In OCCA case No. S-2020-858, the State of Oklahoma appealed the dismissal of a conviction against Jeremy Lawhorn for Lewd or Indecent Acts with a Child Under 16. In a published decision, the court decided that the district court correctly dismissed the case due to a lack of jurisdiction, affirming that the crime occurred in Indian Country within the boundaries of the Quapaw Nation Reservation. A dissenting opinion was filed.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MICHELLE MARIE MESPLAY,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2019-155** **FILED** IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA FEB 13 2020 **JOHN D. HADDEN** CLERK --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant Michelle Marie Mesplay appeals from the revocation of her suspended sentences in Ottawa County District Court Case No. CF-2015-134. On October 2, 2015, Appellant entered a plea of no contest to Child Neglect under 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(C). The trial court accepted her plea, withheld a finding of guilt, and delayed proceedings for ten years. On December 23, 2016, the State filed an Application to Accelerate Deferred Judgment, to which Appellant stipulated. The court then accelerated her deferred sentence to a conviction, sentencing her to ten years imprisonment with all ten years suspended. On May 3, 2018, the State moved to revoke the suspended sentence, citing failures to pay supervision fees and court costs, continued methamphetamine use, repeated failures to report, and unknown whereabouts. Appellant stipulated to the motion, and the Honorable Robert Haney revoked seven and a half years of her remaining ten-year suspended sentence. Appellant contends this revocation was excessive and claims an abuse of discretion regarding the length of the revocation. The court's decision to revoke is grounded in the understanding that a suspended sentence is a matter of grace (Demry v. State, 1999 OK CR 31, I 12, 986 P.2d 1145, 1147). The State must demonstrate only one violation of probation to revoke a suspended sentence in full (Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, I 10, 306 P.3d 554, 557). In this case, Appellant’s stipulation to violating the terms of her suspended sentence validates the trial court’s revocation decision. The trial court’s discretion in revocations remains crucial, and disturbances to this discretion are reserved for clear abuse (Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, I 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565). Evidence presented to justify the revocation aligned with statutory requirements (22 O.S.Supp.2018, § 991b(A)), and Appellant has not substantiated any claim of abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Ottawa County District Court Case No. CF-2015-134 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2020), MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** **ANDREW MELOY** – Counsel for Defendant **MARK HOOVER** – Counsel for Appellant **ROGER HUGHES**, **MIKE HUNTER** – Counsel for Appellee **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR --- For the complete opinion in PDF format, [click here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2019-155_1734334834-1.pdf).
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** *Case No. C-2018-1040* **ROLLO ROY WERLINE, IV,** *Petitioner,* *vs.* **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** *Respondent.* **FILED** *IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS* *OCT 31 2019* *JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK* **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Rolla Roy Werline, IV, represented by counsel, entered pleas of guilty to First Degree Manslaughter (Count I), Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident (Count II), and Failure to Maintain Insurance (Count III) in the District Court of Ottawa County, Case No. CF-2017-164. The pleas were accepted by the Honorable Robert G. Haney on April 19, 2018. On June 12, 2018, Petitioner was sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment for Count I, five (5) years imprisonment in Count II (suspended), and a $250.00 fine for Count III. On June 15, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, which was denied at a hearing on June 26, 2018. Petitioner appeals this denial, raising two propositions of error: 1. Petitioner should be allowed to withdraw his plea as it was not entered knowingly and intelligently, given he did not understand the consequences of entering a blind plea. 2. The imposed fines and costs were excessive. **Proposition I:** Petitioner contends that his plea was not entered voluntarily and was the result of being misadvised regarding the plea process. The trial court reviewed this issue during the motion to withdraw hearing. Assessing whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently is key. The record indicates the plea was knowing and voluntary, highlighting that the petitioner understood the court would determine punishment and could impose a sentence within statutory limits. The trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw is upheld. **Proposition II:** Petitioner claims his sentence is excessive, particularly citing a victim impact statement that contained a sentence recommendation, which he argues improperly influenced the court's decision. While acknowledging that victim impact statements may be considered during sentencing, those statements should not contain sentence recommendations. Any potential error here was harmless, as the overall sentence is seen as reasonable and within statutory limits. It was also noted that the issue of a $250.00 Victim Compensation Assessment in Count III was not raised previously and is thus waived for appeal. **DECISION:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. **OPINION BY:** **LUMPKIN, J.** *LEWIS, P.J.: Concur* *KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur* *HUDSON, J.: Concur* *ROWLAND, J.: Concur* **Click Here To Download PDF** [Link to PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-1040_1734225145.pdf)
In summary, Stephen Charles Swanson, Jr. appealed the revocation of his suspended sentence in the District Court of Ottawa County after he stipulated to allegations of violating the conditions of his probation. The trial court had found that he committed multiple violations, including new criminal charges, failure to report, absconding, and failure to pay fines. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision, affirming that the revocation was not an abuse of discretion. The court noted that the revocation of a suspended sentence is at the discretion of the trial court and will only be reversed if there is a clear error in judgment against the evidence presented. The ruling was affirmed, and the mandate was ordered issued upon filing this decision.
