Oklahoma Statutes

C-2021-504

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2021-504, Starlyn Sean Hill appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including aggravated possession of child pornography and multiple counts of rape and sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his appeal, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented from the opinion. Hill had pleaded guilty to several counts, and upon sentencing, he received a lengthy prison term. After his plea, he filed a motion to withdraw it, arguing that he felt rushed into making his decision and that he was misinformed about the potential consequences. He also raised issues regarding the statute of limitations for some of the charges, claiming that ten of them should not have been prosecuted because they were filed too late. The court reviewed the case and found that the prosecution for some of the counts may indeed have been beyond the statute of limitations. They concluded there were errors in how Hill’s plea was accepted, particularly as he did not properly waive his right to challenge the statute of limitations on several counts. This led the court to determine that his guilty plea was not made voluntarily or intelligently. As a result, the court vacated Hill's judgment and sentence and instructed that he be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. The case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings that would not contradict this new decision.

Continue ReadingC-2021-504

S-2022-41

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2022-41, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Joshua Kyle Rhynard for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, possession of a controlled dangerous substance (marijuana), and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the appeal was improperly brought and dismissed it. One judge dissented, arguing that the State made a sufficient case for review based on the importance of the evidence that had been suppressed. The dissenting opinion believed that the trial court made an error in suppressing the evidence found during a search because the officers executing the warrant used reasonable belief about the address they were searching.

Continue ReadingS-2022-41

C-2020-691

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2020-691, Raheem Travon Walker appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery on an Employee of a Juvenile Detention Facility. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Walker's request to withdraw his guilty plea and go to trial. One judge dissented. To explain further, Walker was 17 years old when he pleaded guilty to the crime. He entered into a deal, thinking he would be part of a special program for young adults where his sentence would be delayed. However, later it was discovered that he was not eligible for this program due to a past juvenile record for robbery. Because of this ineligibility, the judge gave him a different sentence, which he believed was not what he had agreed to. After realizing that he did not get what he had bargained for, Walker asked if he could change his mind about the plea. A hearing took place, but his request was denied. He then appealed the decision, arguing that he was not helped properly by his lawyer during the process. The court found that he had a valid point since he entered the agreement expecting specific benefits, which were not provided. Because of this, the court decided he should have another chance and allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea. The dissenting opinion argued that Walker had not raised the issue of not having a proper plea form and thus had waived that right. They believed there was no mistake about the plea agreement and questioned whether Walker's claim had enough basis to warrant this new decision. Regardless, the majority found that Walker’s concerns about his plea and the sentence should be addressed by allowing him to go to trial.

Continue ReadingC-2020-691

F-2019-417

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-417, Henry Warren Kwe Kwe appealed his conviction for Conjoint Robbery, Shooting with Intent to Kill, Possession of a Sawed-Off Shotgun, and Leaving Scene of a Collision Involving Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Kwe Kwe's convictions on all counts except for the Victim Compensation Assessment for Count 4, which was vacated. Kwe Kwe dissented. Kwe Kwe was found guilty of several serious crimes stemming from an incident involving a robbery and a shooting. The trial revealed that he, along with accomplices, confronted the victim, demanding her money while one of them displayed a weapon. When the victim attempted to call for help, she was shot in the back with a shotgun. Following this, the robbers took her purse and fled. On appeal, Kwe Kwe raised numerous issues regarding his convictions. He argued that being convicted for both robbery and shooting violated laws against multiple punishments for a single act. However, the court found that the robbery and the shooting were distinct actions. The shooting was meant to prevent the victim from escaping and to eliminate her as a witness, rather than to take possession of her belongings. Kwe Kwe also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence against him, claiming he wasn't the shooter. However, the jury had enough circumstantial evidence to conclude he aided in the crime, as he orchestrated the robbery and knew one accomplice was armed. Also, he was found in possession of a sawed-off shotgun shortly after the incident. The court held that the evidence supported the conclusion he was culpable for aiding and abetting the shooter. Another argument from Kwe Kwe revolved around the legality of the sawed-off shotgun itself. He claimed the prosecution didn't prove the shotgun's barrel was less than 18 inches, which would classify it as sawn-off under the law. Nevertheless, the officer testified that the weapon was a modified sawed-off shotgun and that the jury could determine this after examining it. Moreover, Kwe Kwe claimed that the court’s language when discussing the victim's injuries went against the norms of a fair trial. However, the court found this testimony relevant, as it demonstrated the severity of the attack and the intent behind the actions taken by Kwe Kwe and his accomplices. Lastly, he argued that his legal counsel did not perform adequately by failing to raise certain legal defenses and objections during the trial. Yet, the court determined that any such failures did not adversely affect his rights or the outcome of the case. In summary, Kwe Kwe's convictions remained intact, and while some procedural missteps were noted, none were sufficient to reverse the verdict aside from the correction regarding the Victim Compensation Assessment linked to his charge. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision overall, while rectifying the single financial aspect.

