Oklahoma Law

F-2019-912

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-912, Charles Issac Jacobs appealed his conviction for Aggravated Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Jacobs was charged in McCurtain County after a jury found him guilty and sentenced him to two years in prison. During his appeal, he raised several points: 1. **Jurisdiction**: Jacobs argued that the State did not have authority to prosecute him because the victim was an Indian, and the crime happened in Indian Country. The trial court found that Jacobs was not an Indian according to legal standards, while the victim was. The court also determined that the crime took place within the boundaries of the Choctaw Reservation, meaning the State had the jurisdiction to proceed with the case. 2. **Self-Defense**: Jacobs claimed that he acted in self-defense when he assaulted the victim. The court noted that self-defense is a legal reason for actions that would typically be considered crimes. However, the court found there was enough evidence to show that Jacobs did not have a reasonable belief that he was in danger when he attacked the victim. 3. **Jury Instructions**: Jacobs requested that the jury be given a specific instruction about standing your ground during the trial. The court stated that whether to give specific jury instructions is up to the trial judge. They found that Jacobs did not meet the legal requirements for this instruction because there wasn’t enough evidence showing he was in a situation where he could lawfully defend himself. 4. **Monetary Fine**: At sentencing, the jury did not impose a fine, but the court record incorrectly showed a fine of $500 was imposed. The State and Jacobs both agreed that this was a mistake. The court instructed that this clerical error should be corrected. The main decision reached by the court was that Jacobs' conviction was upheld. They affirmed that the State had the right to prosecute him, and there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction. However, the court also ordered that the punishment record should be corrected to show that no fine was actually imposed.

Continue ReadingF-2019-912

F-2019-115

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-115, Beck appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including First Degree Burglary and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have the authority to prosecute him because he is recognized as an Indian and the crimes occurred in what is considered Indian Country. The result was that Beck's convictions were overturned, and the case was sent back with instructions to dismiss the charges. There was a dissenting opinion regarding the application of the law.

Continue ReadingF-2019-115

F-2019-588

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-588, Ricky Eugene Spencer appealed his conviction for two counts of Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Ricky Eugene Spencer was found guilty of shooting at two people, which led to his conviction. The trial took place in Muskogee County, where the jury decided on a twenty-year sentence for each count. However, the judge allowed for some of that time to be suspended and had conditions for probation. During his appeal, Spencer raised several issues, but one stood out: the jury was given the wrong instructions about transferred intent. This is a legal concept that says if someone means to hurt one person but accidentally hurts someone else, the intent to harm can still apply to the actual victim. The court found there was indeed an error in how the jury was instructed. Spencer did not challenge the instruction during the trial, so the court reviewed the mistake under plain error, meaning it was an obvious error that affected the fairness of the trial. The judge explained that the jury was incorrectly told they could find Spencer guilty of intent to kill based on a lesser intention to injure or scare someone else. This meant they could convict him without the proof needed for a serious crime like shooting with intent to kill. The prosecution argued that Spencer aimed to kill one person and mistakenly shot two bystanders. However, the trial's instructions could have allowed the jury to convict him based on weaker proof than required. During discussions, the jury showed they weren't completely convinced, asking questions that suggested they were unsure. The prosecutor's arguments during the trial also emphasized the wrong aspects of the law, pushing the jury toward an improper conclusion. Overall, the court could not be sure that the jury understood what they needed to prove. Therefore, they ruled that the error affected Spencer's rights significantly, requiring a new trial to ensure fairness. The decision means that Spencer would get another chance to defend himself in court, as the guidelines for convicting him were not properly explained the first time.

