In OCCA case No. C-2019-263, Floyd Joseph Ball, Jr. appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree and Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have the right to prosecute Ball because he is considered an Indian under federal law, and the crimes occurred in Indian Country. The judgment and sentence were reversed, and the case was remanded to the District Court with orders to dismiss it. One judge dissented from this decision.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOHNNY EARL JONES,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-805** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAN - 9 2020** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Appellant, Johnny Earl Jones, was convicted by jury of Child Neglect, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(C), in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case Number CF-2017-1887. The jury recommended a sentence of forty years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine, which the trial court imposed. Jones appealed from this judgment and sentence. 1. **Trial by Ambush:** Appellant contends that he was subjected to trial by ambush when the State called Corporal Eric Leverington as a witness without prior endorsement. However, the defense did not seek a continuance despite this late endorsement, and defense counsel had access to relevant materials, including Leverington's cell phone extraction report. Thus, the trial court’s decision to allow Leverington to testify was not an abuse of discretion, and appellant was not prejudiced. 2. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Appellant claims counsel was ineffective for opening the door to the cell phone evidence. The record indicates that defense counsel reviewed the report and made a strategic decision to call Leverington as a witness, which provided support for part of Appellant's narrative. The evidence against Appellant was substantial, and thus he could not demonstrate that but for counsel’s actions, the outcome would have been different. 3. **Admissibility of In-Life Photograph:** Appellant argues that a photograph of K.O. while alive was admitted in error. He did not object at trial, leading to a plain error review. The photograph was relevant to the defense that Appellant did not recognize the need for medical attention, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect. 4. **Prosecutorial Misconduct:** Appellant claims instances of prosecutorial misconduct, including misstatements regarding Appellant seeing Smith beat K.O. and regarding K.O.'s suffering. The evidence supports that Appellant knew of the abuse; thus, these claims did not deprive him of a fair trial. 5. **Admission of Pen Pack:** Lastly, Appellant characterizes prejudicial details in his previous offenses as grounds for error. However, under established law, pen packs are generally admissible to prove prior convictions, making their inclusion appropriate. **DECISION:** The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. **OPINION BY:** **LUMPKIN, J.** **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur in Results **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur in Results **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur in Results **KUEHN, V.P.J., CONCURRING IN RESULT:** While I agree with the affirmation of Appellant's conviction and sentence, I express concern regarding the prosecutor’s late endorsement of a witness which, while not resulting in prejudice, strays close to trial by ambush. I caution against such practices that may circumvent fair trial standards. [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-805_1735213973.pdf)
I'm unable to provide the document you're requesting. However, if you have any questions about the court case, the opinions expressed, or the legal issues discussed, feel free to ask!
**COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AUGUST 29, 2019** **CASE NO. C-2018-1235** **ROY DEAN HARJO,** *Petitioner,* **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** *Respondent.* **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Roy Dean Harjo entered a blind plea to Counts I, Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, and Counts II-V, Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, after previous convictions for two or more felonies, in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Case No. CF-2017-665. Following a sentencing hearing, the Honorable John Canavan sentenced Harjo to life on each Count I-V, concurrent for Counts II-V but consecutive to Count I, requiring Harjo to serve 85% before parole eligibility. Harjo filed a motion to withdraw his pleas, which was denied after a hearing on November 28, 2018. Harjo then filed a timely Petition for Writ of Certiorari, asserting four propositions of error: I. Harjo should be allowed to withdraw his pleas for Counts II-V due to lack of factual basis. II. His plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was uninformed about sentencing ranges, violating his rights under the Constitution. III. His plea was not knowing and voluntary due to misinformation regarding sentencing. IV. He was denied effective assistance of counsel. **Decision:** After comprehensive review, we find the evidence does not warrant relief. Proposition I cannot be considered as it was not presented in the motion to withdraw or the certiorari petition. In Propositions II and III, we find the pleas were knowing and voluntary. Harjo's assertion that he believed he would receive a thirty-year maximum sentence is contradicted by the record, which shows he understood the plea form stating potential life sentences. Therefore, his claims regarding plea counsel’s advice lack merit. In Proposition IV, we determine that there was no ineffective assistance from either plea or conflict counsel. Harjo's claim regarding the factual basis for his plea is unsupported, as ample facts exist to justify the plea. Any assertion that conflict counsel was ineffective for not challenging plea counsel also fails, as no substantial claims could have been made given the determination of a solid factual basis. **Conclusion:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is therefore **DENIED**. Upon filing this decision, the **MANDATE is ORDERED issued.