Propositions of Error

RE-2021-1290

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

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

Continue ReadingRE-2021-1290

F-2019-950

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-950, Shilow Lynn Dumas appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court, except for a $1,000.00 fine imposed, which was stricken from the record. One judge dissented. Dumas was found guilty of injuring a child and was sentenced to five years of imprisonment after a jury trial. He raised several errors for appeal, including issues regarding jury instructions, the imposition of a fine, the sufficiency of evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative errors. The court reviewed the trial process and found that the jury instructions, while not ideal, did not impact Dumas's rights enough to be considered a plain error since he did not object to them during the trial. They noted Dumas's defense did not argue that his discipline was reasonable, which weakened his claims about how he should have been instructed on the law regarding discipline. The court found the trial court had made a plain error by imposing a fine after the jury did not recommend one, and thus they vacated the fine. Next, the court examined the evidence that was presented, ruling that enough evidence was available to support the jury's finding that Dumas had willfully injured the child. When looking at claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court decided that since Dumas did not show how he was harmed by his lawyer’s performance, his claims were unconvincing. The cumulative errors claim was also denied, as the court found no significant harmful errors besides the fine issue. Therefore, the overall decision upheld the conviction while correcting one aspect concerning the fine.

Continue ReadingF-2019-950

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

F-2018-383

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-383, Samantha Ann Perales appealed her conviction for first degree manslaughter, possession of controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine), unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and no valid driver's license. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to try Perales because she is a recognized member of an Indian tribe and the crimes occurred in Indian Country. Therefore, her convictions were reversed and the case was remanded to be dismissed. One judge dissented, stating that the Major Crimes Act should not prevent Oklahoma's jurisdiction in cases where federal prosecution is not possible.

Continue ReadingF-2018-383

F-2017-1000

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2017-1000

RE-2019-850

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-850, Jade Christian Nichols appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking four years of Appellant's suspended judgment and sentence and remanded the case for a new hearing before a different judge. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-850

C-2019-15

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2019-15, Nicholas Allan Daniel appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder (Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance) and Robbery with a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his request for a writ of certiorari, modifying his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder while reversing his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm. One judge dissented from this opinion. Nicholas Daniel faced serious charges after being accused of killing a man while trying to sell drugs and also robbing him. He pleaded guilty to these charges but later wanted to withdraw his plea. He felt that his lawyer did not help him enough during the process, and he raised several reasons for this claim. He argued that the lawyer had a conflict of interest, that he did not fully understand the consequences of his plea, that the plea lacked a good factual basis, and that he did not get effective help from his lawyer. The court carefully examined each of Daniel's arguments. In the first argument, the court found no real conflict of interest because Daniel’s dissatisfaction stemmed from the state’s evidence and the sentence, not from his lawyer's performance. In the second argument, it was decided that Daniel had entered the plea with a clear understanding that he would face sentencing and that it was done voluntarily. For the third argument, about the factual basis for his felony murder conviction, the court found that there were issues with how the charges were presented. It was determined that the way Daniel described the incident in his plea was inadequate to meet the legal requirements for felony murder because he was treated primarily as a buyer, not a seller of drugs. Thus, the combined crimes could not both stand. In terms of Daniel's claims against his lawyer's effectiveness, the court acknowledged that his lawyer could have done better. However, it ruled against some of Daniel's more serious arguments on the effectiveness of his lawyer, finding that he did not provide sufficient proof that his lawyer’s actions negatively affected his defense. In the final decision, the court adjusted Daniel's felony murder conviction based on the issues around how the charges were processed and reversed the robbery conviction, as it should not stand alongside the adjusted murder charge. Ultimately, the court confirmed Daniel's modified conviction for felony murder but sent the case back regarding the robbery count. One judge disagreed with parts of this conclusion, stating that the trial court had not made a mistake in the first place and therefore should not have granted the appeal. The judge argued that since Daniel's plea was expressed clearly and voluntarily, it should have been upheld without modification. The judge emphasized the importance of adhering to proper legal processes and rules when making such determinations. Thus, the outcome celebrated the importance of ensuring that legal principles and procedures are correctly applied, even as it affirmed Daniel’s conviction under modified circumstances.