Continue ReadingF-2019-588

RE-2019-19

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-19, Daniel Lee Hart appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that revoking his suspended sentence without him being present was a violation of his right to due process, and therefore, the revocation was reversed. One judge dissented. Daniel Lee Hart originally pleaded guilty in 2009 to trying to manufacture a controlled substance. He was given a 20-year sentence, with 12 years of that being suspended, meaning he didn't have to serve that part of the time as long as he followed certain rules. One of those rules was that he had to stay clean from drugs and check in regularly with his probation officer. In 2017, the state said that Hart had broken the rules. They said he had used drugs, didn’t show up for meetings with his probation officer in both Oklahoma and Kansas, didn’t register as a drug offender in Kansas, didn’t pay fees for his probation, and hadn’t completed his GED as he was supposed to. Hart later agreed to these claims but was able to be released for drug treatment for a few months before being sentenced. When the time came for his sentencing, Hart did not show up. Because he was absent, the court revoked the suspended part of his sentence completely. This meant he would have to serve the full 20 years instead of just the 8 years that he had left to serve. Hart appealed this decision, saying it was unfair for the court to make such a serious decision without him being there. The court looked at whether Hart's absence affected his right to defend himself. They said that everyone has the right to be present when decisions are made about their punishment. The court noted that Hart had not willingly chosen to skip the sentencing and that his absence could have greatly impacted the outcome. Because of these reasons, the court said Hart deserved a new hearing where he could be present to possibly explain why he wasn’t there and defend himself more fully. The final decision was to send the case back for another hearing. They wanted to make sure Hart had a fair chance to be present when the consequences of his actions were discussed again. In summary, because Hart was missing during a very important hearing, the court agreed that this was a mistake. They reversed the earlier decision and ordered a new hearing where he could be present.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-19

S-2019-479

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case involving Chris Forte and Skyla Forte, who were charged with Child Abuse by Injury and Child Neglect. The order of the District Court, which quashed the child abuse charge due to insufficient evidence, has been reversed by the appellate court. Key points from the document include: 1. The appellate court held that the District Court abused its discretion in determining that the magistrate's bind-over order for Count 1 (Child Abuse by Injury) was not based on competent evidence. 2. The preliminary hearing established that the alleged victim, a six-year-old girl named K.K., suffered extensive bruising and malnourishment which were reported as a result of the conduct of the Appellees. 3. Evidence included testimony from a child abuse pediatrician whose findings indicated that the injuries were consistent with abuse rather than legitimate disciplinary actions. 4. The court stated that the determination of whether the force used was reasonable or excessive is typically a matter for a jury to decide. 5. Ultimately, the matter has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. The case illustrates the legal standards for assessing probable cause during preliminary hearings and clarifies the threshold for determining whether the use of physical discipline may cross into abusive conduct under Oklahoma law.

Continue ReadingS-2019-479

F-2017-1019

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1019, Johnson appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Johnson's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Johnson was found guilty of abusing a child and was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. He also had to pay a fine and would be supervised after serving his time. Johnson argued that the evidence against him wasn't enough, that the jury didn't get proper instructions, that his lawyer didn't help him much, and that he didn’t know he would be on a list of sex offenders if convicted. The court looked closely at all these claims and found no significant problems. First, the court said there was enough evidence for the jury to decide Johnson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Johnson claimed the actions happened because of a dream, but the jury believed otherwise. The court said that it would not change the jury's decision as they followed the law. Second, the court noted that the jury had received instructions about what would happen after Johnson was imprisoned. So, this point did not hold. Third, Johnson's claim about his lawyer not performing well was also denied. For this claim to work, Johnson would need to show that his lawyer made a serious mistake that hurt his defense. However, Johnson only gave statements about his own state of mind without clear evidence to support his claim. The court found that his lawyer did not make mistakes that harmed Johnson's case. Next, the court looked at the claim about sex offender registration. Johnson said the jury should have been told more about this, but he never asked for this instruction during the trial. The court decided there was no clear error because they had already ruled on this issue in past cases. Finally, the court dismissed Johnson's claim about the combined effects of the errors. Since they found no significant errors, they concluded that his right to a fair trial had not been violated. In the end, the court upheld Johnson's conviction and sentencing, affirming the judgment made by the lower court.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1019

