Possession

RE-2021-1042

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2021-1042, Matthew Bryan Buttery appealed his conviction for a series of crimes including distribution of controlled substances and petit larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered that his new sentence run concurrently with a prior sentence from another case. One judge dissented on the issue of how the sentences should relate to one another. Matthew Buttery had previously pled guilty to several charges. He was given a ten-year suspended sentence, which means he didn't have to serve time in prison at that moment but had to follow certain rules. If he broke any rules, the court could take back that suspended sentence and send him to prison. The state claimed that Buttery did not report as required, did not pay his probation fees, and committed a new crime, for which they wanted to revoke his suspended sentence. During the hearing, the court found Buttery had violated the terms of his probation and revoked his suspended sentence. Buttery argued that the court made a mistake by not giving him credit for time he had already served and by ordering that his new sentence run after a different sentence from another county. The court explained that it had the right to revoke Buttery's suspended sentence because he violated the rules. They stated they didn't have to give him credit for time served because the suspended sentence is not changed by the violation. They also found that the judge improperly decided his new sentence would run after the one from the other county rather than at the same time. The judges clarified that when a sentence is revoked, it should not change how sentences from different cases affect each other. In the end, Buttery's appeal led to some changes. The court ordered that his new sentence should run concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time, rather than one after the other. However, the court upheld the overall decision to revoke his suspended sentence for breaking the rules of his probation. One judge agreed with the decision to affirm the revocation but disagreed with other parts of the analysis regarding the relationship between the sentences. So, to summarize, the main points from the case are that Matthew Bryan Buttery's suspension was revoked because he violated probation rules, but the court made a mistake when deciding how his new sentence should relate to an older sentence. He is to serve them at the same time now, according to the latest court ruling.

Continue ReadingRE-2021-1042

RE-2020-501

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2020-501, Kaylen Harrison Rice appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but vacated the portion that required him to remain under supervision. One judge dissented. Kaylen Harrison Rice had previously been given suspended sentences for his crimes. He was supposed to follow certain rules instead of serving time in jail, but the rules changed to make his crime less serious. A new law stated that if someone is being revoked for a crime that is now seen as less serious, their punishment must follow the new law's limits. Kaylen argued that his one-year revocation was too long given the new law. However, the court found that the existing rules and his situation didn’t allow for the changes he suggested. During his revocation hearing, Kaylen raised concerns about being supervised after his jail time, saying that the law did not allow for that kind of supervision for his crime. The State acknowledged this point but later dropped the argument, which meant the court didn't consider it. The court decided that since the State had waived its right to challenge this part, it could not revisit it in Kaylen's appeal. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to revoke Kaylen's suspended sentences but overturned the requirement that he be supervised, which was not allowed under the new law.

Continue ReadingRE-2020-501

RE-2018-1287

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

Here is a summary of the Court of Criminal Appeals decision regarding Darryn Lamar Chandler, Jr.: **Case Summary:** - Appellant: Darryn Lamar Chandler, Jr. - Appellee: The State of Oklahoma - Case Numbers: CF-2015-2683 and CF-2016-534 - Date of Decision: February 6, 2020 - Judge: Honorable Glenn Jones **Background:** - Chandler was previously convicted in two separate cases involving serious crimes: 1. Case No. CF-2015-2683: Guilt for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, possession of an offensive weapon during a felony, and possession of an imitation controlled substance. 2. Case No. CF-2016-534: Guilt for robbery with a firearm and conspiracy to commit robbery with a firearm. - Sentences: In both cases, he received suspended sentences with the first year of incarceration. **Allegations of Violation:** - On September 21, 2018, the State filed to revoke Chandler’s suspended sentences due to new charges related to his involvement in a violent robbery while on probation. **Revocation Hearing:** - The hearing began on November 27, 2018, where evidence was presented by the State indicating Chandler's direct involvement in the robbery of a loan business, during which he threatened employees with a firearm. - Chandler did not present any evidence in his defense. - The judge found Chandler in violation of probation, leading to the revocation of his suspended sentences. **Sentencing Hearing:** - A presentence investigation report was requested and filed before the sentencing hearing, which took place on December 20, 2018. - The State argued for full revocation based on the violent nature of the robbery, while Chandler's counsel argued for a more lenient approach citing Chandler's background and potential for rehabilitation. **Court's Decision:** - The Court upheld the trial court's decision to revoke the suspended sentences in full, emphasizing that Chandler committed a violent crime in direct violation of the conditions of his probation, which warranted no abuse of judicial discretion. **Conclusion:** - The Court affirmed the revocation of Chandler's suspended sentences, noting the trial court’s discretion in making its determination based on the evidence of Chandler’s actions while on probation. **Final Note**: For more detailed information, there is a downloadable PDF available [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-1287_1734352969.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1287