** **This decision is concurred by all Justices.** --- *To view the complete decision, click [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-1235_1734229271.pdf).*
In OCCA case No. F-2018-512, Robert Neal Owens appealed his conviction for Sexual Battery and Child Abuse by Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Owens was found guilty by a judge in a non-jury trial for touching a victim inappropriately and causing harm to a child by putting the child in a chokehold. Owens argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough for a conviction. However, the court believed that enough evidence was presented to support both convictions. The court looked closely at the facts and found that a reasonable person could determine Owens was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge concluded that the punishment Owens received, which added up to fifty-five years in prison, was not excessive given his history of prior convictions and the nature of his crimes. Therefore, the court upheld the original sentences. Ultimately, Owens' appeal did not change the outcome of his case, and he remained sentenced to prison.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-359, Antonio Tiwan Taylor appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, conspiracy to commit a felony, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. Taylor was found guilty of robbing a home along with two other men. During the robbery, they used guns and threatened the residents, forcing them to the floor and taking their belongings. After the robbery, one of the witnesses, Felicia Alvarado, identified Taylor as one of the robbers. Alvarado explained that even though Taylor wore a bandanna over his face, she saw his face clearly when it fell off for a moment. A couple of weeks later, the police found jewelry that had been taken during the crime in Taylor's possession. Another accomplice in the robbery, who had pleaded guilty, also testified against Taylor, naming him as a participant. Although that person changed his story during Taylor's trial, the court still considered his initial statement as evidence. Taylor raised multiple points in his appeal. He argued that the evidence wasn’t enough to prove he was guilty. The court disagreed, stating that the witness's strong identification of him and the jewelry found with him provided enough evidence. Taylor also argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury to be cautious about eyewitness testimony. The court ruled that since there was solid evidence, the instruction wasn't necessary. Next, Taylor claimed it was unfair to convict him for both robbery and gun possession since they were connected to the same crime. The court found no issue with this and explained that the laws allowed for separate convictions in these cases. Finally, Taylor argued that all these points together should lead to a new trial. However, since the court found no errors in the points raised, they denied this request as well. In conclusion, the court upheld the original sentences of thirty years for the robbery counts and ten years for the other charges.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-202, the appellant appealed her conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, conspiracy to commit a felony, kidnapping, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. The case involved Katherine Marie Houser, who was found guilty by a jury for several serious crimes. The jury gave her a variety of sentences, including five years for robbery, two years for possession of a firearm during a felony, and six months for kidnapping. Some of these sentences were set to run at the same time, which is called concurrent sentences. Katherine argued that her lawyer did not represent her well, especially by not challenging one of the counts against her (the possession of a firearm). Although this count was eventually dismissed by the state, she felt that just being tried for it affected the jury’s decisions on other counts. The court looked at this claim and decided that even if the lawyer made a mistake, it wouldn’t have changed the outcome. The evidence against her for the other charges was strong, and the jurors weren’t likely swayed by having one extra charge against her. In her second argument, Katherine said that a fine imposed on her should not count because the judge did not mention it during the sentencing, even though she hadn’t complained about it at that time. The court found that since she didn’t raise an issue at the right time, she had a harder time proving there was an error worth correcting. Ultimately, both of Katherine's arguments were denied, and the court decided to uphold her convictions and sentences.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-994, Holly Tegan Zuniga-Griffin appealed her conviction for Enabling Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction. One judge dissented. The case involved Holly Tegan Zuniga-Griffin, who was found guilty of enabling the abuse of her three-year-old son. The jury in Muskogee County decided she was guilty of this crime based on the evidence presented during the trial. She was sentenced to ten years in prison, following the jury's recommendation. Zuniga-Griffin raised several issues in her appeal. First, she argued that the law regarding child abuse was unclear and vague. However, the court found no reason to change its previous decisions on this issue and denied her claim. Next, she claimed there wasn't enough evidence to prove she understood her child was in danger when she left him with her 17-year-old boyfriend. The court disagreed, stating there was enough evidence to show she should have known her child was at risk. Zuniga-Griffin had made inconsistent statements about how her son got hurt, and medical evidence indicated he had been physically abused. She also said she was denied a fair trial because the judge didn't instruct the jury properly. The