Pro se Representation

C-2019-815

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2019-815, the petitioner appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary, Second Degree Burglary, and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and remand the case for a new hearing. One member of the court dissented. The case began when the petitioner, after entering guilty pleas for the charges, expressed a desire to withdraw those pleas. He believed he had not been properly represented by his attorney and filed a letter to withdraw his plea. A hearing was held where the petitioner appeared without his attorney. During this hearing, he claimed that he felt misled regarding the likely outcome of his plea. The petitioner argued that the hearing to withdraw his plea was unlawful because he was not given proper legal representation. He said that he didn’t effectively waive his right to counsel at that hearing and claimed there was a conflict of interest since his attorney had represented him in the original plea. The court found that there was no valid waiver of his right to counsel, meaning he didn’t fully understand the implications of representing himself. The trial court had not thoroughly questioned him about his need for counsel or his rights, leading to confusion about whether he was proceeding with an attorney or alone. The state agreed that the hearing had issues because the petitioner didn’t receive conflict-free representation. Therefore, the court ruled that the previous denial of his motion to withdraw his plea was a mistake and sent the case back for a new hearing where these issues could be properly addressed.

Continue ReadingC-2019-815

C-2017-567

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-567, the petitioner appealed her conviction for harboring a fugitive from justice. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant part of her request and said that she was wrongly denied her right to have a lawyer help her during important steps of her case. One judge disagreed with this decision. The case involves Teresa Lorena Altobella, who was charged with helping someone avoid the law. She pleaded guilty to the charge and was given a five-year prison sentence, which was suspended, meaning she wouldn’t go to jail if she followed certain rules, such as doing community service and completing a specific program. After her plea, she wanted to change her mind and asked the court to let her withdraw her guilty plea. The court had a hearing where Altobella tried to argue that she should be allowed to change her plea, but she did not have a lawyer to help her. She had trouble getting a lawyer before the hearing, and when she showed up without one, the judge did not allow her to have another lawyer during this important moment. Altobella argued that her guilty plea was not made correctly—she said she didn’t fully understand what she was doing when she pleaded guilty. The higher court looked at these points and agreed with Altobella when it came to the right to have a lawyer. The court said it is important for defendants to have legal help, especially during crucial parts of their cases like asking to withdraw a guilty plea. The court found that Altobella did not waive her right to a lawyer in a proper way, meaning that she should have been given a chance to have legal help. Because of this issue, the court decided to reverse the district court's decision that denied her request to withdraw her guilty plea. They sent the case back to the district court to make sure Altobella could have a lawyer help her figure out if she still wanted to withdraw her plea. The court's ruling on the pleas and other arguments was set aside because they believed it was essential to have proper legal representation in such cases. In summary, the court made it clear that every defendant has the right to legal assistance during important steps in their trial or when making significant legal decisions. This decision ensures that defendants have the support they need to navigate the legal system properly.

Continue ReadingC-2017-567

C-2014-854

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-854, Cory James Leon Whiteside appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery and Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition, allowing him to withdraw his pleas. One member of the court dissented. Whiteside pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges involving domestic violence. The court sentenced him to one year in jail for each charge, with the sentences to run one after the other. Shortly after pleading guilty, Whiteside asked to change his plea from guilty to not guilty, stating he had not understood the consequences of his plea. His request to withdraw his plea was denied by the court. Whiteside then appealed this decision, arguing two main points. First, he claimed he did not knowingly and voluntarily give up his right to have an attorney represent him during the case. Second, he argued that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because he didn't fully understand what he was agreeing to. The court reviewed the entire record of the case. It found that Whiteside's waiver of his right to counsel was not made in a knowing and voluntary way, meaning there was no clear record showing that he understood what self-representation involved or that he had been advised of the risks of not having a lawyer. The state even agreed with this point. Because this error was significant, the court decided to let Whiteside withdraw his guilty pleas. Following this decision, the other issue Whiteside raised became unnecessary to address. Therefore, the court ordered that Whiteside be allowed to withdraw his pleas.

