Punishment Range

F-2018-1023

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CAMERON LEE SCHEMMER,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. F-2018-1023** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAN 23 2020** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Appellant, Cameron Lee Schemmer, was tried by the court and convicted of Count 1, Forcible Sodomy, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 888, and Counts 2-4, Lewd Molestation, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1123, in Kingfisher County District Court, Case No. CF-2017-96. The trial court sentenced Appellant to twenty years imprisonment with all but the last five years suspended for Count 1. For Counts 2-4, the court sentenced him to twenty-five years imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently to one another but consecutively to the sentence for Count 1. As a result, Appellant will be required to serve 85% of his sentences before becoming eligible for parole, as per 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1. From this judgment and sentence, Appellant appeals, raising the following propositions of error: **I.** The record in this case does not sufficiently demonstrate that Appellant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. **II.** Mr. Schemmer received an excessive sentence when the trial court followed the wrong sentencing statute. Upon thorough consideration of these propositions and the entire record, including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we find no relief is warranted under the law and evidence presented. **Proposition I:** Appellant argues that the record is insufficient to support a finding that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. Since he did not object before the non-jury trial, we review this claim for plain error, as established in *Simpson v. State*, 1994 OK CR 40, 876 P.2d 690. Plain error requires that Appellant demonstrate an actual error that is plain or obvious and affects substantial rights. A defendant may waive their right to a jury trial, but the waiver must be knowingly, competently, and intelligently made. The record shows that prior to trial, the court engaged in a colloquy with Appellant regarding his jury trial waiver. Appellant confirmed his satisfaction with his attorney and expressly indicated his desire to waive the jury trial right. This established a knowing and intelligent waiver by Appellant. Therefore, we deny this proposition as the trial court's assessment was in compliance with the law. **Proposition II:** Appellant contends his sentence is illegal because the Information alleged that R.N. was a child under sixteen, not under twelve. Thus, Appellant argues that the sentencing range should have been from one or three years to twenty years instead of a minimum of twenty-five years, as required when the child is under the age of twelve. Since Appellant failed to object at sentencing, we again look for plain error. The Information indicated that R.N. was under the age of sixteen at the time of the offenses, and the evidence revealed she was ten years old when the abuse began and eleven when it ceased. Appellant was charged under 21 O.S.2011, § 1123(A), which necessitates a minimum of twenty-five years imprisonment when the child is under twelve years of age. A court in a non-jury trial retains the presumption of knowing the law correctly. The facts show that R.N. was indeed under twelve when the offenses occurred, and the court found this circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the claim of an illegal sentence based on an erroneous application of the statute is without merit. **DECISION:** The **JUDGMENT and SENTENCE is AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the **MANDATE is ORDERED issued** upon this ruling. **APPEARANCES:** **Trial Counsel:** Blayne Allsup **Appellate Counsel for Appellant:** Cindy Brown Danner **Counsel for State:** John Salmon, Assistant District Attorney, and Theodore M. Peepers, Assistant Attorney General. **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE:** CONCURS **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur in Result **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J., CONCURRING IN RESULT:** While I concur with the outcomes reached, I note a discrepancy in the standard of review applied to Proposition I. The burden rests with the State to prove any constitutional error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as highlighted in *Chadwell v. State* and *Chapman v. California*. The majority's application of the plain error standard does not recognize this shifting burden adequately. **[Document ends here]**

Continue ReadingF-2018-1023

F-2017-1142

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1142, Daniel Ryan Chadwell appealed his conviction for forty counts of Lewd Acts with a Child Under 16. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Chadwell's judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Chadwell was found guilty by a jury of many serious offenses. He was accused of committing inappropriate acts with children who were under the age of 16. The jury decided he should spend a very long time in prison, giving him a total of several hundred years in sentences. He did not get found guilty on two of the counts. Chadwell's appeal included two main arguments. First, he claimed the jury received wrong instructions about how to decide his punishment. Specifically, he argued that the instructions mentioned the punishment for crimes against children under 12, which was not applicable to his case since he was charged with acts involving children under 16. The court found that while the instructions did have an error, the mistake was not serious enough to change the outcome. They noted that all the child victims were proven to be under 12 at the time of the crimes, so the error was harmless. Second, Chadwell argued that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial, which made it impossible for him to have a fair chance. However, the court looked at what happened during the entire trial and found that these actions did not make the trial unfair either. In the end, the court decided that Chadwell's appeal did not provide enough reason to change the original decision. Therefore, his sentences remained as decided by the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1142

