Oklahoma

C-2018-679

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

It appears that you've shared a document detailing a legal opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals denying a writ of certiorari for petitioner Jerry Ray Hawkins. He was appealing his convictions related to exhibiting obscene material to minors, procuring child pornography, and lewd acts, asserting that his guilty pleas were not made knowingly, that he did not receive conflict-free counsel, and that his sentence was excessive. Here’s a summary of the main points covered in the opinion: ### Case Overview: - **Petitioner**: Jerry Ray Hawkins - **Charges**: Multiple counts including Exhibiting Obscene Material to a Minor, Procuring Child Pornography, and Lewd Acts. - **Sentencing**: Total of twenty years for some charges and ten years for others, with certain counts running concurrently and others consecutively. ### Key Legal Issues Raised by Petitioner: 1. **Withdrawal of Guilty Pleas**: Hawkins argued he should be allowed to withdraw his pleas because they were not made knowingly or voluntarily, claiming that he was misled by his attorney regarding potential plea agreements. 2. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: He claimed that the failure to appoint conflict-free counsel during the plea withdrawal hearing resulted in inadequate legal representation. 3. **Excessive Sentence**: He contended that the aggregate sentence was excessive for the charges he pleaded to. ### Court's Findings: - **Proposition I (Withdrawal of Pleas)**: The court found that Hawkins had waived his right to argue that his pleas were not knowing and voluntary by failing to raise it during his motion to withdraw. Therefore, this claim was denied. - **Proposition II (Ineffective Assistance of Counsel)**: The court concluded that there was no actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel's performance, as Hawkins did not accuse his plea counsel of misconduct. Therefore, this claim was also denied. - **Proposition III (Excessive Sentence)**: The court noted that Hawkins similarly failed to raise this issue during the appropriate proceedings, resulting in a waiver of his excessive sentence claim. ### Conclusion: The court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court, concluding that no legal grounds existed to warrant relief. #### Final Notes: Petitioner’s appeals were denied on all fronts, with the court emphasizing the need for claims to be preserved at the trial level to be considered on appeal. If you have any specific questions or need further analysis regarding this case or related legal concepts, feel free to ask!

Continue ReadingC-2018-679

F-2018-646

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the appeal of Ashley Dawn Bost. She was convicted of several offenses in LeFlore County District Court, including trafficking in illegal drugs and possession of a controlled substance, along with additional charges related to a firearm and drug paraphernalia. In her appeal, Bost raised a single proposition of error arguing that her convictions for trafficking in methamphetamine and possession of oxycodone violated the prohibition against multiple punishments for a single offense, as outlined in 21 O.S.2011, § 11. The court found that Bost did not preserve this argument for appeal as she failed to raise it during the trial, thus waiving her right to full review, except for considering it for plain error. The appellate court applied a three-part test for assessing plain error and determined that Bost did not demonstrate actual or plain error. The court explained that the analysis under Section 11 focuses on the relationship between the crimes and whether they require different proofs. Since the two charges involved different drugs and amounts required for trafficking and possession, the court concluded that they were indeed separate and distinct offenses and affirmed the trial court's judgments and sentences. The court's final decision was to affirm Bost's convictions and sentences, with the mandate ordered to be issued promptly. The opinion included a list of counsel for both the appellant and the appellee. For more information, a link to the full opinion is provided at the end of the summary.

Continue ReadingF-2018-646

F-2017-949

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-949, Montoyia Corbitt appealed her conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree-Heat of Passion. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Montoyia Corbitt was tried for a crime that involved the death of another person. During her trial, she claimed she acted in self-defense. However, the jury found her guilty, and she was given a six-year prison sentence. The law said she had to serve at least 85% of her sentence before she could be considered for parole. Corbitt made three main arguments in her appeal. First, she believed the evidence was not enough to prove she did not act in self-defense. The court explained that self-defense is a reason someone can use force, but it has to be reasonable. They found there was enough evidence that showed Corbitt's fear was not reasonable and, therefore, not justified in using deadly force. Second, Corbitt argued that a police officer’s opinion in her trial influenced the jury and was not fair. The court reviewed this matter and decided that the officer's testimony was allowed because it was based on what he observed during the investigation. They concluded that his statements helped clarify what happened during the incident without directing the jury toward a specific conclusion. Third, Corbitt was concerned about a photograph that showed her face during a police interview. She thought it was not relevant and unfairly prejudiced her case. The court ruled the photo was relevant because it helped support her claim of self-defense. They believed the image added to the understanding of the situation rather than just being harmful to her. Ultimately, after looking at all the arguments and evidence, the court agreed with the jury’s decision and affirmed her conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2017-949