court acknowledged that some jury instructions could have been appropriate, but overall, they did not think this affected the trial's fairness. Another point she raised was about a nurse giving an opinion in court when she didn't have the right qualifications. The court found that the nurse did have enough training and experience to testify about the injuries on the child, so they disagreed with Zuniga-Griffin's claim. Zuniga-Griffin contended that the prosecution failed to provide important evidence that could have helped her case. However, the court concluded that she was aware of the photos in question during the trial and did not attempt to use them, dismissing her argument. She also claimed her lawyer did not do a good job representing her, which negatively impacted her trial. But the court found her lawyer's decisions were reasonable and did not affect the outcome. Zuniga-Griffin then argued that her ten-year sentence was excessively harsh. The court noted that her son had suffered serious injuries, and her sentence was within what the law allowed, so they did not find it shocking. Finally, she stated that all the errors combined during the trial made it unfair. The court determined that the errors she identified did not, either separately or together, undermine her right to a fair trial. In the end, the decision of the trial court was upheld, meaning Zuniga-Griffin would serve her sentence as originally decided.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-52, #Green appealed his conviction for #Child Neglect, Child Abuse, and Possession of Marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and remand the case for a new hearing on Green's motion to withdraw his plea. #No one dissented. Terry Lamar Green was in trouble for neglecting and abusing a child, and for having marijuana. After he admitted to these crimes, he was given a very long prison sentence. He was supposed to spend life in prison for the neglect and abuse charges, and he also got some additional time for the marijuana possession. Green felt upset and wanted to change his mind about pleading guilty. He asked to take back his guilty plea, which is called a motion to withdraw his plea, but his lawyer wanted to quit the case because they had some disagreement about what was going on. However, the judge said the lawyer couldn’t leave. Green believed this was unfair since he really needed a lawyer who didn't have a conflict of interest to help him with the hearing about changing his plea. The court looked into Green’s arguments carefully. It noted that the lawyer had a real problem because she was worried about possibly being a witness in the case. This could affect how she represented Green, and the judge didn't seem to understand that her interests were different from Green's at that moment. This meant that Green did not get the help he truly needed when he most needed it. Because of these issues, the court decided that Green was entitled to have a different lawyer represent him at the hearing about withdrawing his plea. They needed to make sure he had someone who could defend him without any problems. The court then decided that they needed to send the case back so that Green could have a new hearing with a lawyer who didn’t have a conflict. They also noticed that there was a missing document related to his marijuana charge, so they ordered that to be fixed too. Overall, the court recognized that Green had rights that were not properly protected, so they made the decision to help him have another chance to argue his case.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-914, Burdex appealed his conviction for uttering a forged instrument. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified Burdex's sentence from life imprisonment to twenty years. One judge dissented. Burdex was found guilty of dealing with a fake check, and the jury decided he should serve life in prison due to his past crimes. His appeal raised several issues, including whether he received a speedy trial, if the evidence against him was strong enough, and if the judge made mistakes during the trial. The court looked at the claim for a speedy trial and used a test from a previous case. They found that he was not denied this right. They also believed there was enough evidence that showed Burdex knew the check was fake since he gave different reasons for having it. Burdex argued that the state shouldn't have used some of his old felonies to lengthen his sentence. However, the court found that the state followed the rules correctly. They said that the past felonies were not too old to be used in deciding his punishment. The court also looked into whether Burdex had good lawyers. They found no evidence that his lawyers did a bad job. Additionally, the judges decided the trial court was correct in not explaining what a life sentence meant. When it came to his sentence, the court felt that life imprisonment was too harsh for a non-violent crime. They noticed that the jury seemed to struggle with the punishment and had questions about how to decide it. Because of this, they decided to change his sentence to twenty years instead of life. In summary, the court agreed with the trial's decision to convict Burdex but felt the punishment should be lighter. One judge did not agree with changing the sentence and believed the jury's decision on punishment should stay as it was.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-1095, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from life imprisonment to forty-five years due to prosecutorial misconduct and the admission of excessive photographic evidence. One judge dissented, arguing that the initial conviction and sentence should have been upheld.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-484, Kevin Eddy Bumgarner appealed his conviction for First-Degree Arson and Attempting to Elude a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided Bumgarner’s sentence was excessive and modified it from 275 years to 45 years imprisonment. One judge dissented, stating that the original sentence reflected the jury's view of Bumgarner's actions.