F-2019-16

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOHNNY W. WARD,** Appellant, v. **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2019-16** **FILED DEC 12 2019** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Appellant Johnny W. Ward was tried by jury and found guilty of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon (Count I) (21 O.S.2011, § 652) and Possession of a Firearm (Count II) (21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 1283), both counts After Former Conviction of A Felony, in the District Court of Muskogee County, Case No. CF-2017-1155. The jury recommended as punishment imprisonment for thirty (30) years in Count I and ten (10) years in Count II. The trial court sentenced accordingly, ordering the sentences to be served concurrently. It is from this judgment and sentence that Appellant appeals. Appellant must serve 85% of his sentence in Count I before becoming eligible for consideration for parole. 21 O.S.2011, § 13.1. **Appellant raises the following propositions of error in support of his appeal:** 1. The eyewitness identification of Appellant was based upon an overly suggestive, one-man show-up that violated Appellant's rights to due process and a fair trial. 2. The State's evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed the crimes of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony Conviction and his convictions must therefore be reversed with instructions to dismiss. 3. Appellant's sentence is excessive and should be modified. After thorough consideration of these propositions and the entire record, we have determined that under the law and the evidence no relief is warranted. **Proposition I:** Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress the in-court identification made by Ms. Davidson after an on-the-scene one person show-up. Appellant argues the pre-trial identification was unnecessarily suggestive and tainted the subsequent identification of Appellant at trial. A one man show-up is not necessarily unduly suggestive or improper. Young v. State, 2000 OK CR 17, ¶ 30, 12 P.3d 20, 34. Absent special elements of unfairness, prompt on-the-scene confrontations [between a victim and a suspect] do not entail due process violations.... Harrolle v. State, 1988 OK CR 223, ¶ 7, 763 P.2d 126, 128, quoting Russell v. United States, 408 F.2d 1280, 1284 (D.C.Cir.1969). The one person show-up in this case was not unduly suggestive or so improper as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress the identification. However, even if the show-up was unduly suggestive, the same would not automatically invalidate the subsequent in-court identification if that identification can be established as independently reliable under the totality of the circumstances. Young, 2000 OK CR 17, ¶ 31, 12 P.3d at 34. Under the circumstances of this case, we find the in-court identification reliable. As the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing into evidence the in-court identification of Appellant, this proposition of error is denied. **Proposition II:** Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. He argues the State failed to show he had anything to do with the alleged crimes. Appellant asserts that the State's evidence showed only that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, evidence showed that Appellant shot his victim in the knee and buttock as the victim begged for his life. Appellant then ran away from the scene, discarding the gun he used and a hoodie he was wearing. Reviewing Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Mitchell v. State, 2018 OK CR 24, ¶ 11, 424 P.3d 677, 682. Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is denied. **Proposition III:** Appellant argues that his sentence is excessive and should be modified. He asserts that while his sentence is technically within the range provided by law, it does not bear a direct relationship to the nature and circumstances of the offenses. However, Appellant's sentences were within the applicable statutory range (21 O.S.2011, §§ 652(A), 1284 and 51.1(C)). This Court will not modify a sentence within the statutory range unless, considering all the facts and circumstances, it shocks the conscience. Pullen v. State, 2016 OK CR 18, ¶ 16, 387 P.3d 922, 928. The evidence showed that despite having a prior robbery conviction, Appellant was in possession of a gun, which he used to shoot the victim multiple times as the victim begged for his life. Under these circumstances, the 30 year and 10 year sentences are not excessive. Therefore, modification of the sentences is not warranted and this proposition is denied. Accordingly, this appeal 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 MUSKOGEE COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE THOMAS H. ALFORD, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** BRIAN WATTS 222 N. 4TH ST. MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** NICOLLETTE BRANDT OKLA. INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **ORVIL LOGE** DISTRICT ATTORNEY TIM KING ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY MUSKOGEE CO. COURTHOUSE MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **MIKE HUNTER** ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA CAROLINE E.J. HUNT ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21ST ST. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur --- [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2019-16_1734781599.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2019-16

F-2018-690

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DANIEL ROSS DAGE,** **Appellant,** **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-690** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Daniel Ross Dage was convicted of Possession of Juvenile Pornography in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2, in the District Court of Comanche County, under the Honorable Gerald Neuwirth. He was sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment, with eight (8) years suspended, and a fine of $5,000.00. Additionally, he is subject to sex offender registration and two years of post-imprisonment supervision during his suspended sentence. Dage appeals his conviction and sentence, raising three propositions of error. I. The record does not sufficiently demonstrate that Appellant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. II. The State's evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Dage knowingly possessed videos of juvenile pornography. III. A sentence of 20 years is excessive under the circumstances, violating the United States and Oklahoma constitutions. After thorough review of the record, including transcripts and briefs, we find that the case must be reversed and remanded for a jury trial. Proposition I is granted. The State concedes this issue. While defendants can waive their constitutional right to a jury trial, such a waiver must be competent, knowing, intelligent, and on the record, as established in *Hinsley v. State*, 2012 OK CR 11; *Valega v. City of Oklahoma City*, 1988 OK CR 101. Record evidence must show that both the State and the court consented to the waiver. The requirements for a valid waiver include an advisement of rights and a court minute reflecting the waiver, with signatures from the defendant and counsel. The record does not provide evidence of a waiver or party consent; there are no advisements regarding jury trial rights, nor discussions recorded in the trial transcript concerning the waiver. Thus, we conclude that the record fails to show Appellant validly waived his right to a jury trial. Proposition II, concerning the sufficiency of evidence, is briefly addressed. The State needed to demonstrate Dage knowingly possessed child pornography according to 21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2. Although Dage argues against the sufficiency of evidence, we find that the evidence reasonably infers Dage was aware of the prohibited nature of the material, and no other individual had reasonable access to the USB drives. Therefore, this proposition is denied. Given our decision regarding Proposition I, Proposition III concerning sentencing is rendered moot. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Comanche County is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for a jury trial. 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 delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE GERALD NEUWIRTH, DISTRICT JUDGE** **ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL** LARRY CORRALES P.O. BOX 2095 LAWTON, OK 73502 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL** NANCY WALKER-JOHNSON P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** CHRISTINE GALBRAITH ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMANCHE CO. COURTHOUSE 315 SW 5TH ST., RM 502 LAWTON, OK 73501-4360 **MIKE HUNTER** ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA. DIANE L. SLAYTON ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 NE 21 ST STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-690_1735220870.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-690