Continue ReadingC-2019-15

F-2018-113

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-113, the appellant appealed her conviction for multiple counts of child neglect and enabling child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and the sentences imposed. One judge dissented. The case involved Brenda Marie Huff, who was convicted by a jury of four counts of child neglect and one count of enabling child sexual abuse. The jury sentenced her to 25 years in prison for each count, which would be served at the same time. Brenda and her husband, co-defendant Andrew Huff, were accused of allowing their children to live in very poor conditions. Evidence showed the home was filthy, lacking running water, and filled with animal waste and sexual materials. The children were also exposed to troubling behavior, including sexual messages sent by Andrew to a young girl. Brenda was aware of this behavior but did not act to protect the child. Brenda raised several arguments in her appeal, including claims that the evidence against her was not enough to support the convictions, that there were problems with jury instructions, and that her sentence was too harsh. However, the court found that the evidence presented was sufficient for the jury to conclude that she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also noted that there were no errors in how the jury was instructed, and that the severity of her sentence was justified given the circumstances. The court upheld the jury's decision, concluding that Brenda had neglected the children and enabled her husband to harm them. Ultimately, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence, meaning Brenda would serve her time in prison as decided by the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2018-113

F-2018-957

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DUSTIN SCOTT PATTON,** Appellant, Case No. F-2018-957 **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Dustin Scott Patton was convicted in the District Court of Kay County, Case No. CF-2017-258, of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, violating 21 O.S.2011, § 652(C). A jury recommended a ten-year sentence, and Honorable David Bandy, District Judge, imposed the sentence as per the jury's verdict. Patton appeals with two propositions of error. 1. **The modified jury instruction improperly relieved the State of proving an essential element of the crime charged.** 2. **Appellant was deprived of a fair trial due to numerous pleas for sympathy for the victim during trial.** Upon thorough review of the record and arguments presented, we find no grounds for relief. Patton's judgment and sentence are **AFFIRMED**. **Proposition I:** Patton concedes he did not object to Instruction No. 24 at trial, necessitating plain error review. To establish plain error, Patton must show an actual error that is obvious and affects his substantial rights. Previous case law indicates that certain weapons, like knives, are per se deadly weapons. Instruction No. 24, which classified a knife as a deadly weapon, was not erroneous, and thus Proposition I is **denied**. **Proposition II:** For prosecutorial misconduct claims, relief is granted only if the misconduct renders the trial fundamentally unfair. Patton only objected to the display of the victim’s scars. The presentation of the victim’s injuries primarily served to illustrate the crime's severity and the use of force, which was pertinent to the charges against Patton. This evidence was not unduly prejudicial, and thus, Proposition II is also **denied**. **DECISION:** The District Court's Judgment and Sentence are **AFFIRMED**. *Issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.* **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J. --- For further details, you can download the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-957_1734873972.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-957

J-2019-578

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** S.M.W.B., Appellant, v. No. J-2019-578 THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee. **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAN - 2 2020** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant was charged as a youthful offender in Caddo County District Court Case No. YO-2019-1 on February 13, 2019, with five counts of Lewd or Indecent Acts to Child Under 12. On March 28, 2019, the State filed a Motion to Impose an Adult Sentence pursuant to 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-208. On April 3, 2019, Appellant filed a Motion for Certification to the Juvenile Justice System pursuant to 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-206. Following a hearing on these motions, Honorable David Stephens, Special Judge, denied Appellant's motion and granted the State's motion. From this order, Appellant appeals, raising the following issues: 1. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING CERTIFICATION OF S.M.W.B. AS A JUVENILE; and 2. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY GRANTING APPELLEE'S MOTION TO CERTIFY AS AN ADULT. Pursuant to Rule 11.2(A), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), this appeal was automatically assigned to the accelerated docket of this Court. Oral argument was held on November 21, 2019. After a review of the record and the arguments presented, we find no merit to the propositions of error raised by Appellant. The key issue before this Court is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for certification as a juvenile and granting the State's motion to impose adult sentencing. An abuse of discretion is defined as a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment that contradicts the logic and effect of the facts. The trial court's decision must be supported by the evidence presented, and our review is limited to the record. Judge Stephens appropriately considered the criteria mandated by Sections 2-5-206 and 2-5-208 of Title 10A, leading us to conclude that the record supports his decision. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Caddo County denying Appellant's motion for certification as a juvenile and granting the State’s motion for imposition of adult sentencing is **AFFIRMED**. The State's motion to file a properly verified response brief is **GRANTED**, and the Amended Response to Application for Accelerated Docket is ordered to be **FILED** by the Clerk of this Court. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE is **ORDERED** issued upon the filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CADDO COUNTY, THE HONORABLE DAVID STEPHENS, SPECIAL JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** **MARK OSBY** P.O. BOX 850126 YUKON, OK 73085 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** **ANDREW BENEDICT** CADDO CO. ASST. DIST. ATTY. 110 S.W. 2ND ST. ANADARKO, OK 73005 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR IN RESULTS **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-578_1734445561.pdf)

