In OCCA case No. F-2019-37, Suggs appealed his conviction for first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial on that count due to an instructional error, while affirming the convictions on the other counts. One judge dissented.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DUSTIN SCOTT PATTON,** Appellant, Case No. F-2018-957 **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Dustin Scott Patton was convicted in the District Court of Kay County, Case No. CF-2017-258, of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, violating 21 O.S.2011, § 652(C). A jury recommended a ten-year sentence, and Honorable David Bandy, District Judge, imposed the sentence as per the jury's verdict. Patton appeals with two propositions of error. 1. **The modified jury instruction improperly relieved the State of proving an essential element of the crime charged.** 2. **Appellant was deprived of a fair trial due to numerous pleas for sympathy for the victim during trial.** Upon thorough review of the record and arguments presented, we find no grounds for relief. Patton's judgment and sentence are **AFFIRMED**. **Proposition I:** Patton concedes he did not object to Instruction No. 24 at trial, necessitating plain error review. To establish plain error, Patton must show an actual error that is obvious and affects his substantial rights. Previous case law indicates that certain weapons, like knives, are per se deadly weapons. Instruction No. 24, which classified a knife as a deadly weapon, was not erroneous, and thus Proposition I is **denied**. **Proposition II:** For prosecutorial misconduct claims, relief is granted only if the misconduct renders the trial fundamentally unfair. Patton only objected to the display of the victim’s scars. The presentation of the victim’s injuries primarily served to illustrate the crime's severity and the use of force, which was pertinent to the charges against Patton. This evidence was not unduly prejudicial, and thus, Proposition II is also **denied**. **DECISION:** The District Court's Judgment and Sentence are **AFFIRMED**. *Issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.* **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J. --- For further details, you can download the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-957_1734873972.pdf).
The document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding Larry Donelle Brown, Jr.'s appeal following his resentencing for a first-degree murder conviction. Here's a brief breakdown of the key points: 1. **Background**: - Larry Donelle Brown, Jr. was convicted of first-degree murder as a juvenile and initially sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. - This sentence was later challenged, and the Oklahoma Court granted post-conviction relief, allowing Brown to be resentenced. 2. **Resentencing**: - Upon resentencing by Judge Sharon K. Holmes, Brown received a life sentence with the possibility of parole, with credit for time served. 3. **Appeal**: - Brown's appeal argues that his life sentence effectively amounts to a life sentence without parole, violating his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. - He cites the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in *Miller v. Alabama* and *Graham v. Florida*, which assert that juveniles should have a meaningful opportunity for parole based on their maturity and rehabilitation. 4. **Court Findings**: - The court found no constitutional violation in Brown's sentence. - It reiterated previous rulings that a life sentence with the possibility of parole does not violate the standards set by the Supreme Court regarding juvenile offenders. - The court noted that Brown, having served over 21 years, appears eligible for parole consideration and affirmed that he had not been denied fair notice or opportunity in the parole process. 5. **Conclusion**: - The sentence was affirmed, indicating that the court found the sentencing to be constitutional and appropriate given the circumstances surrounding Brown's case. Overall, the Court concluded that Brown's concerns regarding parole and the juvenile sentencing principles established by prior Supreme Court rulings were sufficiently addressed by his current life sentence with the possibility of parole.