F-2018-477

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-477, Gerald L. Taylor appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Gerald L. Taylor was found guilty of serious crimes, including robbery using a firearm and having a firearm when he was not allowed to have one due to past convictions. The trial took place in Oklahoma County, where the judge sentenced Taylor to a total of thirty-five years in prison. Taylor raised several issues on appeal. First, he argued that his incriminating statements should not have been allowed in court because he wanted to remain silent. The court looked at whether he had clearly stated this right. It found that even though he initially said he didn’t want to talk, he later chose to answer questions. Therefore, the court believed he willingly spoke to police after being informed of his rights and upheld the decision to admit his statements. Second, Taylor claimed that the trial judge made a mistake by not allowing the removal of a juror who he thought could not understand English well enough to participate in the trial. However, the judge questioned the juror and decided she was competent. Since Taylor had not properly objected to the juror's presence and even invited the situation, this issue was not considered a strong point for his appeal. Third, Taylor stated that his lawyer did not help him effectively, especially concerning the juror issue. However, the court found that despite any possible mistakes, the evidence against Taylor was very strong. His lawyer’s actions did not cause him to lose a fair trial. Lastly, Taylor claimed that even if no single error was enough to change his conviction, the overall combination of issues should lead to a new trial. The court ruled that there were no errors significant enough to warrant a new trial or change in his sentence. In conclusion, the court upheld the original judgment and Taylor's sentences, indicating that he received a fair trial despite his complaints.

Continue ReadingF-2018-477

F-2018-565

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** KIMBERLY ANN SMITH-GENTILE, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee. **No. F-2018-565** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 12 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Kimberly Ann Smith-Gentile, was convicted by a jury in Pottawatomie County District Court, Case No. CF-2017-342, of ten counts of Possessing Child Pornography. On May 31, 2018, the Honorable Dawson Engle, Associate District Judge, sentenced her in accordance with the jury's recommendation to ten years imprisonment on Counts 1-8 and twenty years imprisonment on Count 9, with all sentences to be served concurrently. Appellant must serve 85% of her sentences before parole consideration. 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1(16). Appellant raises two propositions of error in support of her appeal: **PROPOSITION I.** THE STATE'S EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT Ms. GENTILE KNOWINGLY POSSESSED 10 IMAGES OR VIDEOS OF JUVENILE PORNOGRAPHY. **PROPOSITION II.** UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, A SENTENCE OF 20 YEARS IS EXCESSIVE IN VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTIONS. After thorough consideration of these propositions, the briefs of the parties, and the record on appeal, we affirm. Appellant was convicted of finding child pornography on a smartphone belonging to her boyfriend, Jaymes Dean, but failing to notify authorities, and instead keeping the phone in her possession for several weeks after Dean left town. The fact that the phone contained multiple files of child pornography was not disputed. In Proposition I, Appellant claims the evidence was insufficient to show that she knowingly possessed the child pornography, particularly ten different items of pornography. Once Dean left the phone behind and traveled out of state, Appellant, with knowledge that the phone contained pornographic material, had the authority to control its disposition. At trial, Appellant claimed she was simply unsure of what to do with the phone. The fact remains, however, that she knew it contained child pornography, viewed a number of the images, and even recognized the daughter of a friend in one of the images. Yet at no time did she attempt to notify authorities, even after a social worker informed her that Dean was a convicted sex offender. Instead, Appellant's conduct suggested that she wanted to use the evidence on her own schedule and for her own purposes. Furthermore, Appellant's claim that she only viewed one video file was convincingly contradicted at trial. A rational juror could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Appellant knowingly possessed ten items of child pornography. **Jackson v. Virginia**, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); **Hamilton v. State**, 2016 OK CR 13, ¶ 4, 387 P.3d 903, 905. Proposition I is therefore denied. In Proposition II, Appellant claims her sentences are shockingly excessive. While the jury recommended the maximum term on one count, the prosecutor never requested a specific punishment, but expressly left that to the jurors' discretion. The trial court ordered concurrent service of all sentences. Finally, we note that the images in question were not simply collected from the internet or some other source; they were direct evidence of child rapes and other sex crimes that Dean himself had committed. Appellant recognized Dean as the adult perpetrator in some of the images. Considering all these circumstances, the cumulative sentences imposed are not shocking to the conscience. **Rea v. State**, 2001 OK CR 28, ¶ 5, 34 P.3d 148, 149. Proposition II is denied. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Pottawatomie County 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 POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE DAWSON ENGLE, ASSOCIATE DISTRICT JUDGE** **ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL** SHELLEY LEVISAY 318 NORTH BROADWAY SHAWNEE, OK 74801 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL** NANCY WALKER-JOHNSON INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **APPELLEE** ABBY NATHAN DAVID HAMMER MIKE HUNTER ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 331 NORTH BROADWAY SHAWNEE, OK 74801 JOSHUA R. FANELLI ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE STATE 313 NE 21 ST STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR --- [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-565_1735315294.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-565

