Peremptory Challenges

F-2018-308

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-308, Deondrea Deshawn Thompson appealed his conviction for multiple counts related to robbery and possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Thompson was found guilty by a jury for several crimes, including robbery with a firearm, attempted robbery, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to a total of thirty-five years for the robbery counts and seven years for the other counts, with the sentences to run consecutively. Thompson raised multiple issues on appeal, including claims that he did not receive a fair trial because crucial evidence was kept from him, racial discrimination occurred during jury selection, and that the trial court made several errors in admitting evidence. The court addressed these issues one by one. It found that the trial court did not err in keeping the name of a confidential informant from Thompson since it was not shown to be necessary for his defense. The court also found that the State's reasons for excluding certain jurors were race-neutral and did not indicate discriminatory intent. Regarding the trial court's questioning of jurors, the court concluded that it did not improperly influence the jury. As for evidence related to cell phone records collected without a warrant, the court determined that the police acted in good faith based on laws that existed at the time. Thompson argued that other testimony during the trial unfairly presented him as having committed other bad acts, but the court found no abuse of discretion in how the trial was handled. The court also concluded that the trial court's decision not to give certain jury instructions on eyewitness identification was within its discretion since the identification was firm enough in this case. Thompson's claim about having multiple cases tried together was also rejected, as the court noted that the robberies were similar in nature and occurred close together in time. Finally, the court ruled that his separate firearm possession conviction did not violate double jeopardy laws. In summary, the court affirmed Thompson's conviction, saying that none of the claimed errors were significant enough to harm his case.

Continue ReadingF-2018-308

F-2018-481

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-481, Derrick Lamont Garrett appealed his conviction for kidnapping and burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Garrett's conviction. One judge dissented. Garrett was tried and found guilty by a jury for kidnapping and burglary. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, with the sentences running one after the other. Garrett's appeal raised several points of error regarding his trial, such as claims that there wasn't enough evidence to support his convictions, that some evidence was wrongly excluded, and concerns about the jury selection process. The court looked carefully at the arguments and decided that the trial was fair, and the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdicts. They noted that Garrett had requested specific jury instructions that he later challenged, which the court found was not a valid complaint. They also stated that the eyewitness testimony was handled correctly and that the exclusion of some evidence didn’t violate Garrett's rights. Regarding the jury selection, the court stated that Garrett did not prove any discrimination occurred in the way jurors were chosen. Since they found no significant errors in the trial, they affirmed the conviction, meaning Garrett must continue to serve his sentences.

Continue ReadingF-2018-481

F-2018-36

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-36, Robert Eugene Brewer appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child Under 12. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Brewer's conviction. One judge dissented. Brewer was tried in Tulsa County for sexually abusing a child under the age of 12. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to seven years in prison. He was also ordered to serve three years of supervision after his prison term. Brewer appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court made a mistake by allowing evidence related to other crimes that he believed had not been proven. The court reviewed the evidence and arguments presented. The main issue was whether the trial court had the right to let in evidence that showed Brewer had a pattern of behavior related to sexual abuse. This type of evidence is sometimes called propensity evidence. Brewer argued that the trial court should have held a special hearing before allowing this evidence and should have required witnesses to testify in person. However, the court found that the trial judge had done a thorough job. The judge had held multiple hearings and considered the evidence carefully. The judge did not make a mistake by allowing the evidence because they had enough information to decide it was relevant and necessary for the case. Even though Brewer did not object to the evidence when it was presented during the trial, the court considered whether there was a serious mistake that affected the fairness of the trial. After reviewing everything, the court concluded that the trial judge acted correctly. In summary, the court believed that the evidence presented was acceptable and did not harm Brewer's case. Therefore, Brewer’s conviction was upheld, but the court also instructed the district court to make some corrections to its legal documents regarding the correct law that applied to Brewer's actions at the time of the crime. The decision was to keep Brewer's sentence in place while correcting the legal documentation properly.

