Plan

J-2019-113

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** --- **A.W.,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **The State of Oklahoma,** **Appellee.** **No. J-2019-112** --- **I.F.,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **The State of Oklahoma,** **Appellee.** **No. J-2019-113** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** The Appellants, A.W. and I.F., appeal from an order by Honorable Patrick Pickerill, Associate District Judge, adjudicating them delinquent for participating in a conspiracy to perform an act of violence in Case Nos. JDL-2018-3 and JDL-2018-4 in Pawnee County. The appeals were consolidated for oral argument, with both Appellants asserting three propositions of error. ### FACTS The Appellants were charged as juveniles under 21 O.S.2011, § 1378(A) for planning a school shooting at Pawnee High School on August 7, 2018. A bench trial took place on February 4, 2019. The State's key witnesses included: 1. **D.C.**: A classmate who testified about A.W.'s possession of firearms and I.F. discussing threats made to a girl over social media. 2. **Wesley Clymer**: Chief of Police who reported the threats received through a tip. 3. **Chad Colclazier**: Deputy who testified about interviews with the Appellants and evidence collected, including social media communications and pictures of firearms. 4. **Jimmy Meeks**: Another Deputy who recounted the search of A.W.'s home, where firearms were seized. Judge Pickerill found that Appellants had communicated about a school shooting, and their actions constituted an overt act necessary to establish a conspiracy. Thus, both were adjudicated delinquent. ### PROPOSITIONS OF ERROR 1. **Proposition I**: **Sufficiency of Evidence** Appellants argued the evidence was insufficient for a conviction. The appellate court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the trial court's findings beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. **Proposition II**: **Hearsay Statements** Appellants claimed the court erred by allowing purported hearsay statements from one to be used against the other in their joint trial. The argument was unsuccessful as the trial was a bench trial, and there was sufficient evidence independent of the hearsay claims. 3. **Proposition III**: **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel** The Appellants asserted their counsel failed to utilize evidence suggesting the incident was a joke rather than a threat. The court noted that no strong evidence was presented to demonstrate that a different defense would have altered the trial's outcome. ### DECISION This Court affirms the orders of the District Court, finding adequate support for the adjudicated delinquency of both Appellants. ### APPEARANCES - **Counsel for Appellant A.W.** Royce A. Hobbs Attorney at Law 801 S. Main St., P.O. Box 1455 Edmond, OK 73013 - **Counsel for Appellant I.F.** Cheryl A. Ramsey Attorney at Law 801 S. Main St., P.O. Box 1206 Edmond, OK 73013 - **Counsel for the State** Jeff Mixon Assistant District Attorney Pawnee County Courthouse, Room 301 Pawnee, OK 74058 **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** *Concur: LEWIS, P. J., KUEHN, V. P. J., HUDSON, J., ROWLAND, J.* --- **Click Here To Download PDF** [PDF Link](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-113_1734446783.pdf)

Continue ReadingJ-2019-113

F-2014-1100

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-1100, Kenshari Andre Graham appealed his conviction for Second Degree Felony Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but remanded the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Graham was found guilty of murdering Alec McGlory while trying to rob him at gunpoint for illegal drugs. The jury recommended that he serve life in prison, and the trial court agreed with this sentence. During the appeal, Graham argued that the trial court made a mistake by allowing the State to introduce evidence of another crime he committed—a burglary that took place two days after the murder. He believed this should not have been allowed because it did not relate to the murder case. The court reviewed the evidence admitted during the trial to determine if it was appropriate. Normally, evidence of other crimes is not allowed to prove that someone is guilty of the crime they are charged with. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. One exception is if the other crime is closely connected to the crime being charged, which can help to explain it better. In this case, the burglary and the murder were separate events that happened in different places and times. The burglary did not relate to the drug robbery that led to McGlory's murder. The trial court had allowed the burglary evidence in part to show a possible consciousness of guilt, or that Graham was trying to escape the legal consequences of his actions. The court explained that evidence of fleeing can sometimes be used to support the idea that someone is guilty, but they needed to be careful about how it is used. Despite admitting that the trial court made a mistake by allowing the burglary evidence, the court did not believe that this mistake had a significant impact on the jury's decision to convict Graham. The jury also heard strong evidence from two witnesses who testified that Graham confessed to the murder, along with other evidence connecting him to the crime. The judges concluded that the jury likely made their decision based on this solid evidence, and not just the burglary evidence. However, when it came to sentencing, the judges had doubts about whether the court would have given Graham the maximum sentence of life in prison if they hadn’t considered the burglary. Because of this, the court decided to send the case back to the District Court to determine a proper sentence without considering the improperly admitted evidence. Overall, while Graham's conviction remained in place, the judges recognized the need to reevaluate his sentence without the influence of the wrongful entry of evidence from the burglary case.