F-2018-945

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CASE SUMMARY:** **Appellant:** Carey James Buxton **Appellee:** The State of Oklahoma **Case Numbers:** CM-2014-358, CF-2014-578, CF-2017-5 **Opinion Date:** August 8, 2019 **Judge:** Lumpkin --- **BACKGROUND:** Carey James Buxton appealed the termination of his participation in the Drug Court program and the imposition of sentencing by the District Court of Kay County, presided by Judge David Bandy. Buxton had entered pleas of no contest to multiple charges, including drug possession and burglary, and was sentenced to a Drug Court program where successful completion would lead to dismissal of the charges. However, after the State filed applications for his removal from the Drug Court program due to non-compliance, a hearing was conducted on this matter. The judge ultimately decided to terminate Buxton from the program and impose the sentencing terms outlined in the plea agreement. --- **PROPOSITION OF ERROR:** Buxton asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in terminating him from the Drug Court program. --- **ANALYSIS:** 1. **Standard of Review:** The decision to revoke or terminate a Drug Court participant lies within the trial judge's discretion. An abuse of discretion is defined as a clearly erroneous conclusion. 2. **Contentions by Appellant:** - Buxton argues that the court did not assess whether disciplinary measures short of termination would suffice. - He also claims that removal for cheating on drug tests is against Drug Court laws. 3. **Court Findings:** - The court ruled that violations needed to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Buxton repeatedly violated the terms of his Drug Court contract despite receiving multiple jail sanctions. - The appellate court noted that termination was not an automatic consequence of drug test failures; the trial court considered all relevant factors before making its decision. 4. **Conclusion:** - The appellate court determined that the trial court’s decision was supported by the evidence and was not an abuse of discretion. Buxton's proposition of error was denied. --- **DECISION:** The order terminating Buxton from the Drug Court and proceeding with sentencing as per the plea agreement is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is to be issued immediately following the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** - **For Appellant:** Jarrod Stevenson and Jeremy Stillwell (Appellate Defense Counsel) - **For Appellee:** Brian Hermanson (District Attorney), Mike Hunter (Oklahoma Attorney General), Tessa L. Henry (Assistant Attorney General) --- **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** - **Concur:** Lewis, P.J.; Kuehn, V.P.J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. --- For further details, the complete opinion is available in PDF format: [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-945_1734875235.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-945

J-2019-162

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **B.M.M., Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **Case No. J-2019-162** **FILED JUN 20 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** On August 12, 2016, a Youthful Offender Information was filed in Tulsa County District Court Case No. YO-2016-28, charging Appellant with multiple offenses including Robbery with a Firearm and Possession of a Stolen Vehicle. Appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas on November 28, 2016, receiving a ten-year sentence as a Youthful Offender, with sentences running concurrently. Following completion of the Youthful Offender Program, Appellant was paroled in February 2019. During a March 2019 hearing, mandated by 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-209, Judge Priddy transitioned Appellant to a seven-year deferred sentence under the Department of Corrections, a decision Appellant now appeals. This matter was decided on the Accelerated Docket with oral arguments heard on May 30, 2019. The district court’s bridging of Appellant to the supervision of the Department of Corrections is **AFFIRMED**. **Propositions of Error:** **1. No State Motion to Bridge:** Appellant contends the district court erred by bridging him to an adult sentence without a state motion. The court correctly followed 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-209, allowing placement on probation without a state motion. Appellant did not demonstrate an abuse of discretion based on performance in the program. **2. Knowingly Entered Pleas:** Appellant asserts his guilty pleas were not entered knowingly but does not seek to withdraw them. As such, this claim seeks advisory relief, which the Court denies. **3. Abuse of Discretion on Bridging Decision:** Appellant reasserts that the decision to bridge him was an abuse of discretion. Following the statutory guidelines, the Court finds no abuse of discretion has occurred. **Conclusion:** The Judgment and Sentence is **AFFIRMED**. MANDATE will issue upon filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE TRACY PRIDDY, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL:** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:** Kayla Cannon, Assistant Public Defender **COUNSEL FOR STATE:** Kevin Keller, Assistant District Attorney **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR IN RESULTS **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** CONCUR IN RESULTS **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR [Download PDF for full opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-162_1734446225.pdf)