Continue ReadingF-2019-417

C-2019-15

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2019-15, Nicholas Allan Daniel appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder (Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance) and Robbery with a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his request for a writ of certiorari, modifying his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder while reversing his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm. One judge dissented from this opinion. Nicholas Daniel faced serious charges after being accused of killing a man while trying to sell drugs and also robbing him. He pleaded guilty to these charges but later wanted to withdraw his plea. He felt that his lawyer did not help him enough during the process, and he raised several reasons for this claim. He argued that the lawyer had a conflict of interest, that he did not fully understand the consequences of his plea, that the plea lacked a good factual basis, and that he did not get effective help from his lawyer. The court carefully examined each of Daniel's arguments. In the first argument, the court found no real conflict of interest because Daniel’s dissatisfaction stemmed from the state’s evidence and the sentence, not from his lawyer's performance. In the second argument, it was decided that Daniel had entered the plea with a clear understanding that he would face sentencing and that it was done voluntarily. For the third argument, about the factual basis for his felony murder conviction, the court found that there were issues with how the charges were presented. It was determined that the way Daniel described the incident in his plea was inadequate to meet the legal requirements for felony murder because he was treated primarily as a buyer, not a seller of drugs. Thus, the combined crimes could not both stand. In terms of Daniel's claims against his lawyer's effectiveness, the court acknowledged that his lawyer could have done better. However, it ruled against some of Daniel's more serious arguments on the effectiveness of his lawyer, finding that he did not provide sufficient proof that his lawyer’s actions negatively affected his defense. In the final decision, the court adjusted Daniel's felony murder conviction based on the issues around how the charges were processed and reversed the robbery conviction, as it should not stand alongside the adjusted murder charge. Ultimately, the court confirmed Daniel's modified conviction for felony murder but sent the case back regarding the robbery count. One judge disagreed with parts of this conclusion, stating that the trial court had not made a mistake in the first place and therefore should not have granted the appeal. The judge argued that since Daniel's plea was expressed clearly and voluntarily, it should have been upheld without modification. The judge emphasized the importance of adhering to proper legal processes and rules when making such determinations. Thus, the outcome celebrated the importance of ensuring that legal principles and procedures are correctly applied, even as it affirmed Daniel’s conviction under modified circumstances.

Continue ReadingC-2019-15

S-2019-242

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2019-242, the State of Oklahoma appealed Wesley Warren Peritt Weaver, II's conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child Under 12. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that denied the State's request to introduce evidence of the defendant's prior sexual offenses as propensity evidence. One judge dissented. This case started on January 5, 2017, when the defendant, Weaver, was charged with sexually abusing his daughter, A.W., from 2011 to 2016. During a preliminary hearing, A.W. claimed that her father abused her and shared this information with her mother. The case involved testimonies from both A.W.'s mother and a forensic interviewer who assessed A.W. The State later sought to present evidence of previous sexual offenses allegedly committed by Weaver against another child, A.A., to demonstrate a pattern of behavior. A.A. testified that Weaver had molested her several years earlier. However, during a hearing, the trial court decided not to allow this evidence, stating that its probative value was less than the potential for unfair prejudice against Weaver. The State of Oklahoma appealed this ruling. They argued that the trial court made an error in not permitting the sexual propensity evidence, which could provide context for Weaver's behavior in the current case. The appellate court looked closely at the details of the case and the rules surrounding the admissibility of such evidence. Ultimately, the appellate court ruled to affirm the trial court's decision, meaning that the prior offense evidence would not be allowed during the trial against Weaver. The court concluded that the trial court's decision was reasonable and did not abuse its discretion. They found solid reasoning in the trial court's assessment of the evidence's relevance versus its potential negative impact on the jury's perception. One judge disagreed with the majority opinion, believing that the trial court had not fully considered the nuances of the sexual propensity laws and had conflated different types of evidentiary standards. This dissenting opinion emphasized the importance of acknowledging the differences between types of evidence when it comes to sexual offenses. In short, the case involved serious allegations against Weaver regarding his daughter, and while the State attempted to build a strong case by including prior incidents, the court ultimately felt that allowing such evidence would not be appropriate during the trial.