PC-2018-723

  • Post author:
  • Post category:PC

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

Continue ReadingPC-2018-723

J 2019-0283

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2019-0283, D. J., III appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the order granting the imposition of an adult sentence. One judge dissented. D. J., III, who was born on November 1, 2000, faced serious charges after taking part in a hazing incident at school. The state wanted to try him as an adult, which is a significant step for a young person. This happened after a court decided that D. J. could not be helped enough through the juvenile system and that the public needed more protection. The court had a hearing on April 5, 2019, where the judge reviewed evidence and decided that D. J. should face adult charges. The main arguments in the case included whether the earlier ruling was correct and if it used the right laws to make its decision. D. J. argued that the state did not show strong enough evidence to justify moving him to adult court. When D. J. appealed, he claimed two main problems with how the trial was handled. First, he believed the state did not provide clear evidence for why he should be seen as an adult rather than a juvenile. Next, he said that the judge applied the wrong law when making the decision. However, the court found that the judge's decision was reasonable and based on the facts presented during the hearing. The court stated that judges have the right to decide which witnesses to believe and how to weigh their testimonies. The judges on the court agreed that even though there was a mistake in mentioning the wrong law, this did not harm D. J.'s case because both laws were similar. The important aspects of the case were clear, and ultimately, D. J. was seen as not being able to complete rehabilitation in the juvenile system. In the dissenting opinion, the judge expressed concern that the law limits how long juveniles can be kept under the juvenile system, and this may not allow for fair treatment when they are close to being adults. The dissenting judge felt that D. J. still had the potential for rehabilitation and disagreed with moving him to adult court. In summary, the court decided to uphold the decision to treat D. J. as an adult following the state's appeal, while one judge thought this decision should be reconsidered, suggesting changes to juvenile sentencing laws to allow more flexibility for young offenders.

Continue ReadingJ 2019-0283

F-2018-350

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-350, Jonathan Brent Buccino appealed his conviction for three counts of embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Jonathan was found guilty in a trial where the judge decided the case without a jury. He was accused of taking money from an investment, which he was supposed to use for software development, but instead, he used the money for other purposes. The judge gave him five years in prison for each count, but these sentences were suspended, meaning he wouldn’t go to prison right away, if at all. During his appeal, Jonathan claimed that the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove he committed a crime. He argued that the only proof was what people said in their testimony, not any written documents. He believed that this meant the state did not meet its obligation to show he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court explained that when figuring out if there was enough evidence for a conviction, they look at it in a way that favors the state. This means they assume the evidence presented was correct and that the jury found the witnesses believable. Even if there were different opinions, the judge made the final call on what was credible. The court found that Jonathan was only allowed to use the invested money for software development, and the state showed he used it elsewhere, which was enough to prove he was guilty. In his second claim, Jonathan argued that the “Statute of Frauds” should have applied to his case. He thought that this statute meant any agreement needed to be in writing if it couldn’t be completed within a year, and since he didn’t have a written agreement, his case shouldn’t have been criminal. The court explained that embezzlement doesn’t need a contract, and whether or not there was a written agreement was not important. The crime was based on his actions, not on whether a written contract existed. The court also noted that the decision to bring a criminal case was the district attorney’s responsibility and that the evidence provided was enough to charge him with a crime, regardless of whether he might have been open to a civil case as well. In conclusion, the court affirmed Jonathan’s conviction, meaning they agreed with the original decision of the trial court.