F-2018-326

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-326, #1 appealed his conviction for #stalking. In a (published) decision, the court decided #the State proved that the protective order was valid during the time of the incidents. #2 dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2018-326

F-2018-321

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-321, Wayne William White appealed his conviction for Stalking. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Wayne William White was found guilty by a jury for stalking his ex-girlfriend after he repeatedly bothered her over several months, which included breaking a protective order meant to keep him away from her. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison. White argued two main points in his appeal. First, he claimed that the trial court made a mistake by not requiring the prosecution to choose specific actions that proved he stalked the victim. He believed this could confuse jurors, making it impossible for them to reach a unanimous agreement on what actions he took. The court explained that for a conviction of stalking, the law only needed to show that White repeatedly followed or harassed the victim, which means doing things that would cause someone to feel scared or upset. The State provided proof that he made multiple phone calls, left threatening messages, and damaged her property. The court looked into his argument and found no error. They stated that the process of how they reached their decision didn’t have to have them agree on every small action, but rather just that he was guilty of stalking overall. For White's second argument, he suggested that his lawyer did not do a good job by not asking the State to pick specific actions to focus on. The court said that since the State wasn’t required to choose specific actions anyway, his lawyer's actions did not hurt his case. Because of this, the court also denied this argument. In conclusion, the court affirmed Wayne William White's conviction, meaning his appeal was unsuccessful, and he would continue to serve his sentence. One judge had a different opinion but the majority agreed with the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2018-321

F-2018-289

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-289, Anthony Douglass Crisel, Jr., appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Anthony Douglass Crisel, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for engaging in inappropriate conduct with a child. The jury decided that he should spend six years in prison, and he has to serve 85% of that time before he can ask for parole. Crisel claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly during the trial, which he believed went against his rights. He said his attorney made mistakes in three important areas: not opposing a witness’s testimony, not bringing in a witness who was related to the victim, and not challenging the qualifications of an expert witness who testified against him. The court looked closely at these claims and the complete record of what happened during the trial. They explained that to show his lawyer was ineffective, Crisel needed to prove that his lawyer didn’t do their job well and that this affected the outcome of the case. The judges noted that there is a strong assumption that a lawyer’s actions are based on good judgment. For the first claim, Crisel argued his lawyer should have stopped a witness from talking about some old accusations against him. However, the court found that the information the witness shared was already given to the jury through other evidence. Therefore, the lawyer's choice to not object was a reasonable decision. For the second claim, Crisel wanted his brother to testify but did not show how having his brother's testimony would have helped him win the case. The court stated that the lawyer's decision to not call the brother was likely a strategic choice and they won’t question that. Lastly, regarding the expert witness, the court found that the lawyer did question the qualifications of this expert, and since many lawyers might handle this differently, having a different strategy does not necessarily mean the lawyer did a bad job. After reviewing everything, the court concluded that Crisel’s lawyer did not act ineffectively. The judges affirmed the decision of the lower court, and the request for more evidence or hearing on this issue was denied.

Continue ReadingF-2018-289

C-2018-943

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. M 2018-0277, the appellant appealed his conviction for speeding (21-25 mph over the limit). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence from the District Court. One judge dissented. The appellant was found guilty after a non-jury trial in Texas County. He was fined $10.00 for speeding. During the appeal, the appellant claimed that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was indeed speeding. He argued that there was no rule in Oklahoma law that allowed a speeding conviction based solely on visual estimation. The State countered this claim by saying that Oklahoma law does not require a radar gun to show that someone was speeding. A trained Oklahoma State Trooper testified that he could visually estimate a vehicle's speed within 5 miles per hour of its real speed. He specifically said that he saw the appellant's vehicle speeding. The court reviewed the evidence to see if a reasonable person could find that the essential parts of the speeding crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court concluded that any logical juror could decide that there was enough proof of the speeding violation. In conclusion, the court upheld the appellant's conviction for speeding, stating that the evidence presented was sufficient.

