Pro Se

RE-2020-452

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2020-452, Katlin Maye Ford appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Katlin pled guilty to Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and received a ten-year sentence that was suspended. This means she did not have to go to prison right away but had to follow certain rules. One rule was that she needed to pay restitution, which is money that goes to the victim to help with their losses. In October 2018, the State of Oklahoma asked the court to end her suspended sentence because she had not paid the restitution. In November 2018, Katlin decided to represent herself in court, meaning she did not want a lawyer. She admitted that she had not paid the restitution as ordered. The court then allowed more time for her to get back on track with her payments. However, in June 2020, the court decided to take away three years of her suspended sentence because she still had not paid the restitution. Katlin thought this was unfair and appealed the decision, making some important claims: 1. She said she was not given proper legal help when she needed it. 2. She believed the court should have helped her get a lawyer for her hearing. 3. She argued that any failure to pay the restitution was not intentional. In examining her first claim, the court noted that people have the right to have a lawyer when their suspended sentences are being revoked. For someone to give up that right, they must do it knowingly, which means they understand what they are doing. The court found that there was no clear record showing that Katlin had enough information about self-representation or that she made her decision with full understanding of the consequences. Since the court did not make sure she understood everything about waiving her right to a lawyer, the appeal was successful. The original decision to revoke her suspended sentence was reversed, meaning Katlin would get another chance to address her restitution payments and have proper legal representation. Therefore, the court instructed for the case to go back to the lower court for further actions that are consistent with its opinion. One judge disagreed with the majority's decision.

Continue ReadingRE-2020-452

M-2017-511

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case: William Robert Burk vs. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No: M-2017-511** #### OPINION BY: Kuehn, VPJ **Background:** William Robert Burk was convicted of Obstruction of Public Officer in the District Court of Payne County, sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined $500. The case arose from an incident on December 13, 2015, where Burk was stopped for driving with an improper license tag. He refused to provide a driver's license, proof of insurance, or identify himself. Police officers were forced to break into his vehicle after he locked himself inside, leading to his arrest. **Proposition I: Self-Representation** Burk contends the trial court erred by allowing him to represent himself without ensuring he made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. The court finds that Burk effectively waived his right to counsel through his actions over time, including repeatedly refusing to secure legal representation. The court cites multiple precedents establishing that a defendant may waive the right to counsel by conduct, and emphasizes the need for a clear understanding of the risks involved in self-representation. While acknowledging Burk's claims of financial capacity to hire an attorney, he nevertheless insisted he would not apply for court-appointed counsel. The court concludes Burk’s behavior—self-characterization of being forced to represent himself and refusal to accept assistance—constituted an implied waiver of his right to counsel, allowing the trial to proceed without an attorney. **Proposition II: Sufficiency of Evidence** In his second claim, Burk argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. However, the court finds that Burk's refusal to provide identification and engage with police clearly obstructed their duties. Citing relevant statutes and case law, the court asserts that any rational jury could find him guilty of obstructing a public officer based on his actions during the encounter. **Conclusion:** The court affirms the judgment and sentence from the District Court of Payne County, asserting that Burk had sufficient warnings about self-representation risks and willingly chose to proceed without counsel. ### Dissenting Opinion - Judge Lumpkin Judge Lumpkin argues against affirming the conviction, citing concerns about Burk's mental state and the trial court's failure to ensure he was adequately informed of the consequences of self-representation. He emphasizes that Burk was not given proper Fairtta warnings about the implications of his decision and suggests that mental health issues should have prompted the court to reevaluate Burk's right to counsel. ### Concurring Opinion - Judge Hudson Judge Hudson agrees with the outcome but asserts that the basis for the decision hinges not on waiver by conduct but rather on forfeiture of counsel due to Burk's dilatory misconduct. He highlights the necessity for courts to maintain order and efficiently administer justice, especially when faced with obstructionist behavior from defendants. **Decision: The Judgment is AFFIRMED.** For further details and full opinions, you may refer to [this PDF link](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/M-2017-511_1734779027.pdf).

