Possession of CDS Archives

RE-2019-683

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 21, 2021
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-683, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but modify it to be limited to six months. One member dissented. The case involved the appellant who had earlier been sentenced for multiple crimes, including possession of a controlled substance and driving under the influence. Initially, he was given a suspended sentence where he would serve time in jail only on weekends. However, he violated the terms of his probation several times by failing to report, pay fees, and complete required programs. After a while, he faced new charges for more serious crimes, which led to the state seeking to revoke his suspended sentence altogether. During the hearing for the revocation, the judge decided to revoke all five years of his suspended sentence. However, the court found later that this action was not appropriate. The court ruled that even though the appellant had committed technical violations, he could only be punished with a maximum of six months because the alleged new crimes occurred after his probation had expired. The court concluded that the trial judge had made a mistake when revoking the whole five years instead of just six months based on the technical violations proven. Thus, the revocation punishment was modified by the court to six months instead of five years.

F-2018-901

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 13, 2020
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. F-2018-901** **NAJEE JAMALL COX, Appellant,** **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Najee Jamall Cox, appeals from the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2014-5486 in Oklahoma County, presided over by Judge Ray C. Elliott. On January 30, 2017, Cox entered a guilty plea to Burglary in the First Degree, and his judgment and sentencing were deferred for seven years, with probation conditions effective until January 29, 2024. On March 20, 2018, the State filed an application to accelerate the deferred sentence, citing multiple violations, including new criminal charges and failure to pay court costs. At the hearing on August 14, 2018, Judge Elliott denied Cox's request for a continuance to allow his co-defendant to testify, after which the hearing proceeded with the State's presentation of evidence from probation officers and law enforcement. **FINDINGS:** 1. **Evidence of Possession**: The court found sufficient evidence supporting that Cox had constructive possession of marijuana and related paraphernalia based on the circumstances surrounding the traffic stop and subsequent findings in his vehicle. 2. **Right to Present Testimony**: Cox was given the opportunity to present a defense but failed to secure the presence of his co-defendant through proper procedural channels. His claim of due process violation was denied due to lack of shown prejudice. 3. **Notice of Reimbursement Fee**: Sufficient evidence demonstrated that Cox was aware of his obligation to pay the District Attorney's fees. 4. **Judicial Notice**: The court's reference to Cox's counsel's reputation did not negatively impact his rights, as the violation found was supported by sufficient evidence regardless. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Cox did not demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient enough to have affected the outcome. Based on the analysis of these propositions, the order of acceleration issued by the District Court is **AFFIRMED**. **CONCLUSION**: The mandate will be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **Representatives:** - **Counsel for Appellant**: Matthew Tate Wise - **Counsel for State**: Kirk Martin, Mike Hunter **Decision by**: LEWIS, Presiding Judge **Concurrences**: KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. [Click here to download the full PDF of the opinion.](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-901_1735118825.pdf)

RE-2018-89

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 27, 2019
Post category:RE

In the case of Brandon Christopher Looney v. The State of Oklahoma, the Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the trial court's decision to revoke Looney's twenty-year suspended sentence based on multiple violations of probation. Looney had pled nolo contendere to assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, leading to a suspended sentence on the condition he comply with certain probation rules. The court reviewed allegations against Looney, including failing to report to his probation officer, changing his residence without notification, associating with convicted felons, failing a drug test, possessing weapons, and being charged with multiple offenses related to drug and firearm possession. At the revocation hearing, evidence was presented detailing these violations, including a deputy witnessing drug use and discovering firearms and drugs in the residence where Looney was staying. Looney argued that the judge erred in denying his demurrer regarding weapon-related allegations since the firearms were not found in his specific bedroom and there was no evidence he was aware of their presence. However, the court explained that as a convicted felon on probation, his residency rules prohibited him from firearms, regardless of awareness. The burden of proof for probation violations is a preponderance of evidence, and the trial judge's discretion to revoke the sentence was upheld. Looney also claimed that the judge did not consider lesser sentencing options and that the revocation was excessive. The court found no evidence that the judge neglected to consider alternatives and noted that Looney had repeatedly ignored probation requirements immediately after being placed on probation. Ultimately, the court denied all of Looney's propositions of error, concluding there were no abuses of discretion or violations of due process. Therefore, the order to revoke his suspended sentence was affirmed.

