Prosecution

F-2020-510

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2020-510, Dewayne Shomo appealed his conviction for Possession of a Firearm, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented. Dewayne Shomo was found guilty during a non-jury trial and sentenced to eighteen months in prison. He argued that the state did not have the right to prosecute him because he is a member of the Choctaw Nation and the alleged crime happened within the Choctaw Reservation. The case's outcome was based on a ruling made in another case, McGirt v. Oklahoma, which established that certain crimes committed by or against Indians within Indian territory must be prosecuted in federal court, not state court. After reviewing his case, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed that Shomo’s crime was indeed committed within the boundaries of the Choctaw Nation, and he meets the criteria to be regarded as an Indian for jurisdiction purposes. As the state did not have the authority to prosecute him for this crime, his conviction was deemed invalid, and thus, the court instructed the lower court to dismiss the case against him.

Continue ReadingF-2020-510

F-2017-635

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-635, Shaynna Lauren Sims appealed her conviction for several crimes, including knowingly concealing stolen property and first-degree burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgments and sentences against Sims, concluding that the State did not have jurisdiction to prosecute her. The situation involved a victim who was an enrolled member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and the crimes occurred within the Creek Nation's boundaries. Therefore, the case was remanded with instructions to dismiss the charges. One judge dissented, expressing a different opinion about the jurisdiction issues related to the case.

Continue ReadingF-2017-635

F-2018-1268

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-1268, Stewart Wayne Coffman appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented. Coffman was found guilty of First Degree Manslaughter, and the judge sentenced him to forty years in prison. He appealed his conviction, claiming that the court did not have the right to try him because the victim, Joe Battiest, Jr., was a member of the Choctaw Nation and the crime took place in Indian Country. The case was affected by a past ruling, McGirt v. Oklahoma, which stated that crimes on certain Native American lands fall under federal jurisdiction. The appellate court ordered a hearing to investigate Coffman's claims about the victim’s status and the crime's location. During this hearing, experts confirmed that Battiest had a majority of Indian blood and was recognized by the Choctaw Nation. The crime took place at a specific address that was within the historical boundaries of the Choctaw Nation. The district court found no evidence that Congress had ever removed those boundaries. After reviewing the evidence, the court decided that Coffman's case should be dismissed because Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him, in line with the earlier McGirt decision. Therefore, the court reversed the judgments and sentences of the lower court, ordering the case dismissed.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1268

F-2017-1294

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1294, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. The case involved Terrance Lucas Cottingham, who was found guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon after having been previously convicted of two or more felonies. The conviction took place in the District Court of Washington County, where he was sentenced to 25 years in prison. He would have to serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. Cottingham argued that the court did not have the right to prosecute him because of his status as a member of the Osage Nation and because the crime occurred in what he believed to be Indian Country, specifically the Cherokee Nation's boundaries. He cited a federal law and a Supreme Court decision, McGirt v. Oklahoma, to support his argument. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals decided to send Cottingham's case back to the lower court for a hearing to examine his Indian status and the location of the robbery. They said that Cottingham needed to show that he had Indian blood and was recognized as an Indian by the tribe or by the federal government. If he could prove this, then it would be up to the state to show that it had jurisdiction to prosecute him. During the hearing, Cottingham and the Cherokee Nation agreed on certain facts. They confirmed that he had a degree of Indian blood and was a member of the Osage Nation at the time of the robbery. They also agreed that the robbery happened within the geographic area defined by treaties establishing the Cherokee Nation. The court found that Cottingham was indeed a member of the Osage Nation and that the robbery occurred in Indian Country based on their analysis of the law and treaties. This evidence showed that the state of Oklahoma did not have the legal right to prosecute Cottingham for the crime. The appeals court ultimately agreed with the findings of the lower court and concluded that Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, they reversed Cottingham's conviction and instructed the District Court to dismiss the case. In summary, Cottingham's conviction was undone because it was determined that he was an Indian and that the crime took place in Indian Country. Consequently, the state court did not have the authority to prosecute him.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1294