This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the case of Ronald Fitzgerald Williams. Williams entered a negotiated guilty plea to multiple counts related to drug offenses and other violations. After sentencing, he filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted a writ of certiorari (a type of court order) and remanded the case for a new hearing on Williams' motion to withdraw his plea. The court found significant errors: 1. Williams was allegedly misadvised about his appellate rights, affecting the voluntariness of his plea. 2. The evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea was held in his absence without a valid waiver of his right to be present. 3. Williams asserted he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The court emphasized that due process requires a defendant's attendance at a hearing concerning the withdrawal of a plea unless there’s evidence of a waiver, which was not present in this case. The court reversed the trial court’s denial of the motion to withdraw the plea and ordered a new hearing to ensure due process is upheld. The document concludes with information about the attorneys involved in the case and instructions for further proceedings. For additional details or specific legal arguments, you can download the full opinion using the link provided.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AARON THOMAS BROCK,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2018-562** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Aaron Thomas Brock was convicted by jury of robbery with a dangerous weapon and conspiracy to commit a felony in Oklahoma County District Court, receiving a total sentence of thirty-five years imprisonment. He appeals with two propositions of error. **Proposition One: IAD Violation** Brock argues his rights under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) were violated when the State did not bring him to trial within the mandated 180 days. The trial court ruled that no proper detainer was lodged against him as required by Article III of the IAD. Brock contends that a documentation was sent to the appropriate authorities, triggering the IAD timeline. The trial court determined that there was no evidence of a proper detainer because the Oklahoma County District Attorney's office and the Court Clerk's office had no record of receiving documentation from Brock. Notably, the trial court found a facsimile from the Sheriff's office did not constitute a proper detainer as defined by case law (Fex v. Michigan). The Court agreed with the trial court's findings, ruling that Brock failed to provide sufficient documentation and credible evidence to support his claims. **Proposition Two: Insufficient Evidence** In his second proposition, Brock asserts that the evidence was insufficient to uphold the conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. The standard for reviewing evidence requires this Court to determine if, viewing the evidence favorably to the prosecution, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The facts presented included testimony that a knife was brandished toward a victim and that money was taken by a co-defendant and given to Brock. The Court found that this evidence met the elements for robbery with a dangerous weapon, reinforcing that the presence of fear in the victim suffices for conviction. **Decision** Both propositions of error raised by Brock are denied. The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. A mandate will issue upon filing this decision. **Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County** The Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge **Attorneys for Appellant**: Nick Southerland, Andrea Digilio Miller, Micah Sielert **Attorneys for Appellee**: Kelly Collins, Mike Hunter, Lori McConnell, Jennifer B. Miller **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **CONCURRING:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. [**Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-562_1735316443.pdf)
**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case Summary: Monte Dean Perry v. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No.: F-2018-760** **Judgment Date: December 5, 2019** **Overview:** Monte Dean Perry was convicted by a jury on charges of assault and battery with a deadly weapon and endeavoring to perform an act of violence. The court sentenced him to 30 years for the first count and 5 years for the second, with both sentences to run concurrently. **Legal Issue:** Perry appealed the conviction, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to prove he assaulted the victim with a knife, arguing that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. **Court's Review Standard:** The appellate court evaluated the evidence under the standard that favors the prosecution, determining if any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as per *Spuehler v. State*. **Decision:** The court upheld the jury's conviction, finding that the evidence was indeed sufficient to support the verdict. Perry's proposition of error was denied, and the judgment and sentence were affirmed. **Additional Notes:** - Perry must serve 85% of his sentence for Count 1 before being eligible for parole consideration. - The opinion was delivered by Presiding Judge Lewis, with concurrence from Judges Kuehn, Lumpkin, Hudson, and Rowland. For full text or additional details, refer to the official opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-760_1735216916.pdf).
