Proposition of Error Archives - Page 2 of 5

F-2018-112

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-112, Christopher Lewis Whinery appealed his conviction for first-degree murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. No one dissented. Mr. Whinery was found guilty by a judge without a jury. The case took place in Creek County, where he was sentenced to life in prison and fined $500. His main argument was that the judge made a mistake by allowing his statements to the police to be used against him during the trial. He said that he was in custody and had not been told his rights, which needs to happen before police can question someone. However, the court looked at what happened and found that Mr. Whinery was not in custody when he spoke to the police. This means he wasn’t formally arrested, and his freedom wasn't limited like it would be if he were arrested. Because of this, the police did not need to read him his rights at that time. Since the court agreed that there was no error in allowing his statements, they decided to keep his conviction as is, meaning he will remain in prison for life.

C-2018-943

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. M 2018-0277, the appellant appealed his conviction for speeding (21-25 mph over the limit). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence from the District Court. One judge dissented. The appellant was found guilty after a non-jury trial in Texas County. He was fined $10.00 for speeding. During the appeal, the appellant claimed that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was indeed speeding. He argued that there was no rule in Oklahoma law that allowed a speeding conviction based solely on visual estimation. The State countered this claim by saying that Oklahoma law does not require a radar gun to show that someone was speeding. A trained Oklahoma State Trooper testified that he could visually estimate a vehicle's speed within 5 miles per hour of its real speed. He specifically said that he saw the appellant's vehicle speeding. The court reviewed the evidence to see if a reasonable person could find that the essential parts of the speeding crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court concluded that any logical juror could decide that there was enough proof of the speeding violation. In conclusion, the court upheld the appellant's conviction for speeding, stating that the evidence presented was sufficient.

F-2017-1285

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 2, 2019
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.

F-2017-1146

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 2, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1146, Scott Milton Donley appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold his convictions. One judge dissented. Scott Milton Donley was found guilty of two crimes during a bench trial: Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery. He received a sentence that included twenty years for the first crime and one year for the second crime, with both sentences running at the same time. Donley argued that he should not be punished for both crimes based on double jeopardy rules, meaning he shouldn’t be charged twice for what he claimed was the same act. The court examined whether there was proof for each crime that did not overlap. They found that Donley committed separate acts of pushing and slapping the victim before threatening her with a knife, which were seen as different offenses that required different evidence. Therefore, the court decided there was no double punishment. Donley also claimed there wasn't enough evidence to show he committed Assault with a Dangerous Weapon because he argued that the knife he used wasn't sharp. However, the court reviewed the evidence, including testimonies from him, the victim, and officers. They concluded that any reasonable person could find he intended to cause harm with the knife and that it was indeed a dangerous weapon. Lastly, Donley argued that he didn’t willingly give up his right to a jury trial. However, the court found clear proof that he had done so. The process was completed in court, and both he and the prosecutor waived the jury trial properly. In conclusion, the court affirmed the judgments and sentences against Donley, stating that all his claims were without merit.

RE-2017-801

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 18, 2019
Post category:RE

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

C-2017-1044

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 8, 2018
Post category:C

The document appears to be a legal summary from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of Auntra Lawan Edmonds. The case revolves around Edmonds' appeal after being convicted of two counts of First Degree Manslaughter. Here’s a concise overview of the case and the court's decision: 1. **Background**: Auntra Lawan Edmonds was charged with two counts of First Degree Manslaughter in Greer County District Court. After entering a no contest plea and being sentenced to life imprisonment for each count (to run concurrently), he later sought to withdraw his plea, which the court denied. 2. **Propositions of Error**: - **Proposition I**: Edmonds argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea, claiming it was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The court found that the record sufficiently demonstrated that Edmonds was aware of his rights and the nature of the charges, thus affirming that his plea was valid. - **Proposition II**: He claimed ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea withdrawal hearing. The court concluded that this claim lacked merit, noting that Edmonds did not provide substantial evidence to support the claim of ineffective assistance. - **Proposition III**: Edmonds argued that his life sentences were excessive. The court reasoned that the sentences were factually substantiated and justified given the severity of the incident, including the presence of alcohol and prior criminal behavior. 3. **Court Decision**: The court denied Edmonds' petition for a writ of certiorari, affirming the judgment and sentence of the District Court. It upheld that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea. 4. **Final Note**: The opinion emphasizes the importance of properly presenting claims during the trial and highlights that a defendant's dissatisfaction with a sentence does not invalidate a plea agreement. This case serves as a reference point for issues regarding plea withdrawals, effective legal counsel, and the proportionality of sentences in criminal proceedings.