C-2015-1057

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-1057, Steven Casey Jones appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition and allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Here’s a simpler breakdown of what happened in this case: Steven Casey Jones was charged with robbery involving a dangerous weapon. He decided to plead guilty to this charge as part of an agreement, thinking he would get a lighter sentence. However, after he pleaded guilty, he felt that he had been given wrong information about the punishment he could face. Jones said that his attorney told him the minimum punishment was twenty years in prison, but he later found out that it was actually less. Because of this wrong information, he felt he had to plead guilty to a fifteen-year sentence, which was still longer than what it should have been. He later tried to take back his guilty plea, but this was denied. So, he appealed the decision in court, wanting to show that his plea was not made with the correct information. The court reviewed the entire case, including what Jones and his attorney had discussed. It turned out that the attorney's mistake about the punishment range was significant. The State also agreed that this error could have influenced Jones's decision. Due to this mistake, the court decided to let Jones withdraw his guilty plea and go back to the start of his case. This meant he would have another chance to present his arguments about the robbery charge without the misunderstanding affecting him. After considering everything, the court decided to grant Jones's petition, which means they agreed with him and wanted to fix the mistake. The case was sent back to the lower court to allow Jones to withdraw his plea.

Continue ReadingC-2015-1057

F-2015-531

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-53, Dennis Ray Runnels appealed his conviction for Unlawful Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Runnels was convicted after a jury trial, where he was found guilty of distributing meth. The trial court sentenced him to 19 years imprisonment, with one year of post-imprisonment supervision, and ordered him to pay a fee for a court-appointed attorney and other costs. Runnels raised several issues in his appeal. First, he claimed that the state did not show a complete chain of custody for the meth. The court found that there was enough evidence for the jury to decide that Runnels was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also determined that Runnels had not shown any plain error regarding this issue. Second, Runnels argued that the state did not provide enough evidence to support his conviction. However, the court ruled there was sufficient evidence, including testimony and recordings from a controlled buy, for the jury to reach their conclusion. Third, he claimed the state failed to provide evidence that could have helped his case. He said the prosecutor did not correct a witness’s false testimony about prior convictions. The court found no wrongdoing by the state and ruled that Runnels had not shown how this affected the trial's outcome. In his fourth claim, Runnels argued that the jury was incorrectly instructed on punishment. The court agreed and found it was a plain error, which required modification of his sentence. Runnels also claimed the jury was led to think about probation and parole during the trial, but since the punishment was modified based on the previous claim, this point became moot. Regarding the claim that his sentence was excessive, the court agreed that it should be modified due to the instructional error and reduced it to 10 years with the same supervision and fees. Runnels also said his attorney was ineffective in several ways. However, the court found that these claims were moot because of the prior decision to modify his sentence. Lastly, Runnels asked the court to look at the overall errors during his trial to see if they denied him a fair outcome. The court determined that since they did not find any sustained errors, this request was denied. In conclusion, Runnels's conviction was upheld, but his sentence was reduced to 10 years in prison with supervision, and he will still pay the attorney fees and costs.

Continue ReadingF-2015-531

F-2012-914

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-914, Bradley Joe Raymond appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Domestic Abuse in the Presence of a Minor, and Domestic Abuse by Strangulation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for one count. One judge dissented. Raymond was found guilty of three serious crimes connected with domestic violence. After the trial in McCurtain County, the jury decided that he should spend life in prison for each count. However, the judge decided that Raymond's sentences for two of the counts would be served at the same time, while the sentence for the third count would be served after the first two. Raymond's appeal included questions about whether the jury received the correct instructions regarding his possible punishments given his past crimes and whether certain evidence presented during the trial might have harmed him. The court found that the jury instructions relating to his first and third counts were correct but that there was a mistake concerning the instructions for the second count of Domestic Abuse in the Presence of a Minor. For the second count, the law at the time stated that certain punishments were not allowed if the crime was a second or later offense. Since the sentencing guidelines given to the jury were incorrect, Raymond’s sentence for that count was changed from life in prison to five years in prison, while the sentences for the other counts remained the same. The appeals court also addressed a concern that some evidence presented during the trial might have caused unfair prejudice to Raymond. After reviewing the evidence, the court determined that it did not find any significant error as it did not affect the overall outcome of the case. The court ultimately confirmed the convictions for the first and third counts and changed the sentence for the second count, ensuring that Raymond would serve five years instead of life for that specific offense.