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **RICHARD PATRICK SPAULDING,** **Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-668** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **OCT 31 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Richard Patrick Spaulding, Appellant, was tried by a jury and found guilty of first degree murder, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 701.7(A), in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2017-682. The jury set punishment at life imprisonment. The Honorable William J. Musseman, Jr., District Judge, pronounced judgment and sentence accordingly. Mr. Spaulding appeals on the following proposition of error: 1. The evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed the crime of murder in the first degree. Appellant must serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for consideration for parole, pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1(1). In Proposition One, Appellant argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We review the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. *Spuehler v. State,* 1985 OK CR 132, ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04. In this inquiry, we will not second guess the jury's finding of facts, but will accept the reasonable inferences and credibility choices that support the jury's verdict. *Mason v. State,* 2018 OK CR 37, ¶ 13, 433 P.3d 1264, 1269. We conclude that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support Appellant's conviction for murder. Proposition One is denied. **DECISION** The judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY** **THE HON. WILLIAM J. MUSSEMAN, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** RICHARD KOLLER 423 S. BOULDER AVE., STE. 300 TULSA, OK 74103 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** RICHARD COUCH REBECCA NEWMAN 423 S. BOULDER AVE., STE. 300 TULSA, OK 74103 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT KENNETH ELMORE MIKE HUNTER KATY HAMSTRA ATTORNEY GENERAL ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS KEELEY L. MILLER 500 S. DENVER AVE., STE. 900 TULSA, OK 742103 ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY: LEWIS, P.J.** KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, P.J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-668_1735223088.pdf)
In OCCA case No. F-2018-175, Charles Randall Hayes appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter while driving under the influence of drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for the misdemeanor driving under the influence charge but affirmed the convictions for first-degree manslaughter and driving left of center. One judge dissented. Mr. Hayes was found guilty of serious charges, including manslaughter, because he caused an accident while driving under the influence. The jury gave him a life sentence for this, along with fines for the other charges. He had multiple reasons for appealing his case, claiming that he didn’t get a fair trial, that his sentence was too harsh, that his lawyer didn’t help him enough, and that mistakes happened during the trial that made it unfair. The court looked at whether the charges against him were correct. They agreed that he couldn't be sentenced for both manslaughter and for the misdemeanor of driving under the influence at the same time because that would be unfair punishment for the same action. Mr. Hayes argued that the prosecution behaved badly during the trial, but the court found that there were no serious mistakes that changed the outcome. They believed that the prosecutor's actions did not make the trial unfair enough to change the results. When Mr. Hayes said his sentence was too harsh, the court decided that it was still within the legal limits. They only change sentences if they are shockingly unfair, which they did not find here. Mr. Hayes also claimed that his lawyer did not defend him well enough. However, since the court did not find that the prosecutor made major mistakes, they thought there was no reason to think that a different lawyer would have helped him more. Finally, Mr. Hayes felt that too many errors had happened to make the trial fair at all. The court disagreed and said that since they found none of the individual mistakes were harmful, they couldn’t consider them as a group. In conclusion, the appeal changed one of the misdemeanor charges but largely supported the main conviction.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-780, Rawson appealed his conviction for lewd or indecent acts to a child under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Rawson was found guilty by a jury for multiple counts of lewd acts against a child. The jury recommended life imprisonment for each count, and the trial court imposed the sentences to run one after the other. Rawson challenged his conviction, claiming that the jury was not adequately instructed on the specific acts he allegedly committed. He did not argue that the law was incorrectly stated, just that the instructions should have outlined the acts in more detail. The court explained that instructions for juries are meant to accurately convey applicable law, and in this case, they properly followed the Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions. The trial court had provided sufficient instructions, describing the necessary elements that the prosecution needed to prove for each count. Even though Rawson's defense wanted more specificity in the instructions, the court found that the jury was clearly informed about the nature of the charges against him. Since he did not dispute the proof of the allegations or claim that the law was wrongly applied, the court decided that there was no abuse of discretion and upheld the original decision. In conclusion, the court affirmed Rawson's conviction, and the case was officially closed with no errors found in the trial process.