Continue ReadingC-2018-943

M-2017-1021

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. M-2017-1021** *BYRIN CARR, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.* **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA APR 25 2019 JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** The Appellant, Byrin Carr, appeals from his misdemeanor Judgment and Sentence entered after a jury trial before the Honorable Timothy D. Haworth, Associate District Judge, in Case No. CM-2016-655 in the District Court of Garfield County. Appellant was convicted of Threaten to Perform Act of Violence, and was sentenced to a term of six months in the Garfield County Jail. **PROCEDURAL HISTORY** On June 28, 2016, Appellant was charged with Threaten to Perform Act of Violence, misdemeanor, 21 O.S.2011, § 1378(B), for threatening to kill Garfield County judges and prosecutors. Subsequently, the case was assigned to Judge Haworth who appointed a different District Attorney before the trial proceeded on September 19, 2017. **FACTS** At trial, Brian Dickson, a news photographer for KOCO-TV, testified about an incident on June 27, 2016, where Appellant approached him and his co-worker while they were parked at McDonald's. Appellant made threatening statements about harming local judges and prosecutors, leading to Dickson recording their conversation. The recording included Appellant’s comments about killing judges and district attorneys. After the incident, the news supervisors contacted local law enforcement. Appellant, in his defense, argued that he meant no harm and merely sought to share his grievances about local authorities. His defense included proposed jury instructions regarding subjective intent and political speech, which were denied by the court. **ANALYSIS** **PROPOSITION I:** The court addressed whether the denial of Appellant's requested jury instructions constituted error. The court held that the crime outlined in § 1378(B) does not necessitate proof of the threat being a true and credible threat and is a general intent crime. Therefore, the judge's refusal to give the requested instruction was not an error. **PROPOSITION II:** Appellant contested the jury instructions regarding the term willfully. The court affirmed that proof of general intent suffices under § 1378(B) and that the judge's definitions were proper and aligned with legal requirements. **PROPOSITION III:** Finally, Appellant argued that he was denied the right to present a defense, specifically regarding the characterization of his speech as political. The court reasoned that the threats made by Appellant fell outside the bounds of protected political speech and were not relevant to the presented case. **DECISION** The Appellant’s misdemeanor Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** JAMES L. HANKINS Attorney at Law Edmond, OK **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** BRIAN T. HERMANSON District Attorney, 8TH District Counsel for the State --- **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **CONCURRING:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. *(Refer to the official document for textual fidelity and details of legal references.)*

Continue ReadingM-2017-1021

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-2017-911

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-911, the appellant appealed his conviction for various offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of the appellant from the Drug Court program. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, previously convicted of two counts of Second Degree Burglary, was sentenced to twenty-one years for each count but with most of that time suspended. While under supervision, the appellant was accused of violating the terms of his release due to new criminal charges. He later pleaded guilty to those new charges as well. To avoid serving the full sentences, the appellant entered a Drug Court program aimed at helping him overcome substance abuse issues. However, after several years in the program, he faced multiple sanctions for drug use and missed compliance with program rules. Eventually, the state moved to terminate him from Drug Court, asserting he had violated several agreements tied to his participation. During the hearing to decide whether he should be removed from the program, the trial judge ultimately decided that the appellant had not adequately followed the rules and terminated his participation. The appellant then argued that the judge should have considered giving him additional chances rather than terminating him outright. The court checked to see if the trial judge had abused his discretion, meaning if the judge made a choice that was unreasonable or did not follow the law. The records showed the appellant had been sanctioned several times over his three years in the program, but he continued to struggle with drug use. The court found no evidence that the judge had failed to weigh all the necessary factors before deciding to end the appellant's time in Drug Court. In the end, the court affirmed the decision to terminate the appellant from the Drug Court program, stating that the earlier judgments regarding his sentence also needed no changes since the mistakes made in paperwork were corrected. Therefore, the appeal was largely dismissed as moot.