Continue ReadingF-2018-36

F-2017-599

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-599, Christopher Michael Hildebrandt appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape of a Child under 14, Forcible Sodomy, and Abduction of a Person Under 15. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but vacated the assessment of prosecution reimbursement costs of $960.00. One judge dissented. The case involved a jury trial where Hildebrandt was found guilty of serious charges against a minor. The jury recommended sentences of 25 years for the first charge, 20 years for the second, and 5 years for the third, all of which were to be served one after the other. Hildebrandt raised several reasons for his appeal. He claimed that evidence from his car was obtained illegally because law enforcement acted outside their jurisdiction. However, the court determined that even if the car was seized unlawfully, the subsequent search conducted with a warrant made the evidence valid. He also argued that the jury selection was unfair because two minority jurors were removed based on race. The court found that the reasons given for their removal were valid and not racially biased. Furthermore, Hildebrandt pointed out that an emotional outburst from the victim's father during the trial could have influenced the jury. The court ruled that there was no need for the judge to inquire about the impact of the outburst because steps were taken to address the situation. He challenged the foundation for evidence presented at trial and whether he received proper notice of the charges. The court found that challenges to evidence would not have changed the outcome of the trial. Hildebrandt also asserted that his defense attorney did not help him adequately during the trial, but the court disagreed, noting that any objection his attorney might have made would have likely been denied. Lastly, he argued that his sentences were too harsh and should have been served concurrently instead of consecutively. The court upheld the sentences as appropriate given the serious nature of the crimes. However, they acknowledged that the assessment for reimbursement costs was incorrectly applied, leading to the decision to remove that specific charge. In conclusion, while the court found some merit in Hildebrandt's claims regarding prosecution reimbursement costs, they ruled that the convictions and the sentences were legally justified.

Continue ReadingF-2017-599

F-2016-843

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DAVID RUBLE, II,** **Appellant,** **VS.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2016-843** **FILED DEC 14 2017** **SUMMARY OPINION** *KUEHN, JUDGE:* David Ruble II was tried by jury and convicted of Count I, Felony Murder with the predicate Attempted Robbery by Firearm in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 701.7; and Count III, Conspiracy to Commit Robbery with a Firearm in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 421, in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2014-2691. Following the jury's recommendation, the Honorable William D. LaFortune sentenced Ruble to life imprisonment (Count I) and ten (10) years imprisonment (Count III), to run consecutively. Ruble appeals from these convictions and sentences. Ruble raises five propositions of error in support of his appeal: I. The trial court's erroneous rulings on challenges for cause deprived Appellant of his full complement of peremptory challenges to use at his discretion and prevented his ability to remove objectionable jurors. II. The cumulative effect of prosecutorial misconduct constituted plain error and deprived Appellant of a fair trial. III. The trial judge erred in not instructing the jury on lesser offenses. IV. Mr. Ruble was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. V. The accumulation of errors deprived Mr. Ruble of a fair trial and the due process of law secured to him. **DECISION:** After thorough consideration of the entire record, we deny Ruble's propositions of error. 1. **Proposition I:** The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ruble's challenges for cause. The record does not support that the jurors were biased, nor was there a showing that trial counsel properly preserved this issue. 2. **Proposition II:** Ruble's claims of prosecutorial misconduct were not substantiated. Many of his complaints were unobjected to and reviewed for plain error, which was not found. 3. **Proposition III:** There was no error in failing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses, as Ruble's defense was that he was not involved in the crime. 4. **Proposition IV:** Trial counsel's performance was not deficient. Ruble did not demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel's actions. 5. **Proposition V:** With no fundamental error established, the claim of cumulative error fails. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Tulsa County is AFFIRMED. **MANDATE:** Ordered issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL:** Michael Manning 624 South Denver, Ste. 201 Tulsa, OK 74119 **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL:** Rhiannon Sisk Homicide Direct Appeals Div. Oklahoma Indigent Defense System P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE:** Becky Johnson Mike Hunter Benjamin Fu 500 S. Denver, Ste. 900 Tulsa, OK 74103 **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, J.; LUMPKIN, P.J., CONCUR IN RESULTS; LEWIS, V.P.J., CONCUR; HUDSON, J., CONCUR; ROWLAND, J., CONCUR. **[Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2016-843_1734264868.pdf)**