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. F-2018-954** --- **CHRISTIAN D. MOLINA-SOLORZANO, Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant Christian D. Molina-Solorzano appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Beckham County, Case No. CF-2017-259, for Aggravated Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2015, § 2-415. The Honorable F. Douglas Haught presided over the non-jury trial, found Molina-Solorzano guilty, and sentenced him to fifteen years imprisonment, $1,000.00 fine, and one year of post-imprisonment supervision. Molina-Solorzano raises the following issues: 1. Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge the basis for the traffic stop. 2. Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to inform him of his rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). 3. Entitlement to retroactive application of recent changes in law regarding parole eligibility for aggravated trafficking convictions. **DECISION:** After review, we find relief is not warranted and affirm the district court's Judgment and Sentence. **1. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Traffic Stop Challenge** Molina-Solorzano asserts that defense counsel was ineffective by not challenging the validity of the traffic stop, which he claims was based on race discrimination and an inadequate fog light infraction. To succeed on an ineffective assistance claim, Molina-Solorzano must demonstrate: - Counsel's performance was deficient. - The deficiency resulted in prejudice that affected the outcome of the trial. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and a traffic stop is valid if the officer had probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation. The record, including video evidence from the traffic stop, supports that the stop was justified due to a fog light infraction. The trooper's testimony confirmed that visibility was over a mile, and thus the use of fog lights constituted a violation under Oklahoma law. Since the stop was justified, Molina-Solorzano cannot establish that counsel's failure to challenge it affected the trial's outcome, denying his ineffective assistance claim. **2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: VCCR Rights** Molina-Solorzano also contends that defense counsel failed to inform him of his rights under the VCCR, which would have allowed him to contact the Mexican consulate for assistance. To evaluate this claim, we consider: - Whether he was unaware of his right to contact his consulate. - Whether he would have utilized that right had he known. - Whether the consulate's assistance would have likely aided his defense. The record lacks evidence that Molina-Solorzano was unaware of his rights or that assistance from the consulate would have changed the trial's outcome. Appellate counsel's assertions do not suffice to demonstrate these conditions. Therefore, this claim is also denied. **3. Retroactive Application of Parole Changes** Molina-Solorzano argues that he should benefit from recent legislative proposals reducing parole eligibility terms for aggravated trafficking convictions. However, as legislation is not retroactive unless explicitly stated, and the referenced Senate Bill was never enacted, his claim is moot. **CONCLUSION:** The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** - Kenny R. Goza, Counsel for Defendant - Debra K. Hampton, Counsel for Appellant - Gina R. Webb, Counsel for State - Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma - Joshua R. Fanelli, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** ROWLAND, J. **Concur in Results:** KUEHN, V.P.J. **Concur:** LUMPKIN, J. **Concur:** HUDSON, J. --- For the full decision, click here: [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-954_1734874505.pdf)
In OCCA case No. F-2018-269, David Anthony Tofflemire appealed his conviction for Possession of Child Pornography. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One member of the court dissented. Tofflemire was found guilty at a trial without a jury and received a sentence of sixteen years in prison, with eight of those years suspended. He argued that there was not enough evidence against him, that he did not understand his waiver of the jury trial, and that there was an error in taxing him with an attorney fee even though he had his own lawyer. The court reviewed the case carefully and found that the evidence presented was sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that Tofflemire knowingly possessed child pornography on his cell phone. They stated that the prosecution provided enough proof to support the conviction. Regarding the waiver of his jury trial, Tofflemire claimed he did not fully understand what he was doing. However, the court noted that he had signed a form waiving his right to a jury trial and that his lawyer acknowledged this waiver on the record. Since there was no evidence of coercion or misunderstanding, the court decided Tofflemire's waiver was valid. Finally, concerning the attorney fee, the court recognized that Tofflemire had hired his own lawyer but also that a fee for a court-appointed lawyer was mentioned in the court documents by mistake. Therefore, the court decided to remand the case back to the district court to correct this clerical error. In conclusion, Tofflemire's conviction was upheld, but the court took action to ensure the records reflected the correct information concerning the attorney fee.