F-2016-1030

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-1030, David Deval Martin appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for dismissal. No one dissented. David Deval Martin was found guilty of First Degree Murder after a jury trial in McIntosh County. The judge sentenced him to life in prison without the chance of parole. Martin argued that the court did not have the authority to try him because he is a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and the crime occurred on tribal land. The court looked at an important case called McGirt v. Oklahoma, which helped answer Martin’s questions about his status as an Indian and where the crime took place. They sent the case back to the local court for a closer look. There, it was determined through evidence that Martin is a member of the Creek Nation with some Indian blood, and the crime occurred within the Creek Nation’s territory. After the local court reviewed the evidence and found in favor of Martin, both sides agreed on important facts about his identity and where the crime occurred. Because of this, the higher court concluded that the state of Oklahoma did not have the right to prosecute Martin under these circumstances. As a result, they overturned the conviction and told the lower court to dismiss the charges against him.

Continue ReadingF-2016-1030

F-2017-357

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-357, Shawn Lee McDaniel appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence, remanding the matter with instructions to dismiss. The main issue in this case was whether the victim was considered an Indian under federal law and whether the crime took place in Indian country, which is defined as land within the boundaries of Indian reservations. Both questions were answered affirmatively. The court looked to a previous case, McGirt v. Oklahoma, which established that certain lands in Oklahoma were still recognized as Indian reservations under federal law. McDaniel’s appeal was based on the fact that the murder occurred within the historic boundaries of the Cherokee Nation and that the victim was a recognized member of the Cherokee Nation at the time of his death. The court remanded the case to a lower court, which found that both of these conditions were true, meaning federal, not state, authorities had jurisdiction over the case. The court’s decision concluded that since the crime fell under the federal jurisdiction, the state of Oklahoma did not have the authority to prosecute McDaniel. Consequently, the judgement was vacated, and the matter was directed to be dismissed. While most judges agreed with the results, there were dissenting opinions which expressed concern and highlighted issues within the majority opinion, particularly regarding its adherence to historical precedents and the implications of McGirt's ruling.

Continue ReadingF-2017-357

C-2019-263

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2019-263, Floyd Joseph Ball, Jr. appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree and Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have the right to prosecute Ball because he is considered an Indian under federal law, and the crimes occurred in Indian Country. The judgment and sentence were reversed, and the case was remanded to the District Court with orders to dismiss it. One judge dissented from this decision.

Continue ReadingC-2019-263

C-2019-853

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2019-853, the petitioner appealed his conviction for first degree murder and larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case involved a woman who entered a guilty plea for two crimes: first degree murder and larceny of merchandise. She was sentenced to life in prison for the murder and thirty days for the larceny, with both sentences running at the same time. Later, she wanted to change her guilty plea and filed a motion to withdraw it. During the appeal, one major issue raised was whether the State of Oklahoma had the right to prosecute her. The woman argued that the state didn’t have jurisdiction because of her status as a member of a federally recognized tribe and the nature of the crime being committed within the reservation boundaries. The court looked at a recent Supreme Court decision, McGirt v. Oklahoma, where it was determined that certain lands in Oklahoma are still recognized as Native American reservations. The court agreed with the petitioner about the jurisdiction issue. Both the petitioner and the state agreed on certain facts regarding her tribal membership and the location of the crime. Since the court found that the state did not have the right to prosecute the petitioner, it decided to vacate the earlier judgment and sentence. The decision meant that the petitioner would not face charges in state court but rather would need to be prosecuted in federal court because of her tribal affiliation and the location of the crime committed. This ruling highlighted the importance of understanding jurisdiction, especially when it involves Native American rights and lands.