Continue ReadingF-2018-350

F-2017-802

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-802, Jestin Tafolla appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and Carrying a Weapon Unlawfully. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Tafolla was sentenced to life imprisonment for the assault and thirty days in jail for the misdemeanor charge, with the sentences served at the same time. His appeal raised several issues, mainly about whether his trial was fair. He claimed that evidence of his gang affiliation unfairly influenced the jury, that introducing certain statements violated his rights, and that errors occurred during the trial process. The court discussed the details of the case where Tafolla assaulted a man following a traffic dispute. Detectives witnessed Tafolla hitting the victim and confiscated brass knuckles he discarded. Witness statements indicated that racial slurs were part of the altercation. The court found that the evidence of Tafolla's gang membership was relevant to understand the incident and the motivations behind it. It ruled that the testimony related to his affiliation did not violate his rights and was permissible to show motive and intent. They also addressed Tafolla's complaints about the admission of the victim's statements, concluding that these did not prevent a fair trial. The admission of prior convictions for cross-examination purposes was also deemed appropriate as it was relevant to the prosecution's case. In issues raised about the prosecutor's conduct and jury instructions, the court determined that no significant errors impacted the trial. The arguments made by the prosecution were within the acceptable realm of discussing the evidence. Overall, the court found no individual errors that would require a new trial and concluded that the accumulation of complaints did not undermine the fairness of the proceedings. Thus, the original judgment was upheld, and Tafolla’s appeal was denied.

Continue ReadingF-2017-802

S-2018-164

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

This document is an opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in a criminal case involving Don Arneilus Ingram. The opinion details the legal proceedings stemming from Ingram’s arrest and the subsequent suppression of evidence obtained during that arrest. **Key Points of the Case:** 1. **Charges Against Ingram**: Don Arneilus Ingram faced multiple felony charges including trafficking in illegal drugs, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of proceeds from illegal drug activity, with the state alleging that these crimes were committed after previous felony convictions. 2. **Initial Detention and Arrest**: The arresting officer, Sergeant Greg Bell, initially noticed Ingram driving a vehicle with a temporary tag in a high-crime area. After observing suspicious behavior, including Ingram’s inability to identify a friend he claimed to be visiting, Sgt. Bell approached Ingram to ask questions. This led to Sgt. Bell detaining Ingram for driving without a license. 3. **Search Incident to Arrest**: Following the arrest, Sgt. Bell conducted a search of Ingram, which yielded a large amount of cash and identification. After noticing Ingram acting nervously and attempting to direct his female companion to leave, officers subsequently searched the vehicle Ingram had been driving, finding significant quantities of illegal drugs and a firearm. 4. **Motion to Suppress Evidence**: Ingram filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him and that the search was therefore unlawful. 5. **District Court’s Ruling**: The district court granted Ingram's motion to suppress, determining that the initial contact was not lawful and that the subsequent search of the vehicle was unreasonable. 6. **Court of Criminal Appeals Decision**: The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the district court's order. The court found that Sgt. Bell's initial interaction with Ingram was a consensual encounter and that sufficient probable cause existed for both the arrest and the search of the vehicle. **Conclusion**: The appellate court concluded that the evidence should not have been suppressed, underscoring the importance of analyzing the totality of circumstances leading to an officer’s determination of probable cause. The decision emphasizes that even behavior that seems innocent in isolation can, when viewed in context, lead to reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The court remanded the case for further proceedings. For a complete review of this case and its legal implications, interested parties can download a PDF of the full opinion.

Continue ReadingS-2018-164

C-2018-675

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

The summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals involves a case where Rayvon Latroy Johnson sought to withdraw his guilty plea for the charge of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. Johnson's plea was initially found untimely by one day, but that decision was based on an oversight regarding the observance of President's Day, a legal holiday when the courthouse was closed. The court agreed with Johnson, acknowledging that the deadline for filing his motion to withdraw the plea was extended to the next business day due to the holiday. Therefore, the initial decision by the district court was incorrect. Additionally, the court found that Johnson's counsel failed to provide effective assistance by not establishing the timeliness of the plea withdrawal motion, constituting a lapse in observing his rights under both the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions. As a result, the court granted Johnson's petition for a writ of certiorari and remanded the case to the District Court of Oklahoma County for a new hearing on the motion to withdraw his guilty plea. This outcome reflects careful consideration of procedural fairness and adherence to legal standards for filing deadlines and the right to effective legal counsel.

