Possession of Firearm

RE-2021-1290

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2021-1290, Vernon Shawn Miller, Jr. appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking Miller's suspended sentences but vacated the part of the order that imposed post-imprisonment supervision. One member of the court dissented. Vernon Shawn Miller, Jr. had a serious legal history. He pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including kidnapping and domestic assault, and was given a sentence but had part of it suspended after he completed a special drug program. However, in August 2021, the State filed a motion to revoke his suspended sentence because he broke the rules of his probation, which included failing to complete a required assessment and getting arrested for a new crime. The trial court held a hearing and decided to revoke all of Miller's suspended sentence. Miller argued against this decision, claiming it violated the rules because he should not serve more time than the sentence he was given. The court explained during the hearing that it intended to revoke all of the suspended time left on his sentence. Miller raised several arguments during his appeal. He thought the sentence should not exceed what he had left to serve and believed that the facts used to revoke his sentence came from an earlier trial rather than the hearing itself. Miller also said he did not get good help from his lawyer during the process. The court reviewed Miller's arguments closely. It confirmed that the judge's decision to revoke the entire suspended sentence was valid and within their rights. They found no specific errors in what the trial court did, except for the imposition of post-imprisonment supervision, which should not have been added since it was not part of the original sentence. In the end, the court upheld the revocation of Miller's suspended sentence but removed the part about post-imprisonment supervision, meaning Miller had to serve the time his sentence required without additional conditions.

Continue ReadingRE-2021-1290

S-2022-41

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2022-41, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Joshua Kyle Rhynard for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, possession of a controlled dangerous substance (marijuana), and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the appeal was improperly brought and dismissed it. One judge dissented, arguing that the State made a sufficient case for review based on the importance of the evidence that had been suppressed. The dissenting opinion believed that the trial court made an error in suppressing the evidence found during a search because the officers executing the warrant used reasonable belief about the address they were searching.

Continue ReadingS-2022-41

F-2020-818

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2020-818, the appellant appealed his conviction for child sexual abuse and other related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute the appellant. One judge dissented. The case involved Joseph Scott Bennett, who was convicted of several crimes, including child sexual abuse and possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. The jury sentenced him to life in prison without parole for the most serious crimes and additional years for firearm possession. Bennett argued that the State didn't have the right to prosecute him because the crimes took place on lands that are part of the Cherokee Nation, and he is recognized as a member of the Cherokee Nation. During the trial, Bennett tried to dismiss the charges based on the argument that the state court did not have jurisdiction because of a Supreme Court case known as McGirt v. Oklahoma. This case stated that some crimes committed by Native Americans on certain lands could only be prosecuted in federal court rather than state court. The trial court did not agree with Bennett's argument but allowed the issue to be reviewed later on appeal. The appeals court found that, following McGirt, it was established that the area where the crimes occurred was indeed a Cherokee Reservation, and since Bennett proved he was a member of the tribe, the state courts should not have held the trial. As a result, the court vacated Bennett's judgment and sentence, which meant that his convictions were canceled, and they instructed that the matter be dismissed. The case shows how legal rulings can change depending on new interpretations of jurisdiction and tribal rights under U.S. law.

Continue ReadingF-2020-818

F-2017-1000

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1000, Sonny Raye McCombs appealed his conviction for several crimes including robbery, using a vehicle in a crime, possessing a firearm, larceny, and obstructing an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and dismiss the case. McCombs argued that the court did not have jurisdiction over his case because he is a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and the crimes happened on Native American land, which is called Indian Country. The court agreed that the State of Oklahoma could not prosecute him for these crimes because of the legal rulings made in earlier cases regarding Indian rights and territories. The majority of the judges emphasized that the crimes took place in areas still recognized as part of Indian Country, leading to the conclusion that the state lacked the authority to prosecute him. One judge dissented, expressing concerns over the majority opinion and its implications for federal and state law relationship.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1000