Continue ReadingF-2012-914

F-2012-08

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-08, Ralph T. Smith, Jr. appealed his conviction for kidnapping, first-degree robbery, attempted rape, forcible sodomy, first-degree rape, and unlawful possession of a controlled drug. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence on Count I to ten years imprisonment and to remove post-imprisonment supervision from Counts III, IV, and V. One judge dissented. **Summary of the Case:** Ralph T. Smith, Jr. was found guilty of serious crimes against a 76-year-old woman, R.C., after they met at a casino. Smith initiated a friendly interaction with R.C., who ended up offering him a ride. However, he then assaulted her and committed various violent acts, including attempted rape, forcible sodomy, and robbery. The jury sentenced Smith to long prison terms for each conviction. **Key Facts:** - During a day at the casino, Smith befriended R.C. and, after some time, manipulated her into giving him a ride. - Smith then forcibly assaulted R.C. at her house and later at a motel. - After the incident, R.C. reported the crime to her family and the police. **Legal Issues:** 1. **Speedy Trial**: Smith argued that his right to a speedy trial was violated according to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. The court reviewed the timeline of events and denied his claim, stating that the time delays were justified. 2. **Sentencing Instructions**: Smith contested that the jury was improperly instructed about the potential punishment. The court agreed there was an error and modified the sentences accordingly. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: He claimed that he did not get adequate legal representation, particularly related to the sentencing instructions. The court noted that this claim was valid but remedied through the sentence modifications. 4. **Prosecutorial Misconduct**: Smith argued that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments were inappropriate. The court found the comments were not severe enough to undermine the fairness of the trial. 5. **Jurisdiction**: Smith questioned whether the court had jurisdiction over some charges since the crimes occurred in different counties. The court ruled that jurisdiction was proper because the kidnapping and subsequent crimes were closely connected. 6. **Pro Se Brief**: Smith attempted to submit additional complaints without sufficient support from his attorney. The court denied this attempt due to failure to follow proper procedures. In conclusion, while Smith's sentence modification was granted throughout the appeals process, the court maintained that he was rightly convicted and that the initial trial was fair despite some errors.

Continue ReadingF-2012-08

C-2012-686

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2012-686, Joseph Dewayne Conner appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery and First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal regarding the robbery conviction, but granted it concerning the burglary conviction. The court found that Conner had been misinformed about the possible sentence for burglary, which affected his decision to plead guilty. Although Conner’s actual sentence was within the correct range, the incorrect information he received could have influenced his plea. #n dissented on the decision regarding the robbery conviction.

Continue ReadingC-2012-686

F-2006-854

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-854, Delbert L. Gibson appealed his conviction for two counts of lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence to twenty-five years imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently. One judge dissented. Gibson was found guilty of sexually fondling two young girls, aged thirteen and eleven, in September 2002. During the incident, Gibson followed the older girl into a bedroom and began to fondle her. The younger girl was also fondled shortly after. The girls told their mother about the incident and reported it to the police. Gibson raised four main points of error during his appeal. The first claimed he did not receive a speedy trial. The court looked at how long he waited for the trial, why there was a delay, whether he asked for a quick trial, and if the delay harmed his case. Gibson was charged in November 2002 but was not arrested until March 2005, with the trial occurring in June 2006. The court found that even though the delay seemed long, Gibson did not complain about it before the trial, which hurt his argument. Therefore, the court believed he was not denied a speedy trial. Gibson's second point was about other-crimes evidence that was presented during his trial. The state brought up a past incident where Gibson had fondled a ten-year-old girl while working as a school photographer twenty years earlier. The court agreed that this evidence was probably not properly connected to the current case but felt it did not significantly impact the jury’s decision, especially since the two young girls provided strong testimonies. In his third point, Gibson argued the jury was incorrectly instructed on the penalties for his crimes. He believed that the law didn’t support a mandatory life sentence without parole based on the charges brought against him. The court analyzed the laws and determined that the proper penalties did not include mandatory life sentences, leading them to modify his sentence instead. Finally, Gibson claimed that all these problems together denied him a fair trial. Since the court found no major errors, the cumulative effect claim was also denied. Overall, the court upheld Gibson's conviction for molestation, but changed his sentence to a total of twenty-five years in prison instead of life without parole.