Continue ReadingC-2019-853

F-2020-46

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2020-46, Robert William Perry, II appealed his conviction for five counts of sexual abuse of a child under 12. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case to the lower court with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Perry was originally found guilty and sentenced to lengthy prison terms, including life imprisonment. He claimed that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him for these crimes. This claim was supported by federal law and a recent Supreme Court decision. The court agreed to hold a hearing to look into Perry's status as an Indian and whether the crimes took place within the boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, which is a federally recognized tribe. During the hearing, both parties agreed on certain facts: Perry was a registered member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and had tribal blood, and the crimes occurred within that Nation's historical boundaries. The lower court found that Perry is considered an Indian under the law and confirmed that the crimes happened on the reservation. Following this, the appeals court determined that the state court did not have the authority to prosecute Perry based on the legal principles established in the recent Supreme Court case. Therefore, the appeal led to the decision to reverse Perry's conviction and dismiss the case.

Continue ReadingF-2020-46

F-2016-937

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-937, Erik Sherney Williams appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the district court did not have jurisdiction to try Williams for murder because of the victim's status as an Indian and the location of the crime being on the Muscogee Creek Nation Reservation. The court vacated the judgment and sentence and instructed to dismiss the case. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2016-937

F-2017-1186

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1186, Shannon James Kepler appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Kepler. The court found that he is an Indian and that the crime happened within the boundaries of the Muscogee Creek Nation Reservation. Therefore, the court granted his appeal and vacated the conviction. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1186

F-2018-78

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-78, Jordan Batice Mitchell appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him. This means that the court could not judge this case because it involved issues concerning his status as an Indian and the location of the crime being within the Muscogee Creek Reservation. The finding was based on a previous case, McGirt v. Oklahoma, which affected how certain crimes involving Native Americans are prosecuted. Consequently, the court vacated Mitchell's sentence and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it. There was a dissenting opinion regarding the decision, as one judge expressed concerns about the implications of the ruling.

Continue ReadingF-2018-78

F-2019-16

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOHNNY W. WARD,** Appellant, v. **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2019-16** **FILED DEC 12 2019** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Appellant Johnny W. Ward was tried by jury and found guilty of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon (Count I) (21 O.S.2011, § 652) and Possession of a Firearm (Count II) (21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 1283), both counts After Former Conviction of A Felony, in the District Court of Muskogee County, Case No. CF-2017-1155. The jury recommended as punishment imprisonment for thirty (30) years in Count I and ten (10) years in Count II. The trial court sentenced accordingly, ordering the sentences to be served concurrently. It is from this judgment and sentence that Appellant appeals. Appellant must serve 85% of his sentence in Count I before becoming eligible for consideration for parole. 21 O.S.2011, § 13.1. **Appellant raises the following propositions of error in support of his appeal:** 1. The eyewitness identification of Appellant was based upon an overly suggestive, one-man show-up that violated Appellant's rights to due process and a fair trial. 2. The State's evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed the crimes of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony Conviction and his convictions must therefore be reversed with instructions to dismiss. 3. Appellant's sentence is excessive and should be modified. After thorough consideration of these propositions and the entire record, we have determined that under the law and the evidence no relief is warranted. **Proposition I:** Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress the in-court identification made by Ms. Davidson after an on-the-scene one person show-up. Appellant argues the pre-trial identification was unnecessarily suggestive and tainted the subsequent identification of Appellant at trial. A one man show-up is not necessarily unduly suggestive or improper. Young v. State, 2000 OK CR 17, ¶ 30, 12 P.3d 20, 34. Absent special elements of unfairness, prompt on-the-scene confrontations [between a victim and a suspect] do not entail due process violations.... Harrolle v. State, 1988 OK CR 223, ¶ 7, 763 P.2d 126, 128, quoting Russell v. United States, 408 F.2d 1280, 1284 (D.C.Cir.1969). The one person show-up in this case was not unduly suggestive or so improper as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress the identification. However, even if the show-up was unduly suggestive, the same would not automatically invalidate the subsequent in-court identification if that identification can be established as independently reliable under the totality of the circumstances. Young, 2000 OK CR 17, ¶ 31, 12 P.3d at 34. Under the circumstances of this case, we find the in-court identification reliable. As the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing into evidence the in-court identification of Appellant, this proposition of error is denied. **Proposition II:** Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. He argues the State failed to show he had anything to do with the alleged crimes. Appellant asserts that the State's evidence showed only that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, evidence showed that Appellant shot his victim in the knee and buttock as the victim begged for his life. Appellant then ran away from the scene, discarding the gun he used and a hoodie he was wearing. Reviewing Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Mitchell v. State, 2018 OK CR 24, ¶ 11, 424 P.3d 677, 682. Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is denied. **Proposition III:** Appellant argues that his sentence is excessive and should be modified. He asserts that while his sentence is technically within the range provided by law, it does not bear a direct relationship to the nature and circumstances of the offenses. However, Appellant's sentences were within the applicable statutory range (21 O.S.2011, §§ 652(A), 1284 and 51.1(C)). This Court will not modify a sentence within the statutory range unless, considering all the facts and circumstances, it shocks the conscience. Pullen v. State, 2016 OK CR 18, ¶ 16, 387 P.3d 922, 928. The evidence showed that despite having a prior robbery conviction, Appellant was in possession of a gun, which he used to shoot the victim multiple times as the victim begged for his life. Under these circumstances, the 30 year and 10 year sentences are not excessive. Therefore, modification of the sentences is not warranted and this proposition is denied. Accordingly, this appeal is denied. **DECISION** The JUDGMENT and SENTENCE is AFFIRMED. 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 the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MUSKOGEE COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE THOMAS H. ALFORD, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** BRIAN WATTS 222 N. 4TH ST. MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** NICOLLETTE BRANDT OKLA. INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **ORVIL LOGE** DISTRICT ATTORNEY TIM KING ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY MUSKOGEE CO. COURTHOUSE MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **MIKE HUNTER** ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA CAROLINE E.J. HUNT ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21ST ST. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 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/F-2019-16_1734781599.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2019-16

