Rape in the Second Degree Archives

RE-2018-249

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

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CAMERON CLEO GIVENS,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-249** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 16, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Appellant Cameron Cleo Givens appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2003-2422, overseen by Judge Glenn M. Jones. On February 2, 2005, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to multiple counts, including four counts of Rape in the Second Degree and three counts of Forcible Oral Sodomy. He was sentenced to prison terms, with most of the sentences suspended, leading to an effective agreement of concurrent sentences. On May 2, 2017, the State filed an Amended Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence, alleging several violations, including failure to report to his probation officer, non-compliance with the Sex Offender Registration Act, and new crimes committed in two other cases. After the revocation hearing, Judge Jones revoked Appellant's suspended sentence in full. **Proposition I:** Appellant contends he was denied adequate opportunity to request discovery regarding Officer O'Connor's testimony. However, he was given notice about Officer O'Connor's potential testimony and did not establish a right to further discovery. The proposition is deemed meritless. **Proposition II:** Appellant asserts that it was improper to admit and rely on the preliminary hearing transcript from Case No. CF-2016-9187 for the revocation. The standards of due process allow for such admission without requiring proof of a witness's unavailability when the defendant had the chance to confront the witness in prior hearings. His objections are similarly without merit, as the case law indicates that competent evidence supported the revocation independent of the contested transcript. **Conclusion:** A suspended sentence is a grace extended by the court. The State need only prove one violation to justify a full revocation of a suspended sentence. In this case, the trial court's decision was within its discretion and supported by competent evidence. **Decision:** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2003-2422 is **AFFIRMED**. ADDITIONAL NOTES: The opinion was filed by Judge Lumpkin, with concurrence from Presiding Judge Lewis, Vice-Presiding Judge Kuehn, and Judges Hudson and Rowland. **Mandate ordered upon filing.** **Counsel for Appellant:** Katie Samples and Johanna F. Roberts, Assistant Public Defenders, Oklahoma City, OK. **Counsel for Appellee:** Jessica Foster, Assistant District Attorney, and Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK. **For complete judicial proceedings, refer to the downloadable PDF.** [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-249_1734697863.pdf) --- *This document summarizes the judicial opinion concerning the revocation of Cameron Cleo Givens' suspended sentences following probation violations and provides insights on the legal rationale behind the court's decision.*

RE-2014-371

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 6, 2016
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-371, Holland appealed his conviction for Rape in the Second Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation order regarding his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Holland pleaded guilty to a crime and received a sentence that included five years of imprisonment, but with some of that time suspended as long as he followed rules set by the court. However, he did not follow these rules, such as reporting to his probation officer and attending required treatment. Because of this, the court revoked his suspended sentence and ordered him to serve the full five years. Holland felt the punishment was too harsh and claimed he had tried to follow the rules. He argued that he should not have to serve the full five years because only a part of that sentence was supposed to be enforced. The court looked carefully at his claims. They found that Holland had not fully complied with the rules he agreed to follow, and therefore, they believed the judge was correct in deciding to revoke his suspension. However, they agreed that the judge had made an error when stating he had to serve five years in prison since he had already served part of that time. Ultimately, the court decided to change the revocation order so that Holland would only need to serve four years and eleven months, which is the remaining part of his original sentence. The court confirmed their decision and instructed the District Court to make the necessary changes.

C-2008-1155

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 2, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2008-1155, Sean Phillip Gillen appealed his conviction for Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance to a Minor, Rape in the Second Degree, Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Obstructing an Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the appeal for three of the counts but allowed Gillen to withdraw his plea for the fourth count. One judge dissented. Gillen had entered guilty pleas to all counts in a previous court. He was given ten years in prison for the first two counts and one year for the last two counts, all to be served at the same time. After some time, Gillen wanted to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming various issues, including that he was not competent to make the plea, and that he did not have good legal help. The court looked at several issues. It found that Gillen was competent to enter his guilty plea because he had previously been deemed competent only a few months before. The judge in the initial court talked with Gillen, and Gillen understood what he was pleading guilty to. Also, since his lawyer did not question Gillen’s competence during the plea hearing, the court believed it was acceptable to keep the plea. However, when considering the plea for the count of Obstructing an Officer, the court found that there was not enough evidence to support this charge. The record showed that when asked if a runaway was inside the house, Gillen first said no but then admitted that the runaway was there. The court couldn’t see this as a clear act of obstruction. On the other issues, the court found that Gillen's pleas to the other counts were made knowingly and willingly. It rejected Gillen's claims that he did not have good legal help and that his sentence was too harsh. The court ruled that the ten-year sentence for his serious charges was not shocking and was appropriate. In summary, the court decided that Gillen could not take back his pleas for the first three counts but could withdraw his guilty plea for the fourth count, which was about obstructing an officer. The dissenting judge believed that Gillen should have a hearing to discuss whether he really understood what it meant to plead guilty without a deal, considering his past mental health issues.