Continue ReadingJ-2019-162

F 2017-1074

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2017-1074, Brown appealed his conviction for Drug Court termination. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination, stating the trial court acted within its discretion. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF 2017-1074

F-2018-184

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-184, Juanita Martinez Gomez appealed her conviction for First Degree Malice Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction. One judge dissented. Juanita, a 49-year-old woman, was found guilty of killing her daughter, Geneva Gomez, who was 33 years old, in Oklahoma City. The events took place in August 2016 after a violent encounter at Juanita's home. Geneva had previously lived with her boyfriend but went to collect her belongings with her mother. The boyfriend later became worried when he could not communicate with Geneva. The trial revealed that when the boyfriend visited Juanita's home, he found Geneva's body. She had severe injuries on her head and signs that she had been beaten. Instead of asking for help, Juanita showed strange behavior, claiming that Geneva was possessed. Evidence showed that Juanita attempted to clean up the crime scene and tried to prevent her boyfriend from leaving. At trial, Juanita did not testify, and her lawyers claimed that her odd behavior and statements meant she did not kill her daughter with intent. The jury, however, found that the evidence showed a clear intention to kill, considering the violent nature of the attack and Juanita's actions afterward. Juanita raised multiple claims of error in her appeal, but the court found that she had not been denied a fair trial. Her statements to the police about her motive for killing Geneva were not allowed in court because they were considered hearsay. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that it was sufficient to support the conviction for malice murder, rejecting Juanita's claims for lesser charges or defenses. The court ultimately affirmed the judgment of the District Court.

Continue ReadingF-2018-184

C-2018-315

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of David Duane Albright, a petitioner who sought to withdraw his guilty pleas related to charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of a controlled substance, and maintaining a place for keeping/selling controlled substances. ### Key Points: 1. **Background**: - Albright was originally charged in Delaware County with multiple drug-related offenses in 2010. - He entered a guilty plea in December 2010 and was accepted into the Delaware County Drug Court Program. - After being terminated from the program for non-compliance, he was sentenced in September 2013 to life imprisonment on two counts and 20 years on another, with fines imposed. 2. **Procedural Posture**: - Albright filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas shortly after sentencing, which was denied. - He initially failed to appeal but was granted an appeal out of time in 2018. 3. **Claims on Appeal**: Albright raised several propositions of error: - **Proposition I**: He argued his plea lacked an adequate factual basis. - **Proposition II**: Claimed his pleas were not entered knowingly and voluntarily. - **Proposition III**: Contended the $50,000 fine was unauthorized by statute. - **Proposition IV**: Asserted he should have received credit for jail time, violating his due process. - **Proposition V**: Claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. 4. **Court's Analysis**: - **Proposition I and II**: The court found Albright waived appellate review by not raising these claims in his motion to withdraw his plea. - **Proposition III and IV**: These claims were also deemed waived for similar reasons, not raised in the motion to withdraw. - **Proposition V**: While the court reviewed the ineffective assistance of withdrawal counsel, they found no evidence of deficiency or that it prejudiced Albright's case. 5. **Decision**: - The court affirmed the lower court's denial of Albright's Motion to Withdraw Plea, concluding that he did not demonstrate a valid basis for the claims made. 6. **Concurring Opinion**: - Judge Rowland specially concurred, expressing concern regarding the adequacy of the factual basis for the plea related to maintaining a place for keeping/selling a controlled dangerous substance. While recognizing the issues, he noted that because the facts weren’t adequately challenged during the proceedings, the claims were not actionable in this appeal. ### Conclusion: The petitioner's appeal was denied, and the trial court's decision stands, allowing the guilty pleas to remain in effect due to procedural waivers and the lack of substantive evidence to support the claims raised on appeal. The opinion highlights the importance of raising issues timely and thoroughly in the proper forums to preserve them for review.