RE-2019-683

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-683

F-2019-82

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-82, Spencer Thomas Cato appealed his conviction for various crimes including possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm after a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed and dismissed one count against Cato. A judge dissented regarding the dismissal of that count. Cato had been found guilty of several offenses, including having a controlled substance and firearms while being a convicted felon. During the trial, the jury sentenced him to a total of several years in prison along with fines. The judge decided some of these sentences would be served at the same time, while others would be served one after the other. Cato appealed, arguing that his rights were violated because he was punished twice for what he saw as the same action. Specifically, he felt the charges of possessing a firearm after a felony and possessing a firearm while committing a felony were not separate. Cato believed that the law should prevent him from being punished for both crimes since they stemmed from the same act of possessing the same gun with no significant break in time between the two actions. Upon reviewing the case, the court agreed with Cato’s argument. They found that there was no new evidence that suggested he had used the firearm for a different purpose at different times. The trial revealed that Cato had the gun and drugs at the same time which led to the conclusion that punishing him for both counts was not appropriate. The court decided to reverse the lesser charge and direct that it be dismissed. In summary, while some of Cato's convictions and their sentences were confirmed, the court found that he could not be punished for both possessing a firearm after a felony and possessing it while committing another felony under the circumstances of his case. Hence, they instructed the lower court to dismiss the one charge.

Continue ReadingF-2019-82

F-2017-528

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-528, Darrien Hasmii Clark appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree and several other charges, including Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. Darrien Clark was found guilty by a jury of murdering a convenience store clerk after he shot the clerk multiple times during a robbery. The jury also convicted him on other charges involving a separate shooting incident. Clark was sentenced to life in prison without the chance of parole for the murder, and he received additional sentences for the other crimes, which will be served consecutively. During the trial, Clark's defense raised several issues. He argued that his murder case and the other cases should not have been tried together, but the court ruled that the similar nature of the crimes justified this decision. The evidence showed that both incidents involved the same weapon and occurred in a close time frame, which the court found relevant for judicial efficiency. Clark also tried to present evidence to suggest that someone else committed the murder, arguing that another man who was initially arrested should be considered a suspect. However, the court found that there wasn’t enough reliable evidence to support this claim. In addition, Clark claimed that the prosecution improperly introduced victim impact evidence during the trial. The court determined that the evidence was relevant to the case and did not constitute a plain error. Another argument made by Clark was that he acted in self-defense during the shooting of another man. The jury was instructed about self-defense laws, and the evidence presented suggested that Clark was the aggressor in that situation. The court concluded that any rational jury could determine that he did not act in self-defense. Lastly, Clark argued that the combination of errors throughout the trial denied him a fair trial. However, since the court found no significant errors, they denied this claim as well. The court ultimately decided to uphold the convictions and sentences issued by the lower court.

Continue ReadingF-2017-528

F-2018-892

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma** **Case Summary:** **Case Name:** David Andrew Sanders, Appellant, v. The State of Oklahoma, Appellee **Case Number:** F-2018-892 **Date Filed:** September 5, 2019 --- **Background:** David Andrew Sanders appeals the acceleration of his deferred sentencing resulting from finding evidence that he committed new offenses while on probation. On April 29, 2016, in **Case No. CF-2012-2326**, Appellant entered no contest pleas to Burglary in the First Degree and Pointing a Firearm at Another. In **Case No. CF-2016-1178**, he entered a guilty plea for Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer. His sentencing was deferred for ten years (Burglary), five years (Firearm charge), and 30 days (Larceny). All sentences were to run concurrently. On November 28, 2017, the State filed an Application to Accelerate the Deferred Sentence, alleging new offenses. At a hearing on August 21, 2018, the court found sufficient evidence of new offenses: possession of a firearm while on probation, possession of a controlled dangerous substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. **Facts of the Case:** On May 6, 2017, police found Sanders unconscious in an idling car with a handgun in his lap. During the arrest, officers discovered a glass pipe and methamphetamine in the car's console. Sanders argued that this evidence was the product of an unlawful search. **Legal Findings:** The district court ruled that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the acceleration proceeding, which is not akin to a full trial. The court found no evidence of egregious police misconduct. According to Oklahoma law (Richardson v. State), exclusion of evidence is only warranted in revocation hearings where there has been egregious misconduct. **Conclusion:** The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The discovery of the firearm, glass pipe, and methamphetamine did not violate Sanders' rights given the context of the proceedings. **Decision:** The order of the district court accelerating Sanders’ deferred judgment and sentencing is AFFIRMED. --- **Counsel on Appeal:** - For Appellant: Micah Sielert and Andrea Digilo Miller - For Appellee: Tiffany Noble, Mike Hunter, Tessa L. Henry **Opinion by:** Presiding Judge Lewis **Concurrences:** Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn, Judge Lumpkin, Judge Hudson, Judge Rowland --- For more details, you may [download the full PDF here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-892_1735120506.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-892