RE-2016-929

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 23, 2018
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2016-1019, the appellant appealed his conviction for home repair fraud and robbery by force of fear. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but required the district court to modify its orders to reflect that the sentences should run concurrently. One judge dissented. Jerry Lynn Clemons pleaded guilty to home repair fraud and robbery in Muskogee County. He was given suspended sentences, meaning he wouldn't go to jail if he followed certain rules, which included reporting to a probation officer and paying fines. However, the state said Clemons didn't follow these rules by not reporting and changing his address without telling his probation officer. This led to a revocation hearing where the judge decided to enforce his suspended sentences. Clemons argued that he wasn't properly informed about the reasons for revoking his sentence. He also raised concerns about not being given enough evidence of his alleged failures, and about a mistake in the length of his punishment for the misdemeanor charge. Ultimately, some of his arguments were accepted, especially regarding sentencing errors, but the court found enough evidence to support the revocation of his sentence based on his failure to report and violating other conditions. The court directed that the modified orders clarify that the sentences were to be served at the same time instead of one after the other. Clemons also claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly, which might have affected his defense. However, the court concluded that Clemons did not prove this claim sufficiently. In summary, while the court agreed to fix some mistakes in his sentencing, it still upheld the decision to revoke his suspended sentences due to the established violations.

S-2016-1142

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 14, 2017
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-1142, Cody Ray Lord appealed his conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to suppress the blood test results. The trial court found that Lord was not capable of giving consent due to the effects of morphine he had received, which hindered his ability to make a decision regarding the blood test. The State had claimed there was no proof that Lord was unconscious and argued that the burden of proof should be on Lord, but the court found that sufficient evidence supported the trial court's conclusions. One judge dissented.

M-2016-108

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 10, 2017
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2016-108, Marty Spence Duncan appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery and Assault. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Duncan's judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial because the record did not show that he had waived his right to a jury trial. One judge dissented.

F-2015-561

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 19, 2016
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-561, Walter LaCurtis Jones appealed his conviction for three crimes: Feloniously Pointing a Firearm, Possession of a Firearm After Former Felony Conviction, and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences for the first two counts but reversed and dismissed the conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. One judge dissented. Walter Jones was found guilty after a trial without a jury. He received seven years in prison for each of the first two counts, which would be served at the same time, and one year in county jail for the third count. The judge also ordered that he would have one year of supervision after his prison time. Jones raised several arguments in his appeal. He argued that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, claiming he did not use a dangerous weapon and had no intention to hurt anyone. The court agreed with him on this point and reversed that conviction. For the charge of Feloniously Pointing a Firearm, Jones argued that the gun he pointed at someone was not a real firearm because it was missing a part and could not shoot. However, the court found there was enough evidence to support that he pointed a gun designed to shoot, therefore, they upheld that conviction. In the case of Possession of a Firearm After Former Felony Conviction, Jones contended that the gun could not fire, so he should not have been found guilty. The court decided that it was unnecessary for the gun to be able to fire to prove he had possession of it as a felon, thereby upholding this conviction as well. Lastly, Jones claimed he was facing double punishment for the same crime, which the court did not accept because the two charges involved different actions and did not violate any laws regarding double punishment or double jeopardy. Thus, the court confirmed his sentences for the first two counts while reversing the count for Assault and Battery.