Continue ReadingC-2018-315

RE-2017-801

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case Summary** **Appellant:** Donald Antwan Mayberry **Appellee:** State of Oklahoma **Case No:** RE-2017-801 **Judges:** John D. Hudson (Chief Judge), Lewis, Kuehn (Vice Chief Judge), Lumpkin, Rowland (Judges) **Date Filed:** April 18, 2019 **Overview:** Donald Antwan Mayberry appealed the full revocation of his ten-year suspended sentences imposed by the District Court of Oklahoma County, presided over by Judge Timothy R. Henderson. Mayberry had previously pleaded guilty to two counts of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, which resulted in concurrent ten-year suspended sentences under probation. **Revocation Proceedings:** The State filed an application to revoke Mayberry's suspended sentences, alleging several violations, including: 1. Committing new crimes (including Manufacturing or Possessing an Explosive Device). 2. Using methamphetamine while on probation. 3. Failing to pay probation fees. 4. Driving while his license was suspended. At the revocation hearing, the State presented evidence from law enforcement officers and Mayberry’s probation officer. Notable testimony included: - Sergeant Anthony Lee described a traffic stop of Mayberry's vehicle, where he discovered drugs and an ammo box containing bomb components. - Scott Dawson, a bomb technician, testified about the nature of the device found, indicating it could function as an improvised explosive device (IED). - Probation officer Brooke LeFlore reported Mayberry’s positive drug test for methamphetamine. Mayberry did not present any evidence in his defense. Judge Henderson concluded that Mayberry violated probation terms by committing the new crimes and using drugs, leading to the full revocation of his suspended sentences. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Insufficient Evidence for Manufacturing an Explosive Device:** - Mayberry argued that the State failed to establish his intent to use the bomb or to send it to another person, as required by statute. - The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to infer intent to intimidate or unlawfully damage property, and that one proven violation of probation was enough to justify revocation. 2. **Abuse of Discretion in Revocation Decision:** - Mayberry contended that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his sentence in full, arguing that the punishment was excessive. - The court maintained that the presence of bomb-making materials and other violations substantiated the revocation decision. **Conclusion:** The Court affirmed the trial court's decision to revoke Mayberry's ten-year concurrent suspended sentences in full, finding that the evidence was adequate to support the conclusions of the trial judge. **Final Order:** Appellant's revocation of suspended sentences is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is ordered to be issued. **Counsel for Appellant:** Pierce Winters, Marva A. Banks (Oklahoma County Public Defender’s Office) **Counsel for Appellee:** Kelly Collins, Mike Hunter (assistant district attorneys); Theodore M. Peeper (assistant attorney general) **Opinion Issued By:** Judge Hudson **Concurrences:** Judges Lewis, Kuehn, Lumpkin, and Rowland each concurred with the decision. [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2017-801_1734709994.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2017-801

F-2017-950

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-950, Terry Lyn Elkins appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine and Resisting an Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but remand for resentencing on the possession count. One judge dissented. Terry Lyn Elkins was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine and for resisting a police officer. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison for the drug charge and fined $500 for resisting the officer. The jury did not find him guilty of assaulting a police officer. Elkins argued that the trial was unfair because the jury saw evidence that was not relevant to his case, which might have affected their decision about his punishment. The evidence included a document from the Department of Corrections that had many details about Elkins’ past, including other crimes he committed many years ago. Some of this information was not needed for the current case and could have made the jury think more negatively about him. The judges decided that while the evidence showing Elkins’ past convictions was correctly used, parts of the additional information were not relevant and should not have been presented to the jury. They believed that this extra information could have influenced how the jury decided on the punishment. Therefore, they decided to keep the convictions as is, but send the case back to lower court for a new review of his punishment for the meth charge. In a separate opinion, a judge agreed with keeping the conviction but believed that sending the case back for resentencing was not necessary since Elkins did not receive the maximum punishment possible.

Continue ReadingF-2017-950

F-2015-531

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-53, Dennis Ray Runnels appealed his conviction for Unlawful Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Runnels was convicted after a jury trial, where he was found guilty of distributing meth. The trial court sentenced him to 19 years imprisonment, with one year of post-imprisonment supervision, and ordered him to pay a fee for a court-appointed attorney and other costs. Runnels raised several issues in his appeal. First, he claimed that the state did not show a complete chain of custody for the meth. The court found that there was enough evidence for the jury to decide that Runnels was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also determined that Runnels had not shown any plain error regarding this issue. Second, Runnels argued that the state did not provide enough evidence to support his conviction. However, the court ruled there was sufficient evidence, including testimony and recordings from a controlled buy, for the jury to reach their conclusion. Third, he claimed the state failed to provide evidence that could have helped his case. He said the prosecutor did not correct a witness’s false testimony about prior convictions. The court found no wrongdoing by the state and ruled that Runnels had not shown how this affected the trial's outcome. In his fourth claim, Runnels argued that the jury was incorrectly instructed on punishment. The court agreed and found it was a plain error, which required modification of his sentence. Runnels also claimed the jury was led to think about probation and parole during the trial, but since the punishment was modified based on the previous claim, this point became moot. Regarding the claim that his sentence was excessive, the court agreed that it should be modified due to the instructional error and reduced it to 10 years with the same supervision and fees. Runnels also said his attorney was ineffective in several ways. However, the court found that these claims were moot because of the prior decision to modify his sentence. Lastly, Runnels asked the court to look at the overall errors during his trial to see if they denied him a fair outcome. The court determined that since they did not find any sustained errors, this request was denied. In conclusion, Runnels's conviction was upheld, but his sentence was reduced to 10 years in prison with supervision, and he will still pay the attorney fees and costs.

Continue ReadingF-2015-531

F-2014-939

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-939, Ryan Lee Nixon appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold Nixon's conviction for Manufacturing but reversed his conviction for Possession. One judge dissented. Nixon was found guilty after a trial, where the jury determined he should serve fifteen years for Manufacturing and two years for Possession, alongside hefty fines. However, the judge suspended one of the fines and ordered the sentences to run together. Nixon's appeal included two main arguments. First, he argued that there wasn't enough evidence to show he possessed methamphetamine found in a bedroom. The court agreed with this argument. They explained that having drugs in a place doesn't mean the person had control over them unless there are other facts to prove possession. The court found there wasn't enough evidence to support the idea that Nixon had control over the drugs. Second, Nixon claimed the prosecutor made comments during closing arguments that were unfair. However, the court decided that these comments were acceptable and did not affect the trial's fairness since they were part of the argument about the evidence. In conclusion, while Nixon's conviction for Manufacturing was upheld, the court reversed his conviction for Possession and ordered that charge to be dismissed.