Continue ReadingF-2014-1100

S-2012-834

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-834, the State of Oklahoma appealed an order that granted a motion to dismiss several charges against Jeffrey Porras. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling. One judge dissented. The case involved charges against Porras, who is a physician. He was accused of committing sexual battery and rape against multiple victims while they were receiving medical treatment. The accusations included five counts of sexual battery and one count of second-degree rape, with the incidents alleged to have occurred in different counties over a period of time from 2005 to 2007. The trial court dismissed some of the counts because it felt that the incidents were not part of a single plan or scheme. The law allows for multiple charges to be tried together if they are connected in a way that shows they are part of the same pattern of criminal behavior. However, the court decided that the alleged crimes in Oklahoma County and Cleveland County were separate and did not meet the criteria for joining them in one trial. In making this decision, the court looked at how the offenses occurred over a span of two years and did not significantly overlap in timing or in the way they were committed. This means that the crimes did not depend on each other and were not part of a continuous plan that would justify being tried together. The appellate court agreed with the trial judge's reasoning, stating that there was no clear error in the decision to dismiss those charges. The ruling reaffirmed that the charges from different counties could be handled separately without causing injustice to anyone. The dissenting judge, however, believed that the charges should not have been dismissed since they had common elements and were related to his actions as a doctor. The dissent argued that since all victims were patients and the incidents happened in similar situations, it was appropriate to consider them as part of a greater plan to commit these crimes. In conclusion, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision to dismiss certain charges against Porras, maintaining that the evidence did not sufficiently show a connection that warranted a single trial for all the charges.

Continue ReadingS-2012-834

F-2006-1015

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1015, Earnest Ray Kingery, Jr. appealed his conviction for rape in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Kingery's sentence from seventy years to twenty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Earnest Ray Kingery, Jr. was found guilty of raping a child and was sentenced to a long prison term. He appealed, arguing that several things went wrong during his trial. He said that a witness should not have been allowed to talk about other crimes he allegedly committed, which could have confused the jury. He also claimed the judge pressured the jury into making a decision and that the prosecutor hinted he was guilty for not speaking to the police after a search warrant was served at his home. The court looked closely at Kingery's claims. They agreed that the evidence about the witness's testimony was not appropriate for the jury to hear, as it led to confusion about the other child that was involved in the case. The skills of the forensic interviewer were challenged because it seemed that testimony might have suggested the children were telling the truth without any evidence. Even if the trial court gave special instructions to limit how the jury should view this evidence, it still influenced their decision. However, the court found that the victim's own testimony was strong enough to prove Kingery's guilt. They acknowledged that while the testimonies of the other child were not correctly handled in terms of evidence, the main evidence from the victim was enough for a guilty verdict. In the end, the court decided to modify Kingery’s long sentence to a lesser one. They believed his punishment should still be serious but recognized that the jury might have been adversely influenced by some of the testimony they heard about other crimes. Thus, Kingery's prison time was reduced to twenty-five years. The court affirmed the conviction but made this change to the punishment. One of the judges disagreed with reducing the sentence, insisting that all of the evidence presented was appropriate, and so the original long sentence should have stood. Another judge agreed on the conviction but also dissented regarding the sentence being modified.

Continue ReadingF-2006-1015