Continue ReadingS-2019-242

F-2018-1061

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case Summary: Joshua Loyd Bullard v. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No.: F-2018-1061** **Date Filed:** January 30, 2020 --- **Overview:** Joshua Loyd Bullard was convicted in the District Court of Stephens County for several offenses, including Petit Larceny, Resisting a Peace Officer, and Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. The jury determined sentences for each count, ultimately resulting in consecutive sentences totaling eight years, along with fines. Bullard appealed on two grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. --- **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** - Claim: Bullard contended that his attorney failed to request a third competency evaluation. - Analysis: The court assessed this claim based on the two-pronged test from *Strickland v. Washington*. It determined that defense counsel did not provide deficient performance, noting that two prior evaluations had confirmed Bullard's competency. There was no evidence suggesting a change in Bullard's mental state warranting further evaluation. Thus, the court ruled that there was no ineffective assistance. 2. **Prosecutorial Misconduct:** - Claim: Bullard argued that improper comments by the prosecutor regarding his prior suspended sentence during closing arguments prejudiced his trial. - Analysis: The court found that without objection from Bullard's counsel, review was limited to plain error. The court determined that the prosecutor’s references were permissible as they pertained to relevant evidence of prior convictions. Furthermore, the outcome of the sentencing showed that the jury's verdict was reasonable and not influenced by any improper statements. --- **Decision:** The appeals court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court, finding no merit in either of Bullard's propositions for appeal. **Judgment: AFFIRMED.** --- **Note:** The decision referenced case law and standards concerning competency evaluations and prosecutorial conduct during trials, underscoring the adherence to procedural norms. **For the Full Text Access:** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1061_1734859049.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-1061

F-2018-1103

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BERT GLEN FRANKLIN,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-1103** **OPINION** LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Appellant, Bert Glen Franklin, was tried by jury and convicted in a consolidated trial of Count 1, First Degree Murder (Child Abuse), and of Count 2, Solicitation of First Degree Murder. The jury recommended punishment of life imprisonment without parole on Count 1 and life imprisonment on Count 2, with the sentences running consecutively. Appellant appeals from this judgment and sentence raising two propositions of error. **PROPOSITION I: Joinder of Charges** Appellant contends that his cases should not have been joined in one trial, asserting that this improper joinder resulted in prejudice. However, as Appellant failed to object at trial, we must review this for plain error, which requires an actual error that is plain or obvious and that affects the Appellant's substantial rights. The statute governing joinder of charges, 22 O.S.2011, § 438, permits the trial of two or more offenses together if they could have been joined in a single indictment. Our analysis is guided by reconciling the factors set forth in previous case law. 1. **Same Type of Offenses:** The charges of murder and solicitation reflect a common theme of violence directed towards individuals involved with the defendant, qualifying them as the same type of offenses. 2. **Proximity in Time:** While the offenses occurred approximately seventeen months apart, the delay was due to Appellant's incarceration. They are sufficiently related given the circumstances under which Appellant acted. 3. **Proximity in Location:** Both offenses were committed within Oklahoma County, suggesting a logical relationship between the two. 4. **Overlapping Proof:** Evidence supporting each charge would have been admissible in separate trials since they are intrinsically linked to Appellant’s actions and intent. Given these observations, we find that the joinder was proper, and Appellant suffered no prejudice; therefore, no error occurred. We deny Proposition I. **PROPOSITION II: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel** Appellant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the joinder. Under the Strickland test, Appellant must demonstrate both that counsel's performance was deficient and that such performance prejudiced his case. Since we determined in Proposition I that the joinder was appropriate, Appellant cannot show that any failure to object prejudiced his case. As a result, we also deny Proposition II. **DECISION** The judgment and sentence are affirmed. The mandate is ordered issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES:** **For Appellant:** R. Scott Adams Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 **For Appellee:** Mike Hunter Attorney General of Oklahoma Theodore M. Peeper, Asst. Attorney General 320 Robert S. Kerr, #505 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 --- **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur in Result **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Recuse **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Recuse --- [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1103_1734788162.pdf) This ruling affirms the conviction and sentences of Bert Glen Franklin and addresses the legal standards regarding the joinder of offenses and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1103

F-2018-1046

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**Summary of the Case:** In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, Adam Russell Hemphill, Sr. was convicted by a jury of Child Neglect. He was sentenced to twenty-five years' imprisonment. Hemphill raised two issues on appeal: (1) allegations of prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments and (2) the trial court's admission of evidence regarding his prior drug use. **Issues Presented:** 1. **Prosecutorial Misconduct:** - Hemphill argued that prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument prejudiced his right to a fair trial, primarily due to the prosecutor's references to his past marijuana use and comments regarding uncharged crimes. - The Court found that although some remarks made by the prosecutor were questionable, they did not rise to the level of affecting Hemphill's substantial rights or rendering the trial fundamentally unfair. The absence of objection to most comments and the strength of the evidence against Hemphill contributed to this conclusion. 2. **Admission of Evidence:** - Hemphill contested the introduction of evidence regarding his past marijuana use, asserting it was irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence of bad acts. - Although the Court agreed that the evidence was not relevant to the case and constituted an error in its admission, it ultimately concluded that the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of Hemphill's guilt. **Decision:** The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence, determining that Hemphill was not entitled to relief on either of his claims. **Concurrences:** Judge Hudson concurred in the results but disagreed with the majority regarding the prosecutor's cross-examination about marijuana use. He believed the admission of this testimony did not constitute an abuse of discretion and was relevant to Hemphill's claims about his financial situation. --- For full details and legal citations, refer to the complete decision linked above.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1046