Continue ReadingF-2016-843

F-2013-812

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-812, Alphie Phillip McKinney appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses, including Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some of his convictions but also reversed two of them. A dissenting opinion was provided on one of the points regarding multiple punishments. The case involved McKinney being found guilty by a jury of various drug crimes. The jury's recommended punishment included many years of imprisonment and fines. The trial court sentenced him accordingly. McKinney raised several arguments in his appeal, seeking to challenge the fairness of his trial and the legality of his sentences. One major point of contention was whether the prosecutor unfairly excluded certain jurors based on race, claiming violation of equal protection rights. The court decided that McKinney did not prove purposeful discrimination and upheld the decisions made by the trial court regarding jury selection. Another argument was about the prosecutor's questioning related to McKinney’s past drug possession case during the trial. The court found that since McKinney had already spoken about his past, the prosecutor's questions did not harm his case. McKinney’s attempt to argue that his multiple convictions for possession of different drugs should be treated as one was considered. The court found that having several drugs at once can still lead to multiple charges under the law. However, they also concluded that McKinney’s convictions for possession in some counts were in error because he could only be punished once for a single action of possession involving multiple drugs. The court further ruled on McKinney's claims that his punishments for different crimes related to the same act went against legal protections against being punished multiple times for the same behavior. The court agreed with some points raised by McKinney about this and decided to reverse two of his possession convictions. However, they maintained that his trafficking conviction and another possession charge did not violate those protections because they fell under different legal conditions. Lastly, McKinney argued that his attorney did not do a good job representing him during the trial. The court reviewed this claim but decided that he did not show that he had suffered any harm from his attorney’s actions and thus did not grant relief based on this argument. In summary, the judgments in Counts I, II, IV, and VI were upheld, while the judgments in Counts III and V were reversed and sent back with instructions to dismiss those charges. One judge agreed with most of the decision but disagreed on how some arguments about multiple punishments were handled. Another judge also showed support for the prosecution's handling of certain charges but felt differently regarding the evaluation of potential double punishments.

Continue ReadingF-2013-812

F-2012-622

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-622, Dewayne Edward Kemp appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder and First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for First Degree Felony Murder but vacated the conviction for First Degree Burglary due to double jeopardy. One judge dissented. Kemp and two accomplices attempted to burglarize a home when the homeowner shot one of the accomplices fatally and injured Kemp. During his time in jail, Kemp made incriminating statements on recorded phone calls. Kemp's appeal included several arguments. He claimed that the state wrongly used hypothetical questions during jury selection, which he said made it difficult to have a fair trial. However, the court found these questions helpful for understanding the law and ruled against him. He also argued that he should have been allowed to present a statement made by a co-defendant, claiming that he was the one who planned the burglary. But since Kemp could not show that this statement would prove his innocence, the court upheld the trial court's decision to exclude it. Kemp raised concerns about the prosecutor's choice to strike some jurors, suggesting it was based on gender. The court reviewed the reasons given by the prosecutor for these strikes and concluded that they were valid, thus rejecting Kemp's argument. Kemp pointed out that being convicted of both felony murder and burglary for the same incident was unfair and violated his rights against double jeopardy. The court agreed with this claim and voided the burglary conviction, stating that the two charges were too closely related. In summary, the court maintained Kemp's felony murder conviction but removed the burglary charge as it conflicted with double jeopardy rules.