Continue ReadingC-2014-854

F-2014-22

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-22, Padillow appealed his conviction for rape and sexual offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but reversed a citation for direct contempt of court and vacated the associated sentence. One judge dissented. Earnest Eugene Padillow faced serious charges in two cases related to the sexual abuse of young girls. The first case involved the abuse of his nine-year-old great-niece, S.G., during a single day in August 2007, and the second case involved the sexual assault of his 11-year-old niece, D.P., in 2011. In both instances, Padillow was accused of serious crimes, including rape and inappropriate sexual contact. During the trial, Padillow had a tumultuous relationship with his attorneys. He expressed dissatisfaction with their defense strategies and at times chose to represent himself. This led to a chaotic scene in the courtroom where Padillow violently attacked one of his attorneys, resulting in his removal from the courtroom. Despite his outbursts, the trial proceeded, and he was found guilty. The court sided with the trial judge's decision that Padillow waived his rights to be present during certain trial stages due to his disruptive conduct. Padillow also claimed that his constitutional right to testify was violated when he was removed from the courtroom. However, the court ruled that his violent actions constituted a waiver of that right. In another point of contention, Padillow argued that he should have been given the chance to respond to a direct contempt charge when the judge found him guilty of contempt for his outburst. Although the court acknowledged he did not have the opportunity to be heard, they decided to reverse the contempt finding rather than require a new hearing given the context of his other convictions. Lastly, it was determined that some of the judgment documents contained errors regarding sentences, which the court directed to be corrected. Overall, the court upheld the significant portions of Padillow's convictions while addressing some procedural errors related to his contempt citation and record-keeping in the judgments.

Continue ReadingF-2014-22

C-2014-254

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-254, the petitioner appealed his conviction for embezzling over $25,000. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling regarding the petitioner's motions, but vacated the restitution order and remanded the case for a new determination of the victim's loss. One judge dissented. The petitioner, who is William Reeves Cathey, was accused of embezzlement by the state. He pleaded guilty to the charge in 2012, and his sentencing was delayed multiple times so he could repay the money he took. When his sentencing finally took place in January 2014, he decided to represent himself after dismissing his lawyer due to their illness. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison, but allowed him to suspend six years of that sentence and ordered him to pay $96,500 in restitution to the victim. Before he was sentenced, the petitioner made several requests to withdraw his guilty plea and to disqualify the District Attorney's office, claiming it was unfair. The court denied these requests. He also claimed that he did not understand the plea agreement because he thought the maximum fine would be much lower than what it was. He felt that the judge had not properly explained the charges to him when he entered his plea and claimed this made his plea involuntary. During the appeal process, the court looked at the petitioner's points. They decided that his concerns about the restitution order were valid. The court found that the lower court had not made it clear how the restitution amount was determined, and they thought that a new hearing was needed to sort this out. The court also rejected all of the petitioner's other arguments. They believed that he had entered his plea knowingly and that his sentence, while long, was not excessively severe. In conclusion, the court confirmed the denial of his motions to withdraw his plea but returned the issue of the restitution amount back to the trial court for further evaluation.

Continue ReadingC-2014-254

RE 2013-0511

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0511, Carrie Denise Stumpff appealed her conviction for revocation of her suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided that the trial court failed to ensure that Stumpff knowingly waived her right to an attorney, which required them to reverse the decision and send the case back to the District Court for further actions. One member of the court dissented.

Continue ReadingRE 2013-0511

RE-2013-212

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-212, Alvin Lavan Johnson appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Johnson's revocation order and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. In 2003, Johnson was charged with the felony crime of domestic abuse. After pleading guilty in 2004, he received a suspended sentence of seven years. Years later, the State issued a warrant to revoke his suspension. Johnson was arrested and a revocation hearing took place with a judge and a prosecutor who had both been involved in the previous stages of his case. Johnson argued that this created an unfair situation. In his appeal, Johnson raised several points. He claimed that the delay in processing his case required dismissal. He also argued that it was unfair for the same attorney who had defended him to now be prosecuting him, and that the judge who revoked his sentence was involved in the original case. The State admitted errors but thought that a new hearing would be enough to fix the issues. The court agreed with Johnson on two of his claims, stating that the previous judge and prosecutor had conflicts of interest due to their past involvement in the case. Because of this, the court reversed the revocation order and sent the case back for further examination. Johnson will have a chance to present his arguments, including the claim about the delay, in front of a new and impartial judge. The court concluded that the other claims raised by Johnson didn’t need to be discussed at this time.