In the case of LeJeanna Sue Chronister v. State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed several appeals raised by the appellant following her conviction for Aggravated Manufacture of a Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine) and her subsequent sentencing to twenty years in prison. The appellant raised three primary propositions of error: 1. **Violation of Rights Regarding the 85% Rule**: The appellant contended that her sentence was unconstitutional because she was not informed that the 85% Rule (requiring her to serve 85% of her sentence before becoming eligible for parole) applied to her case. The court concluded that this argument did not hold merit in a non-jury trial setting, stating that the judge, not a jury, was responsible for sentencing and presumed to know the law. The court found no plain error as the sentence was within the statutory range and was the minimum allowed. 2. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: The appellant claimed her counsel was ineffective for not informing her about the 85% Rule, impacting her decision-making during her trial. The court applied the Strickland standard to evaluate the ineffectiveness claim, concluding that the appellant did not demonstrate how the alleged deficiency in counsel's performance prejudiced her case or altered the outcome. 3. **Cumulative Error**: The appellant argued that the combination of errors denied her a fair trial. The court determined that since none of the individual claims of error warranted relief, the cumulative error argument also lacked merit. Ultimately, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court of LeFlore County, stating that the appellant had not demonstrated any error that would necessitate modifying the sentence or overturning the conviction. The ruling emphasizes the distinction between non-jury trials and jury trials concerning informing defendants about parole-related laws and the importance of counsel's performance under the criteria established by the Strickland case.
**Summary of Court Decision: Shawn A. Detwiler v. The State of Oklahoma** *Case Overview:* Shawn A. Detwiler sought post-conviction relief related to multiple convictions stemming from offenses committed as a juvenile, including armed robbery and shooting with intent to kill. After initially pleading guilty to several charges and receiving concurrent sentences, he argued that the combination of his consecutive sentences constituted a de facto life without parole sentence, violating his Eighth Amendment rights. *Key Points of Rulings:* 1. **Case Summation:** Detwiler was convicted on several counts involving crimes such as burglary, robbery, and assault. His sentences ranged from 5 years to life imprisonment, some being discharged over time. 2. **Legal Precedents Cited:** Detwiler's argument was heavily reliant on the legal interpretations established in *Graham v. Florida*, *Miller v. Alabama*, and *Montgomery v. Louisiana*, which emphasize that juvenile offenders should not be sentenced to life without parole for non-homicide crimes. 3. **District Court's Findings:** The District Court found that since Detwiler was not sentenced to life without parole or its functional equivalent, the Eighth Amendment protections cited in those cases did not apply. 4. **Aggregate Sentencing Argument:** Detwiler contended that his sentences, when viewed collectively, equated to a de facto life sentence. However, the court maintained that each sentence should be evaluated independently. 5. **Response to Tenth Circuit Precedent:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals referred to a prior ruling (Martinez v. State) which rejected the idea of viewing multiple sentences in aggregate for Eighth Amendment analysis. 6. **Conclusion by the Court:** Detwiler's post-conviction relief was ultimately denied. The court established that he has the potential for parole consideration and has not received sentences that deal with him as if he was sentenced to life without parole as per the noted precedents. *Dissenting Opinions:* 1. Judge Lewis dissented, arguing that consecutive sentences for multiple serious offenses committed as a juvenile effectively mean a lifetime sentence without a realistic chance for release, which may constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 2. The dissent emphasized that juveniles should be given a chance to demonstrate maturity and rehabilitation, which the current sentencing practices do not permit. 3. It was asserted that the framework of Graham should extend to prevent the imposition of excessively punitive aggregated sentences for juveniles, thereby relieving them of permanent confinement without the chance for parole. *Final Notes:* The court's ruling underscores ongoing debates about sentencing juveniles, the interpretation of constitutional protections, and the lengths of sentences impacting juvenile offenders. The dissent highlights the critical need for opportunities for rehabilitation and review in cases involving young individuals.
