, said there wasn’t enough proof for the conviction, and argued that the extra year of supervision after prison was not allowed by law. The court looked closely at all the facts and evidence in his case. They explained that to prove a lawyer didn’t do a good job, Knox had to show that it hurt his chances of winning the case. The court found that Knox didn’t provide enough proof to support his argument about his lawyer’s effectiveness. When it came to the conviction, the court reviewed whether there was enough evidence against Knox. They decided that there was enough proof to show that Knox harmed the baby. Lastly, about the extra supervision time after prison, they agreed that Knox should only have to do one year instead of three, as the law supports a shorter period in his case. In summary, Knox's conviction was upheld, he was given a long prison sentence, and the court changed the rules about his supervision time after he’s released.

F-2017-189

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 24, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-189, William Todd Lewallen appealed his conviction for Child Neglect, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court. A dissenting opinion was not recorded. Lewallen was found guilty in a previous trial and sentenced to twenty-three years in prison. He appealed this sentence, and the court decided to change the sentence to fourteen years during a resentencing trial. Lewallen wanted to testify during this resentencing but was not allowed to do so by the trial court. This decision led to Lewallen's appeal. Lewallen claimed that not allowing him to testify was a serious mistake called structural error, which means it affected the fairness of the entire trial process. However, the court explained that most errors in trials can be harmless unless they are structural errors. The court ultimately found that Lewallen's case did not involve what would be classified as structural error. The court noted that while everyone has the right to present a defense and testify, this right has limits and must follow the rules of court. In Lewallen's case, his request to testify was denied because the court believed it didn't relate to the sentencing phase of his case. The court held that his testimony would not change the outcome of the sentencing because it was not relevant to the issues that the jury was deciding at that time. The decision emphasized that the resentencing was not a chance to revisit the guilt or innocence of Lewallen, as he was already found guilty. The new jury was only tasked with deciding how long his punishment should be based on what they learned from the original trial. In summary, the court affirmed Lewallen's new sentence and ruled that there were no errors that would affect the outcome of the case, including the denial of his request to testify.

F-2016-994

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 11, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-994, the appellant, Phillip Eric Winbush III, appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Winbush's conviction, but modified the indigent defense fee to $1,000. No one dissented. Winbush had been convicted by a jury and was sentenced to eight years in prison due to his prior felony convictions. He raised several claims in his appeal. He first argued that there was prosecutorial misconduct during the trial, which he believed deprived him of a fair trial. However, the court found that while the prosecutor made comments during closing arguments that Winbush claimed were improper, they did not have enough impact to make the trial unfair. The prosecution's comments were taken in context, and the jury had strong evidence before it regarding Winbush's knowing possession of methamphetamine. Winbush also raised an issue about the indigent defense fee being too high. The law stated that the maximum fee should be $1,000, but the court had mistakenly assessed a $1,250 fee. The state acknowledged this error, and the court agreed to modify the fee to the correct amount. Lastly, Winbush claimed he did not receive effective assistance of counsel, but since the court already granted relief regarding the indigent defense fee, this argument was considered moot. In summary, the court upheld Winbush's conviction while correcting the fee he was charged for his defense, ensuring the amount was in line with the law.

M-2016-483

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 3, 2017
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2016-483, Kermit Lee Brannon, Jr. appealed his conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Drugs and Unsafe Lane Use. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Drugs but reversed the Unsafe Lane Use conviction due to insufficient evidence. One member of the court dissented. Kermit Lee Brannon, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for two misdemeanors: driving while under the influence of drugs and unsafe lane use. He was sentenced to one year in jail and a fine for the first charge, and ten days in jail and a fine for the second charge. The sentences were meant to run one after the other. Brannon appealed his convictions, claiming that he was unfairly punished twice for the same incident, that the evidence didn't support his lane change conviction, that his sentence was too harsh, and that his lawyer didn't represent him well. The appeals court looked closely at what happened in the case and agreed with Brannon on the second charge. They found that there was not enough proof that he changed lanes without signaling or ensuring that it was safe to do so. Because of this, the court said they needed to cancel Brannon's Unsafe Lane Use conviction and send that part of the case back to be dismissed. Although they agreed with him on one point, Brannon's claims that he was unfairly punished multiple times and that he got a bad deal from his lawyer were not considered because they were connected to the Unsafe Lane Use conviction, which was overturned. The court also looked at the length of Brannon's sentences and decided that, given his past problems with drug charges, the punishment they gave him for driving under the influence was appropriate and not too harsh. In the end, the court decided to keep the conviction for Driving While Under the Influence and reversed the Unsafe Lane Use conviction, instructing the lower court to dismiss that charge.