Continue ReadingM-2017-511

M-2017-739

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2017-739, Jeremy L. Garza appealed his conviction for Driving under the Influence of Intoxicating Substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Garza to represent himself during the acceleration proceedings without him properly waiving his right to counsel. One judge dissented. Garza had initially entered a guilty plea to a DUI charge and was given eighteen months of probation. However, the State later accused him of not following the rules of his probation, such as failing to report and not paying fines. When Garza addressed the court without a lawyer during these acceleration proceedings, the court did not properly document that he understood his right to have a lawyer or that he chose to give up that right. The court's opinion stressed that anyone facing charges has the right to a lawyer and can only waive this right if they do so knowingly and intelligently. This means they need to understand the consequences of representing themselves. Since the court did not show that Garza waived his right to counsel properly, the decision to sentence him was reversed. The matter was sent back to the lower court, instructing them to vacate the judgment and hold further proceedings that follow this ruling.

Continue ReadingM-2017-739

RE 2013-0523

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0523, Michelle Renea Runco appealed her conviction for Neglect by Caretaker. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of her suspended sentence and send the case back for a new hearing with legal representation. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE 2013-0523

F-2012-112

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-112, Gene Freeman Price appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Gene Freeman Price was found guilty of breaking into a building with the intention of committing a crime. He was given a sentence of twelve years in prison. However, Price argued that he did not fully understand his rights before he decided to represent himself in court instead of having a lawyer help him. The court looked closely at the case. They believed the trial court did not do a good job explaining to Price the risks of going to court alone without a lawyer. This meant that Price could not have truly given up his right to a lawyer because he didn't really understand what that meant. The judges decided that because of this mistake, Price's right to have a lawyer was violated. Since this was such a serious error and affected the whole case, the court said they could not ignore it. They ruled that the earlier decision needed to be thrown out, and Price should get a new trial where he could have a lawyer help him.

Continue ReadingF-2012-112

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-2009-900

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-900, Hooks appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his request for a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One member of the court dissented. Leon Lee Hooks was sentenced to thirty years in prison, but he could have ten years suspended. He decided to plead guilty, but later felt that he did not have the help he needed from his lawyer during the plea process. He filed a motion to change his plea and wanted to show that he was not given a fair defense. The main question was whether Hooks received good help from his attorney when asking to withdraw his guilty plea. The court found that there was a conflict because Hooks' complaints were about the quality of help from his lawyer. The lawyer could not fully defend Hooks and also prove that he did a bad job at the same time. Because of this, the court believed Hooks had a right to a new hearing where he could have a different lawyer who could help him without any conflicts. This was important to ensure he received a fair chance to prove his side of the story. In conclusion, the court decided to allow Hooks to have another chance to explain why he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea with the assistance of a lawyer who did not have a conflict of interest.

Continue ReadingC-2009-900

RE-2010-0510

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2009-0510, the appellant appealed his conviction for domestic abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence and ordered a new hearing. One judge dissented. In this case, the appellant, who had been previously convicted of domestic abuse, was sentenced to five years, with certain conditions. His sentence was largely suspended, meaning he wouldn’t have to serve most of it if he followed the rules set by the court. However, he faced trouble when the state accused him of violating those rules. There were two applications made by the state to revoke his suspended sentence. The first happened in 2007, where a judge found he broke the terms of his probation and took away three and a half years of his suspended sentence. He did not appeal this decision. The second application was filed in 2009, which led to a hearing in May of that year. During this hearing, the judge determined that the appellant had again violated the rules, resulting in a decision to revoke his entire suspended sentence. The appellant claimed he did not have a lawyer during the revocation hearing. He argued that he was not given enough time to find one and that this hurt his case. The state responded that the appellant missed the deadline to apply for a court-appointed lawyer and therefore gave up his right to have legal help. They believed he was trying to delay the hearing. The law states that individuals at revocation hearings should have the right to have a lawyer, but the court can proceed if a person knowingly waives that right. In earlier similar cases, if judges found an individual was just trying to delay things, they ruled that the person voluntarily gave up their right to have a lawyer. In this case, the court found that the appellant's delay of only six days did not show he was deliberately trying to postpone the proceedings. They also noted the lack of a proper review regarding whether he was unable to afford a lawyer. As a result, the appeal had merit, and his claim for lack of counsel was upheld. Since the court noted conflicts in the testimony presented during the hearing, they decided to reverse the revocation of the suspended sentence. They ordered that a new hearing take place, ensuring that the appellant has the chance to be represented by a lawyer or that his waiver of that right is properly recorded. In summary, the court ruled that the process leading to the revocation had issues that warranted a new hearing, ensuring fairness and proper legal representation for the appellant.