F-2018-485

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-485, Scott Thomas Stout appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape and Sexual Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Scott Thomas Stout was found guilty by a jury in Kay County for forcing himself on a long-time friend and for sexual battery. The jury did not find him guilty of two other charges of Rape by Instrumentation. The judge sentenced him to twenty years for the rape charge and four years for the sexual battery charge, which he must serve consecutively. Furthermore, he must serve at least 85% of his sentence before being considered for parole. Stout raised two main points in his appeal. First, he argued that the prosecutor acted improperly and that these actions denied him a fair trial. Second, he claimed that the trial court made a mistake by allowing the prosecution to call a witness in the middle of his defense to present evidence. In the first point, Stout pointed out three specific issues with the prosecutor's conduct. He said the prosecutor tried to make the jury feel sorry for the victim, asked questions that seemed to give opinions on the victim's credibility, and used first names for witnesses inappropriately. The court looked at all of the evidence and determined that these actions did not distract from the overall fairness of the trial. The jury acquitted Stout on two of the charges and recommended lighter sentences for the others. Therefore, the court ruled that Stout did not experience unfairness due to prosecutorial misconduct. Regarding the second point in his appeal, Stout argued that it was wrong for the prosecutor to cause the defense to stop its case to bring in a detective to verify some evidence. The court noted that the prosecutor's interruption was related to a question raised by Stout's own lawyer and that the trial judge had acted fairly in allowing it. The judge ruled that this did not disrupt the trial's fairness. In conclusion, the court found no errors in how the trial was conducted and affirmed Stout's conviction, meaning the original decision stood.