Continue ReadingF-2014-939

F-2014-830

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-830, Cody Wayne Mayfield appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and failure to stop at a red light. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Count 2 and remand with instructions to dismiss it, while affirming the other counts. One judge dissented. The case involved Mayfield being found guilty of two counts of possession of a controlled dangerous substance and one count of failure to stop at a red light. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the drug charges and ten days in jail for the traffic violation. Mayfield raised several points in his appeal. He claimed that being convicted for two types of possession from the same incident violated double jeopardy rules, which protect against being punished twice for the same crime. He also argued that certain evidence presented in court, including information about his past crimes and a photograph of a piece of cellophane, was not relevant and unfairly biased the jury. The court found that the first count of possession was improperly charged alongside the second due to double jeopardy, so they reversed the second charge. However, in relation to the other arguments, the court decided that the admission of the pen packet evidence and the photograph did not greatly affect the trial's outcome. The court also ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence for Mayfield to claim that he wasn't connected to the drugs found in the area. Additionally, Mayfield's complaints about his lawyer's performance did not lead to a different outcome, as the court found the defense wasn't significantly lacking. Finally, the court noted that Mayfield’s life sentence was appropriate and consistent with the law because of his past criminal record. Most of Mayfield's arguments were rejected, leading to the final decision.

Continue ReadingF-2014-830

F-2014-889

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-889, Klayton Jordan Kitchens appealed his conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substances, specifically methamphetamine and marijuana, as well as unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of the convictions related to marijuana possession but affirmed the other convictions. The events leading to the case began when the police served a search warrant at Kitchens' home in Lawton, Oklahoma, and found methamphetamine and marijuana. They initially found meth but returned later with a new warrant, where they found both drugs and drug paraphernalia in his room. Kitchens argued that having two convictions for possession of different controlled substances violated the law against double jeopardy, which means a person cannot be punished for the same offense twice. The court agreed, stating that both drugs were found as part of one act—meaning one violation of the law. Therefore, he should not have been punished twice for the two different drugs since they were found in the same piece of furniture. On the other hand, Kitchens also argued that the judge made a mistake by making his sentences run consecutively, rather than concurrently. The court disagreed, saying that it was within the judge's authority to decide how the sentences should be served, and there wasn't enough reason to change this decision. In summary, the court reversed the conviction for possession of marijuana since it felt that Kitchens should not be punished twice for the same action, but it upheld the decision on the other drug offenses. The case was sent back to the lower court just for that change.

Continue ReadingF-2014-889

F-2013-608

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-608, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple robbery and firearm-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions and sentences, but it reversed one conviction for possession of a firearm after a former felony. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2013-608

F-2012-167

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-167, Bryan Decheveria Aragon appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, conspiracy to commit a felony, burglary in the first degree, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some of Aragon's convictions but reversed others. One judge dissented. Aragon was found guilty of several serious charges, including robbery, assault, and kidnapping, after a jury trial in the District Court of Cleveland County. The jury handed down various sentences, adding up to a long term in prison. Aragon argued that errors occurred during his trial, including the prosecution calling co-defendants who refused to testify, which he claimed violated his rights. He also pointed out concerns about the prosecutor’s conduct and whether he faced multiple punishments for the same criminal act. The court found that the prosecutor’s decision to call the co-defendants did not require a reversal. Even though the co-defendants didn’t answer every question, they provided some responses and were available for cross-examination. Therefore, this did not infringe upon Aragon’s rights. The court also ruled that any claims regarding prosecutorial misconduct did not significantly impact Aragon's fair trial. However, the court acknowledged that Aragon’s conviction for possessing a firearm during a felony had to be dismissed, as it did not comply with legal standards. The kidnapping charge was also reversed because it arose from the same act as the robbery, which meant that it violated rules against double punishment. On the other hand, the charges for robbery and assault were allowed to stand since they were considered separate actions. In summary, the decision affirmed most of the judgment and sentences but reversed those related to kidnapping and possession of a firearm.

Continue ReadingF-2012-167

F-2012-168

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-168, Tommie Joe Moore appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, and Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Moore's convictions but modified his fine on one count. One judge dissented. Moore was found guilty after a jury trial and received a sentence of twenty years for Distribution and a $25,000 fine, ten years for Possession and a $7,500 fine, and twenty-five years for Trafficking with another $25,000 fine. The sentences for the Distribution and Possession counts were ordered to be served at the same time, but the Trafficking sentence was to be served afterward. Moore raised several points in his appeal. He argued that the fine for the Distribution count was too high and that it should be corrected. He claimed that the jury should have been instructed about a lesser charge related to Possession and that he did not get a fair trial because of mistakes made during the trial, including some comments made by the prosecution. He also stated that the sentences he received were too harsh and should not have been served one after another, but at the same time. After reviewing all the evidence and arguments, the court agreed that the fine for the Distribution count was indeed too high and changed it to $10,000. However, the court found that there was no need for a lesser charge instruction, and that the prosecution's actions did not affect the fairness of Moore's trial. The sentences given to Moore were within legal limits, and the court did not think they were excessively harsh. In the end, the court affirmed Moore's convictions but made a change to reduce the fine in one of the counts. This meant that while the convictions stood, Moore would not have to pay the original high fine, and he could continue to serve his sentences as ordered.