RE-2015-844

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 17, 2016
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-844, Cully appealed his conviction for Larceny of an Automobile, Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, and Driving Without A License. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Cully's suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Cully had entered a guilty plea in 2008 and was given suspended sentences in 2010. Later, he faced allegations of violating his probation, which led to a hearing and the eventual revocation of his suspended sentences in 2015. Cully claimed that the court should have specified that his sentences were to be served concurrently, and that the addition of post-imprisonment supervision was not allowed for him. The court concluded that while it could not add post-imprisonment supervision to his sentence due to the timing of the laws, the decision to revoke his suspended sentences was valid. Cully's request for a change to the order to show that his sentences were to be served concurrently was denied, and the case was sent back to the District Court to correct the judgment as per the court's rules.

M-2015-506

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 17, 2016
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2015-506, Bell appealed her conviction for Disorderly Conduct and Interfering or Obstructing by Disobeying a Lawful Command. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and instructed to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. Bell was arrested on September 21, 2014, after protesting against a Satanic Black Mass at the Oklahoma City Civic Center. She was initially charged with trespassing but this was changed to Disorderly Conduct and Interfering or Obstructing by Disobeying a Lawful Command. Bell had gone to the Civic Center to pray against the event and knelt to pray on public property. She refused to leave when asked by police officers and was arrested. During the trial, witnesses, including police officers, testified that she did not block any entrances, and the City could not prove that she had obstructed access as per the ordinance she was charged under. The court found there was not enough evidence to support the claims that Bell had violated the law concerning disorderly conduct and interfering with the police. The judge reviewing the case decided that Bell's actions, which were protected under the First Amendment, did not constitute criminal obstruction. Although there were differences in opinion among the judges, the majority felt there was a lack of legal basis for the charges.

S-2015-972

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 20, 2016
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.

JS 2015-1076

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 24, 2016
Post category:JS

In OCCA case No. JS 2015-1076, R.Z.M. appealed his conviction for Forcible Oral Sodomy. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's order that dismissed the charge. One judge dissented. R.Z.M. was born on November 21, 1997, and was charged with serious crimes in Tulsa County. The charges included Rape-First Degree and Forcible Oral Sodomy. However, the first charge was dismissed before the trial. When it came to the second charge, R.Z.M.'s defense team asked to have it dismissed too. The judge agreed and granted the motion to dismiss on November 30, 2015. The State of Oklahoma was not happy with this decision, so they decided to appeal it. They argued that the trial court made a mistake by ruling that someone cannot be charged with Forcible Sodomy if the victim is too intoxicated to be aware during the act. However, the court decided that there was no error in the trial court’s ruling. The opinion explained that the law about Forcible Sodomy does not mention anything about intoxication. In this case, the law is very specific and does not allow for broad interpretations. Since the law does not include intoxication as a reason for the crime of Forcible Sodomy, the dismissal was upheld. In summary, the court sided with R.Z.M. and kept the trial court's decision to dismiss the charge.

RE-2015-180

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 8, 2016
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-180, the appellant appealed his conviction for two counts of Rape in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Here's a summary of the case: The appellant, after pleading guilty to Rape in the First Degree, was sentenced to twelve years in prison, which was suspended under certain conditions, including registering as a sex offender. Later, the State alleged that the appellant violated his probation by committing a new crime in Michigan, specifically being a felon in possession of a firearm. When the appellant was brought back from Michigan, a hearing took place about whether he had indeed violated his probation. During this hearing, the State presented various documents and testimony to support their claims, but these did not meet the legal requirements. They had included some documents from Michigan that were not certified and did not prove that a final judgment had been made regarding the alleged new crime. The court found that the State did not provide enough competent evidence to support their claim that the appellant had committed a new crime. The judges noted that the State must strictly prove a new offense for revocation of a suspended sentence. Since the State did not prove that the judgment from Michigan was final, the court agreed that there was an error. As a result, the court reversed the revocation order and sent the case back for further actions as needed. The court did not need to consider the other issues raised since the lack of evidence was sufficient to decide the appeal in favor of the appellant.