Continue ReadingC-2018-675

F-2017-1103

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1103, the appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One justice dissented. Jose Jonathan Rivera-Chavez was convicted of killing Wanda Cooper at a hotel. On December 27, 2016, Cooper went to the hotel office pleading for help while covered in blood. She collapsed shortly after and died from her injuries. Witnesses saw Rivera-Chavez trying to open car doors nearby after the incident. The police found him on the run and apprehended him with help from a police dog. Evidence showed blood on his clothes matched Cooper's. During the trial, Rivera-Chavez claimed he was under the influence of drugs and did not intend to kill Cooper. He admitted to stabbing her multiple times with a knife after becoming paranoid during a drug high. Despite his defense, the court noted that his actions and demeanor suggested he was not severely intoxicated. One key issue in the appeal was whether the court allowed evidence of Rivera-Chavez's silence after being read his rights, which he claimed violated his rights. The court found that this evidence was used properly to address his claim of voluntary intoxication and did not unfairly suggest guilt. The court concluded that even if there had been some error in admitting the evidence, it was harmless because ample evidence showed Rivera-Chavez's intent to kill. The judgment and sentence were ultimately upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1103

F-2017-994

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-994, Holly Tegan Zuniga-Griffin appealed her conviction for Enabling Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction. One judge dissented. The case involved Holly Tegan Zuniga-Griffin, who was found guilty of enabling the abuse of her three-year-old son. The jury in Muskogee County decided she was guilty of this crime based on the evidence presented during the trial. She was sentenced to ten years in prison, following the jury's recommendation. Zuniga-Griffin raised several issues in her appeal. First, she argued that the law regarding child abuse was unclear and vague. However, the court found no reason to change its previous decisions on this issue and denied her claim. Next, she claimed there wasn't enough evidence to prove she understood her child was in danger when she left him with her 17-year-old boyfriend. The court disagreed, stating there was enough evidence to show she should have known her child was at risk. Zuniga-Griffin had made inconsistent statements about how her son got hurt, and medical evidence indicated he had been physically abused. She also said she was denied a fair trial because the judge didn't instruct the jury properly. The court acknowledged that some jury instructions could have been appropriate, but overall, they did not think this affected the trial's fairness. Another point she raised was about a nurse giving an opinion in court when she didn't have the right qualifications. The court found that the nurse did have enough training and experience to testify about the injuries on the child, so they disagreed with Zuniga-Griffin's claim. Zuniga-Griffin contended that the prosecution failed to provide important evidence that could have helped her case. However, the court concluded that she was aware of the photos in question during the trial and did not attempt to use them, dismissing her argument. She also claimed her lawyer did not do a good job representing her, which negatively impacted her trial. But the court found her lawyer's decisions were reasonable and did not affect the outcome. Zuniga-Griffin then argued that her ten-year sentence was excessively harsh. The court noted that her son had suffered serious injuries, and her sentence was within what the law allowed, so they did not find it shocking. Finally, she stated that all the errors combined during the trial made it unfair. The court determined that the errors she identified did not, either separately or together, undermine her right to a fair trial. In the end, the decision of the trial court was upheld, meaning Zuniga-Griffin would serve her sentence as originally decided.

Continue ReadingF-2017-994

F-2016-997

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the case of Jimmie Lee Lovell, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed his convictions for First Degree Manslaughter and Driving Under the Influence. Lovell challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress blood test results, arguing he was not given an opportunity for independent testing as required by statute. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion, since Lovell did not request a sample for independent testing during the proper timeframe. Additionally, Lovell argued that the jury’s verdicts—guilty of First Degree Manslaughter and not guilty of Negligent Homicide—were inconsistent. The appeals court found that no objection had been raised regarding the verdict at trial, and therefore reviewed for plain error, concluding there was no actual error affecting his rights, as the jury’s intent was clear. The court noted a variance between the jury’s recommended punishment in Count II (Ten days and a $1,000 fine) and the subsequent sentence (one year in jail). The case was remanded for correction of this discrepancy. Overall, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence in Count I, affirmed the judgment in Count II, and ordered the trial court to correct the Judgment and Sentence in Count II in accordance with the jury's recommendation.