Continue ReadingF-2018-485

F-2018-15

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-15, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of drugs causing great bodily injury, felony eluding, running a roadblock, and assault with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. The case involved Marcus Ray Smith, who was found guilty in a non-jury trial of several serious offenses related to a high-speed police chase. The judge sentenced Smith to ten years for some crimes and thirty years for others, but with some time suspended, allowing for parole. Smith appealed for multiple reasons. He argued that he was being punished too harshly for actions that were part of one event. According to the law, people usually can't be punished multiple times for the same act. However, the court found that the crimes he committed were separate incidents. For example, running a roadblock is recognized as a distinct crime, and his actions while fleeing from the police qualified as two separate acts that endangered others. Smith also claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he had intended to cause harm with his vehicle when he drove recklessly towards others. The court disagreed and stated that the way he drove clearly showed that he intended to hurt someone. Lastly, Smith said his lawyer didn't do a good job by not arguing about the double punishment issue during the trial. However, the court found that since his double punishment claim was not valid, there was no failure on his lawyer's part. In conclusion, the court upheld Smith's convictions, deciding he had received a fair trial and that his legal arguments were not strong enough to change the outcome.

Continue ReadingF-2018-15

RE-2018-644

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DUSTIN ARDELL CRUCE,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-644** **FILED APR 25 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** ROWLAND, JUDGE: This appeal arises from the revocation of Dustin Ardell Cruce’s suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2016-143, adjudicated by the Honorable Lawrence W. Parish. On February 22, 2017, Cruce entered a guilty plea to multiple charges, including Assault With a Dangerous Weapon and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, resulting in a total sentence of ten years for the most serious counts, suspended in part. On October 31, 2017, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence, citing Cruce's failure to pay ordered reimbursement fees and alleged new criminal activity. However, the State subsequently abandoned the new crime allegation as part of a plea agreement in a separate case, leaving only the failure to pay as the basis for revocation. At the revocation hearing on May 2, 2018, the trial court determined that Cruce had indeed violated his probation by failing to fulfill financial obligations. Despite Cruce's claims regarding his employment status and efforts to comply, he provided no evidence of bona fide attempts to make the required payments. The standard for revocation allows the State to meet its burden by a preponderance of the evidence, and one proven violation is sufficient to justify a full revocation of a suspended sentence. Judge Parish opted to revoke only half of Cruce's remaining suspended sentence, demonstrating leniency. Cruce’s appeal asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing revocation. However, as established in previous case law, including *Sparks v. State* and *Livingston v. State*, the court has broad discretion in these matters. The trial court was within its rights to revoke the suspension based on the stipulated violation of payment obligations. The decision of Judge Parish is affirmed, as Cruce has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2016-143 is AFFIRMED. **Legal Representation:** Counsel for Appellant: CURT ALLEN Counsel for Appellee: EMILY MUELLER, ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY **OPINION BY:** ROWLAND, J. **Concur:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J. (Concur in Results); LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.

Continue ReadingRE-2018-644

F-2017-1140

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1140, Michael Harold Denham appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Michael Harold Denham was found guilty of a crime related to domestic abuse. The jury, which is a group of people that decides if someone is guilty or not, recommended that he be sentenced to three years in prison. The judge who oversaw the trial followed this recommendation and also ordered that Denham pay some fees and receive credit for the time he had already spent in jail before the trial. Denham's appeal claimed that several mistakes had occurred during his trial. He listed five main points where he believed the trial had not been fair: 1. The trial court allowed the state to have an expert witness testify about domestic abuse. Denham argued that this was a mistake. 2. He said that one of the witnesses who testified about domestic violence was not properly qualified to do so. 3. Denham claimed that some evidence was admitted that should not have been according to the rules of evidence. 4. He argued that the court did not let his defense team ask questions about one juror, which meant they could not see if the juror was biased. 5. Finally, he said that all these mistakes happened together and made the whole trial unfair. The court looked closely at Denham's claims and the evidence from the trial. They decided that the court did not make errors that were significant enough to change the outcome of the trial. For the first point about the expert witness, the court ruled that Denham did not show why his defense would have benefited from having his own expert witness. His claim of needing a continuance (more time) to prepare for the trial was not justified because he could not show how it would have helped his case. For the second point, the court decided that the qualifications of the expert witness were acceptable. The judge found that the officer had enough training and experience in domestic violence matters to testify. Regarding the third point, Denham did not follow the right procedure to complain about the late disclosure of the expert witness. As a result, the court found no major violations that would affect the trial's fairness. For the fourth point, the court reviewed how the trial judge handled questions for the jurors. They found that the process was fair because the juror had given no indication beforehand that she would be biased. Lastly, for the fifth point about the overall fairness of the trial, the court did not agree that the combined claims could show any level of unfairness. They found no cumulative error that would merit a different outcome. In conclusion, the court upheld Denham's conviction, deciding that he received a fair trial and that the claims of error did not have enough merit to change the verdict. The appeal was denied, and the conviction was confirmed, meaning Denham would serve his sentence as decided by the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1140