This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the case of Donald Ray Morrow. The key points of the opinion are as follows: 1. **Case Background**: Donald Ray Morrow was convicted by a jury of first-degree burglary, second-degree burglary, and larceny of an automobile in Custer County. He received a concurrent sentencing of fifteen years for the first-degree burglary, four years for the second-degree burglary, and six years for larceny. 2. **Propositions of Error**: Morrow raised two main arguments on appeal: - **Proposition One**: He claimed the trial court erred by allowing a juror who had a social acquaintance with a prosecution witness to remain on the panel. Upon examination, the juror stated that she could set aside any prior knowledge and decide based solely on the evidence presented. The court found no actual bias or harm and denied the request for a mistrial. - **Proposition Two**: Morrow argued that his sentence did not properly reflect credit for time served. The court agreed that an order was necessary to ensure that the credit for time served is accurately recorded in the judgment. 3. **Decision**: The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Morrow's convictions but remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to correct the judgment to reflect that he is to receive credit for time served. 4. **Outcome**: The mandate was ordered to be issued upon the filing of the decision, and all participating judges concurred with the opinion. For those interested in the full legal document, a link to download the complete opinion in PDF format is provided.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-77, Jose M. Diaz appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Diaz's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Diaz was tried by a jury in Tulsa County. The jury found him guilty of the crime and recommended he spend thirty years in prison. The trial was overseen by a district judge, who followed the jury's recommendation for sentencing. Three main points were raised by Diaz in his appeal. First, he argued that the court made a mistake by allowing certain testimony from victims' family members, which he believed unfairly impacted the jury's feelings about the case. Second, he claimed that the prosecutors made improper statements during their closing arguments that harmed his right to a fair trial. Lastly, he argued that the issues combined created a situation where he could not receive a fair trial. The court looked carefully at all the evidence from the trial and the records of the case. For the first point about the victim's family's testimony, the court decided that it was relevant to the case. It helped the jury understand the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the victim, which connected to the nature of the crime. The court found no mistake in allowing that testimony. In the second point about the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments, Diaz did not object to some of the comments during the first closing statement, which limited his ability to challenge them later. The court noted that most of what the prosecutor said was based on evidence presented during the trial. Although one comment about the victim not being able to have children was deemed inappropriate, the overall context did not make the trial unfair. For the last point on cumulative error, the court stated that there were no significant mistakes to consider together that would change the outcome of the trial. Ultimately, the court decided that Diaz received a fair trial and did not find any major errors in the way the trial was conducted. As a result, they upheld the original judgment and sentence given to him.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **GARRET TAYLOR MANKIN,** Appellant, Case No. F-2018-595 **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. --- **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, JUL 11 2019** John D. Hadden, Clerk --- ### SUMMARY OPINION **HUDSON, JUDGE:** **Background:** Garret Taylor Mankin was tried and convicted in a nonjury trial in Pontotoc County District Court (Case No. CF-2015-347) for two counts of Lewd Acts with a Child Under Twelve (Counts 1 and 3), violating 21 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1123(A)(2). He was sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment for each count, with the last five years of both sentences suspended. Originally charged with eleven counts, the trial court dismissed the majority by agreement of the parties. Mankin must serve eighty-five percent of his sentence before being eligible for parole. **Propositions of Error:** Mankin raises two propositions of error concerning the trial court's admission of hearsay statements from the alleged victims, P.M. and F.Y. 1. **Admittance of P.M.'s Hearsay Statements:** Mankin argues that the hearsay statements made by P.M. were not inherently trustworthy. The court found that the statements were admissible under 12 O.S.Supp.2013, § 2803.1, which allows for the admission of hearsay statements made by children under twelve regarding sexual contact against them if deemed reliable. Upon review: - P.M. disclosed the inappropriate touching to both her mother and a forensic interviewer, with consistent elements in her accounts. - Merely due to the nature of her disclosure or the method of questioning, the statements remained trustworthy. - The court determined that there was no abuse of discretion in this ruling. 2. **Admittance of F.Y.'s Hearsay Statements:** Mankin contends that F.Y.’s statements were not spontaneous or consistent, arguing similar points regarding terminologies used and that they lacked reliability. Upon review: - F.Y. made statements on the same day she was seen being inappropriately touched. - The mother’s questioning was open-ended and not leading. - F.Y.'s use of child-appropriate language (referring to the genitalia as a fat leg) supported the statement’s reliability. - The trial court's decision to admit the statements was upheld due to sufficient indicia of reliability. **Outcome:** After thorough consideration of the entire record and the propositions raised, the Court found no error that warranted relief. The judgments and sentences imposed by the District Court were affirmed. **Concurrences:** - Lewis, P.J. - Kuehn, V.P.J. - Lumpkin, J. - Rowland, J. **Opinion Filed:** Hudson, J. **Note**: For further details, you can download the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-595_1735312387.pdf).