Continue ReadingRE-2010-0510

C-2007-50

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2007-50, the petitioner appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a handgun. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. One judge dissented. The petitioner was originally charged in the Oklahoma County District Court with unlawful possession of a handgun based on previous felony convictions. He pleaded guilty to these charges and was sentenced to ten years in prison for each case. These sentences were set to run at the same time, which is known as concurrently. Later, the petitioner asked to withdraw his guilty plea. He believed he did not receive proper legal help during the hearing for this request because his lawyer had a conflict of interest. This means that the lawyer might have been more focused on their own issues instead of helping the petitioner. Even though the petitioner did not raise the problem of the conflict during the hearing, the court found that the situation affected the performance of his lawyer. Because of this, the court decided that the petitioner had been denied his right to effective legal assistance. The court granted the petition for writ of certiorari, which is a formal request to review the decision, and sent the case back to the district court for a new hearing. At this new hearing, the petitioner will have the chance to be represented by a lawyer who does not have a conflict of interest.

Continue ReadingC-2007-50

C-2006-1110

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-1110, Andrew Deon Bowie appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for certiorari and remand the case for the appointment of new counsel. One member of the court dissented. Andrew Deon Bowie was charged with robbery with a firearm, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and burglary. After a preliminary hearing, he agreed to a plea deal and pleaded guilty to robbery and burglary. He was sentenced to thirty years in prison for the robbery and twenty years for burglary, with the sentences running at the same time. Bowie later wanted to challenge his guilty pleas. He argued that he did not have good legal help when he tried to withdraw his guilty pleas because his lawyer had a conflict of interest, which made it hard for Bowie to get proper representation. The law says that people in criminal cases should have effective lawyers who don’t have conflicts that could hurt their case. The court looked at Bowie’s request and agreed that he did not have proper legal help. They found that the trial court should have given him a new lawyer to help with his request to withdraw his pleas, as he was left without anyone to represent him. Because of this, the court said they would let his petition go forward. The decision found that Bowie’s lawyer had acted against his interests by suggesting that Bowie shouldn’t be allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas. This created a conflict which made Bowie unable to defend himself properly. As a result of their findings, the court granted Bowie’s request and sent the case back to the lower court. They instructed the lower court to appoint a new lawyer to help Bowie with his effort to withdraw his guilty pleas. One judge disagreed with this decision, saying that Bowie did not bring up the issue of bad legal help earlier in the process, so it should not be considered now. The dissenting judge felt there was not enough evidence to support Bowie’s claims about needing to withdraw his pleas. Overall, the case was about making sure that Bowie had the right legal support, and the court decided that he didn’t have that, which affected his ability to have a fair process in court.