Continue ReadingRE-2013-212

M-2012-416

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2012-416, #1 Richard Allen House II appealed his conviction for #2 Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3 to reverse the conviction and send the case back for further proceedings. #4 One judge dissented. Richard Allen House II was found guilty after a trial without a jury. He was charged for having drug paraphernalia, which is against the law. The judge sentenced him to pay a fine of $250 and spend a year in jail, but he only had to serve 60 days in jail because the rest of his sentence was suspended as long as he followed certain rules. At the beginning of the case, Richard asked the court for a lawyer to help him, and the court agreed. However, later, his attorney wanted to stop helping Richard because they thought he could pay for a private lawyer. This happened after Richard posted bail and was said to be employed. But there was confusion because it was not clear whether the money was for this case or another case he had. Richard ended up representing himself, which means he did not have a lawyer to help him during the trial or the sentencing. After his trial, he asked for a lawyer to help with his appeal, but the judge did not appoint one, saying Richard had enough money to pay for a lawyer himself. This decision was questioned because there was no proper record showing that Richard understood he could still get a lawyer even though he had posted bail. Richard argued that it was wrong for his lawyer to leave and for him to have to represent himself without really understanding what that meant. The State, which is the side that brought the case against him, agreed that there was a problem because there was no formal record to show that Richard had given up his right to a lawyer. The court referred to earlier cases that showed it is important for defendants to have lawyers. If they can't pay for one, they must be given a lawyer unless they clearly waive that right. Since the proper steps weren't taken in Richard's case, the court decided his conviction should be reversed. They sent the case back to the lower court so they could decide if Richard still needed a lawyer or if he had given up that right properly. In summary, the decision noted that everyone deserves a fair chance to defend themselves with legal help, and if they can't afford a lawyer, they should still get one if they need it. The court made it clear that without the correct procedures being followed, they could not allow the conviction to stand.

Continue ReadingM-2012-416

C-2012-1154

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2012-1154, Charles D. North appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter, among other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to grant North's request to withdraw his guilty pleas due to the fact that he was denied his right to have a lawyer present during the hearing on this motion. North also challenged the legality of his sentences for two other counts. The court agreed that those sentences exceeded what was allowed by law. Therefore, they vacated the illegal sentences and sent the case back to the lower court for North to have new counsel and a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his pleas. No one dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2012-1154

M 2011-0871

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2011-0870 and M 2011-0871, Sherry Kay Taylor appealed her conviction for misdemeanors related to driving under the influence and other offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing her to have a lawyer during her hearings. One judge dissented. Sherry was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol, driving without a license, and improper backing in a case from December 21, 2010. She initially pleaded no contest to driving under the influence and received a six-month deferred sentence. Later, she was charged again for driving under the influence of both drugs and alcohol. In September 2011, Sherry went to a hearing where she was supposed to represent herself because her request for a lawyer was denied. The judge believed she had enough time to find a lawyer but Sherry argued that she didn't understand how to represent herself and didn't want to waive her right to have an attorney. The court looked into whether Sherry had been properly informed about her right to a lawyer and whether she had given up that right knowingly. It was found that there was no clear record showing that she had chosen to represent herself or that she understood the risks involved. Ultimately, the court decided that denying her the help of a lawyer was a mistake and ordered that she should have a new trial and a new hearing to review her sentence in a fair manner.