Continue ReadingJ-2019-578

F-2018-678

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The decision from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirms the conviction of Kenneth Oliver Ross for multiple offenses, including lewd molestation and human trafficking of a minor. The court meticulously addressed each of the twelve propositions of error raised by the appellant in their appeal. 1. **Double Punishment**: The court found no double jeopardy in the separate counts of lewd molestation, as they described distinct acts of abuse. 2. **Charge Appropriateness**: The court ruled that human trafficking was properly charged, as the prosecutor had discretion in choosing the relevant statutes. 3. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Both propositions regarding the sufficiency of evidence for human trafficking were denied, with the court stating that isolated incidents could constitute the crime. 4. **Jury Instructions**: The court upheld the jury instructions given, finding no error in how the law was communicated to the jury. 5. **Ex Post Facto Claims**: The court found no ex post facto violation, indicating that ignorance of the victim's age was not a defense to the charges. 6. **Lesser Included Offenses**: The court ruled that the lack of request for certain lesser-included offense instructions meant review would be under plain error, which the court did not find. 7. **Statutory Clarity**: Propositions regarding the constitutionality and vagueness of the human trafficking statute were denied, with the court upholding the statute's clarity and application. 8. **Sentence Severity**: The court concluded that the 50-year sentence for human trafficking was not shockingly excessive based on the evidence presented. 9. **Cumulative Error**: The final proposition regarding cumulative error was also denied as no individual errors were found. Overall, the appellate court found no merit in any of the propositions and affirmed the original sentence handed down by the district court. The case illustrates the court's rigorous examination of statutory interpretation, jury instructions, evidentiary sufficiency, and statutory vagueness concerns in criminal appeals.

Continue ReadingF-2018-678

F-2018-690

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DANIEL ROSS DAGE,** **Appellant,** **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-690** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Daniel Ross Dage was convicted of Possession of Juvenile Pornography in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2, in the District Court of Comanche County, under the Honorable Gerald Neuwirth. He was sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment, with eight (8) years suspended, and a fine of $5,000.00. Additionally, he is subject to sex offender registration and two years of post-imprisonment supervision during his suspended sentence. Dage appeals his conviction and sentence, raising three propositions of error. I. The record does not sufficiently demonstrate that Appellant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. II. The State's evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Dage knowingly possessed videos of juvenile pornography. III. A sentence of 20 years is excessive under the circumstances, violating the United States and Oklahoma constitutions. After thorough review of the record, including transcripts and briefs, we find that the case must be reversed and remanded for a jury trial. Proposition I is granted. The State concedes this issue. While defendants can waive their constitutional right to a jury trial, such a waiver must be competent, knowing, intelligent, and on the record, as established in *Hinsley v. State*, 2012 OK CR 11; *Valega v. City of Oklahoma City*, 1988 OK CR 101. Record evidence must show that both the State and the court consented to the waiver. The requirements for a valid waiver include an advisement of rights and a court minute reflecting the waiver, with signatures from the defendant and counsel. The record does not provide evidence of a waiver or party consent; there are no advisements regarding jury trial rights, nor discussions recorded in the trial transcript concerning the waiver. Thus, we conclude that the record fails to show Appellant validly waived his right to a jury trial. Proposition II, concerning the sufficiency of evidence, is briefly addressed. The State needed to demonstrate Dage knowingly possessed child pornography according to 21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2. Although Dage argues against the sufficiency of evidence, we find that the evidence reasonably infers Dage was aware of the prohibited nature of the material, and no other individual had reasonable access to the USB drives. Therefore, this proposition is denied. Given our decision regarding Proposition I, Proposition III concerning sentencing is rendered moot. **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Comanche County is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for a jury trial. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE GERALD NEUWIRTH, DISTRICT JUDGE** **ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL** LARRY CORRALES P.O. BOX 2095 LAWTON, OK 73502 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL** NANCY WALKER-JOHNSON P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** CHRISTINE GALBRAITH ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMANCHE CO. COURTHOUSE 315 SW 5TH ST., RM 502 LAWTON, OK 73501-4360 **MIKE HUNTER** ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA. DIANE L. SLAYTON ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 NE 21 ST STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-690_1735220870.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-690