RE-2018-357

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 2, 2018
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CASE NO. RE-2018-357** **JAMES MONROE JONES, Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** James Monroe Jones (Appellant) appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290, and CF-2013-6519, adjudicated by the Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge, in the District Court of Oklahoma County. On June 16, 2010, Appellant pled guilty in Cases CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, and CF-2010-290, receiving concurrent sentences with significant portions suspended. Specifically, in CF-2008-7440, he was convicted of two counts of Concealing Stolen Property and sentenced to fifteen years on each count, with the first five years served. Similar sentences were imposed for offenses stemming from the other cases. On May 1, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated nolo contendere plea in CF-2013-6519 for an amended count of Concealing Stolen Property, resulting in a ten-year sentence with the first year served. On August 26, 2016, the State filed applications to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences due to reported violations, including failure to report, change of address, and new criminal activity related to Domestic Assault and Battery. Enhanced allegations were added on March 7, 2018, encompassing additional crimes attributed to Appellant. A hearing was conducted on April 2, 2018. Appellant's counsel objected to the State's evidence, citing inadequate discovery. The trial court, however, noted Appellant had received relevant documents previously, and dismissed the objections after reviewing the evidence. Judge Henderson ultimately found Appellant had violated his probation through specific new criminal conduct and revoked his suspended sentences in full. Appellant presents two propositions of error on appeal: **PROPOSITION I:** The trial court violated Jones's right to due process and a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II § 7 of the Oklahoma State Constitution. **PROPOSITION II:** Defense counsel failed to prepare adequately for trial, resulting in ineffective assistance of counsel. **ANALYSIS** In addressing Proposition I, Appellant contends that the overruling of his objections regarding discovery violations deprived him of due process. It is established that defendants have minimal due process rights in revocation hearings, including evidence disclosure. However, since Appellant’s counsel did not request discovery prior to the hearing, the burden falls on them for preparation. The trial court did not deny Appellant the opportunity to defend—therefore, Proposition I is denied. Regarding Proposition II, Appellant asserts his counsel's ineffectiveness based on a lack of preparedness stemming from unrequested discovery. The Strickland standard evaluates ineffective assistance claims through performance deficiency and resultant prejudice. Appellant has not substantiated claims that better-prepared counsel would have altered the outcome, as evidence showed several violations were confirmed. Thus, Proposition II is also denied. **DECISION** The order from the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290, and CF-2013-6519 is **AFFIRMED**. --- **APPEARANCES:** **AT TRIAL** Katie Samples, Assistant Public Defender Marva A. Banks, Assistant Public Defender **ON APPEAL** David Nichols, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Attorney General Keeley L. Miller, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. **[Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-357_1734695459.pdf)**

C-2010-695

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 2, 2011
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-695, Marcus Jermaine Christon appealed his conviction for multiple charges including burglary and possession of drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for certiorari and remanded the case for a new hearing. One judge dissented.

F-2009-749

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 12, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-749, Waymond George Morrison appealed his conviction for multiple offenses, including Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS) with Intent to Distribute, Driving a Motor Vehicle Without a License, Distribution of CDS, and Possession of Proceeds from drug-related activities. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for three counts while reversing one count related to possession of proceeds, ordering that it be dismissed. One justice dissented. Morrison faced several serious charges related to drugs and was sentenced to a total of 100 years in prison for the most severe charges, along with some fines. During his trial, he argued that his rights to due process were violated, that there was an improper handling of testimony, and that he faced double punishment for his actions. The court evaluated his claims: 1. The first issue was whether Morrison’s rights were violated when the court didn’t allow certain testimony. The court decided that the excluded testimony wasn't relevant to the case, so his rights were not infringed upon. 2. The second concern was about the trial being split into two parts (bifurcated). The court ruled that this was a correct decision and that it did not abuse its discretion. 3. Morrison also contended that testimony from a rebuttal witness should not have been permitted. The court found that this was appropriate because the rebuttal witness provided necessary clarifications to previous testimonies. 4. Regarding the issue of double punishment, the court explained that Morrison’s possession and distribution charges were based on separate actions—one for having cocaine and one for selling it. However, his conviction for possession of proceeds was tied to the same act of selling cocaine, so that particular conviction was reversed. 5. The sufficiency of the evidence against him was also questioned. The court found that there was enough evidence for the jury to reasonably convict Morrison of intent to distribute due to the drugs found in his car shortly after a sale. 6. Lastly, Morrison felt his sentence was excessively harsh. The court did not agree, noting that due to his previous criminal record, the sentence was justifiable. In conclusion, the court upheld the majority of Morrison's convictions and sentences, significantly addressing various legal arguments made by him during the appeal process.