Continue ReadingF-2012-168

F-2011-407

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-407, Kevin Maurice Brown appealed his conviction for multiple counts of robbery and firearm possession. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions on all counts except for one count of possession of a firearm, which was reversed. One judge dissented. Kevin Brown was found guilty of robbing several businesses in Tulsa, using a firearm during these crimes. The jury decided on severe punishment, including life imprisonment and hefty fines. The trial also took note of Brown's previous felonies, which influenced the decisions. During the case, issues arose regarding double punishment for two counts of firearm possession that were related to the same gun. Brown’s defense argued that charging him with both counts violated the principle against double jeopardy, which protects individuals from being punished multiple times for the same crime. The court agreed that the evidence showed he was being punished twice for the same offense, which is not allowed, and reversed the conviction for one of those counts. Brown also felt he didn’t receive good legal help during his trial because his lawyer didn’t challenge the double counting of the firearm charges. However, since one count was reversed, this concern was considered resolved. Additionally, Brown thought his sentences were too harsh, especially since no one was hurt in the robberies. The court stated that while the sentences were serious, they were within the law, and given his past convictions, they did not seem extreme or unjust. Brown submitted additional concerns in a separate brief, but these were not accepted because they did not follow required guidelines. As a result, the court denied those arguments. In summary, while Brown's convictions for robbery and firearms were mostly upheld, one of the firearm possession counts was overturned due to improper double punishment. The court found no errors significant enough to change his overall sentence, which reflected the severity of the crimes committed.

Continue ReadingF-2011-407

F-2009-563

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-563, Hall appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence but modified the amount of his fine. One judge dissented. Hall was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to thirty years in prison and a $25,000 fine. He raised three main points in his appeal. First, he argued that the trial court made a mistake when trying to explain reasonable doubt to the jury. The court found no error here since the trial did not misdefine the term. Second, Hall felt that the jury was given the wrong information about the possible punishment range. However, the court confirmed the instructions were correct but agreed that the fine was set improperly. They ended up reducing Hall's fine to $10,000 because the jury had been given the wrong information about the fine amounts. Lastly, Hall's appeal included a claim that he should have been allowed to argue for a lesser charge related to drug possession, but the court ruled there wasn't enough evidence for this. In summary, the court upheld Hall's conviction and prison sentence, but they lowered the fine he had to pay.

Continue ReadingF-2009-563

F-2008-1041

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1041, David Roland Boschee appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one related to possession of a firearm after a felony. One judge dissented from the decision. Boschee was found guilty after a jury trial for several offenses, including robbery with a firearm. The court sentenced him to a total of 25 years in prison for his serious crimes. Boschee raised several arguments in his appeal regarding the fairness of his trial and the legitimacy of the multiple charges against him. Firstly, he argued that it was unfair to force him to defend against two robbery charges in one trial. The court found no abuse of discretion in joining these cases, meaning they decided it was reasonable to have them heard together. Secondly, Boschee contended that his convictions for both robbery and possessing a firearm with a defaced serial number were against the law because they represented double punishment for the same act. However, the court disagreed, stating these were separate offenses and did not violate any statutes. Thirdly, Boschee argued that he was wrongfully convicted of two counts of possessing a firearm after a felony. The court agreed that there was not enough evidence to support two convictions and decided to dismiss one of these counts. The court also found that his argument about receiving ineffective assistance from his lawyer was without merit, concluding that his rights were not violated in this regard. In summary, the court upheld most of Boschee's convictions but agreed that one count of possession should be dismissed. The judges had different opinions, with one judge dissenting, stating that the joining of the robbery charges may have harmed Boschee’s case.

Continue ReadingF-2008-1041

C-2009-410

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-410, the petitioner appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for an evidentiary hearing regarding the petitioner's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. The case revolved around the petitioner who had pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine. He had a plea deal where he was supposed to receive a five-year sentence, but ultimately, he was given a ten-year sentence instead. After his sentencing, the petitioner believed that the judge did not follow the plea agreement correctly and moved to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court did not hold a hearing on his motion, which the petitioner argued was unfair. He raised several concerns, including that there was no clear reason for his guilty plea, that he might not have been competent to enter the plea, and that he didn’t receive proper help from his lawyer. He also claimed the sentence and other penalties were too harsh. After reviewing everything, the OCCA found that there should have been a hearing on the petitioner's request to withdraw his guilty plea. They ordered the trial court to have a hearing where the petitioner could present his case and have a lawyer help him. The hearing needed to happen within 45 days, and if the motion was denied, the court was to send the details to the OCCA, where the petitioner could appeal if he wished. In summary, the court decided that the petitioner deserved another chance to explain his reasons for wanting to withdraw his guilty plea, and a proper hearing should take place to address those issues.

Continue ReadingC-2009-410