C-2018-1235

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AUGUST 29, 2019** **CASE NO. C-2018-1235** **ROY DEAN HARJO,** *Petitioner,* **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** *Respondent.* **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Roy Dean Harjo entered a blind plea to Counts I, Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, and Counts II-V, Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, after previous convictions for two or more felonies, in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Case No. CF-2017-665. Following a sentencing hearing, the Honorable John Canavan sentenced Harjo to life on each Count I-V, concurrent for Counts II-V but consecutive to Count I, requiring Harjo to serve 85% before parole eligibility. Harjo filed a motion to withdraw his pleas, which was denied after a hearing on November 28, 2018. Harjo then filed a timely Petition for Writ of Certiorari, asserting four propositions of error: I. Harjo should be allowed to withdraw his pleas for Counts II-V due to lack of factual basis. II. His plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was uninformed about sentencing ranges, violating his rights under the Constitution. III. His plea was not knowing and voluntary due to misinformation regarding sentencing. IV. He was denied effective assistance of counsel. **Decision:** After comprehensive review, we find the evidence does not warrant relief. Proposition I cannot be considered as it was not presented in the motion to withdraw or the certiorari petition. In Propositions II and III, we find the pleas were knowing and voluntary. Harjo's assertion that he believed he would receive a thirty-year maximum sentence is contradicted by the record, which shows he understood the plea form stating potential life sentences. Therefore, his claims regarding plea counsel’s advice lack merit. In Proposition IV, we determine that there was no ineffective assistance from either plea or conflict counsel. Harjo's claim regarding the factual basis for his plea is unsupported, as ample facts exist to justify the plea. Any assertion that conflict counsel was ineffective for not challenging plea counsel also fails, as no substantial claims could have been made given the determination of a solid factual basis. **Conclusion:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is therefore **DENIED**. Upon filing this decision, the **MANDATE is ORDERED issued.** **This decision is concurred by all Justices.** --- *To view the complete decision, click [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-1235_1734229271.pdf).*

Continue ReadingC-2018-1235

F-2017-1232

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1232, Adrian Luis Walker appealed his conviction for second-degree murder and robbery by two or more persons. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction on the robbery charge because it violated the law against being punished for the same crime more than once. The court affirmed the other parts of the sentence. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1232

F-2018-595

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **GARRET TAYLOR MANKIN,** Appellant, Case No. F-2018-595 **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. --- **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, JUL 11 2019** John D. Hadden, Clerk --- ### SUMMARY OPINION **HUDSON, JUDGE:** **Background:** Garret Taylor Mankin was tried and convicted in a nonjury trial in Pontotoc County District Court (Case No. CF-2015-347) for two counts of Lewd Acts with a Child Under Twelve (Counts 1 and 3), violating 21 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1123(A)(2). He was sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment for each count, with the last five years of both sentences suspended. Originally charged with eleven counts, the trial court dismissed the majority by agreement of the parties. Mankin must serve eighty-five percent of his sentence before being eligible for parole. **Propositions of Error:** Mankin raises two propositions of error concerning the trial court's admission of hearsay statements from the alleged victims, P.M. and F.Y. 1. **Admittance of P.M.'s Hearsay Statements:** Mankin argues that the hearsay statements made by P.M. were not inherently trustworthy. The court found that the statements were admissible under 12 O.S.Supp.2013, § 2803.1, which allows for the admission of hearsay statements made by children under twelve regarding sexual contact against them if deemed reliable. Upon review: - P.M. disclosed the inappropriate touching to both her mother and a forensic interviewer, with consistent elements in her accounts. - Merely due to the nature of her disclosure or the method of questioning, the statements remained trustworthy. - The court determined that there was no abuse of discretion in this ruling. 2. **Admittance of F.Y.'s Hearsay Statements:** Mankin contends that F.Y.’s statements were not spontaneous or consistent, arguing similar points regarding terminologies used and that they lacked reliability. Upon review: - F.Y. made statements on the same day she was seen being inappropriately touched. - The mother’s questioning was open-ended and not leading. - F.Y.'s use of child-appropriate language (referring to the genitalia as a fat leg) supported the statement’s reliability. - The trial court's decision to admit the statements was upheld due to sufficient indicia of reliability. **Outcome:** After thorough consideration of the entire record and the propositions raised, the Court found no error that warranted relief. The judgments and sentences imposed by the District Court were affirmed. **Concurrences:** - Lewis, P.J. - Kuehn, V.P.J. - Lumpkin, J. - Rowland, J. **Opinion Filed:** Hudson, J. **Note**: For further details, you can download the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-595_1735312387.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-595