Continue ReadingF-2017-911

M-2017-954

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2017-954, Christian Wages appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his conviction to simple Assault and Battery and remanded the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Christian Wages was found guilty of Domestic Abuse in a trial without a jury. The judge sentenced him to one year in jail, with all but the first thirty days suspended, and a fine of $500. He was also required to attend counseling and was placed on probation. Wages appealed the decision, claiming three main errors in the trial. First, he believed the court wrongly allowed hearsay evidence that violated his right to confront witnesses. This hearsay was about R.S., the alleged victim, who did not testify at the trial. Second, he argued that the evidence wasn't enough to prove he battered R.S. because the witnesses did not clearly identify her. Lastly, he claimed that the errors in the trial added up to deny him a fair trial. The court reviewed the evidence and mentioned that while there was enough proof for a simple Assault and Battery charge, the evidence for the Domestic Abuse charge was based on inadmissible hearsay that stated R.S. lived with Wages. Since there wasn’t sufficient admissible evidence to prove the domestic relationship, Wages' conviction was modified to simple Assault and Battery. As for the last argument regarding cumulative errors, the court pointed out that it only found one significant error, meaning cumulative error could not be applied. In conclusion, the punishment was lessened from Domestic Abuse to simple Assault and Battery, and the court instructed to resentence Wages according to this new finding.

Continue ReadingM-2017-954

F-2017-950

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-950, Terry Lyn Elkins appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine and Resisting an Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but remand for resentencing on the possession count. One judge dissented. Terry Lyn Elkins was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine and for resisting a police officer. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison for the drug charge and fined $500 for resisting the officer. The jury did not find him guilty of assaulting a police officer. Elkins argued that the trial was unfair because the jury saw evidence that was not relevant to his case, which might have affected their decision about his punishment. The evidence included a document from the Department of Corrections that had many details about Elkins’ past, including other crimes he committed many years ago. Some of this information was not needed for the current case and could have made the jury think more negatively about him. The judges decided that while the evidence showing Elkins’ past convictions was correctly used, parts of the additional information were not relevant and should not have been presented to the jury. They believed that this extra information could have influenced how the jury decided on the punishment. Therefore, they decided to keep the convictions as is, but send the case back to lower court for a new review of his punishment for the meth charge. In a separate opinion, a judge agreed with keeping the conviction but believed that sending the case back for resentencing was not necessary since Elkins did not receive the maximum punishment possible.

Continue ReadingF-2017-950

RE-2017-264

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2017-264, Damion Deshawn Polk appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse (Assault and Battery) After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the balance of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case started when Polk was given a ten-year sentence that was suspended, meaning he wouldn't have to go to prison right away. He had to follow certain rules, including paying fees, doing community service, and staying out of trouble. However, he did not follow these rules, and the State asked for his sentence to be revoked. At a hearing, Polk admitted to using drugs, which was one of the reasons his probation was being revoked. The judge gave him a punishment by sending him to jail for ninety days. After he served this time, he was supposed to report to a program but missed his next court date. Later, when the judge reviewed the case again, he revoked Polk's suspended sentence entirely. However, during the appeal, the court found that Polk had already been punished for his drug use and that the judge should not have fully revoked his sentence for that same violation. The appellate court decided that there should have been new violations presented for the full revocation. As a result, the court reversed the judge's decision to revoke Polk's suspended sentence completely. They noted that a suspended sentence can't be revoked for a reason that has already been punished. The appellate court ruled that since Polk had already faced penalties for his prior drug use, the judge should have considered that before taking away the rest of his suspended sentence.