C-2018-1184

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In the case of Hipolito John Herrera v. The State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed Herrera's appeal concerning his guilty plea to Conjoint Robbery. The key issues raised by Herrera were: 1. **Plea Validity**: Herrera argued that his guilty plea was not entered freely, knowingly, and intelligently, citing misadvice from his legal counsel regarding his potential maximum sentence. The State conceded this point, acknowledging that the plea was not made with the requisite understanding. The court found that this constituted an abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying Herrera's motion to withdraw his plea. 2. **Restitution Order**: Herrera's second and third propositions focused on the restitution order, arguing that the trial court did not have sufficient proof of actual losses incurred by the victim and a bail bondsman, and that the bail bondsman should not be considered a victim under Oklahoma restitution laws. However, these propositions became moot due to the decision on the plea validity. Ultimately, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of Herrera's Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea and remanded the case for further proceedings. This ruling emphasized the importance of ensuring a defendant's plea is made with full understanding and without coercion or misinformation. The judicial decision highlighted in the summary opinion grants Herrera relief, enabling him to withdraw his plea and possibly reassess the legal consequences and restitution implications of his case.

Continue ReadingC-2018-1184

F-2017-1307

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1307, James Rex Clark appealed his conviction for four counts of Child Abuse by Injury and one count of First Degree Child Abuse Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. James Rex Clark and his wife were charged after the tragic disappearance of a boy named Colton, who was living with them. They had adopted Colton and his older brother T.J.S. after the boys were removed from their biological parents due to drug and alcohol issues. In 2006, Colton was reported missing, and a massive search took place; however, no trace of him was ever found. T.J.S. later revealed that he had been abused by the Appellants and expressed fears about his brother's fate. After years had passed, T.J.S. reached out to authorities to provide information about the abusive environment he and Colton had experienced while living with their uncle and aunt. As a result of T.J.S.’s testimony and an investigation that followed, both James and his wife were charged with the serious crimes. During the trial, T.J.S. described the harsh treatment he and Colton endured, which included physical abuse and isolation from others. He explained that after Colton had an argument with James, he was taken to a bedroom, and T.J.S. later found him unresponsive on the couch. James tried to argue that he did not receive a fair trial. He claimed that parts of the trial were not properly recorded and that he was not given a fair chance to defend himself. He contended that evidence against him was presented in a way that was not appropriate and that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial. However, the court explained that there was no evidence that the issues James raised affected the outcome of the trial. They found that the testimony about Colton’s character and life was important and properly admitted to show that he would not have run away. They also considered that the defense did not provide sufficient reasons for their claims of error. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction, affirming that the evidence showed James was guilty of the serious charges. T.J.S.'s accounts of the abuse were significant in proving what James and his wife had done. The judges concluded that despite the many claims made by James, they did not find the errors alleged by him to be valid or sufficient to overturn the jury's decision. The court’s ruling confirmed that James would face life imprisonment as recommended by the jury based on the severity of the crimes committed against Colton. This case highlighted serious issues regarding child welfare and the responsibilities of adults toward children in their care.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1307

S-2018-1227

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellant, **v.** **DAVID FLORES VILLANUEVA,** Appellee. **No. S-2018-1227** **NOT FOR PUBLICATION** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 26 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: On March 6, 2018, Defendant Villanueva was charged with one count of Burglary in the First Degree in Comanche County Case No. CF-2018-135. On November 7, 2018, a preliminary hearing was held before the Honorable Ken Harris, Special Judge. At that hearing, the State amended the information to include a charge of Conspiracy to Commit Burglary. Villanueva demurred to both charges; the demurrer to the burglary charge was overruled, while the conspiracy charge was granted. The State appealed this ruling under Rule 6.1 and 22 O.S.2011, § 1089.1. Judge Meaders, after reviewing the preliminary hearing transcript and hearing arguments from both sides, upheld the magistrate's decision. From this ruling, the State continued its appeal. The State's primary argument was that it was erroneous for the trial court to grant Villanueva's demurrer concerning the conspiracy charge. According to Rule 11.2(A)(4), this appeal was automatically assigned to the Accelerated Docket. The analysis considers whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed favorably towards the State, to find that a felony crime occurred and that Villanueva likely committed it. The Court must uphold the magistrate's ruling unless there was an abuse of discretion. The Court determined that no such abuse of discretion occurred in this instance. The decision to grant the demurrer concerning the conspiracy charge was not clearly erroneous or illogical based on the evidence presented. **DECISION** The order dismissing the conspiracy charge against Villanueva in Comanche County District Court Case No. CF-2018-135 is AFFIRMED. A MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision, in accordance with Rule 3.15. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** **COUNSEL FOR STATE/APPELLANT** Kyle Cabelka, Assistant District Attorney Comanche County **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE** Clay Hillis Lawton, OK --- **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **CONCUR:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J. **DISSENT:** HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. --- **DISSENTING OPINION OF HUDSON, J.:** I align with Judge Rowland's dissent and wish to emphasize that the magistrate's decision did not adhere to the proper legal standard, which mandates that at a preliminary hearing, the State is not obliged to present evidence that would suffice for a conviction; rather, the standard is to establish probable cause. The preliminaries focus on whether there is enough evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that an agreement to commit a crime existed among the suspects. Based on the testimony, when two armed men and a female accomplice invade a home, demanding money while brandishing weapons, the magistrate should have inferred an agreement had taken place, viewing the facts favorably for the State. The evidential threshold should reflect that significant circumstantial evidence can imply conspiracy. My view is that the magistrate abused discretion by ruling there was insufficient evidence for conspiracy at the hearing's conclusion. The facts supporting the charge should have warranted a finding of probable cause as a reasonable inference could be drawn affirming an agreement among the accused parties. The ruling lacks justification against existing legal precedents. The magistrate's interpretation of the circumstances failed to consider the appropriate evidential standard and should be revised. I am authorized to state that Judge Hudson concurs with this dissent. --- For the official full text, [click here to download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2018-1227_1734274980.pdf).