C-2018-927

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SAHIB QUIETMAN HENDERSON,** **Petitioner,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-927** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 30, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Sahib Quietman Henderson entered a blind plea of guilty to Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance within 2,000 feet of a School in the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CF-2016-393. The plea was accepted by the Honorable Ken J. Graham, District Judge, on April 30, 2018, with sentencing delayed until July 25, 2018. On that date, Petitioner was sentenced to thirty (30) years in prison, with the first fifteen (15) years to be served and the remaining fifteen (15) years suspended, alongside a fine of $2,500.00. On August 2, 2018, represented by counsel, Petitioner filed an Application to Withdraw Plea of Guilty. At hearings on August 20 and 22, 2018, Judge Graham denied the motion to withdraw. Petitioner appeals the denial and raises the following propositions of error: 1. Failure of the State and District Court to honor the promised consideration for Appellant's plea requires modification of his inflated sentence, or an opportunity to withdraw his plea. 2. The sentence is shockingly excessive given the circumstances of the case. 3. Ineffective assistance of counsel in identifying, presenting, and preserving issues for review. After thorough review of these propositions and the entirety of the record, including original record, transcripts, and briefs, we find that neither reversal nor modification is required. Our primary concern in evaluating the validity of a guilty plea is whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently. Petitioner carries the burden of proving his plea was entered unadvisedly, through influence, or without deliberation. Voluntariness is assessed through the entire record. In **Proposition I**, Petitioner claims that the plea lacked a knowing and voluntary nature due to non-fulfillment of a promise that he would be sentenced as a first-time offender and because of purported drug buys by his wife reducing his sentence. Contrary to this argument, the record shows Petitioner was treated as a first-time offender, with the court considering the mitigating factors at sentencing. His dissatisfaction with the resulting sentence does not provide grounds for withdrawal of the plea. In **Proposition II**, Petitioner contends the sentence is excessive. However, as he did not raise this claim in his Application to Withdraw Guilty Plea to the trial court, it is waived on appeal. In **Proposition III**, Petitioner argues ineffective assistance of counsel during both the plea and withdrawal hearings. A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is only established by showing that counsel's performance was deficient and that it resulted in prejudice to the defendant. The record does not support that withdrawal counsel's performance was deficient or that it affected the outcome—Petitioner maintained he did not wish to withdraw his plea but rather sought a sentence modification. **DECISION** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon this decision. --- **APPEARANCES IN DISTRICT COURT:** Grant D. Shepherd 601 S.W. C Ave., Ste. 201 Lawton, OK 73501 Counsel for the Defense **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** Kimberly D. Heinze P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 Counsel for Petitioner at the Plea Hearing Ronald L. Williams P.O. Box 2095 Lawton, OK 73502 Counsel for the Defense at the Withdrawal Hearing Jason M. Hicks District Attorney Cortnie Siess & Greg Steward Assistant District Attorneys Stephens Co. Courthouse 101 S. 11th St., Duncan, OK 73533 Counsel for the State **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur --- [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-927_1734182885.pdf)

Continue ReadingC-2018-927

RE-2018-232

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case No. RE-2018-232** **Summary Opinion** **Appellant:** Courtney Quillen **Appellee:** The State of Oklahoma **Decided on:** May 30, 2019 **Judge:** Kuehn, Vice Presiding Judge **Background:** Courtney Quillen appealed the revocation of her concurrent seven-year suspended sentences issued by Judge Gregory D. Pollard. She had been convicted in two cases for several counts of Uttering a Forged Instrument. **Key Dates:** - **August 25, 2016:** Quillen entered nolo contendere pleas in two cases. - **March 3, 2017:** The State filed a motion to revoke her suspended sentences for failing to pay fees. - **February 26, 2018:** A revocation hearing was held, leading to the decision to revoke her sentences. **Charges and Allegations:** The State alleged that Quillen committed additional crimes (robbery and conspiracy) while on probation, which constituted violations of her probation terms. **Decision:** The court concluded that: - The alleged procedural errors regarding the twenty-day rule did not affect the court's ability to revoke the sentences from Case No. CF-2015-817 since it had jurisdiction over that case. - The evidence presented established that Quillen had participated in a robbery, thus justifying the revocation of her suspended sentences. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Jurisdiction challenge** - Denied; revocation in Case No. CF-2015-817 upheld. 2. **Validity of waiver regarding twenty-day rule** - Moot. 3. **Insufficient evidence for robbery** - Denied; evidence supported the involvement in robbery and conspiracy. 4. **Insufficient evidence for conspiracy** - Denied; Quillen was shown to have conspired with co-defendants. 5. **Ineffective assistance of counsel** - Moot due to affirming the revocation based on other factors. 6. **Abuse of discretion in revocation** - Denied; trial court acted within its discretion. **Final Order:** The Court affirmed the decision of the District Court of Pontotoc County to revoke Quillen’s concurrent suspended sentences. **Mandate Issued.** [Full opinion and details available here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-232_1734699237.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-232