Continue ReadingF-2016-997

M-2016-596

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2016-596, Lyndol Keith Nunley appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. The case began with a non-jury trial in which Nunley was found guilty of committing domestic abuse against someone he knew. The judge sentenced Nunley to pay a fine and to spend time in county jail. Initially, he was required to serve his jail time day for day, meaning he would serve the full year without any reductions. However, this requirement was later changed. Nunley appealed for three main reasons. First, he claimed his lawyer did not do a good job because there was no record of what happened during the trial, which made it hard for him to appeal. The court explained that to prove a lawyer was ineffective, a person must show how this caused them harm. Since Nunley did not give enough proof or show that any errors happened during the trial, his claim was not accepted. Second, Nunley argued that his sentence was too harsh. He believed the day for day term made his punishment excessive. However, since that requirement was removed after he filed his appeal, this argument was no longer valid. Lastly, Nunley pointed out that he received the maximum penalty allowed by law. The court noted that while it did impose the maximum jail time, his fine was much lower than what he could have received. The judges decided that Nunley did not show that his sentence was shocking or unfair, so they rejected his request to change it. In the end, the judges upheld the decision made in the lower court, meaning Nunley had to serve his sentence as it was decided.

Continue ReadingM-2016-596

RE-2014-371

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-371, Holland appealed his conviction for Rape in the Second Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation order regarding his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Holland pleaded guilty to a crime and received a sentence that included five years of imprisonment, but with some of that time suspended as long as he followed rules set by the court. However, he did not follow these rules, such as reporting to his probation officer and attending required treatment. Because of this, the court revoked his suspended sentence and ordered him to serve the full five years. Holland felt the punishment was too harsh and claimed he had tried to follow the rules. He argued that he should not have to serve the full five years because only a part of that sentence was supposed to be enforced. The court looked carefully at his claims. They found that Holland had not fully complied with the rules he agreed to follow, and therefore, they believed the judge was correct in deciding to revoke his suspension. However, they agreed that the judge had made an error when stating he had to serve five years in prison since he had already served part of that time. Ultimately, the court decided to change the revocation order so that Holland would only need to serve four years and eleven months, which is the remaining part of his original sentence. The court confirmed their decision and instructed the District Court to make the necessary changes.

Continue ReadingRE-2014-371

F-2012-567

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-567, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, shooting with intent to kill, and possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence for the first-degree murder charge to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, and the sentence for the possession of a firearm charge to seven years imprisonment. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Mario Lenard Phenix was found guilty of killing Nicholas Martin and injuring Alex Shaw during a dispute on December 31, 2010. The incident involved Phenix, his former girlfriend, and her friends after a night out at a club. Phenix had been angry after his girlfriend ended their relationship, which led to threatening phone calls and ultimately to the shooting. The trial revealed different accounts of what happened that night. Witnesses said Phenix confronted the men with a gun, fired at them, and later, after a struggle, shot Martin again while inside his car. Phenix claimed he shot in self-defense, saying Martin was armed and aggressive. However, the jury rejected this, finding him guilty of murder and other charges. During the trial, Phenix raised several issues on appeal. He argued that he should have been allowed to present a lesser charge of manslaughter. However, because his self-defense claim would have resulted in an outright acquittal if believed, the court found that the jury's instructions were sufficient. Phenix also claimed that the trial process was unfair because the order of presenting evidence might have influenced the jury's decision on punishment. The court agreed that there was a procedural error but found it did not affect the fairness of the trial or the sentence imposed, except for the first-degree murder, which was modified to allow parole. Other arguments related to the introduction of evidence about Phenix's past violent behavior and comments made by the prosecutor during closing arguments were also addressed. The court found no prejudicial errors in these matters that would have affected the trial's outcome. In summary, the decision affirmed the conviction while modifying certain sentences, indicating that, despite some procedural issues, the overall due process was upheld in the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2012-567