Continue ReadingRE-2017-264

RE-2017-706

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **THOMAS LYNN SPANN,** Appellant, **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. No. RE-2017-706 **FILED ** IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOV 8 2018 JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** In the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CF-2012-436A, Appellant, while represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty to the offense of Cruelty to Animals. On October 10, 2013, in accordance with a plea agreement, the Honorable Joe H. Enos, District Judge, sentenced Appellant to a $1,000.00 fine and to five (5) years imprisonment, with all but the first one (1) year of that term conditionally suspended under written rules of probation. On October 20, 2016, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence. The Motion alleged Appellant had violated his probation by: 1. Failing to provide verification of employment; 2. Being in $920.00 in arrears on supervision fees due to the Department of Corrections; 3. Failing to pay restitution of $152.44; 4. Failing to pay $75.00 per month beginning October 2015 towards costs, fines, and fees, resulting in arrears of $675.00. On November 10, 2016, the parties appeared before the Honorable Ken Graham, District Judge, regarding the Motion to Revoke. While represented by counsel, Appellant stipulated to the probation violations contained in that Motion. Further revocation proceedings regarding punishment were postponed for two months, allowing Appellant time to comply with his probation requirements. This period was later expanded twice, eventually leading to a hearing on June 22, 2017. At this June 22nd hearing, Appellant again appeared with counsel. The probation officer provided a Supplemental Report indicating that Appellant remained significantly delinquent in fulfilling payment obligations, although he had paid off the restitution. Additionally, the report noted that Appellant had not verified employment nor demonstrated compliance with job search requirements. There were also reports of unsigned traffic citations and evidence of an altered appointment slip presented by Appellant. After considering testimonies and evidence regarding Appellant's compliance, Judge Graham revoked Appellant's suspended sentence in full. Appellant now appeals that final order of revocation, asserting that the court denied due process and abused its discretion by revoking the remaining suspended sentence based on extra-application allegations. After careful review, we find no error warranting reversal. Appellant had stipulated to the probation violations, providing the State with the necessary grounds to prove the allegations. Consequently, the trial court had the authority to revoke the suspended sentence. Appellant failed to demonstrate significant compliance with probation requirements over an extended period, despite having opportunities to rectify the situation. The revocation order is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2018), MANDATE IS ORDERED ISSUED on the filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** **R. L. WILLIAMS** P.O. BOX 2095 LAWTON, OKLAHOMA 73502 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT **GREG STEWARD** ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY STEPHENS COUNTY COURTHOUSE 101 SOUTH 11TH STREET DUNCAN, OKLAHOMA 73533 ATTORNEY FOR STATE OF OKLA. --- **OPINION BY: HUDSON, J.** **LUMPKIN, P.J.: CONCUR** **LEWIS, V.P.J.: CONCUR** **KUEHN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** --- **KUEHN, JUDGE, CONCURRING IN RESULT:** I concur in the result. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in full. Appellant stipulated to the Application to Revoke, making only the issue before the trial court whether to revoke the suspended sentence in part or in full. While Appellant used this opportunity to pay restitution, he failed to comply with the rest of the conditions. The trial court reasonably considered Appellant's interim behavior, given the evidence of continued violations, leading to the conclusion to revoke. The failure to make a determination regarding Appellant’s ability to pay was error, but not dispositive as Appellant had already stipulated to the original allegations. The trial court properly considered the evidence presented in mitigation when deciding the final revocation of the sentence.

Continue ReadingRE-2017-706

C-2016-778

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-778, Donald Garra Patterson appealed his conviction for Abuse by Caretaker, Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body, and Obtaining a Controlled Substance by Forgery/Fraud. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions on most counts but modified the sentence for Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body due to it being greater than allowed by law. One judge dissented. Patterson had entered a plea of guilty to various charges and was sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment, including ten years for Abuse by Caretaker and seven years for each of the other charges. Afterward, he wanted to withdraw his plea, claiming he did not fully understand what he was pleading guilty to and felt his lawyer had not helped him properly. The main issues raised included whether his plea was made knowingly and if his lawyer had conflicts of interest or failed to give him correct information. The court found that Patterson didn't support his claims about not understanding the plea and concluded his sentence for the crime of Unlawful Removal had to be changed because it was wrongly set longer than the law allowed. The court also confirmed that the mistakes in advising Patterson were not enough to prove he was treated unfairly by his lawyer. Ultimately, the court decided to lower his sentence for Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body to the correct maximum of five years and instructed the lower court to fix some record-keeping errors regarding fees.

Continue ReadingC-2016-778

JS-2016-1062

  • Post author:
  • Post category:JS

In OCCA case No. JS-2016-1062, Z.N. appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that granted Z.N. certification as a juvenile. The State had claimed that the judge made a mistake in allowing Z.N. to be treated as a juvenile. However, the court found that the judge's decision was reasonable given the evidence and factors surrounding the case. The ruling included considerations of the nature of the crime, Z.N.'s background, and the potential for rehabilitation. No judge dissented.

Continue ReadingJS-2016-1062

RE 2016-0784

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2016-0784, James Wilbur Allen appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences related to six counts of Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE 2016-0784