RE-2018-155

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **VESTER VON DOWNUM,** **Appellant,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-155** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 23, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** On June 15, 2015, Appellant Vester Von Downum, represented by counsel, was convicted of Planning/Conspiring/Endeavoring to Perform an Act of Violence in Muskogee County, Case No. CF-2014-656. He was sentenced to ten (10) years, with all but the first two (2) years suspended, subject to rules and conditions of probation. On December 6, 2017, the State filed an Application to Revoke Downum's suspended sentence, alleging he violated the terms of probation by violating a protective order issued in PO-2014-218. At the hearing on February 7, 2018, the District Court of Muskogee County, presided by the Honorable Norman D. Thygesen, revoked the remainder of Downum's suspended sentence. Downum now appeals, presenting the following propositions of error: 1. The State failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Downum violated the terms of his probation by committing the new crime of violating a protective order; 2. The order of revocation is excessive based on the circumstances; 3. There exists a clerical error in the order revoking the suspended sentence that should be corrected by an order nunc pro tunc. **DECISION:** The revocation of Downum's suspended sentence is AFFIRMED. The scope of review in revocation appeals is limited to the validity of the revocation order. We examine the factual determination and consider whether the court abused its discretion. The trial court's findings will not be disturbed on appeal if there is evidence reasonably supporting them. Downum alleges the State did not prove he violated the protective order. In probation revocations, the State must prove violations by a preponderance of the evidence, and conflicting testimony was presented at the revocation hearing. The victim, T.H., claimed Downum contacted her on Facebook shortly after his release, which she found threatening due to their history. Downum testified the contact was accidental. Given the conflicting evidence, the court found sufficient grounds to support the violation, and we find no abuse of discretion in the decision to revoke Downum's sentence. As to Downum's claim of excessive punishment, we note that violation of even one condition of probation justifies full revocation, especially in this case where the violation occurred less than two weeks after his release. Regarding the clerical error in the Judgment filed February 9, 2018, it correctly reflects the need for a nunc pro tunc order to clarify that Downum was found guilty after a jury trial and not via a guilty plea. **CONCLUSION:** The order of the District Court of Muskogee County revoking Downum's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2014-656 is AFFIRMED. The matter is REMANDED for entry of an order nunc pro tunc to correct the clerical error. **OPINION BY: LEWIS, P.J.:** **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur **[Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-155_1734703626.pdf)**