RE 2012-0575

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0575, Greenlow appealed his conviction for several offenses, including unlawful possession of a controlled substance and false impersonation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Greenlow's suspended sentences but ordered a remand to modify one of his sentences due to it being longer than the law allows. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE 2012-0575

S-2012-214

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-214, Nhanh Van Dang and Nhi Thi Nguyen appealed their conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and conspiracy to traffic in illegal drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's decision to suppress the evidence, meaning the charges against them could not proceed. One judge dissented. The case began when law enforcement stopped the vehicle driving by Dang and Nguyen. They were suspected of breaking traffic laws, but the court found that the officers did not have enough reason to pull them over. The original judge ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the stop, which led to the suppression of the evidence gathered afterward. The state tried to argue that the stop was justified because of alleged traffic violations. However, the appeals court agreed with the lower court's decision, saying the evidence did not clearly show that the officers had a good reason to stop the vehicle. Since the stop was deemed improper, the gathered evidence could not be used in court against Dang and Nguyen. Therefore, the appeals court confirmed that the right decision was made by the lower court in suppressing the evidence, reinforcing the idea that fair legal procedures must be followed.

Continue ReadingS-2012-214

F-2010-615

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-615, Lawrence Grant Stewart appealed his conviction for several crimes involving child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one count due to double punishment but affirmed the rest of the convictions. One judge dissented. Lawrence Grant Stewart was found guilty by a jury for multiple crimes, including lewd molestation, rape by instrumentation, and child sexual abuse. The jury recommended long prison sentences for each of the counts, leading to a total of several decades in prison. Stewart's appeal raised several issues regarding his trial and convictions. One point of appeal was that Stewart did not get effective help from his lawyer during the trial. He argued that his lawyer shared too much personal information with the jury, which he believed should not have been revealed. However, the court found that the lawyer's decisions were made to help Stewart and did not seriously harm his chances in the case. Stewart also claimed that he received multiple sentences for the same behavior, which he believed violated his rights. The court agreed in part, particularly regarding one count of child sexual abuse, and decided to reverse that count and dismiss it. However, they found that separate punishments for the other crimes were appropriate since they involved different actions. Lastly, Stewart argued that the sentences he received should not be served one after the other (consecutively), but the court decided the original judge made the right choice in this matter. In summary, while some of Stewart's appeal points were accepted and one count was reversed, most of his convictions remained upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2010-615

C-2010-337

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-337, Derrick Ewayne Bickham appealed his conviction for felonious pointing of a firearm and being a felon in possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal. One member dissented. Bickham entered no contest pleas for several charges in a District Court, resulting in a 20-year sentence for robbery and other related offenses. He argued that his pleas were made under coercion and did not reflect a clear understanding of the situation due to his mental health issues. However, the court found that Bickham entered his pleas knowingly and voluntarily, dismissing his claims of coercion. Additionally, Bickham contested that he should not have to pay for the costs related to his incarceration. The court ruled that he could challenge the cost calculation in a different court proceeding. The decision denied Bickham's petition but sent the case back to the District Court to assess if he was considered mentally ill, which could exempt him from incarceration costs.