F-2017-1270

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1270, Bryan James Abner appealed his conviction for several offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the decision to terminate him from drug court and sentence him according to the plea agreement. One judge dissented. Bryan James Abner was involved in multiple criminal cases related to theft, guns, drugs, and burglary. He was given the chance to join a Drug Court program to help him with his drug addiction instead of going straight to prison. However, if he did not follow the rules of the program, he would be sentenced for his crimes. Abner did well in the Drug Court for the first six months, but then he started to have problems. He tested positive for methamphetamine several times, had legal troubles, and missed appointments. The State's attorney asked to terminate him from the Drug Court because of these issues. During the hearing, witnesses testified about Abner's behavior. One officer found drugs on him, and a supervisor explained that Abner had many chances to improve but did not make enough progress. Abner's counselor testified that he had learned from some difficult experiences, including the death of his son, and asked for another chance in the program. The judge decided against Abner, saying that despite what the counselor said, Abner's problems continued. She noted that he had broken the rules of the Drug Court many times and had not responded to the chances he had been given. In summary, the court ruled that Abner needed to be removed from the Drug Court program for not following the rules, and he was sentenced based on his plea agreement. The court found that the evidence supported this decision, and there was no abuse of discretion by the judge.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1270

S-2016-1126

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-1126, David James Miller appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to dismiss the appeal. No one dissented. In this case, the State charged the defendant with a serious crime after an incident where he allegedly shot someone. The defendant argued that he acted in self-defense. He wanted the court to believe that he should not be punished for what he did because he was protecting himself. During a hearing, the defendant provided his explanation, while the State presented evidence to counter his claims. The court listened to both sides and eventually agreed with the defendant, deciding that he was immune from prosecution based on self-defense laws. This ruling meant that the case against him could not continue. The State did not agree with the court's decision and decided to appeal. They believed that the judge did not consider their evidence properly and that the ruling was unfair. However, when the appeal was reviewed, the court found that the State did not show clear legal reasons for their complaint. The judges noted that the lower court had allowed the State to present their evidence and arguments. In the end, the court concluded that this was not a matter they could reconsider as it had to do with factual evidence rather than legal issues. Because of this, the court dismissed the State's appeal.

Continue ReadingS-2016-1126

F-2015-155

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-155, Sauter appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and burglary in the first degree. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction due to insufficient evidence. One judge dissented. Sauter was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Nowata County and was sentenced to a total of forty-seven years in prison along with fines. The evidence presented during the trial primarily came from two accomplices, Welsh and Fulcher. Sauter argued that since these accomplices’ testimonies were not supported by independent evidence, his convictions should not stand. The court explained that under Oklahoma law, the testimony of an accomplice cannot solely support a conviction unless there is other evidence that connects the defendant to the crime. The court found that while there was evidence linking Sauter’s vehicle to the crimes, there was no evidence that directly implicated Sauter himself. Since the only evidence against Sauter came from the testimonies of Welsh and Fulcher, which lacked corroboration, the court had to reverse the convictions. The dissenting judge felt there was enough independent evidence connecting Sauter to the crimes, particularly the fact that Sauter's car was used and that he had been seen driving it shortly before the home invasion. This judge believed that the jury could conclude Sauter was complicit in the robbery and burglary based on the evidence presented.