In OCCA case No. F-2018-158, Nathan Simmons appealed his conviction for accessory to first degree murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Nathan Simmons was found guilty after a jury trial held in Tulsa County. He was charged with being an accessory to first degree murder, which means he helped someone commit that crime, and for robbery with a dangerous weapon, which means he was involved in taking something with a weapon. The jury gave him a tough sentence: 36 years for being an accessory, 10 years for the first robbery, and 17 years for the second robbery. All the sentences were to be served one after the other. Simmons had two main arguments for his appeal. First, he said that the prosecutor made a mistake during the closing argument that took away his chance for a fair trial. He believed the prosecutor suggested that he would not serve the full amount of time for his first conviction and this made the jury decide to give him longer sentences. However, the court found that there was no significant error in what the prosecutor said during the trial that would change the outcome. Second, Simmons claimed that his lawyer did not do a good job because they did not object to what the prosecutor said. The court reviewed this claim carefully. Using a standard that looks at whether the lawyer's actions were truly wrong and if they affected the trial’s outcome, the court decided that Simmons did not have a strong case. Ultimately, the court kept the original sentence and decision made by the jury.
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.
This text appears to be a legal opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the case of Jonathan D. McKee, who was convicted of Child Abuse. The judgment affirms the conviction and address various propositions raised by the appellant concerning the conviction and the trial process. The summary of the opinion includes analysis of the following propositions: 1. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a rational juror to convict McKee of child abuse based on medical expert testimony. 2. **Evidentiary Rulings**: The court reviewed multiple evidentiary rulings that McKee argued were erroneous. They concluded that while McKee's refusal to speak with authorities could raise Fifth Amendment concerns, it did not constitute plain error affecting the trial’s outcome. Additionally, evidence concerning drug paraphernalia was found relevant to the case. 3. **Judicial Bias**: Appellant’s claim of judicial bias was rejected as the court found no evidence of actual bias or any violations affecting due process. 4. **Cumulative Error**: The court stated that because none of the individual propositions were sustained, the cumulative error argument had no merit. The opinion also includes concurring opinions from Judges Kuehn and Rowland. Judge Kuehn expressed some reservations about the relevance of mentions of a request for legal counsel, while Judge Rowland emphasized that McKee's conduct and refusal to speak were relevant in assessing guilty knowledge, even though they did not implicate any constitutional violations. The final decision affirmed the judgment and sentence, with the court ordering the mandate issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. For further details, one may refer to the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2017-68_1734271673.pdf).
In OCCA case No. F-2018-112, Christopher Lewis Whinery appealed his conviction for first-degree murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. No one dissented. Mr. Whinery was found guilty by a judge without a jury. The case took place in Creek County, where he was sentenced to life in prison and fined $500. His main argument was that the judge made a mistake by allowing his statements to the police to be used against him during the trial. He said that he was in custody and had not been told his rights, which needs to happen before police can question someone. However, the court looked at what happened and found that Mr. Whinery was not in custody when he spoke to the police. This means he wasn’t formally arrested, and his freedom wasn't limited like it would be if he were arrested. Because of this, the police did not need to read him his rights at that time. Since the court agreed that there was no error in allowing his statements, they decided to keep his conviction as is, meaning he will remain in prison for life.