RE-2018-611

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SHAZEL STEEL,** Appellant, v. **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-611** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, STATE OF OKLAHOMA AUG 15 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** On June 6, 2015, Appellant, Shazel Steel, pled guilty in three separate cases in Tulsa County. The details of these cases are summarized as follows: 1. **Case CF-2015-1948**: Appellant was convicted of Robbery in the First Degree and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment and fined $500.00. 2. **Case CF-2015-2091**: Appellant was convicted on Count 1 of Robbery with a Firearm and Count 2 of Burglary in the First Degree, receiving a twenty-year sentence and a fine of $100.00 for each count. (Count 3 was dismissed). 3. **Case CF-2015-2152**: For Count 1 (Robbery with a Firearm) and Count 2 (Kidnapping), Appellant received a twenty-year sentence each, while Count 3 (Assault with a Dangerous Weapon) led to a ten-year sentence and a fine of $100.00. (Count 4 was dismissed). All sentences were set to run concurrently, with a two-year judicial review period established. During the Judicial Review proceeding on June 5, 2017, Appellant's sentences were modified to be suspended in full. However, the State subsequently filed applications to revoke these suspended sentences based on allegations of violations related to ongoing criminal activity and non-compliance with probation conditions. The revocation hearing revealed that Appellant was in possession of a firearm while driving without a license, which was a violation of probation Rule #7 that prohibited being in a vehicle where firearms are located. Multiple other violations related to probation were also noted, leading to the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in full by the Honorable James M. Caputo. On appeal, Appellant challenges the revocation on the following grounds: 1. The evidence was insufficient to establish that he knowingly and willfully possessed a firearm. 2. The District Court abused its discretion in revoking the entire sentence. The Court addressed these propositions: **I.** The standard for revocation is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Given the evidence from Officer Terwilliger indicating that a loaded firearm was found in a car Appellant was operating, the Court deemed that the evidence sufficiently supported the revocation of the suspended sentences. **II.** As for the claim of abuse of discretion, the trial court’s decision to revoke the full suspended sentence was found to be reasonable given the multiple violations of probation. Thus, the Court affirmed the order granting the State's applications for revocation of the suspended sentences in all three Tulsa County District Court Cases. **DECISION:** The order revoking Appellant's suspended sentences is **AFFIRMED**. **APPEARANCES:** - **At Trial**: Kayla Cannon, Assistant Public Defender for Appellant; Sean Waters, Assistant District Attorney for the State. - **On Appeal**: Nicole Herron, Counsel for Appellant; Mike Hunter and Tessa L. Henry, Counsel for the State. **OPINION BY:** **LUMPKIN, J.:** **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur **[Download PDF of Full Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-611_1734429007.pdf)**

Continue ReadingRE-2018-611

RE-2018-89

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingRE-2018-89

F-2017-1285

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1285, Isaac Avila appealed his conviction for multiple counts of kidnapping, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Isaac Avila was found guilty by a jury for kidnapping his estranged wife and his own children, along with possessing a firearm during these events and resisting an officer. The jury gave him various sentences, including a total of 50 years in prison for the kidnappings and other convictions. Avila argued that his convictions for kidnapping his children were not valid since he believed he had the right to be with them as their parent. He also claimed there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him for these crimes. The court examined the law and the evidence. They found that, while parents do have rights, Avila acted in a way that was not allowed by law when he took his children. The court also decided that the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions, meaning it was strong enough for a reasonable person to believe he was guilty. Avila further argued that the jury should have been told about the defense of consent, which is when someone allows an action to happen, and that his lawyer didn’t do a good job helping him. However, the court ruled that the trial instructions were adequate and that his lawyer's performance did not harm his case. Lastly, Avila thought his sentences were too harsh. The court agreed that, while they were serious, they were reasonable given the facts of the case. Overall, the court upheld Avila's convictions and sentences, deciding that he had received a fair trial and that the evidence against him was strong enough to support the jury's decisions.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1285