Continue ReadingC-2010-337

J-2010-653

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2010-653, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including arson and assault on a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the juvenile court's order certifying the appellant as an adult. Two justices dissented. The appellant, who was around seventeen-and-a-half years old at the time of the incidents, faced serious charges, including arson and endangering human life. The state wanted to treat him as an adult, and a judge agreed to this on June 25, 2010. However, the appellant's defense argued that the state did not provide clear and convincing evidence to support this decision. During the appeal, the court examined whether the evidence justified treating the appellant as an adult. The judges noted that the law allows for such decisions only in exceptional cases, where a child is deemed not able to benefit from rehabilitation provided in juvenile programs. The appellant's side argued that he was receptive to treatment, as shown by his actions post-incident. He was receiving proper medical treatment after struggling with prescription medication and alcohol use, and he was advancing in his rehabilitation efforts. The justices found that the evidence presented showed the appellant was amenable to treatment and could be rehabilitated if kept within the juvenile system. The court emphasized that just because the acts committed were serious does not mean the child should be treated as an adult without proper evidence. Ultimately, the appeal resulted in the reversal of the certification order, meaning the appellant should not be treated as an adult and should be retained in the juvenile system. The dissenting opinions raised concerns about the risks of letting the appellant remain a juvenile, suggesting that not treating him as an adult could endanger the community given the serious nature of his actions. They believed that the judge's original decision should have been upheld. In conclusion, the majority opinion favored rehabilitation over punishment as an adult, highlighting the importance of the juvenile justice system's focus on the potential for reform and supervision.

Continue ReadingJ-2010-653

F-2009-177

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-177, Jesse James Stout appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child and exhibition of obscene materials to a minor child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some convictions and reverse others. One judge dissented. Jesse James Stout was found guilty by a jury of eight counts of sexual abuse of a child and three counts of exhibiting obscene materials to a minor. He received a total sentence of many years in prison for these convictions. The sentences for some counts were served one after another, which is called consecutive sentencing. Stout raised several points in his appeal. First, he claimed that the trial court should have let him stop talking to the police when he asked for a lawyer. However, the court determined that his request was not clear enough, and since he had not been charged with the crimes at that time, his rights had not been violated. Second, he argued that having eight counts of sexual abuse was wrong when it should have been fewer counts. But the court found that the State had clearly explained all the charges, and the jury was told to look at each claim separately. Third, Stout contended that the trial court made a mistake by changing the charges at the end of the trial. The court allowed the State to change the information for the three counts of showing obscene materials. The trial court said this change would not hurt Stout's defense because the new charge carried a lesser sentence. However, the court found that this amendment was unfair and hurt Stout’s ability to defend himself properly because it changed the nature of what he was being charged with. As a result of these findings, the court affirmed the convictions related to the eight counts of sexual abuse, but reversed the convictions for the three counts of exhibiting obscene materials and ordered a new trial for those counts. Some judges agreed with the decisions while one judge disagreed with the reversal of the three counts.

Continue ReadingF-2009-177

S-2009-719

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-719, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol, Second and Subsequent Offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's decision, which had quashed the felony charge. One member of the court dissented. Leslie Doyle was charged with multiple offenses, including a second DUI, after a traffic incident on April 1, 2001. Initially, the state claimed Doyle had a prior DUI conviction from June 17, 1998, which would elevate his charge from a misdemeanor to a felony. However, Doyle's attorney argued that since more than ten years had passed since the 1998 conviction, this should not be treated as a felony charge under Oklahoma law. After entertaining arguments from both sides, the special judge ruled in favor of Doyle, stating that because of the ten-year rule, the state could not pursue a felony charge against him. The state then appealed the decision. The core of the argument revolved around the interpretation of statutes related to DUI offenses. The state believed that the existing law allowed them to enhance the charge based on the earlier conviction if the DUI was committed within ten years, regardless of the conviction date. Meanwhile, Doyle maintained that his prior conviction had to occur within ten years of the new charge in order for it to be considered a felony. The reviewing district court confirmed the special judge's ruling, concluding that the law explicitly states convicted and not merely committed, meaning that for enhancement to apply, Doyle's prior conviction must have occurred within the ten-year timeframe, which was not the case here. Ultimately, the court found in favor of Doyle, maintaining that the specific statutes dealing with DUI enhancement supported his case. The court's opinion affirmed the lower court's decision to quash the supplemental information that would have allowed for the felony charge to proceed. A member of the court disagreed with this conclusion and expressed dissent.

Continue ReadingS-2009-719