In OCCA case No. CF-2004-4488, the petitioner appealed his conviction for murder and shooting with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed the conviction, stating that his consecutive sentences do not violate constitutional protections against cruel punishment. One judge dissented on the reasoning. [occa_caption]
In OCCA case No. F-2016-1094, Robert Lawrence Long appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder and Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Long's convictions but vacate the court costs imposed on the possession charge. No one dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2016-30, Ladarius Burnell Kelly appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the fines associated with the charges. One judge dissented regarding the change in fines. Ladarius Burnell Kelly was charged and found guilty by a jury for committing robbery with a firearm and assault with a dangerous weapon. He received a punishment of 18 years in prison along with a $2,500 fine for the robbery and 2 years in prison with a $2,500 fine for the assault. The sentences were to be served one after the other. Kelly appealed, raising several issues. First, he argued that the witnesses who identified him were not reliable, which he believed violated his rights. However, the court found that the methods used for identification were not overly suggestive and did not mislead the jury. Therefore, his claim was denied. Next, Kelly challenged the evidence presented against him for the assault charge. The court looked at the evidence favorably for the prosecution and determined there was enough proof to support the conviction. The testimony showed that Kelly had threatened to shoot a victim, which the jury could reasonably interpret as an intent to harm, so this argument was also denied. He also argued that he had not received a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct. However, the court found that any alleged missteps by the prosecutor didn't significantly impact the fairness of the trial. Because of this, this claim was denied as well. Importantly, Kelly had a point regarding the fines. The court found that the jury was wrongly instructed about the mandatory fines for the charges. They decided to correct this by changing the fine for the assault count to $0 and reducing the fine for the robbery charge to $2,000. Kelly also believed that his lawyer did not do their job effectively, but the court ruled that his claims did not show that the outcome of the trial would have changed if his lawyer had acted differently. In summary, the court upheld Kelly's convictions and changed the financial penalties, showing that while he did not win the major points of his appeal, he was granted some relief on the fines imposed.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-1078, Robert Bradley Champlain appealed his conviction for three counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his judgment and sentence but vacated the imposition of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. The case involved allegations against Champlain for inappropriate conduct with a minor, and a jury found him guilty. Each count resulted in a recommendation for life imprisonment, to be served consecutively. Champlain raised several arguments on appeal, claiming errors in the trial process, including the imposition of consecutive sentences as a punishment for opting for a jury trial and issues regarding evidence of his past convictions. The court did not find merit in these claims. It clarified that the determination of consecutive versus concurrent sentences is within the trial court's discretion. The court also concluded that prior felony convictions had been proven properly, with no significant errors affecting Champlain's rights during the trial. They explained that the State's evidence was sufficient for the jury to uphold the conviction. Champlain also argued that the conduct of the prosecution and the trial court's instructions were unfair. However, the court stated that the issues raised did not prove any misconduct that made the trial fundamentally unfair. His claims regarding ineffective assistance from his counsel were also dismissed, as the court did not see a failure that affected the outcome of the trial. While Champlain did receive life sentences, the court vacated the post-imprisonment supervision, stating it was not applicable in cases of life sentences. In conclusion, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence while correcting certain references related to the timing of the offenses.
In OCCA case No. F-2015-155, Sauter appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and burglary in the first degree. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction due to insufficient evidence. One judge dissented. Sauter was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Nowata County and was sentenced to a total of forty-seven years in prison along with fines. The evidence presented during the trial primarily came from two accomplices, Welsh and Fulcher. Sauter argued that since these accomplices’ testimonies were not supported by independent evidence, his convictions should not stand. The court explained that under Oklahoma law, the testimony of an accomplice cannot solely support a conviction unless there is other evidence that connects the defendant to the crime. The court found that while there was evidence linking Sauter’s vehicle to the crimes, there was no evidence that directly implicated Sauter himself. Since the only evidence against Sauter came from the testimonies of Welsh and Fulcher, which lacked corroboration, the court had to reverse the convictions. The dissenting judge felt there was enough independent evidence connecting Sauter to the crimes, particularly the fact that Sauter's car was used and that he had been seen driving it shortly before the home invasion. This judge believed that the jury could conclude Sauter was complicit in the robbery and burglary based on the evidence presented.