F-2015-886

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-886, Russell Carl McCrillis appealed his conviction for two counts of Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the case for the trial court to assess a specific term of years for post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. McCrillis was convicted in a jury trial and received a twenty-year prison sentence and a $20,000 fine for each count of lewd molestation. The sentences were ordered to be served at the same time. McCrillis raised several issues in his appeal. He claimed that his statement to the police should not have been allowed at trial because it was not made freely and voluntarily. He also argued that the jury should have been instructed about the voluntariness of his statement. Additionally, he pointed out that the trial court could not change his sentence to an indefinite probation after prison. Finally, he believed his sentences were too harsh. The court looked closely at whether McCrillis's statement to the police was voluntary and found that he had waived his rights properly and given his statement willingly. This meant the trial court did not make a mistake when it allowed the statement to be presented during the trial. The court did notice that while the judge should have instructed the jury on the voluntary nature of his confession, the lack of instruction didn’t really have an impact on the trial's outcome, as there was strong enough evidence against McCrillis. Regarding the trial court's authority to modify the sentence, the court agreed that it should have set a clear term for post-imprisonment supervision, which means after McCrillis serves his time, he should be supervised for a set number of years. The law says people convicted of certain crimes, like lewd molestation, must have a period of supervision after serving time, usually between nine months and a year. However, there is also a specific law stating that in cases of sexual offenses, supervision could be longer. The court noted that the trial judge didn’t give a fixed duration for supervision, which was a mistake. In the end, while the court agreed with McCrillis on the need for a specified period of supervision upon release, it found that his twenty-year sentence was not too severe based on the details of the crimes committed. Therefore, the court upheld the conviction but sent the case back to have the trial court determine the proper length of post-imprisonment supervision.

Continue ReadingF-2015-886

RE-2016-135

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2016-135, Michael Brian Harrington appealed his conviction for violating probation. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the State's motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. The State had argued that Harrington's new ten-year sentence for a different crime made his revocation appeal unnecessary. However, the court found that his prior sentences could still affect how long he remains in prison, so the appeal matters.

Continue ReadingRE-2016-135

RE-2015-765

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-765, Jimmy Lee Fields appealed his conviction for sexually abusing a minor child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Fields' suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Fields, in 2000, pleaded guilty to sexually abusing a child. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, but all but five years were suspended. This meant he would not have to serve the full sentence if he followed the rules. In 2001, his sentence was modified to fourteen years and the execution of that sentence was also suspended with conditions he had to follow while on probation. In 2015, the state accused Fields of breaking the rules of his probation by committing more serious crimes, including child sexual abuse. After a hearing, the court revoked his suspended sentence completely, meaning he had to serve time in prison. Fields disagreed with this decision, claiming the court made errors. Fields presented two main arguments for his appeal. First, he argued that the court was wrong to impose post-imprisonment supervision at the time of revocation, which was not part of the original sentence. Second, he believed the court acted unfairly when it revoked his entire sentence because he had mitigating circumstances like health issues and past good behavior. The court reviewed his claims but found no errors in the decision to revoke the suspension. It highlighted that committing new crimes while on probation justified the revocation. Therefore, the court upheld the revocation but instructed to correct the official written order to remove the additional supervision requirement that was added later. Overall, the court affirmed the decision to revoke his probation with the clarification needed for the written records.

Continue ReadingRE-2015-765

F-2015-531

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-53, Dennis Ray Runnels appealed his conviction for Unlawful Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Runnels was convicted after a jury trial, where he was found guilty of distributing meth. The trial court sentenced him to 19 years imprisonment, with one year of post-imprisonment supervision, and ordered him to pay a fee for a court-appointed attorney and other costs. Runnels raised several issues in his appeal. First, he claimed that the state did not show a complete chain of custody for the meth. The court found that there was enough evidence for the jury to decide that Runnels was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also determined that Runnels had not shown any plain error regarding this issue. Second, Runnels argued that the state did not provide enough evidence to support his conviction. However, the court ruled there was sufficient evidence, including testimony and recordings from a controlled buy, for the jury to reach their conclusion. Third, he claimed the state failed to provide evidence that could have helped his case. He said the prosecutor did not correct a witness’s false testimony about prior convictions. The court found no wrongdoing by the state and ruled that Runnels had not shown how this affected the trial's outcome. In his fourth claim, Runnels argued that the jury was incorrectly instructed on punishment. The court agreed and found it was a plain error, which required modification of his sentence. Runnels also claimed the jury was led to think about probation and parole during the trial, but since the punishment was modified based on the previous claim, this point became moot. Regarding the claim that his sentence was excessive, the court agreed that it should be modified due to the instructional error and reduced it to 10 years with the same supervision and fees. Runnels also said his attorney was ineffective in several ways. However, the court found that these claims were moot because of the prior decision to modify his sentence. Lastly, Runnels asked the court to look at the overall errors during his trial to see if they denied him a fair outcome. The court determined that since they did not find any sustained errors, this request was denied. In conclusion, Runnels's conviction was upheld, but his sentence was reduced to 10 years in prison with supervision, and he will still pay the attorney fees and costs.