F-2016-519

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-519, Kevin Bernell Warrior appealed his conviction for first degree murder and possession of a firearm after a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to grant him a new trial due to newly discovered evidence that could change the outcome of the original trial. One judge dissented. Kevin Warrior was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. The evidence used to convict him was mostly circumstantial, meaning it did not come from direct witnesses at the crime scene. At trial, it was believed that the weapon used in the murder was not found, and the state suggested that Warrior had a motive and opportunity to commit the crime, alongside some statements he made that seemed incriminating. After his conviction, Warrior learned while in jail that another man, Mikel Ball, had confessed to committing the murder during a robbery. This information came to Warrior from a fellow inmate, Marquez Goff, who had talked to Ball. Goff also found out that police had taken a gun from Ball shortly after his arrest, and that this gun matched the bullet from the murder victim. Warrior's lawyers filed a request for a new trial, arguing that this evidence was important and could not have been found before the trial. The court agreed that the evidence was new, could change the outcome of the first trial, and was not something that Warrior could have discovered in time for his original case. Thus, the court decided that Warrior should get a new trial because this new information showed a reasonable chance that he might not have been guilty of the crime he was convicted of.

Continue ReadingF-2016-519

C-2016-877

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-877, Charles David Miller appealed his conviction for multiple charges including stalking and possession of a firearm during a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Miller’s petition in part. The court affirmed the judgments and sentences for some counts but reversed the sentence for Count 1 and dismissed Count 4 due to double punishment concerns. One judge dissented. The case began when Miller, facing serious charges, entered a guilty plea in December 2014, agreeing to certain terms. He was originally given deferred sentences, meaning he would not serve time in prison if he followed the terms of his probation. However, after a hearing in 2015, the court ruled to impose a harsher sentence because Miller did not comply with the terms, leading to his appeal. Throughout the appeal, Miller argued that his guilty plea should be withdrawn for several reasons. He claimed there was no factual reason for his plea, that he was not made aware of his rights, and expressed concerns about double punishment as well as the effectiveness of his lawyer. The court reviewed the details and concluded that Miller had not shown enough grounds for his claims because some issues were not raised earlier in court, making them not eligible for review. The court particularly focused on whether Miller's plea was voluntary and if he was properly informed. They found that while Miller's plea might have been motivated by a desire to get his car back, he did understand the consequences of his actions. The court upheld the judgment for some counts, but it noted that the sentence for Count 1 was illegal because it exceeded the maximum allowed by law. As a result, they ordered a new sentencing for that count and dismissed Count 4 entirely because of double punishment. In summary, the main points were that Miller wanted to reverse his guilty plea but the court found many of his arguments unsubstantiated. They decided to change his sentence on one charge while dismissing another, affirming the result on several others.

Continue ReadingC-2016-877

F-2016-179

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-179, John Stanton Lewis appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and other related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Lewis's convictions for three counts and modify his conviction for one count from a felony to a misdemeanor, resulting in a shorter sentence. One judge dissented. Lewis was convicted in a district court for several counts involving drugs and a firearm. The jury sentenced him to different terms, including 15 years for possession of methamphetamine after previous felonies, 2 years for firearm possession, 4 years for marijuana possession, and 90 days for drug paraphernalia. The court made these sentences consecutive and gave him credit for time served. Lewis raised four main arguments on appeal: 1. **Illegal Search**: He argued that evidence against him should not have been used because it was obtained through an illegal search. The court found that the initial entry into his mobile home by law enforcement was legal since it was during a fire incident and they were investigating. Therefore, this argument was denied. 2. **Jury Instructions**: Lewis contended that the jury was not properly instructed on the possible punishments for his offenses, particularly about the enhancement of his charges due to prior convictions. The court agreed that there was a plain error concerning the instruction for the marijuana possession charge, modifying it to reflect a misdemeanor instead of a felony. His sentence for that charge was reduced from four years to one year. 3. **Evidence for Firearm Charge**: He claimed the evidence was insufficient to convict him for possession of a firearm because the state did not prove the firearm he had was capable of firing. The court found that it is not necessary to prove whether the gun could fire for a conviction under the law, so this argument was denied. 4. **Ineffective Counsel**: Lewis argued that his lawyer did not do a good job representing him. The court noted that proving ineffective counsel requires showing that the lawyer's mistakes affected the outcome of the trial. Lewis couldn't prove his lawyer was ineffective in this case because the range of punishment given was correct, and therefore, this claim was denied. Ultimately, the court affirmed the convictions for several charges, but modified the marijuana possession conviction to reflect a misdemeanor resulting in a shorter sentence. The judgments overall were mostly upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2016-179