In OCCA case No. RE-2015-922, Palmer appealed his conviction for perjury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Palmer's suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Palmer had previously received a deferred sentence for a case in 2010. In 2015, he pleaded no contest to a perjury charge and got another suspended sentence that he was serving at the same time as the first one. Later, the State of Oklahoma filed to revoke his suspended sentences, claiming he had violated probation by not reporting, not paying court costs, and not completing a required program. They also added new charges of kidnapping and assault. During the revocation hearing, Palmer was removed from the courtroom because he was disruptive. He interrupted the judge repeatedly and was warned to stop, but he did not listen. The court found that because he was behaving disruptively, his absence from the hearing did not make the process unfair. Palmer also claimed that he wanted to represent himself but was forced to have a lawyer. The court determined he had not made any formal request to represent himself, so this claim was rejected. Additionally, Palmer argued that the court did not explain why his sentences were revoked. However, the court noted that there is no requirement to provide detailed reasons at a revocation hearing. Palmer's failure to follow even one condition of his probation was enough to justify the revocation of his sentences. Finally, Palmer thought the judge did not have the power to impose supervision following his imprisonment. However, the court found this issue was already resolved and was therefore moot. The court's overall ruling was to confirm that Palmer's suspended sentences were revoked, maintaining that proper procedures were followed during the revocation hearing.
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.
In OCCA case No. J-2014-980, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child Under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the order adjudicating him as a delinquent child due to the lack of sufficient evidence that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a trial by jury. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-732, Bryan Thomas Delaney appealed his conviction for Escape from a Penal Institution and Resisting Arrest. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence for post-imprisonment supervision but upheld the rest of his conviction. One member of the court dissented. Delaney was found guilty by a jury after a trial where he faced charges for escaping a jail and resisting the police. As a result of these charges, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for the escape and 1 year in the county jail for the resisting arrest. The judge also ordered him to have 2 years of supervision after his prison time. Delaney argued that he was treated unfairly during the sentencing. He felt that the jury was wrongly told that his previous felony convictions could lead to a harsher sentence. However, he did not raise this issue during the trial, which made it harder for him to win the appeal. The court found that his past crimes were separate incidents and did not fall under the rules for counting prior offenses. Delaney also claimed that his lawyer did not do a good job because they did not challenge the jury instruction about the prior convictions. For his appeal to be successful on this point, he needed to show that his lawyer's mistakes really changed the outcome of his trial. The court decided that, since the jury's instruction was appropriate, his lawyer's actions did not affect his case. Finally, the court noted that while neither side pointed it out, Delaney was sentenced to longer supervision than what the law allows. They corrected this by reducing the supervision time to just 1 year. In summary, the court made some changes to Delaney's post-prison supervision but agreed with the rest of his sentencing and conviction. The decision was mostly upheld, and only one part was changed to be in line with the law.
In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0850, Chief Allen Weston appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Choking. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered the district court to modify the sentence to give Weston credit for the ninety days he had already served in jail during his probation period. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-635, Bradberry appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended life sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the full revocation and modify it to a ten-year revocation instead. One judge dissented. Bradberry was given suspended life sentences for failing to register as a sex offender and living near a school. He was on probation for less than two weeks when the state accused him of not reporting to his probation officer and not providing proof of employment or treatment. The trial judge decided to revoke his sentences completely due to these violations. Bradberry argued that the judge made a mistake by revoking his sentences in full, claiming it was excessive. The appeals court agreed that the judge abused his discretion, especially since many of Bradberry’s previous issues happened before his new sentencing. They found that the most significant reason for the revocation was his failure to report, which they believed did not warrant a full revocation. In the end, the appeal court decided that Bradberry’s suspended sentences should be modified. Instead of serving a life sentence, he would have to serve ten years of his suspended time. One judge disagreed with this decision and believed the full revocation was justified because Bradberry had not met his probation requirements.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-651, the appellant appealed his conviction for domestic assault and battery by strangulation and threatening to perform an act of violence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for the second count but affirmed the conviction and sentence for the first count. One judge dissented. James Duane Dorsey, Jr. entered a guilty plea for domestic assault and battery and no contest for threatening to perform an act of violence. He was sentenced to three years in prison, which was suspended, and 90 days in county jail for the first count. For the second count, he received a suspended one-year jail sentence, to run at the same time as the first count. Dorsey later tried to withdraw his pleas, but the trial court did not allow it. In his appeal, Dorsey argued two main points. First, he claimed his plea for the first charge was not valid because the court did not show enough facts to justify the plea. Second, he said the sentence for the second count was too long and needed to be changed. The court looked carefully at the entire case record before making a decision. They found that for the first point, Dorsey did not mention the lack of facts during his earlier motions, which means it was not properly brought up in his appeal. The court determined that, under their rules, they could only check for serious mistakes, not just any errors. They confirmed that Dorsey's pleas were made knowingly and that the court had the right to accept them. Dorsey had admitted to the crime of strangulation during his hearing, and the state had evidence to support the charge of threatening violence. For the second point, the court agreed with Dorsey that his sentence for the second count was too long. They noted that the maximum sentence for that misdemeanor should be six months. Therefore, they adjusted the sentence down to six months, but still suspended it. Overall, the court accepted Dorsey’s pleas and affirmed his conviction for the first count. However, they changed his sentence for the second count to fit within legal limits. One judge disagreed with how the court reviewed the first point but agreed with the rest of the decision.