J-2015-930

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 19, 2016
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2015-930, Z.M.M. appealed his conviction for two counts of Rape in the First Degree and seven counts of Lewd Acts with a Child under 16. In a published decision, the court decided to dismiss the appeal as moot. No one dissented. The case started after a non-jury trial where the District Court of Cleveland County found Z.M.M. guilty. The judge sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison for each count. Later, a motion was filed by the state to transfer Z.M.M. to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Z.M.M. appealed, arguing that he should receive credit for the time he spent in the custody of the Office of Juvenile Affairs. The state's response to the appeal acknowledged that Z.M.M. should be given credit for that time. They provided an amended judgment that corrected this mistake. Since the main issue in Z.M.M.’s appeal had been resolved, the court suggested that the appeal was no longer necessary and could be dismissed. When the court asked Z.M.M. to respond, he did not object to the dismissal. Because there was no reason to continue the case, the appeal was officially dismissed, ending the court's involvement.

F-2013-1199

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 24, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-1199, Gene Douglas Graham appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Gene Douglas Graham was found guilty by a jury for lewd molestation, which is against the law. The jury decided that he should spend twenty-five years in prison. However, the judge took some time off his sentence and said he would only have to serve thirteen years and pay a fine. During the trial, Gene's arguments for appeal included that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he did something wrong, that he couldn't present a defense, and that he didn’t get a fair trial. Specifically, he said the judge made a mistake by not letting him talk about an eviction notice he received, which he thought was important to show that he knew about the accusations before he made a statement to the police. The court decided that the judge had made a mistake by not allowing Gene to talk about the eviction notice and that it was important for his defense. They believed that not being able to mention it could have affected the jury's decision. Even though the State had a strong case, the jury was still confused because they found him not guilty on two other counts related to the same victim. The judge also mentioned that talking about Gene's right to stay silent when the police questioned him was wrong and should not have happened. Gene’s lawyer didn’t object to this at the trial, so it complicated the case. However, since they found other problems, they reversed the conviction and decided he needed a new trial. In the end, the court agreed that Gene had not been treated fairly during his trial, leading them to reverse the decision and start over. This means they felt important evidence was wrongfully kept out and that he was not given a fair chance to defend himself.

RE-2012-1043

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 12, 2014
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2012-1043, Phillip Wade Barton appealed his conviction for violating probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his ten-year suspended sentence. No one dissented. Phillip Wade Barton had originally pled guilty to trying to make a controlled substance and was given a ten-year suspended sentence in 2010. This meant he wouldn't go to prison, but he had to follow certain rules. In May 2011, he got in trouble again for trying to make a controlled substance, which led the state to ask for his probation to be revoked. In October 2012, a hearing took place to see if Barton really broke the rules of his probation. The state presented only one piece of evidence, which was a document showing that Barton had pleaded guilty to the new crime. However, this document did not prove that he violated his probation since the new crime's judgment was not final. The court stated that for the state to revoke a suspended sentence due to a new crime, they either need to show that the new crime's conviction is final or prove each part of the new crime. Since the state did not provide the necessary evidence, the court agreed with Barton and decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. They sent the case back to the lower court to make sure everything was handled correctly.