Continue ReadingC-2006-1110

F-2005-786

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided that the trial court had made a mistake by ruling that the Smiths were not entitled to a court-appointed attorney, which violated their right to legal representation. Consequently, the court reversed their sentences and ordered a new trial. One judge disagreed with the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2005-786

C-2005-1208

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-1208, Eric Evan Smith appealed his conviction for 30 counts of Possession of Obscene Material Involving the Participation of a Minor Under the Age of Eighteen. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his request to withdraw his plea and ordered a new hearing on the application to withdraw the plea. One judge dissented. Smith had pleaded guilty in a district court, where he was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, with the sentences to be served at the same time, but only serving the first fifteen years of each count. After some time, Smith wanted to change his plea and said it wasn't voluntary because he felt pressured by his attorney. His case was reviewed, and it was determined that there was a conflict between him and his lawyer. Smith argued that his lawyer made him plead guilty by suggesting he would get a lighter sentence if he did so. In the hearing, Smith asserted that his attorney had coerced him into the plea, while his attorney denied it. Because of the angry and conflicting testimonies, the judges believed there was a problem that affected Smith's rights to a fair trial and effective help from a lawyer. The court found that Smith's lawyer could not properly help him because of this conflict. This led them to decide that Smith deserved another chance to explain his case and why he wanted a different plea. The decision meant that Smith had the right to go back to court, where he could present his reasons for wanting to change his plea and have a new decision made on whether his original plea was fair and appropriate. The dissenting judge felt that the court should not have granted this new hearing, believing that Smith's plea was done properly and his lawyer's conflict did not significantly affect the case, arguing that there was no abuse of power in the original decision of the court.

Continue ReadingC-2005-1208

F-2005-468

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-468, Rebecca R. Pettit appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved the tragic death of Pettit's six-year-old son, Adam. The state accused Pettit of murdering her son by asphyxiation and attempting to take her life afterwards by cutting her wrists. When the trial began, Pettit had been appointed a lawyer to help her, but later the court decided that she was not poor enough to need a public defender and made her represent herself. During her appeal, Pettit argued two main points. First, she said the trial court wrongly decided that she did not need a lawyer. Second, she claimed there was no proof that she chose to represent herself willingly. It is important for accused people to have the option to either have a lawyer or represent themselves, but if they choose to go without a lawyer, the court must make sure they understand what that means. The appellate court noted that there was no record showing Pettit was aware of the risks of representing herself. With no evidence she truly wanted to do this, the court ruled that she should not have had to stand trial alone. So, the court reversed her conviction and sent the case back for a new trial. The appellate court did not look at other issues raised by Pettit because of this main point regarding her representation. Ultimately, the court ordered that Pettit's case be retried, ensuring she has the chance to have a lawyer represent her this time.

Continue ReadingF-2005-468

F 2004-577

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-577, Marion Lewis appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Forcible Oral Sodomy, and Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Mr. Lewis was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County for serious crimes against a child. The jury decided that he should serve life in prison without parole for the majority of the counts and 20 years for one count. He then appealed this decision, raising three main problems he believed were wrong in his trial. First, he argued that he wasn't properly warned about the risks of representing himself in court, which meant he didn't fully understand what he was giving up by choosing to do so. This was important because it related to his rights as a citizen, protected under the Sixth Amendment. Second, he claimed that the trial court didn't look carefully at whether he was capable of standing trial. He thought there were signs that suggested he wasn't mentally fit for the trial, which might have violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Third, he complained that the trial court wouldn't allow him to delay the trial, which prevented him from calling witnesses and putting forth a strong defense. He believed this decision also violated his rights. The court noted that Mr. Lewis had been asking to represent himself for a long time before the trial. However, he only received permission to do so a few days before his trial began. The trial court denied his request for more time to prepare and to gather witnesses that he wanted to bring to help his case. The judges noted that having enough time to prepare is important for someone defending themselves in court, especially when they have only just been allowed to do so. The court found that denying him more time was unfair and hurt his chances for a fair trial. As a result, the court agreed that his right to present a defense had been violated when the trial court wouldn’t allow a continuance. This led them to reverse his convictions and order a new trial, meaning he would have another chance to fight the accusations against him. The other issues he raised about warnings and competency were not necessary to discuss because they were overshadowed by the first issue. In conclusion, the court decided that Mr. Lewis's convictions were unfair, and he will get a chance to have a new trial. One judge disagreed with this outcome, feeling that the trial court made the right decision in denying a continuance and that Mr. Lewis had not shown how he was harmed by that decision.