Continue ReadingF-2015-155

RE 2014-0706

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2014-0706, Sean Eddie Howland appealed his conviction for possessing a stolen vehicle and obstructing an officer. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of Howland's suspended sentence and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Howland had pled guilty to the charges in 2009 and was given a suspended sentence that included time in jail and fines. He was supposed to follow rules while on probation. However, the State accused him of not staying in touch with his probation officer after he got out of prison in New Mexico. In 2011, Howland admitted to the allegations, and the judge gave him more time to comply with the probation rules. When Howland didn't show up for a review hearing later, the judge revoked his suspended sentence in 2014. Howland then argued that he didn’t get good help from his lawyer during the revocation process and that the delays were unfair. The State also admitted that the delays hurt Howland's case. After looking at everything, the court agreed with Howland and decided to reverse the revocation. The case was sent back to the lower court to dismiss the revocation.

Continue ReadingRE 2014-0706

S-2013-315

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-315, David Johns appealed his conviction for larceny. In a published decision, the court decided that a trial court cannot modify the terms and conditions of a negotiated deferred judgment without the consent of the State. The case involved Johns, who had entered a guilty plea and was placed on deferred judgment for five years. He filed a motion to change the terms of his deferred judgment, and the trial court agreed to shorten it and dismiss the case, which the State appealed. The court explained that under current laws, the trial court does not have the authority to shorten the deferment period once a plea agreement is in place. This ruling was made to prevent issues that could discourage prosecutors from agreeing to deferred judgments in the future. The court emphasized that any changes to the terms of a deferred judgment must follow statutory guidelines, and the trial court may only act when the conditions are met at the end of the deferment period. It upheld the idea that modifying an agreement without proper authority is not allowed. Therefore, the original decision to cut Johns' probation short was not supported by the law. The court's answer to the reserved question of law confirmed that the trial court was not authorized to cut short the period of deferment after the terms of the plea agreement had been established. #n dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2013-315

F 2012-639

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2012-639, Marty Lee Langley appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Langley was found guilty of lewd molestation after a jury trial in Marshall County. The incident involved two separate and unrelated claims of molestation, but the jury was instructed that they could convict Langley based on either act. Langley argued that this was unfair because the jury should have agreed on one specific act. The court agreed that this was a significant error, stating that all jurors must be on the same page about which act they are considering when deciding a case. Additionally, the prosecutor made comments during closing arguments that suggested the jury should convict Langley to prevent him from harming other children in the future. The court found this to be improper as it is not right to convict someone based on the idea that they might commit future crimes. While Langley had other claims about the fairness of his trial and the effectiveness of his legal counsel, the court determined that the main issue had to do with the way the jury was instructed and the prosecutor's comments. Because of these errors, Langley's original trial was deemed unfair, leading to the decision for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2012-639

S-2012-244

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-244, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Sonya Renee Wichert for unlawful purchase of pseudoephedrine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the case against Wichert. One judge dissented. Wichert faced eleven counts related to breaking the Meth Registry Act, which had come into effect on November 1, 2010. She had a previous conviction for possession of methamphetamine and was on probation. The case stemmed from an investigation that revealed she purchased pseudoephedrine after the law took effect, leading to her arrest. At her preliminary hearing, Wichert argued that the law shouldn't apply to her because her conviction happened before the law was in place. The judge agreed with her, stating there could be serious problems with fairness if the law was applied to her without her having been informed of it. Because of this lack of notice about the new law, the district court decided to dismiss the charges. The court referenced a previous case, Wolf v. State, which established that individuals who are on probation when a law takes effect must be notified if it affects them. Without proper notice regarding the Meth Registry Act, the court ruled that it would not be fair to hold Wichert accountable under this law. Thus, the overall decision was to uphold the dismissal of her case because applying the law without notification did not meet the necessary fairness requirements.

Continue ReadingS-2012-244

F-2010-99

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2010-99