RE 2016-0218

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 8, 2017
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2016-0218, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but instructed the lower court to remove the requirement for post-imprisonment supervision from the revocation order. One member of the court dissented.

S-2016-163

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 28, 2017
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-163, Stites appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse and Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which had dismissed one count of Child Sexual Abuse and amended another to Lewd Molestation. One judge dissented.

RE-2016-401

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 11, 2017
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2016-401, a person appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and burglary in the second degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences. One member of the court dissented. The case began when the person entered a guilty plea on November 3, 2014, and was sentenced to eight years in prison, with three years to be served and the rest suspended. This means he would not have to serve the full eight years right away. However, problems arose when the State of Oklahoma wanted to revoke his suspended sentence on January 13, 2016. During the revocation hearing held on April 26, 2016, it was found that he had violated the terms of his suspended sentences. The important issue in the appeal was whether the court had the right to hold the hearing after a certain time. According to the law, a revocation hearing should happen within twenty days unless both sides agree to wait longer. In this case, the person pleaded not guilty on February 1, 2016. The hearing was originally set for February 29, 2016, which was already too late according to the rules. It was then moved to April 26, 2016, making it even later and not meeting the legal deadline. Because the court did not have the right to hold the hearing after so much time had passed, the higher court decided to reverse the earlier decision and send the case back for further action that follows the law.

F-2016-55

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 1, 2017
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-55, James Curtis Cox appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Here's a summary of what happened: Cox was tried by a jury and found guilty of two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child. The judge sentenced him to a long time in prison: twenty-five years for the first count and life imprisonment for the second count, along with fines. He had to serve eighty-five percent of his sentences before he could be considered for parole. Cox appealed because he thought several things went wrong during his trial. First, he complained that his lawyer did not do a good job. He also said the trial court made mistakes by not instructing the jury properly about certain evidence and that they considered witness statements that shouldn’t have been allowed. The court reviewed everything his lawyer did and decided that Cox was not able to show that he had suffered because of his lawyer's performance. They ruled that even if his lawyer didn’t object to some evidence or didn’t ask for certain instructions, it did not ruin his chance for a fair trial. The judges also looked at whether the trial court made mistakes about some evidence being used during the trial. They found that while some evidence shouldn’t have been used, it didn’t change the outcome of the trial. However, when it came to sentencing, the judges found a significant problem. The trial court should not have considered certain statements from victims who were not part of the case. They concluded that the judge was influenced by these statements, which were not allowed, while deciding how long Cox should stay in prison. In the end, the judges decided that Cox’s sentences should be changed to run concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time instead of one after the other. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences so Cox would have a slightly lighter sentence to serve compared to what they initially decided. The appeal allowed Cox to get a better outcome in terms of his sentences, even though he still faced serious charges.

C-2015-573

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 22, 2016
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-573, Jeremy Ross Wilson appealed his conviction for Escape from the Department of Corrections. In a published decision, the court decided to modify Wilson's sentence. One judge dissented. Jeremy Ross Wilson was an inmate who escaped from a work center. He was arrested later and faced charges for his escape. He pleaded guilty and was given a long sentence, but he later wanted to take back his guilty plea. His motion to do so was denied, and he appealed that decision. The case included a problem with how the state used Wilson's past felony convictions. The law says you cannot use the same prior convictions to charge someone with a crime and to make the punishment worse for that crime. The state did that with Wilson, using five of his past felonies to both charge him and to increase his punishment. Because of this, the court found that Wilson had been given a harsher sentence than what was allowed by law. The main question was whether Wilson had entered his guilty plea voluntarily and intelligently. It was found that he had. However, the court also decided that the sentence needed to be corrected. Wilson's lawyer did not challenge the state's use of the prior felonies, which was seen as ineffective help. As a result, the court modified Wilson's sentence to a shorter term of seven years instead of fifteen. Wilson would also have to be supervised for a year once released and pay fines. The court affirmed the decision to deny his request to withdraw his guilty plea but changed the length of his sentence.

F-2015-933

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 16, 2016
Post category:F

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.

RE-2015-844

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 17, 2016
Post category:RE

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.