Continue ReadingS-2018-1227

F-2018-358

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-358, Sean Daniel Simmons appealed his conviction for domestic abuse by strangulation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Sean Daniel Simmons was found guilty by a jury for hurting his girlfriend on three occasions during a long argument at their apartment. The girlfriend's twelve-year-old son was in a nearby room sleeping at the time. The girlfriend testified that he choked her until she lost consciousness three times. Once, when he called 911, he slapped her when she tried to take the phone. After the incidents, she sought medical help and was diagnosed with a throat injury, although there were no visible marks on her throat, and she didn’t suffer any serious long-term effects. Simmons argued in his first claim that the evidence against him was not enough to support the conviction. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that it was reasonable for the jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for domestic abuse by strangulation. In his second claim, Simmons believed the trial court should have explained what “great bodily harm” meant to the jury. He wanted a clear definition because he felt the term was too vague. However, the trial court used standard jury instructions that explained the elements of the crime, including how strangulation was defined. Ultimately, the court held that the trial court did not make a mistake when it refused to define “great bodily harm” more specifically. The decision to not elaborate on this term was appropriate, as the standard instructions already provided enough information to the jury for them to make an informed decision. The judgment was affirmed, and the judges agreed that the trial court acted correctly in these matters.

Continue ReadingF-2018-358

F-2018-322

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-322, Juan Carlos Renovato-Juaregui appealed his conviction for assault and battery with intent to kill and domestic assault and battery resulting in great bodily harm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. Judge Drummond merged the two counts into one, sentencing him to fifteen years in prison with credit for time served. The court found that the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct did not require reversal of the conviction. No judges dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2018-322

F-2017-1232

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1232, Adrian Luis Walker appealed his conviction for second-degree murder and robbery by two or more persons. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction on the robbery charge because it violated the law against being punished for the same crime more than once. The court affirmed the other parts of the sentence. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1232

PR 2018-1203

  • Post author:
  • Post category:PR

OPINION ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF AND REMANDING MATTER TO DISTRICT COURT On November 29, 2018, Petitioner, by and through counsel Melissa A. French, filed an application for an…

Continue ReadingPR 2018-1203

F-2018-384

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-384, Jimmy Dean Coke, Jr. appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property and Obstructing an Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Jimmy Dean Coke, Jr. was convicted of two crimes. The first was knowing concealment of stolen property, and the second was obstructing an officer. The court sentenced him to twenty-five years for the first charge and one year for the second, and he also had to pay fines. Coke argued that the proof against him was not strong enough. He believed there was not enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt for either charge. However, the court reviewed the evidence in a way that favored the state. This meant they looked for any reasonable way a jury could have found him guilty. They decided there was enough evidence to support both convictions. Coke also claimed the trial court didn’t tell the jury about the value of the stolen property, which he thought was a mistake. For a charge of concealing stolen property to be a felony, the property must be worth $1,000 or more. Although the judge did not instruct the jury about this value, they still found that the property was worth $1,500 based on testimony, so the court determined that the omission was harmless. Coke left the courthouse during the jury's deliberation. The jury reached a verdict, and he was not there. Coke argued that he had the right to be present during this critical time. The court decided that because Coke chose to leave, he waived his right to be there, and the judge acted correctly by continuing without him. Coke believed that the prosecutor’s arguments were unfair and made it hard for him to have a fair trial. They reviewed the claims of misconduct and found that some were not objected to during the trial; therefore, they could only check for obvious errors. The court found minimal misconduct and did not feel it affected his trial's fairness. He also felt that he was not treated fairly by the judge. However, the court believed the evidence did not show that the judge was biased against him. The decisions made during the trial were consistent with legal practices. Coke said the judge gave him fines even though the jury did not decide on fines. The court agreed that the judge could impose fines even if the jury did not because the law allows it. Coke claimed that his lawyer did not do a good job and that this hurt his chance for a fair trial. The court found that since there were no significant mistakes made, the claims for ineffective counsel did not hold. Coke lastly argued that even if no single mistake was significant enough to reverse the decision, the total of all mistakes could warrant a new trial. The court decided that since they did not find any errors, this claim was also denied. In conclusion, the court affirmed the original decision, meaning Coke would remain convicted and serve his sentences as decided by the original trial.