Continue ReadingRE-2018-155

J-2019-113

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** --- **A.W.,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **The State of Oklahoma,** **Appellee.** **No. J-2019-112** --- **I.F.,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **The State of Oklahoma,** **Appellee.** **No. J-2019-113** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** The Appellants, A.W. and I.F., appeal from an order by Honorable Patrick Pickerill, Associate District Judge, adjudicating them delinquent for participating in a conspiracy to perform an act of violence in Case Nos. JDL-2018-3 and JDL-2018-4 in Pawnee County. The appeals were consolidated for oral argument, with both Appellants asserting three propositions of error. ### FACTS The Appellants were charged as juveniles under 21 O.S.2011, § 1378(A) for planning a school shooting at Pawnee High School on August 7, 2018. A bench trial took place on February 4, 2019. The State's key witnesses included: 1. **D.C.**: A classmate who testified about A.W.'s possession of firearms and I.F. discussing threats made to a girl over social media. 2. **Wesley Clymer**: Chief of Police who reported the threats received through a tip. 3. **Chad Colclazier**: Deputy who testified about interviews with the Appellants and evidence collected, including social media communications and pictures of firearms. 4. **Jimmy Meeks**: Another Deputy who recounted the search of A.W.'s home, where firearms were seized. Judge Pickerill found that Appellants had communicated about a school shooting, and their actions constituted an overt act necessary to establish a conspiracy. Thus, both were adjudicated delinquent. ### PROPOSITIONS OF ERROR 1. **Proposition I**: **Sufficiency of Evidence** Appellants argued the evidence was insufficient for a conviction. The appellate court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the trial court's findings beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. **Proposition II**: **Hearsay Statements** Appellants claimed the court erred by allowing purported hearsay statements from one to be used against the other in their joint trial. The argument was unsuccessful as the trial was a bench trial, and there was sufficient evidence independent of the hearsay claims. 3. **Proposition III**: **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel** The Appellants asserted their counsel failed to utilize evidence suggesting the incident was a joke rather than a threat. The court noted that no strong evidence was presented to demonstrate that a different defense would have altered the trial's outcome. ### DECISION This Court affirms the orders of the District Court, finding adequate support for the adjudicated delinquency of both Appellants. ### APPEARANCES - **Counsel for Appellant A.W.** Royce A. Hobbs Attorney at Law 801 S. Main St., P.O. Box 1455 Edmond, OK 73013 - **Counsel for Appellant I.F.** Cheryl A. Ramsey Attorney at Law 801 S. Main St., P.O. Box 1206 Edmond, OK 73013 - **Counsel for the State** Jeff Mixon Assistant District Attorney Pawnee County Courthouse, Room 301 Pawnee, OK 74058 **OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.** *Concur: LEWIS, P. J., KUEHN, V. P. J., HUDSON, J., ROWLAND, J.* --- **Click Here To Download PDF** [PDF Link](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-113_1734446783.pdf)

Continue ReadingJ-2019-113

F-2017-444

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-444, Haskin appealed his conviction for child neglect and child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. No one dissented. Haskin was found guilty of neglecting children and sexually abusing them. The jury gave him several long prison sentences, including ten years for each count of neglect and many decades for sexual abuse. The judge ordered these sentences to be served one after the other. Haskin raised seven main arguments against his conviction during his appeal. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes that affected his rights. For example, he said that evidence was unfairly used against him, and that the trial did not follow the rules properly. He argued that a police investigator should not have gone back to his property without a warrant, and that his rights were violated in other ways as well. However, the court found that the police acted reasonably and that Haskin's claims of error did not hold up because he did not provide enough details to support them. The court carefully reviewed everything and decided there was no need to change the outcome of the trial. They ruled that Haskin's conviction and the long sentences would stand. The decision means he will serve a considerable time in prison for his actions.

Continue ReadingF-2017-444

F-2018-617

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of Douglas Edward Scott. Scott was convicted of Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation and Petit Larceny in a non-jury trial and was sentenced to eight years in prison for the first charge and six months in county jail for the second, with both sentences running concurrently. ### Key Points from the Opinion: 1. **Proposition I - Sufficiency of Evidence**: - Scott challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his domestic assault conviction. - The court reviewed the evidence favorably toward the prosecution and concluded that a rational trier of fact could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. - The trial court rejected Scott's claim of innocence, and the court affirmed that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. 2. **Proposition II - Sentence Excessiveness**: - Scott argued that his eight-year sentence was excessive. - The court noted that the sentence was within the statutory range and considered the facts of the case. - The court determined that the sentence did not shock its conscience and denied the proposition of excessive sentencing. ### Conclusion: - The court affirmed Scott's judgment and sentence, denying both of his propositions of error. - The mandate for the decision was ordered upon the delivery and filing of the opinion. ### Representations: - The trial representation included Charles Michael Thompson for the appellant and Richard Smothermon as the District Attorney for the State. - The opinion was written by Judge Lumpkin, with all other judges concurring. For more detailed information or legal context, you can download the full PDF of the opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-617_1735229379.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-617