F-2013-36

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 22, 2014
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-36, Jasper appealed his conviction for Conspiracy, Kidnapping, Attempted First Degree Rape, and First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Jasper's convictions but modify the sentence for First Degree Robbery. One judge dissented. Jasper was found guilty by a jury of four serious crimes. For Conspiracy, he was sentenced to ten years and fined $5,000. For Kidnapping, he received a 20-year sentence. Attempted Rape meant he was sentenced to 22.5 years, and for First Degree Robbery, he was given ten years. The sentences were supposed to be served one after the other, which made his total time in prison very long. Jasper raised several arguments on why he thought his convictions should be changed. He argued that the evidence didn't prove he was part of a conspiracy to commit rape, meaning there wasn't enough proof of an agreement to commit a crime. He also claimed that he shouldn't have been punished for both Kidnapping and Attempted Rape because they were connected to the same act. He believed this meant he faced double punishment for the same offense, which should not happen. Regarding his robbery conviction, Jasper contended that he shouldn't be punished for it because of double jeopardy, a rule that stops someone from being tried for the same crime twice. He also claimed the judge made a mistake when telling the jury about the sentence they could give him for robbery, which he believed went against his rights. Another argument was that some evidence presented during the trial wasn't fair and made him look bad but was not relevant to the case. He asserted that a lot of hearsay evidence was introduced that made his trial unfair and that his lawyer didn’t help him properly. After review, the court found that Jasper's conviction for Conspiracy was supported enough by evidence for the jury to make its decision. They ruled that the convictions for Kidnapping and Attempted Rape were also valid because they were considered separate crimes, meaning he could be punished for both. The claim of double jeopardy concerning his robbery conviction was rejected because the crimes he committed had different elements, making each punishment lawful. When it came to the sentencing instructions for First Degree Robbery, the court recognized a clear error since the jury was told wrong information about the possible sentence. They found that the minimum prison term should have been five years instead of ten. Because of this mistake, Jasper’s sentence for First Degree Robbery was modified. Other claims by Jasper about unfair evidence and the effectiveness of his lawyer did not convince the court to overturn his other convictions. The court believed that, aside from the sentencing issue, his trial was fair overall. At the end, the court kept Jasper’s convictions for Conspiracy, Kidnapping, and Attempted First Degree Rape as they were but changed his sentence for First Degree Robbery to five years. Thus, the court’s decision was mostly in favor of maintaining the original verdict and just correcting the sentencing issue.

F-2013-11

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 26, 2014
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.

S-2012-1012

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 3, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-1012, Barry Lee Brown appealed his conviction for a traffic offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling to suppress evidence and dismiss the prosecution. One judge dissented. The case began when a police officer claimed to have seen a traffic violation, which led to a stop of Barry Lee Brown's vehicle. After stopping him, the officer suspected that Brown might be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. A second officer was called to the scene to perform sobriety tests. Before the trial, Barry Lee Brown argued that the stop was not legal and asked the court to throw out any evidence from the stop. During the hearing, the officer who stopped Brown had trouble remembering exactly what happened. He referred to a report written by the second officer, but that officer had not witnessed the stop himself. Initially, the trial court thought there was enough evidence to say the stop was legal, but later changed its mind. The court reviewed different points raised by the state about why the trial court’s decision should be changed. The state argued that the trial court made mistakes in its decision to suppress the evidence. However, the Appeals Court looked carefully at the facts and decided that the trial court had a good reason to change its decision. They noted that the officer who stopped Brown did not have a clear memory and his testimony was mainly based on what was written in another officer's report. The Appeals Court stated it respects the findings of the trial court unless they are clearly wrong or not supported by the evidence. After reviewing everything, they agreed with the trial court's ruling because it was based on the officer's inability to reliably remember the details of the stop. The Appeals Court also addressed the state’s claim that the trial court should not have been allowed to change its previous ruling. They found that the state did not provide enough legal backing for this claim, so they didn't consider it further. Finally, the court looked at whether the first officer could accurately use the report to refresh his memory about the stop. They concluded that just because he accepted the report as true did not mean it helped him remember the stop accurately. In the end, the court affirmed the decision to suppress the evidence that led to the conviction and agreed to dismiss the case.

RE 2012-0711

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 20, 2013
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0711, Creekmore appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking Creekmore's suspended sentence and remand for a new hearing. One member of the court dissented.