Continue ReadingF-2018-384

F-2018-15

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-15, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of drugs causing great bodily injury, felony eluding, running a roadblock, and assault with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. The case involved Marcus Ray Smith, who was found guilty in a non-jury trial of several serious offenses related to a high-speed police chase. The judge sentenced Smith to ten years for some crimes and thirty years for others, but with some time suspended, allowing for parole. Smith appealed for multiple reasons. He argued that he was being punished too harshly for actions that were part of one event. According to the law, people usually can't be punished multiple times for the same act. However, the court found that the crimes he committed were separate incidents. For example, running a roadblock is recognized as a distinct crime, and his actions while fleeing from the police qualified as two separate acts that endangered others. Smith also claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he had intended to cause harm with his vehicle when he drove recklessly towards others. The court disagreed and stated that the way he drove clearly showed that he intended to hurt someone. Lastly, Smith said his lawyer didn't do a good job by not arguing about the double punishment issue during the trial. However, the court found that since his double punishment claim was not valid, there was no failure on his lawyer's part. In conclusion, the court upheld Smith's convictions, deciding he had received a fair trial and that his legal arguments were not strong enough to change the outcome.

Continue ReadingF-2018-15

F-2018-418

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-418, Ebrima Tamba appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Ebrima Tamba was sentenced to twenty years in prison for his involvement in trafficking illegal drugs, specifically marijuana. Tamba felt that this sentence was too harsh. He argued that it was unfair because it was longer than the minimum penalty for the crime and that he had less marijuana than what the law required for a more serious charge. He also mentioned that since his arrest, the laws in Oklahoma changed, allowing people with a medical marijuana license to use marijuana legally. However, the court explained that even if laws changed after Tamba's crime, the new laws did not apply to his case. They noted that he was given a sentence that followed the laws in place when he committed the crime, and his sentence was within the legal limits. Tamba also claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly during the trial. He believed his attorney should have challenged how police stopped him and questioned whether the evidence used against him was acceptable. However, the court found that Tamba did not prove that his lawyer's actions negatively affected the outcome of his trial. In conclusion, the court decided that Tamba's twenty-year sentence was appropriate and that his lawyer provided adequate help during his trial. Therefore, his appeal did not lead to any changes in his case.

Continue ReadingF-2018-418

F-2017-622

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-622, Dakota William Stewart appealed his conviction for two counts of First Degree Manslaughter and one count of Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Stewart's judgment and sentence. One member of the court dissented. Stewart was involved in a car accident where his vehicle collided with another, resulting in two deaths. He was critically injured and taken to the hospital, where, without a warrant or his consent, a nurse drew blood to test for drugs. The blood tests showed the presence of methamphetamine and marijuana. Stewart contested the legality of the blood draw, arguing it violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Initially, the district court denied his motion to suppress the blood evidence, citing Oklahoma law that permits blood draws without a warrant in severe vehicle accidents. The court referenced previous rulings that support this statute. However, the higher court reviewed these past decisions, particularly focusing on whether the law upheld constitutional protections. The decision highlighted that legal procedures must include an individualized assessment of probable cause by a neutral magistrate to justify warrantless searches. The court found that the law in question, while attempting to streamline procedures for serious accidents, created a blanket rule that bypassed this necessary step. Ultimately, the court ruled that even if the blood draw violated constitutional principles, the good faith reliance on the statute by law enforcement meant the results could still be admitted as evidence. Therefore, the court upheld Stewart's conviction, emphasizing the importance of proper procedure while acknowledging the complexities involved in such tragic incidents.