C-2018-315

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of David Duane Albright, a petitioner who sought to withdraw his guilty pleas related to charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of a controlled substance, and maintaining a place for keeping/selling controlled substances. ### Key Points: 1. **Background**: - Albright was originally charged in Delaware County with multiple drug-related offenses in 2010. - He entered a guilty plea in December 2010 and was accepted into the Delaware County Drug Court Program. - After being terminated from the program for non-compliance, he was sentenced in September 2013 to life imprisonment on two counts and 20 years on another, with fines imposed. 2. **Procedural Posture**: - Albright filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas shortly after sentencing, which was denied. - He initially failed to appeal but was granted an appeal out of time in 2018. 3. **Claims on Appeal**: Albright raised several propositions of error: - **Proposition I**: He argued his plea lacked an adequate factual basis. - **Proposition II**: Claimed his pleas were not entered knowingly and voluntarily. - **Proposition III**: Contended the $50,000 fine was unauthorized by statute. - **Proposition IV**: Asserted he should have received credit for jail time, violating his due process. - **Proposition V**: Claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. 4. **Court's Analysis**: - **Proposition I and II**: The court found Albright waived appellate review by not raising these claims in his motion to withdraw his plea. - **Proposition III and IV**: These claims were also deemed waived for similar reasons, not raised in the motion to withdraw. - **Proposition V**: While the court reviewed the ineffective assistance of withdrawal counsel, they found no evidence of deficiency or that it prejudiced Albright's case. 5. **Decision**: - The court affirmed the lower court's denial of Albright's Motion to Withdraw Plea, concluding that he did not demonstrate a valid basis for the claims made. 6. **Concurring Opinion**: - Judge Rowland specially concurred, expressing concern regarding the adequacy of the factual basis for the plea related to maintaining a place for keeping/selling a controlled dangerous substance. While recognizing the issues, he noted that because the facts weren’t adequately challenged during the proceedings, the claims were not actionable in this appeal. ### Conclusion: The petitioner's appeal was denied, and the trial court's decision stands, allowing the guilty pleas to remain in effect due to procedural waivers and the lack of substantive evidence to support the claims raised on appeal. The opinion highlights the importance of raising issues timely and thoroughly in the proper forums to preserve them for review.

Continue ReadingC-2018-315

F-2017-952

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-952, Jerry Don Battenfield appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child under age twelve. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. Mr. Battenfield was found guilty without a jury and received a sentence of thirty years in prison and a fine for each of the two counts, which means he must serve over twenty-five years before he can be considered for parole. He raised several arguments on appeal. First, he argued that he did not understand that he was giving up his right to a jury trial. He believed he might face the death penalty, but the court found he was not misled about the possible punishment. Therefore, his claim was denied. Second, he claimed that the judge improperly relied on evidence that was not admitted during the trial. However, the court found that the judge could only use the evidence that was presented and determined there was no error. Third, he argued that there should have been a hearing to check if child hearsay was reliable before it was allowed in court. The court noted that his attorney had actually agreed to let the hearsay in, which meant that there was no error to review. In the fourth point, he contended that some of the child’s statements were allowed into the trial in a way that violated his right to confront witnesses. The court agreed that there was a mistake concerning some statements but concluded the mistake was harmless, as there was enough other evidence to show he was guilty. Fifth, he stated that his lawyer did a poor job for not fighting harder to protect his rights during the trial. However, the court believed that the lawyer did not make any major mistakes that would have changed the outcome of the trial. Finally, he asked for a review based on multiple mistakes during the trial. The court found that the previous issues did not add up to deny him a fair trial. The court affirmed the judgment and said that the decisions made during the trial were generally correct, despite acknowledging a small error regarding the child’s statements. Overall, his appeal was denied, and he will continue to serve his sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2017-952

M-2017-954

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2017-954, Christian Wages appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his conviction to simple Assault and Battery and remanded the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Christian Wages was found guilty of Domestic Abuse in a trial without a jury. The judge sentenced him to one year in jail, with all but the first thirty days suspended, and a fine of $500. He was also required to attend counseling and was placed on probation. Wages appealed the decision, claiming three main errors in the trial. First, he believed the court wrongly allowed hearsay evidence that violated his right to confront witnesses. This hearsay was about R.S., the alleged victim, who did not testify at the trial. Second, he argued that the evidence wasn't enough to prove he battered R.S. because the witnesses did not clearly identify her. Lastly, he claimed that the errors in the trial added up to deny him a fair trial. The court reviewed the evidence and mentioned that while there was enough proof for a simple Assault and Battery charge, the evidence for the Domestic Abuse charge was based on inadmissible hearsay that stated R.S. lived with Wages. Since there wasn’t sufficient admissible evidence to prove the domestic relationship, Wages' conviction was modified to simple Assault and Battery. As for the last argument regarding cumulative errors, the court pointed out that it only found one significant error, meaning cumulative error could not be applied. In conclusion, the punishment was lessened from Domestic Abuse to simple Assault and Battery, and the court instructed to resentence Wages according to this new finding.

Continue ReadingM-2017-954

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