Continue ReadingF-2006-854

F-2003-673

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-673, Booker James Johnson, Jr., appealed his conviction for procuring a minor to participate in the preparation of obscene material and possession of child pornography. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences. One judge dissented. Johnson was found guilty of two serious crimes by a jury in Tulsa County. The jury decided he should go to prison for twenty years for the first conviction and pay a fine of $25,000 for the second. He didn't agree with this and appealed. Johnson claimed there were several problems during his trial. First, he said it was unfair to make him defend against both charges in the same trial. He believed that separate trials would have been better. He also argued that the instructions given to the jury about how to decide his punishment were wrong because they used the wrong law for his first charge. Johnson said he should only serve ten years for that charge instead of twenty based on this mistake. For the second charge, Johnson claimed he should have been charged under a different statute that better fit the crime. As a result, the fine for this charge should have been lower, at $5,000 instead of $25,000. Johnson also argued that his right to a fair trial was damaged by a statement made by the prosecutor during closing arguments, suggesting that both charges should be considered together. He felt that this was unfair and went against his rights. Additionally, Johnson said his lawyer did not help him enough, which made his trial unfair. Finally, he complained that he did not have access to important evidence needed for his defense. The court reviewed all of Johnson's claims. They decided that it was not a big mistake for the trial judge to keep both charges together. However, they did agree that the jury was instructed incorrectly about the first charge, and thus modified the punishment to ten years. For the second charge, they recognized that Johnson should have been charged under a more specific statute, so they also corrected the fine to $5,000. In the end, the court kept Johnson's conviction for both crimes but changed his sentence to ten years in prison for the first charge and a $5,000 fine for the second charge, with some paperwork corrections needed to officially note these changes.

Continue ReadingF-2003-673

F-2002-899

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-899, Edward John VanWoundenberg appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence (DUI) after having two or more previous convictions. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. VanWoundenberg was found guilty of DUI in a trial where a jury sentenced him to twenty years in prison. He raised several arguments in his appeal. He argued there were mistakes in the jury instructions, his sentence should be changed, a clerical error needed to be fixed, and that the combined effect of all the mistakes denied him a fair trial. The court reviewed all the information from the trial. It decided that VanWoundenberg’s case did not need to be reversed or changed, but there was a clerical mistake in the court documents that had to be corrected. The court found that the evidence did not support giving the jury instructions about lesser charges, and so the trial court acted correctly by not providing those instructions. VanWoundenberg also argued that his felony DUI sentence should not have been increased under a general law since it had already been raised under a specific DUI law due to his previous offenses. The court explained that it was legal to enhance (or increase) his sentence using a general law because he had many previous different felony convictions within the required time. The court pointed out that one of VanWoundenberg's arguments was mistaken; the rules allowed for both the specific and general laws to apply in his case. Finally, the court amended the total costs listed in the original court documents to a lesser amount due to a fee that should not have been included. In the end, the court confirmed VanWoundenberg's conviction and corrected the clerical error, but found no other issues that needed to change the outcome of the case.

Continue ReadingF-2002-899

F 2002-175

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-175, James Dale Vaughn appealed his conviction for Trafficking Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for one of the counts. One judge dissented. Vaughn was found guilty of several charges after a police search of his home revealed drugs and a firearm. The police had a search warrant based on information from a confidential informant who claimed Vaughn was selling methamphetamine. During the search, officers discovered methamphetamine in various amounts, drug paraphernalia, and a firearm. Vaughn argued that the search warrant was improperly issued because it relied on hearsay from the informant that was not verified. The court found that there was enough information to justify the warrant and allowed the evidence found during the search to be admitted in court. Additionally, Vaughn claimed the trial court should have required the state to reveal the informant's identity. However, the court decided that the informant's identity was not relevant to Vaughn's defense, and so did not need to be disclosed. Finally, Vaughn argued that the jury was not properly instructed on the possible punishment for one of his charges. The court agreed that the instruction was incorrect and reduced the sentence for that particular charge, while upholding the convictions for the other charges. Thus, the overall decision allowed the convictions to stand, but changed the punishment for one count.

Continue ReadingF 2002-175