RE-2009-1019

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 22, 2011
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2009-1019 and RE-2009-1020, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the full revocation of his seven-year suspended sentences to a three-year revocation with four years remaining suspended. One judge dissented. The case involved the appellant, who had previously pleaded guilty to multiple drug charges and received a suspended sentence. Later, the State accused him of violating his probation by committing new crimes. The judge found enough evidence to revoke his entire suspended sentence, which the appellant contested. The appellant argued that a small amount of marijuana found in a car he was driving was not enough to prove he controlled it because it was not his car. He also claimed that revoking his entire sentence was too harsh and should be changed. However, the court upheld the judge's finding that the appellant indeed had control over the marijuana since he was driving the car alone and had acknowledged ownership of the drug paraphernalia in the car. The court found merit in the appellant's argument about the harshness of the punishment because the reasons for revoking the full sentence were incorrect. The judge had based his decision on prior allegations that didn't hold up to factual scrutiny during the revocation hearing. The violations were also deemed minor and were not even prosecuted. In the end, the court decided to cut the original seven-year full revocation down to three years while keeping four years suspended, demonstrating that the punishment still reflected the violations but was fairer given the circumstances.

C-2004-850

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 30, 2005
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2004-850, the petitioner appealed her conviction for five crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the appeal for most of the convictions, but they did reverse and dismiss one misdemeanor count. One judge dissented.

F 2004-1002

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 26, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1002, Benny Paul McCartney appealed his conviction for attempted manufacturing of a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distribute, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for the first two counts but to reverse and dismiss the third count due to double jeopardy concerns. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the third count, arguing that the appellant violated two different laws and should be held accountable for both.

C 2004-69

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 19, 2005
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2004-69, McCarroll appealed his conviction for unlawful distribution of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) and possession of CDS in the presence of a child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant McCarroll's petition for a writ of certiorari. One judge dissented. The case involved Corey Dion McCarroll, who pleaded guilty to multiple charges, which included selling drugs near a daycare center and having drugs while a child was present. McCarroll was sentenced to a total of 60 years in prison, with some hefty fines. After feeling that he didn't get a fair trial and claiming he was innocent, McCarroll asked the judge to let him change his plea. McCarroll raised several reasons for his appeal. He argued that the charges for selling drugs near a daycare didn't apply because the law was not in effect at the time of his actions. He believed that his guilty pleas were not entered knowingly, and he felt the judge was unfair in giving him consecutive sentences, which made them seem too harsh. McCarroll also claimed that his lawyer didn't represent him properly. The court reviewed all the details of the case and decided favorably for McCarroll. They found that the law didn't fully apply to his situation when he was charged with the first two counts. Therefore, the court changed these charges to a different type of drug offense that was valid at that time. They also modified the sentences, stating that some of them should run at the same time (concurrently) rather than one after the other (consecutively). Overall, while the court granted McCarroll some relief in his appeal by changing the charges and modifying the sentences, they did not agree that his lawyer's help was inadequate enough for his plea to be withdrawn. Thus, the decisions were adjusted to ensure fairness while still holding McCarroll accountable.

C-2002-1188

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 10, 2003
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2002-1188, the petitioner appealed his conviction for various crimes related to drug possession and firearm offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one conviction for maintaining a vehicle used for selling drugs. One judge dissented and suggested that the sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively.

C-2002-1190

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 10, 2003
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2002-1188, the petitioner appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including possession of controlled substances and shooting with intent to kill. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed the conviction for maintaining a vehicle used for the keeping or selling of controlled substances, due to insufficient evidence. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively.

C-2002-1191

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 10, 2003
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2002-1188, the petitioner appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions and sentences but reversed one specific conviction for maintaining a vehicle used for illegal activities. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively. The petitioner had pled guilty to various charges in three different cases. These included serious charges like possession of drugs with the intent to distribute, gun-related offenses, and other crimes. After he was sentenced, he sought to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that he did not understand what he was doing when he pled guilty. The court held a hearing to consider this request but denied it. The sentences the petitioner received added up to a very long total of 223 years, meaning he would serve them one after another. During the appeal, the petitioner presented several reasons he felt the court made mistakes. First, he argued that there wasn't enough evidence for some of his guilty pleas to be accepted. After looking into the facts, the court disagreed on some counts, saying there was enough evidence for certain guilty pleas, but accepted the petitioner’s claim that he should not have been convicted for maintaining a vehicle for drug activities. In another part of his argument, the petitioner claimed that his punishments were too much and that he did not understand his pleas. The court found that he did understand what he was doing and therefore, his guilty pleas were valid. Overall, the court upheld most of the judgments but agreed with the petitioner on one specific charge, reversing that conviction. The court ordered the case to go back for further actions that align with its decision. One judge thought sentences should be served together instead of separately, showing that there were different opinions even in the court's decision.