In OCCA case No. F 2009-70, Phillip Ray Herndon appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and the sentence of twenty years imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. Phillip Ray Herndon was found guilty in the Ottawa County District Court. The jury decided on a sentence of twenty years for his crime, which was based on his history of previous felonies. After his conviction, he claimed that the trial had some issues. Herndon pointed out a few problems he believed affected his trial. First, he argued that the judge should have allowed the jury to consider a lesser crime: simple Assault and Battery instead of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. He thought this was unfair and took away his rights to a fair trial. Second, he argued that the evidence against him wasn't strong enough to prove he had used a dangerous weapon. He said there was no clear proof that the object he used was actually a dangerous weapon or that it could hurt someone badly. Lastly, he mentioned that the official court documents didn’t show an order that his new sentence would run at the same time as a sentence from another case. He wanted this to be fixed, calling for a correction to the official records. The court reviewed all the facts and evidence presented in the trial and decided that the judge did not make a mistake when refusing the request for the lesser offense. They agreed that there was enough evidence for the jury to convict Herndon of the more serious charge. They also acknowledged that the judge had ordered his sentence to run concurrently with another but agreed that the paperwork needed to be corrected. In the end, the court upheld the sentence of twenty years but sent the case back to fix the clerical error about the sentence running concurrently with Herndon’s other case.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-816, Martin appealed his conviction for several serious crimes against children. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences. One judge dissented. Solly Lee Martin, Jr. was found guilty of multiple charges which included lewd molestation, attempted forcible oral sodomy, and child sexual abuse. The trial happened in Ottawa County, where he received very long sentences for these crimes, which involved terms that ranged from 10 years to life in prison. Some sentences were ordered to be served together, while others had to be served after. During his appeal, Martin claimed he was not given a fair trial. He argued that the trial judge wouldn't allow him to show evidence about the complainant's past which he thought could help his case. In another claim, he said that some testimony during the trial was unfairly negative against him and could influence the jury's decision. The court looked closely at Martin's complaints. They found that he did not properly follow the rules to show the evidence he wanted to introduce, so his first complaint was not accepted. For the second complaint, the court agreed that some of the testimony presented was error, as it talked too much about what the crime might do to the victims in the future, which is generally not allowed in these types of cases. Despite these issues, the court decided that overall, Martin's convictions would remain, but they agreed to change his sentences. Instead of them running one after the other, they made them all run at the same time. The final decision was that although the court kept the convictions, there were changes to make sure the sentences were fair.
In OCCA case No. RE-2002-523, Lonnie George Baker, Jr., appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but modified the length of the sentence. One judge dissented. Baker had pleaded guilty to possessing illegal drugs and was given a five-year suspended sentence, which meant he wouldn't go to jail unless he broke the rules. However, he violated the terms of his suspension, leading the state to file a petition to revoke it. After a hearing, the judge decided that Baker had indeed broken the rules and revoked his suspended sentence. Initially, the judge announced Baker should be locked up for 4 years and 4 months. But later, Baker argued that this was incorrect because he had less time left to serve. The state agreed with him on that point. They also discussed extra time Baker spent in a mental hospital, but the court decided he wasn't entitled to credit for those days. Ultimately, the court agreed that Baker should go to jail, but they changed his sentence from 4 years and 4 months to 4 years and 90 days.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1517, Paul Nathan Johnson appealed his conviction for multiple counts related to drug offenses, including Attempt to Manufacture Methamphetamine and Possession of Methamphetamine Within 1000 Feet of a School. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Johnson's convictions and sentences but vacated the fine imposed for one of the charges. One judge dissented. The case involved Johnson being found guilty of trying to make methamphetamine and having it near a school. He was also charged with having a gun while committing these crimes and having tools used for drug-making. The trial judge gave Johnson a long sentence and hefty fines based on the jury's recommendations. Johnson raised several complaints in his appeal. First, he argued that being convicted for both trying to make meth and having it near a school was unfair. The court decided that both charges were different enough that he could be found guilty of both without it being double punishment. Next, Johnson claimed there wasn't enough proof that he had a gun ready to use while making drugs. However, the court found that there was enough evidence showing he had the gun where he could easily get to it. Johnson also argued that he didn't really start making meth yet. The court disagreed and stated that the evidence showed he was past just planning and was actively attempting to make the drug. Finally, Johnson felt that his sentences were too harsh. The court decided that the judge acted within their rights in giving Johnson the sentences and fines, except for one fine, which they deemed not allowed by the law. In the end, the court confirmed most of Johnson's convictions and sentences but removed the extra fine related to one of the charges.