Continue ReadingF-2017-622

F-2017-1140

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1140, Michael Harold Denham appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Michael Harold Denham was found guilty of a crime related to domestic abuse. The jury, which is a group of people that decides if someone is guilty or not, recommended that he be sentenced to three years in prison. The judge who oversaw the trial followed this recommendation and also ordered that Denham pay some fees and receive credit for the time he had already spent in jail before the trial. Denham's appeal claimed that several mistakes had occurred during his trial. He listed five main points where he believed the trial had not been fair: 1. The trial court allowed the state to have an expert witness testify about domestic abuse. Denham argued that this was a mistake. 2. He said that one of the witnesses who testified about domestic violence was not properly qualified to do so. 3. Denham claimed that some evidence was admitted that should not have been according to the rules of evidence. 4. He argued that the court did not let his defense team ask questions about one juror, which meant they could not see if the juror was biased. 5. Finally, he said that all these mistakes happened together and made the whole trial unfair. The court looked closely at Denham's claims and the evidence from the trial. They decided that the court did not make errors that were significant enough to change the outcome of the trial. For the first point about the expert witness, the court ruled that Denham did not show why his defense would have benefited from having his own expert witness. His claim of needing a continuance (more time) to prepare for the trial was not justified because he could not show how it would have helped his case. For the second point, the court decided that the qualifications of the expert witness were acceptable. The judge found that the officer had enough training and experience in domestic violence matters to testify. Regarding the third point, Denham did not follow the right procedure to complain about the late disclosure of the expert witness. As a result, the court found no major violations that would affect the trial's fairness. For the fourth point, the court reviewed how the trial judge handled questions for the jurors. They found that the process was fair because the juror had given no indication beforehand that she would be biased. Lastly, for the fifth point about the overall fairness of the trial, the court did not agree that the combined claims could show any level of unfairness. They found no cumulative error that would merit a different outcome. In conclusion, the court upheld Denham's conviction, deciding that he received a fair trial and that the claims of error did not have enough merit to change the verdict. The appeal was denied, and the conviction was confirmed, meaning Denham would serve his sentence as decided by the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1140

F-2017-758

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-758, Shawn Conrad Freeman appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including Kidnapping, Forcible Sodomy, Rape in the First Degree, and Robbery in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the District Court. The court did, however, instruct the District Court to correct a clerical error regarding the fine for one of the robbery counts. Freeman was tried by jury and was found guilty on multiple counts involving four separate women. The jury sentenced him to long prison terms and significant fines. The trial court followed the jury's recommendations for sentencing. Freeman raised several arguments on appeal. He argued that having multiple convictions for crimes like Kidnapping, Rape, and Forcible Sodomy at once was unfair and violated laws against double punishment. However, the court found that the crimes were separate and showed that each act occurred at different times, meaning he could be punished for all of them. He also claimed that trying all fourteen counts together was wrong because it might have led the jury to convict him based on the total evidence rather than on proof for each individual charge. The court determined that the offenses were connected enough to be tried together and that no error occurred. Another point of contention was that one of the victims couldn't testify in court, and the jury was allowed to hear her previously recorded testimony instead. The court upheld this decision, stating that Freeman had previously had the chance to question her during an earlier hearing. Freeman argued that the evidence was not enough to support his robbery conviction. The court disagreed, stating that the evidence clearly showed he unlawfully took property from a victim. He raised questions about misconduct by the prosecutor, ineffective assistance of counsel, and that his sentences were too harsh. The court found no evidence to support his claims of improper actions or ineffective counsel. It ruled that his sentences were not excessively severe given the nature of the crimes he was convicted for. Finally, Freeman claimed that the combined issues during the trial denied him a fair trial. However, the court noted that it found no individual errors that would warrant a new trial. In conclusion, the court affirmed Freeman's convictions and sentences but ordered a correction to a minor error in the judgment regarding the fine imposed for one count of robbery. There was a dissenting opinion from one of the judges.