Continue ReadingF-2012-622

F-2010-1237

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-1237, James Lee Gilford, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery with a weapon, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, assault while masked or disguised, and first-degree burglary, each after prior felony convictions. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and assault while masked or disguised but affirmed his convictions for robbery with a weapon and first-degree burglary. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of one of the convictions. The case began when Gilford was tried by a jury and convicted on several counts. The jury decided that Gilford should spend life in prison for each count, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. Gilford appealed, raising several issues, including concerns about jury selection, due process, multiple punishments for the same act, and inaccuracies in his judgment and sentence. 1. **Jury Selection**: Gilford argued that the prosecutors unfairly removed minority jurors. The court found that the prosecutor had provided good reasons for these removals, and Gilford did not prove any discrimination occurred in the jury selection process. 2. **Due Process Rights**: Gilford claimed he was denied a fair trial because the state didn't share some important information about a key witness. However, the court determined that this did not affect the outcome of the trial significantly. 3. **Multiple Punishments**: The court analyzed whether Gilford's convictions were for separate crimes or for just one act. Gilford's robbery, where he stabbed the victim and took his things, was connected to assaults he committed during that event. The court decided that the assault and battery charges arose from the same action as the robbery and therefore fell under laws that prevent punishing someone twice for the same act. 4. **Judgment and Sentence Issues**: Since the court reversed the assault charges because they were multiple punishments for a single act, they found that any inaccuracies in the sentencing for those charges didn't matter anymore. The final decision was that Gilford's sentences for robbery with a weapon and first-degree burglary would stay, while the court ordered the other two charges to be dismissed due to legal protections against multiple punishments. There was a dissenting opinion by one judge who felt that the conviction for assault while masked should not have been reversed.

Continue ReadingF-2010-1237

F-2004-649

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-649, Franklin Lee Gibbs, Jr. appealed his conviction for First-Degree Murder and Felon in Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction due to an error in jury selection. Gibbs was only given five peremptory challenges instead of the nine he was supposed to have under the law. This was considered a violation of his due process rights, leading the court to order a new trial. Additionally, one judge dissented on some points, but the key reason for the reversal was the error in jury selection.

Continue ReadingF-2004-649

F-2005-619

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-619, Ralph Emerson Jones, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. Two judges dissented. Ralph Jones was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine and was sentenced to two years in prison. He believed that the evidence against him was not enough to prove he knew he had the drug, claiming that just having drug paraphernalia was not good enough for a conviction. When reviewing the case, the court found that there was a problem during the trial. Jones was only allowed to use three of his five chances to challenge potential jurors, which is not what the law says should happen. This was seen as a violation of his rights, and the court ruled that he should get a new trial. The final decision was to throw out Jones’s conviction and start the trial over again. Two judges disagreed with this decision, arguing that the appeals court should only look at issues that were raised during the trial and that the evidence actually supported Jones’s conviction. They felt that giving him another chance could lead to unnecessary complications since he might not even want to go through a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2005-619

F-2004-1266

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1266, Darrell W. Hogan appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Hogan's conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Hogan was found guilty of killing his cellmate, James Wise, at the prison. On the morning of February 24, 2004, Wise had threatened Hogan with a knife. Later, Hogan killed Wise by choking him with a laundry bag drawstring and then called for help, but Wise died weeks afterward. Hogan confessed to the crime when investigators spoke with him. During his trial, Hogan was supposed to have nine chances to dismiss potential jurors, known as peremptory challenges, but he was only allowed five. He argued that this was unfair and violated his rights. The court agreed with Hogan's argument, stating that denying him the proper number of peremptory challenges was a serious mistake. They ruled that he deserved a new trial where he would have all his legal rights. The dissenting judge felt that the mistake was not harmful and that Hogan did not prove he was disadvantaged by the limited number of challenges, and therefore, the trial's outcome should have been upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1266

F 2004-582

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-582, Ryan Golden appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided that he was entitled to a new trial because he was not given the correct number of chances to challenge jurors. The ruling was that the trial court's mistake was serious enough to affect the fairness of the trial, and because of this error, the original sentence was reversed and a new trial was ordered. One judge dissented, arguing that there should have been a demonstration of actual prejudice or harm caused by the mistake.

Continue ReadingF 2004-582