S-2015-972

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-972, Marco Callejas appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm after juvenile adjudication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to grant Callejas' motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges. One judge dissented. Marco Callejas was charged with two crimes in Tulsa County. The charges included unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and having a firearm after being a juvenile delinquent. During his preliminary hearing, the official decided that the stop made by the officer was valid but dismissed one of the charges while moving forward with the other. Before the actual trial began, Callejas argued that there wasn't enough evidence against him and that the evidence collected during the stop should not be used. The judge agreed and dismissed both charges, so the State decided to appeal the judge's decision. The State argued that the judge made errors during the hearing, especially in determining that there wasn't a valid reason for the traffic stop. They explained that the officer interpreted a local traffic law to mean that drivers must hesitate before changing lanes. However, the judge decided that this interpretation of the law was incorrect and that Callejas did not break any laws because he signaled before changing lanes safely. The appeals court looked closely at the traffic law in question and agreed with the judge that the law did not say drivers had to pause before changing lanes. The court pointed out that the officer could see Callejas signaled before making the lane change and that no other traffic was affected by his action. Therefore, there was no valid reason for the officer to stop Callejas. The State also tried to argue that a past decision, involving another case, should apply here, but the court concluded that the current law was clear and did not have the same ambiguities as the previous case. Ultimately, the appeals court confirmed that the traffic stop was based on a misunderstanding of the law. The court affirmed the original decision to suppress the evidence gathered from the stop and to dismiss all charges against Callejas. This means that Callejas did not face criminal charges due to the invalidity of the stop. In summary, the court found that the trial judge made the right call in dismissing the case because the police officer did not have a good reason to stop Callejas.

Continue ReadingS-2015-972

RE-2012-0835

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2012-835, Lon Adam Smith appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, domestic abuse, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the sentences and send them back to the district court for changes. One judge dissented. The case involved three separate convictions against Lon Adam Smith, who had initially entered pleas of no contest to the charges. His sentences were suspended as long as he successfully completed certain rehabilitation programs. However, after some time, the state claimed Smith had not followed through with these programs, which led to a hearing where Smith admitted to the violations. During the revocation hearing, the judge revoked Smith's suspended sentences and imposed longer terms of imprisonment, which raised concerns about whether these new sentences were valid given the original ones. The main issue was that the original sentences had been improperly processed. The judge had not followed the correct procedures for delaying the imposition of sentences as required by law. The court found that Smith's original sentences were improperly extended due to the judge's actions at the revocation hearing. It was determined that since Smith's initial sentences were set on a specific date, any new sentences imposed could not exceed the original terms. Therefore, the court ruled that the revocation sentences needed to start from the date of the original sentences. In the end, the court reversed the judge's decision, which meant that Smith's sentences had to be adjusted to reflect the proper starting dates and terms. The court ordered the district court to amend the sentences accordingly. This decision helps ensure fairness in the legal process and clarifies how long someone can be sentenced for violations of probation.

Continue ReadingRE-2012-0835

F-2013-11

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-11, James Earl Darton appealed his conviction for first degree murder, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, and domestic assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Darton's convictions and sentences while modifying the sentence for the domestic assault and battery charge. One judge dissented. Darton was found guilty of killing Kimberly Ragland, who was found shot in her car. Prior to her death, Ragland had a tumultuous relationship with Darton, which included a previous altercation that led her to seek a protective order against him. This protective order prohibited Darton from being near her, which he violated on the night of the murder. On that night, after a fight where Darton hit Ragland and used a stun gun on her, she was later taken away by Darton, where her murder occurred. Darton was arrested and claimed he had left with a different person. The jury found him guilty based on evidence presented during the trial, including his motive for killing Ragland due to financial loss from the protective order. In his appeal, Darton raised several issues. First, he argued that the sentence for domestic assault was improperly increased based on a law that was not applicable at the time of his offense. The court agreed that this was indeed an error and reduced his sentence for that charge. He also claimed evidence of his drug dealing should not have been allowed during the trial. However, the court found that this evidence was relevant to show Darton’s motive to murder Ragland since her protective order affected his ability to sell drugs. Lastly, Darton asserted that he did not have competent legal representation during his trial. The court reviewed his claims about his lawyer’s performance and ultimately decided that his attorney’s actions were part of a reasonable strategy and did not significantly harm Darton's case. Overall, the court affirmed most of the lower court's judgments but corrected the sentence related to the domestic assault charge.