Continue ReadingF-2017-758

S-2018-6

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** Court Case No: S-2018-51 and S-2018-6 **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellant, **V.** **SHELLEY MARIE BRADLEY,** Appellee. **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellant, **V.** **DYLAN THOMAS BRODIE,** Appellee. **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** 1. The State of Oklahoma, Appellant, appeals from an order affirming the ruling of the magistrate, sustaining the defendants' demurrers to evidence on Counts 1 and 2, and denying the State's request to amend the Informations, in Case Nos. CF-2017-445 and CF-2017-446 in the District Court of Wagoner County. **STATEMENT OF THE CASE** 2. Appellees, Shelley Marie Bradley and Dylan Thomas Brodie, were charged with intimidation of a witness and conspiracy to commit a felony. The magistrate sustained the demurrers to the evidence and denied amendments to include additional charges. 3. The matter was assigned to Judge Mark L. Dobbins as the reviewing judge, who affirmed the magistrate's ruling. 4. The State appealed; on August 9, 2018, this Court held oral arguments, after which the ruling was reversed. **SUMMARY OF FACTS** 5. The Appellees are related to Jacob Ode, charged with several offenses following a police pursuit. Hawkins, a relative of the Appellees, was a passenger and initially provided a statement implicating Ode. 6. Later, Hawkins was approached by the Appellees and persuaded to change her statement to indicate Ode was not the driver during the pursuit. 7. The magistrate found no evidence demonstrating that Hawkins was threatened or coerced into altering her testimony. **ANALYSIS** ### I. Intimidation of Witness 8. The State argued sufficient evidence existed for the charge of witness intimidation. However, the records demonstrated no evidence of Hawkins being prevented from testifying or coerced through force or fear. 9. The judges did not err in finding there wasn’t enough evidence to support the claim of intimidation. ### II. Conspiracy to Commit Intimidation 10. The State similarly could not provide sufficient evidence to show any conspiracy between the Appellees to intimidate Hawkins, as no threats or coercion were substantiated. ### III. Conspiracy to Commit Perjury by Subornation 11. The State argued it presented sufficient evidence to show a conspiracy to commit perjury by subornation. The appellate judges found sufficient cause to remand for the trial on this charge. ### IV. False Preparation of Exhibits 12. The evidence presented indicated that Hawkins’ second statement was prepared under the Appellees' guidance with the intent to be submitted as evidence. 13. The failure to include this evidence as a charge of False Preparation of Exhibits was deemed an error by the appellate judges. **DECISION** 14. The order of the District Court sustaining the magistrate's decisions is REVERSED. The case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to proceed to trial for the charges of Conspiracy to Commit Perjury by Subornation and False Preparation of Exhibits. **APPEARANCES** - **For the State:** Douglas G. Dry, Assistant District Attorney - **For the Appellees:** Michon Hastings Hughes & Clinton C. Hastings, Attorneys at Law **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** - LUMPKIN, P.J., LEWIS, V.P.J., HUDSON, J., and KUEHN, J., concur. --- **[Download PDF of Full Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2018-6_1734333945.pdf)**

Continue ReadingS-2018-6

C-2018-688

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2018-688, the petitioner appealed his conviction for concealing stolen property, endeavoring to distribute marijuana, and possession of a sawed-off shotgun. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the petition for certiorari but remanded for further proceedings. One judge dissented. On January 6, 2015, the petitioner entered guilty pleas for the above crimes and was put in a program meant to help young adults. After showing good behavior, the court decided in August 2015 to delay his sentencing for ten years, allowing him to be on probation with some financial responsibilities. However, in March 2018, the state said the petitioner had broken his probation by committing new crimes, so they asked to speed up the sentencing. In May 2018, the court accepted the petitioner's guilty pleas for the new crimes, which included possession of a controlled substance and public intoxication, and imposed additional sentences. Altogether, he was sentenced to twelve years in prison. The petitioner then tried to take back his guilty pleas, but the court denied this request. He appealed this decision, bringing up several arguments. He felt the financial penalties were unfair and too high, that he did not receive good legal help, and that the total twelve-year sentence was excessive given his previous achievements in the diversion program. The court looked at these claims carefully but decided that while some of the fines were too high, particularly calling for a correction of the $1,000 fee in his case involving concealing stolen property, they would not change the length of the total prison time. They said the sentences were within the law and not shockingly excessive, affirming the lower court's decisions in many respects. The court concluded that they would not change the ruling on the guilty pleas but would send the case back for hearings on the issues related to the fines and costs.

Continue ReadingC-2018-688

F-2016-179

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-179, John Stanton Lewis appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and other related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Lewis's convictions for three counts and modify his conviction for one count from a felony to a misdemeanor, resulting in a shorter sentence. One judge dissented. Lewis was convicted in a district court for several counts involving drugs and a firearm. The jury sentenced him to different terms, including 15 years for possession of methamphetamine after previous felonies, 2 years for firearm possession, 4 years for marijuana possession, and 90 days for drug paraphernalia. The court made these sentences consecutive and gave him credit for time served. Lewis raised four main arguments on appeal: 1. **Illegal Search**: He argued that evidence against him should not have been used because it was obtained through an illegal search. The court found that the initial entry into his mobile home by law enforcement was legal since it was during a fire incident and they were investigating. Therefore, this argument was denied. 2. **Jury Instructions**: Lewis contended that the jury was not properly instructed on the possible punishments for his offenses, particularly about the enhancement of his charges due to prior convictions. The court agreed that there was a plain error concerning the instruction for the marijuana possession charge, modifying it to reflect a misdemeanor instead of a felony. His sentence for that charge was reduced from four years to one year. 3. **Evidence for Firearm Charge**: He claimed the evidence was insufficient to convict him for possession of a firearm because the state did not prove the firearm he had was capable of firing. The court found that it is not necessary to prove whether the gun could fire for a conviction under the law, so this argument was denied. 4. **Ineffective Counsel**: Lewis argued that his lawyer did not do a good job representing him. The court noted that proving ineffective counsel requires showing that the lawyer's mistakes affected the outcome of the trial. Lewis couldn't prove his lawyer was ineffective in this case because the range of punishment given was correct, and therefore, this claim was denied. Ultimately, the court affirmed the convictions for several charges, but modified the marijuana possession conviction to reflect a misdemeanor resulting in a shorter sentence. The judgments overall were mostly upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2016-179