Continue ReadingF 2004-577

F 2004-577

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-577, Marion Lewis appealed his conviction for multiple counts of serious crimes, including First Degree Rape and Forcible Oral Sodomy, following a jury trial in Oklahoma County. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Marion Lewis was found guilty of several serious charges after a trial where he represented himself. He went to trial and was sentenced to life without the chance for parole for most counts and twenty years for another. He believed the court did not properly warn him about the risks of representing himself and raised concerns about his mental ability to stand trial. He also argued that the trial court did not allow him enough time to prepare his defense, which he felt hurt his case. The court found that the trial judge did not give Lewis enough time after he was allowed to represent himself just a few days before the trial started. This lack of time made it hard for him to gather witnesses and evidence that he thought were important for his defense. The court decided the denial of his request for more time was unfair and violated his rights. In the end, the court reversed Lewis's convictions and ordered a new trial, agreeing that the trial process had not been fair. However, one judge disagreed, believing that the trial court acted correctly in denying the request for more time, stating that Lewis had not shown he would have been able to present a strong defense even if he had been given more time.

Continue ReadingF 2004-577

F 2002-1481

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1481, Anthony John Hathcock appealed his conviction for Omitting To Provide For Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new acceleration hearing. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: Hathcock pled no contest to the charges in November 2001 and was given a five-year deferred sentence. This means he didn't go to prison right away but had to follow certain rules, like paying child support. He was supposed to pay $100 a month for current support and catch up on a larger amount he owed. However, the State said he failed to make these payments and asked the court to speed up his sentence, which was called accelerating the sentence. A hearing took place in June 2002 where Hathcock represented himself, meaning he didn't have a lawyer. The judge decided that Hathcock broke the rules of his deferred sentence and sentenced him to one year in prison. Hathcock then appealed this decision, saying three main things. First, he claimed he didn’t effectively waive his right to have a lawyer. Second, he argued that the State didn't provide good evidence to justify speeding up his sentence. Third, he pointed out that it was unclear what his new sentence was supposed to be. The court looked at these claims during the appeal. They agreed with Hathcock that he did not properly waive his right to a lawyer and that this was an important issue. Because of this, the court decided to reverse the earlier decision and send it back to the lower court for a new hearing, ensuring that Hathcock would have legal representation this time. Overall, the court's order was that Hathcock's sentence acceleration was not valid as he was not given proper legal help during the initial proceedings.

Continue ReadingF 2002-1481

C-2001-1425

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2001-1425, Byron Lynn White appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for a proper hearing on White's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. White dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2001-1425

M-2001-174

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2001-174, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of paraphernalia (a crack pipe). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. Two judges dissented. The case began when the appellant was found guilty after a jury trial in Tulsa County. The judge sentenced him to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine, which was the maximum for this crime. The appellant raised several points of error in his appeal, including claims that his rights to represent himself were violated, and that the evidence against him was insufficient. During the trial process, the appellant continuously expressed his desire to represent himself. However, several judges denied his requests, primarily because they believed he might be at a disadvantage without a lawyer. The court ultimately found that the denial of the right to self-representation is a serious issue, which could result in an automatic reversal of a conviction. In examining the evidence, the court noted that while the appellant was in a motel room where the crack pipe was found, it wasn’t enough to support the conviction. The main issues that prompted the reversal were related to the appellant's right to represent himself. The court ruled that the previous decisions denying this right were not valid grounds. The absence of a warning about self-representation conduct and the lack of clarity about the rights involved led the court to conclude that the appellant's conviction could not stand. Therefore, the court ordered a new trial, allowing the appellant the chance to properly represent himself if he chose to.

Continue ReadingM-2001-174