Continue ReadingF-2013-11

F-2010-131

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-131, Darius Darrell Payne appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, unlawful possession of marijuana (second offense), failure to obtain a drug tax stamp, and possession of paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Payne's convictions on all counts but remanded the matter for a new sentencing proceeding on certain counts due to errors in jury instructions. One judge dissented. The case began when police officers went to a house where Payne was present, looking for a man with an arrest warrant. When they entered, they found illegal drugs, a gun, and cash, leading to Payne's arrest. During the trial, the jury found Payne guilty on multiple charges and set significant punishment for his crimes, including life in prison without the possibility of parole for the drug trafficking offense. Payne raised several issues on appeal. He argued that being punished for both trafficking and failure to obtain a drug tax stamp for the same drugs was unfair and violated laws against double punishment. The court found that the laws allowed for separate punishments, so this argument was rejected. Payne also claimed that the jury wasn't properly instructed about the requirements for his life sentence. The court agreed that the instruction was incorrect, leading to a ruling that he should have a new sentencing hearing for this and another charge related to marijuana possession. Additionally, the court noted that the trial court should not have separated the misdemeanor charge regarding drug paraphernalia, which led to a penalty that was likely influenced by prior convictions that weren't relevant for that specific charge. As a result, the court reduced his sentence for possession of paraphernalia from one year to three months. Lastly, there were also some mistakes on the official documents from the trial that needed to be corrected, such as the wrong section numbers and indications of pleading guilty that were factually incorrect. In summary, while Payne's convictions were upheld, the court found that certain errors related to sentencing and jury instructions necessitated further proceedings. The final decision called for changes to some sentences while affirming others.

Continue ReadingF-2010-131

F-2010-99

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-99, Sheila Diane Royal appealed her conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm all of Royal's convictions but to modify her sentence for one of the misdemeanor charges due to a procedural error during her trial. One judge dissented. Royal was found guilty by a jury of trafficking in illegal drugs, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, unlawful possession of marijuana (second offense), failure to obtain a drug tax stamp, and possession of paraphernalia. The jury determined that Royal had prior felony convictions, which enhanced her sentence. Royal received a life sentence without parole for the drug trafficking charge, among other sentences for the remaining charges. The case began when police officers went to Royal's house to look for a man with a warrant. Royal and her boyfriend denied knowing him and gave consent for the officers to search. During the search, officers found scales, crack cocaine, marijuana, a firearm, and a large amount of cash, leading to Royal's arrest. Royal raised several issues on appeal, including claims of multiple punishments for the trafficking and tax stamp offenses, the proper handling of her prior convictions during the trial, and the way the trial court conducted jury selection. The court found that the convictions for trafficking and failing to obtain a tax stamp did not violate double jeopardy rules because the laws intended for separate punishments. It also concluded that Royal did not make a sufficient objection to how her prior convictions were handled, thus denying her request for relief. Regarding the claim about possession of paraphernalia, the court agreed that the trial court made a mistake by improperly separating the trial stages, which influenced the jury's punishment decision. The court modified her sentence for this charge accordingly. The jury selection process was also scrutinized, but the court upheld the removal of certain jurors who may not have been impartial due to their own legal issues. Lastly, the court noted that Royal was required to wear a shock device during trial, which raised concerns under legal rules governing restraints on defendants. The court agreed that there wasn't enough evidence justifying the need for such restraint, but because it was not visible to the jury, it did not affect the trial's outcome. In summary, while Royal's convictions were largely upheld, the court made adjustments based on procedural concerns during her trial.

Continue ReadingF-2010-99

F-2010-307

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-307, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacated the sentence for re-sentencing. One judge dissented, suggesting a modification of the sentence to life imprisonment instead of life without the possibility of parole.

Continue ReadingF-2010-307

C-2010-1179

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-1179, Donnell Devon Smith appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including robbery, sexual battery, and others. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal. One judge dissented. Smith was charged with various offenses in multiple cases and pleaded guilty to all charges on October 19, 2010. He received several sentences, some of which were life sentences, and others ranged from ten to twenty years. After entering his pleas, Smith requested to withdraw them, saying he felt coerced and that he had not been properly informed about the punishments he faced for his crimes. The court looked at three main points raised in Smith's appeal: 1. Smith argued he should be allowed to withdraw his plea for one count of attempted robbery because the ten-year sentence he received was too long. The court found that his sentence was actually five years too long and modified it to the correct five-year maximum. 2. Smith claimed he did not understand the range of sentences for some charges and that this lack of understanding meant his pleas were not voluntary. The court decided that while he had been misadvised, the pleas still appeared to be valid overall because he benefitted from how the sentences were set up to run concurrently. 3. He asserted that he was punished twice for some of the same actions and that some of his pleas lacked enough factual support. The court concluded that the evidence supported the different charges, and there were no double jeopardy issues. The court ultimately affirmed his convictions for all cases besides modifying the sentence that was too long and correcting a minor paperwork mistake regarding how sentences should run together. The court ruled that his plea was knowingly and voluntarily made despite the confusion around sentencing ranges. The decision closed by affirming the ruling of the lower court regarding Smith's attempt to withdraw his pleas, confirming most of the sentences while adjusting the one that exceeded the maximum allowed by law.