Continue ReadingF-2015-531

RE-2015-104

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-104, Eric Lamont Muhammad appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the District Court's order to revoke his sentence and send the case back for further proceedings. One judge dissented, arguing that the hearing was held in a timely manner.

Continue ReadingRE-2015-104

C-2014-584

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-584, Gilbert Paz appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, Shooting with Intent to Kill, Conspiracy, Attempted Robbery with a Firearm, and Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the District Court's denial of Paz's Motion to Withdraw Plea and remanded the case for further proceedings. One member of the court dissented. Gilbert Paz was involved in a serious crime case where he initially pleaded guilty to multiple charges. After some time, he wanted to take back his guilty pleas, claiming that he didn’t fully understand what he was doing when he agreed to the plea deal. He felt confused and believed his lawyer wasn't helping him properly. The case started when a burglary went badly, resulting in one person being killed and another being hurt. After his guilty pleas were accepted in court, Paz tried to withdraw them, but the judge said no. The judge continued to give him time to get a new lawyer but did not allow him to take back his pleas. Paz argued five main points in his appeal. He claimed that the judge helped too much during his plea negotiations, that his guilty plea was not made knowingly or intelligently, that he was denied his right to have a lawyer present during important parts of the trial, and that his lawyer did not provide effective help. He also claimed that all these issues together made it unfair for him. The court reviewed everything and determined that the main issue was that Paz did not receive the help of a lawyer when trying to withdraw his guilty pleas. Both Paz and the State agreed that he should have had a lawyer to assist him in this situation. The court recognized that without proper counsel, Paz's claim that his pleas were not voluntary could not be dismissed as harmless. As a result, the court decided to vacate the previous decision and send the case back to the District Court so they could properly address Paz's request to withdraw his pleas.

Continue ReadingC-2014-584

RE 2014-0536

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2014-0536, Matthew Carl Eddings appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Substance and Driving Under the Influence of Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Eddings' suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Eddings was originally given a deferred sentence with rules for probation and fines for his crimes. However, over the years, he struggled to meet the conditions of his probation, which included paying fines and child support. The state moved to revoke his sentence because of these issues. When the court reviewed Eddings' case, they found enough evidence to support the revocation. Eddings had not made required payments for over a year and had not shown a good faith effort to comply with the rules. The court also noted that since there were new facts presented during the latest revocation hearing, the principle of res judicata, which prevents re-judging the same issue, did not apply. However, there was an issue identified with an added requirement for supervision after imprisonment. The court agreed that the requirement for one year of supervision after his sentence was not appropriate, as new laws did not apply to his case. In conclusion, while Eddings’ suspended sentence was revoked, the court ordered that the requirement for post-imprisonment supervision be removed.

Continue ReadingRE 2014-0536

F-2014-279

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-279, Cruz-Brizuela appealed his conviction for Aggravated Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for new trials with conflict-free counsel. Guevara also appealed his conviction for the same charge, and the court made a similar decision for him. A dissenting opinion was filed. Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara were both found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County for having a large amount of cocaine hidden in a truck they were driving. The police had stopped them for a minor traffic issue and, upon inspection, discovered the cocaine in a secret compartment. During the trial, both men claimed they did not know about the drugs, but because they shared the same lawyer, there were concerns about an actual conflict of interest that seemed to affect their defense. The case stemmed from an incident on April 25, 2012, when an officer pulled their truck over. The officer had suspicions about the trip based on the men's log books and their explanations about stops they made along the way. The prosecutor argued that it was more likely that either Cruz-Brizuela or Guevara had placed the cocaine in the trailer during a long stop during their journey. Both men argued that their lawyer’s conflict made it impossible for him to defend them properly, as he could not use certain evidence to benefit one without hurting the other. Because their defense relied on the idea that neither of them knew about the drugs, the conflict prevented their lawyer from arguing effectively. The court found that the actual conflict had indeed affected the counsel's performance and, thus, both convictions were reversed. The judges agreed that it was important for defendants to have lawyers without conflicting interests to ensure a fair trial. The case was remanded for new trials where both Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara could have separate attorneys who could focus on their individual defenses. So, the outcome was that Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara were given another chance to defend themselves against the charges, this time with legal representation that wasn’t hindered by conflicts of interest.

Continue ReadingF-2014-279