Continue ReadingM 2011-0871

C-2011-592

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2011-592, Philipe Jean Pace appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the writ and allow the Petitioner to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial. One judge dissented. Philipe Jean Pace was charged with a crime and, instead of going to trial, he decided to plead nolo contendere, which means he did not contest the charges. The trial judge accepted his plea and sentenced him to twenty years in prison, but he only had to serve the first ten years. After the plea, Pace wanted to change his mind and asked to withdraw his plea, but the court said no. In his appeal, Pace argued two main points. First, he said he didn't understand what he was doing when he gave up his right to have a lawyer help him. He claimed that he didn't really know what would happen if he represented himself. Second, he believed that he was confused and didn’t make a proper decision to plead guilty. The higher court looked at all the details, including what happened in the trial court. They found that the original court did not really explain to Pace the risks of not having a lawyer. They noted that just because he had signed a form saying he wanted to waive his right to counsel, it didn't mean he actually understood what he was giving up. The judges pointed out that there was no evidence in the record that he was properly informed about the dangers of self-representation or that he clearly stated he wanted to represent himself. Because of these problems, the higher court ruled that the lower court made a mistake when it denied Pace's request to withdraw his plea. They believed it was important for a person to fully understand their rights and the consequences of their choices in court. As a result, the court decided that Pace could withdraw his plea and would be able to have a trial.

Continue ReadingC-2011-592

F-2005-785

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and in case No. F-2005-786, Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse their convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Charles Milton Smith, Sr. was charged with manufacturing a controlled substance (methamphetamine), child endangerment, and possession of a controlled substance. Bonnie Smith faced similar charges for manufacturing a controlled substance and child endangerment. During the trial, both were found guilty of the charges against them. The jury recommended sentences that included lengthy prison time and substantial fines. However, they claimed that their rights were violated because they did not have court-appointed lawyers. Initially, they were considered unable to afford an attorney, but after someone paid their bond, the trial court ruled that they were no longer indigent and had to represent themselves, which they argued was not fair. The court looked closely at whether the trial court properly assessed their financial situation before denying them their right to legal representation. They pointed out that just because bond was posted, it does not automatically mean someone can afford a lawyer. The court found that there was no record showing that the trial court had properly checked their financial status or informed them that they might still qualify for a lawyer. Since having a lawyer is essential for a fair trial, the court reversed the Smiths' convictions and ordered a new trial where they would have a chance to properly have legal representation.

Continue ReadingF-2005-785

M 2005-0404

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2005-0404, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented from this decision. The case involved an appellant who was found guilty by a jury in a district court. He was sentenced to one year for each of the two counts and was fined $1,000. During the appeal, the appellant raised several issues regarding his right to counsel. He argued that he did not knowingly or voluntarily give up his right to have a lawyer during the trial. The appellate court found that while the appellant had filled out a waiver of counsel form, the trial record did not clearly show that he understood the risks of representing himself. The court mentioned that the trial judge should have made sure the appellant was fully aware of what he was giving up by not having a lawyer. As a result, the court believed that the appellant did not make an informed choice about waiving his right to counsel, which affected the fairness of his trial. Because of this main issue, the court did not need to consider the other problems raised by the appellant, such as comments made during the trial and actions taken by the prosecutor. Overall, the court decided that the appellant should have a new trial to ensure he gets a fair chance to defend himself properly.

Continue ReadingM 2005-0404

F 2004-0328

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-0328, the appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and distribution of a controlled substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the acceleration of the appellant's deferred sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, who was 19 years old, pled guilty to the charges and received a five-year deferred sentence in each case after completing a rehabilitation program. However, the state later sought to accelerate these sentences due to alleged violations of probation. During a hearing, the judge concluded that the appellant had not complied with conditions and imposed a lengthy sentence of twenty-five years for each charge, running consecutively. The appellant argued several points on appeal. He claimed that the acceleration hearing was unfair because he did not have a lawyer to help him. The court agreed that he had not properly waived his right to counsel. The judge's decision to proceed without an attorney was found to be incorrect, as there was no evidence that the appellant could afford a lawyer. Furthermore, the court noted that there were other errors in the process that impacted the fairness of the hearing. The appellate court found merit in the appellant's first argument about not having a lawyer and therefore reversed the acceleration of his sentences. The judges on the panel emphasized that if a new hearing takes place, the appellant must be represented by a lawyer and informed of his rights regarding any plea agreements.

Continue ReadingF 2004-0328