Continue ReadingC-2010-1179

F-2010-267

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-267, James Lyman Mahaffey appealed his conviction for Assault & Battery with a Deadly Weapon, Kidnapping, and Possession of Firearm After Conviction. In a published decision, the court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences to be served concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Mahaffey was accused and found guilty of serious crimes against his wife, including assault and kidnapping. The trial took place in the District Court of Grady County. After the jury convicted him, the judge sentenced him to life in prison for the assault, 10 years for the kidnapping, and 6 years for possession of a firearm, all lined up to be served one after the other, or consecutively. Mahaffey asked to represent himself during the trial, which means he wanted to defend himself without a lawyer. He argued that the court should not have allowed him to do this because he didn't clearly understand the risks involved in self-representation. However, the court decided that he was competent to represent himself and had made an informed decision. They had warned him that representing himself could be risky and could lead to mistakes that might change the outcome of the trial. During the trial, Mahaffey raised some claims against the prosecutor's behavior. He argued that the prosecutor acted unfairly by making comments that may have influenced the jury. For instance, Mahaffey claimed the prosecutor misrepresented the meaning of a life sentence and made other comments that distracted from the trial's fairness. However, the court concluded that while there were some mistakes made by the prosecutor, they were not serious enough to change the outcome of the case concerning his guilt. Despite this, the court found that the conduct during sentencing raised concerns about the fairness of the sentencing itself. The jury specifically asked about how the sentences would be served, indicating they were worried about the total time Mahaffey would spend in prison. Because of this, although Mahaffey’s convictions were upheld, the court changed the sentences to allow them to be served concurrently, meaning all the prison time would be served at the same time rather than one after the other. Ultimately, the court's decision meant Mahaffey would still have to serve his time, but the way his sentences were structured was altered to be less severe. The case was sent back to the lower court to fix the official documents to reflect that change in sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2010-267

C 2008-1183

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2008-1183, Kory Williams appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including shooting with intent to kill and possession of a firearm. In a published decision, the court decided that his plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily, leading to the granting of his petition for certiorari. The judgment and sentence were vacated and the case was sent back for further proceedings. One member dissented.

Continue ReadingC 2008-1183

F-2005-987

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-987, Jimmy Douglas Letterman appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of controlled drug (methamphetamine), unlawful possession of marijuana, possession of a firearm while in commission of a felony, and unlawful possession of paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed his convictions for possession of methamphetamine, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and unlawful possession of paraphernalia, but reversed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana, with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2005-987

F-2003-1266

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1266, James Michael Hudson appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including manufacturing methamphetamine and unlawful possession of a firearm. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified his sentences to be served concurrently rather than consecutively. One judge dissented on the sentencing issue. Hudson was found guilty of five charges related to drug manufacturing and possession, among others. He was sentenced to a total of over twenty years in prison, which he appealed, arguing that some of his convictions should not stand, and that he did not receive fair treatment during his trial. The court reviewed his claims one by one. They found that the law allowed him to be convicted for both manufacturing and possessing methamphetamine. The search of his home, which was supposed to be within the law, was ruled proper. It was also concluded that Hudson’s statements to police were made without pressure, which meant they were valid as evidence. When looking at the amount of evidence presented at trial, the court determined there was enough for the jury to find him guilty of all counts. They acknowledged that Hudson’s attorney made a mistake by not asking for a new judge who had shown bias against Hudson in a public statement. However, the court believed this did not affect the jury’s decision regarding guilt. Regarding the issue of whether evidence of other crimes should be admitted, the court decided the evidence was related to the charges against Hudson and was rightfully included in the trial. In conclusion, while Hudson's convictions were upheld, the court changed his sentences to be served at the same time, which means he would spend less time in prison overall. The judges agreed on most points, but one judge had a different opinion about the sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2003-1266