F-2012-172

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 24, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-172, Mark Wallace Williams appealed his conviction for attempted burglary in the first degree, possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of material with intent to manufacture, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and resisting an officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified his sentence for attempted burglary from 14 years to 10 years. One judge dissented. Williams was arrested after being found in a vehicle at the scene of a reported burglary. He argued that his arrest was illegal and the evidence obtained should not have been used against him. The court disagreed, ruling that there was enough probable cause for the arrest. Williams also challenged the searches of his car, particularly the trunk, claiming they were unlawful. The court recognized some issues with the search but determined that the evidence could still be used because the police would have found it during an inventory search of the car. During the trial, Williams made statements to police which he later contested as improperly admitted. The court found any potential error harmless given the other evidence presented against him. Further, Williams argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support his conviction for attempted burglary, but the court found that evidence, including his actions and items found with him, was sufficient for a jury to reasonably conclude he was attempting to commit a crime. He also claimed that jury instructions were mistaken about his prior convictions, but the court held that these errors did not harm his case significantly. Williams raised concerns about his competence to stand trial, and the court reviewed multiple evaluations of his mental health history. Ultimately, the court upheld the jury's conclusion that he was competent to stand trial. Additionally, he argued that his trial counsel was ineffective and that he could not have waived his right to counsel due to incompetence. The court found no merit to this assertion, concluding that Williams did indeed understand and make a valid choice to represent himself. Overall, the court affirmed most of Williams' convictions, modified one sentence, denied a request to supplement the record, and found no grounds for a new trial or hearing on these matters.

F-2011-1062

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 20, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-1062, Scott Allen Phillips appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Phillips' conviction and sentence, but remanded the case for consideration of whether Phillips' sentence should be suspended. One judge dissented. Scott Allen Phillips was found guilty by a jury of Lewd Molestation, which is a serious crime involving inappropriate touching of a child. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison, during which he must serve at least 85% before he can be considered for parole. Phillips claimed there were several errors during his trial that should lead to his conviction being overturned. Phillips argued that the prosecutor presented too many instances of inappropriate touching without clearly stating which one he was being accused of for the charge. He also believed there wasn't enough evidence to support the conviction. Additionally, he stated that the judge's decision not to consider a less severe punishment for him was unfair because he exercised his right to a jury trial. Phillips raised multiple issues during the appeal. The court looked at arguments closely and decided that the prosecutor's actions were correct and that they followed the law. They found that there were enough facts for the jury to conclude that Phillips had molested the child. The judges pointed out that the jury's role is to decide who they believe and what evidence to trust. Regarding the sentencing process, the judges noted that the trial judge didn't consider Phillips' request for a lesser sentence. This became important because a judge is expected to think about such requests carefully, regardless of whether the defendant went to trial. This is why the court decided to give the case back to the lower court for a fresh look at Phillips' request for a suspended sentence. Another major point Phillips raised was his concern about how the trial was handled. He asked to speak with jurors after the trial ended, hoping to gather more insight about their decision. However, the court said this was not allowed because jurors cannot discuss their deliberations or decisions after the trial is over. The court also examined the use of videotaped evidence during the trial. Phillips complained that the videos of the alleged victim’s statements should not have been shown again to the jurors while they were discussing. However, the judges felt the decision to show the videos was acceptable and did not harm Phillips' chances at a fair trial. Ultimately, the judges concluded that they would not disturb Phillips' conviction since there was sufficient evidence and no significant errors during the trial that affected the outcome. However, they did want the lower court to look again at Phillips' request for a suspension of his sentence, ensuring he had a fair chance at having that request reviewed properly. In conclusion, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence while allowing the opportunity for reconsideration regarding the potential suspension of the sentence, which shows that even in serious cases, there are processes in place to ensure fair treatment under the law.

S-2012-573

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 14, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-573, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the orders of the lower court. The dissenting opinion was not specified. In this case, the appellant was charged after being arrested by a trooper from the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. A preliminary hearing took place, and the judge decided there was not enough evidence to proceed with a trial. The state disagreed and appealed this decision. Another judge upheld the first decision, leading to the current appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The main issue in the appeal focused on whether the highway patrol trooper had the authority to arrest the appellant. After careful consideration and a hearing, the court found no error in how the lower courts handled the case. They determined that the facts and legal interpretations were correct, and therefore, the original decision was upheld. The case was reviewed under specific procedures that allow this kind of state appeal, and the court confirmed that there was no abuse of discretion in the previous rulings. As a result, the final rulings and orders from the lower courts were affirmed, and the court ordered that their decision be enforced.