Remand

F-2021-1220

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-1220, Aaron Struble appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the case for resentencing to fifty years imprisonment, as originally assessed by the jury. One judge dissented. Struble was found guilty by a jury, which sentenced him to fifty years in prison. However, the trial court changed this sentence to life in prison, stating that the fifty years exceeded the maximum allowed. This was incorrect, as the fifty-year sentence was valid. The court acknowledged that the jury did not exceed the legal limits, and that the trial court’s change to life imprisonment was a mistake. Therefore, the case was sent back for proper sentencing. Struble also claimed that the prosecutor’s questions aimed at making the victim seem more sympathetic affected his right to a fair trial. However, since there were no objections during the trial to these questions, the court only looked for plain error. They determined that no major error had occurred in this matter. In summary, the court upheld the jury's conviction but pointed out the wrongfulness of the life sentence imposed by the trial court, sending the case back for the jury's original sentence to take effect.

Continue ReadingF-2021-1220

F-2021-785

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-785, Kyle Robert Forsyth appealed his conviction for sexual battery and larceny of merchandise from a retailer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Forsyth's conviction but remanded the case for a hearing to determine whether he should receive credit for time served in jail. One justice dissented. Forsyth was tried without a jury and found guilty of sexual battery and larceny. The judge gave him a ten-year sentence for the sexual battery and thirty days in jail for the larceny, with the sentences to run one after the other. Forsyth argued that his rights were violated because the same judge presided over both the preliminary hearing and the trial, which he claimed broke the two-judge rule in legal procedures. However, the court found that the judge listed on the preliminary hearing was not the one who actually presided over it, so there was no error. Forsyth also argued that he should have received credit for the time he stayed in jail before sentencing. He was unable to pay bail and was in jail for nearly ten months. His lawyer pointed out that it is unfair to make someone serve a longer sentence just because they cannot afford to pay bail. The court agreed that this issue of credit for time served needed more examination. They sent the case back to see if there were other reasons that kept Forsyth in jail other than his inability to pay bail. Overall, the court upheld Forsyth’s convictions but wanted to further investigate whether he should get credit for the time he had already spent in jail.

Continue ReadingF-2021-785

C-2021-163

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2021-163, April Dawn Summers appealed her conviction for child abuse, child neglect, and enabling child abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court denied her appeal. One judge dissented. Summers was charged in Grady County with several serious offenses related to child abuse. She decided to plead guilty to these charges in December 2019. The judge accepted her plea but decided to wait to give her a sentence until a presentence investigation report was completed. In January 2021, after looking at evidence and hearing from lawyers, the judge sentenced Summers to fifty years in prison for each charge. However, she only had to serve twenty-five years, as the rest of her sentence was suspended. After sentencing, Summers wanted to change her guilty plea and claimed that she didn’t fully understand what she was doing when she pleaded guilty. She argued that her plea was not made knowingly or willingly, and she did not grasp the full consequences. She also said that she should not have to pay for the costs of her incarceration because of her mental health issues. The court reviewed her case and found that her plea was made voluntarily. They determined that she understood the charges and the risks of her guilty plea. Therefore, the court did not believe there was a reason to let her take back her plea. Regarding the costs of her incarceration, the court noted that Summers didn’t raise this issue when she tried to withdraw her plea. However, they acknowledged that her mental health might exempt her from such costs. Thus, they decided to investigate whether she is indeed considered mentally ill under the law, which could mean that she wouldn't have to pay. In summary, the court decided to keep her guilty plea in place, but they also said that it needs to be checked whether she qualifies as mentally ill to decide if she should be charged for her time in prison. The case was sent back to the lower court for further decisions on her mental health status.

Continue ReadingC-2021-163

C-2020-668

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2020-668, Jeffrey Montrell Alexander McClellan appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the lower court's order denying McClellan's application to withdraw his guilty plea and remanded the case for a new hearing with conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented. McClellan had entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to twelve years in prison and fined one thousand dollars. Later, he wrote a letter to the court saying he wanted to appeal because he believed he didn’t have proper legal help. The court treated this letter as a request to withdraw his guilty plea, but this request was denied. McClellan’s main argument was that he was not given effective assistance of counsel, especially at the hearing where he wanted to withdraw his plea. He said that the attorney who was supposed to help him at the hearing had represented him during the plea, creating a conflict of interest. The court agreed with him, saying that defendants have a right to a lawyer who can represent their interests without any conflicts. Since McClellan’s attorney did not actively defend him during the hearing and was the same attorney who represented him at the plea, the court found this to be a problem. As a result, the court ordered that McClellan gets a new hearing to discuss withdrawing his guilty plea, but this time with a different attorney who has no conflicting interests.

Continue ReadingC-2020-668

F-2017-991

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-991, Laurie Jean Martin appealed her conviction for Misdemeanor Manslaughter in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute her because she is a member of the Choctaw Nation and the crime occurred within the boundaries of the Chickasaw Reservation. The court reversed Martin’s conviction and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it.

Continue ReadingF-2017-991

F-2019-196

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-196, Dakota Shay Fox appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Fox, and therefore, the case was reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2019-196

F-2019-115

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-115, Beck appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including First Degree Burglary and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have the authority to prosecute him because he is recognized as an Indian and the crimes occurred in what is considered Indian Country. The result was that Beck's convictions were overturned, and the case was sent back with instructions to dismiss the charges. There was a dissenting opinion regarding the application of the law.

Continue ReadingF-2019-115

F-2018-830

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-830, Charles Michael Cooper appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder, First Degree Arson, First Degree Burglary, and Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Cooper because he is an enrolled member of the Chickasaw Nation and the crimes occurred within the boundaries of the Chickasaw Nation Reservation. The judgment and sentence were vacated, and the matter was remanded with instructions to dismiss the case. A Judge dissented regarding the conclusion about the Chickasaw Reservation's status.

Continue ReadingF-2018-830

F-2017-1245

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1245, Jeffery Arch Jones appealed his conviction for five counts of Sexual Abuse-Child Under 12. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him because he is a member of the Cherokee Nation, and the crimes occurred within the boundaries of the Creek Reservation. The conviction and sentence were reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1245

F-2017-889

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-889, Joseph Stanley Harjo appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case to the District Court of Muskogee County with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Harjo was convicted in a trial where the jury sentenced him to life imprisonment. He argued that the court did not have the right to try him because he is a member of the Creek Nation, and the crime occurred within the Creek Reservation. This raised important questions about whether he is legally recognized as an Indian and if the crime took place on tribal land. The case was sent back to the District Court for a fact-finding hearing, where it was determined that Harjo is 1/4 Indian blood, a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and that the crime took place within the jurisdiction of the tribe. Both parties agreed on these facts, leading the District Court to conclude that the state did not have the authority to prosecute Harjo. After careful review of the case and the findings from the evidentiary hearing, the court determined that Harjo was indeed an Indian under federal law, and the crime occurred in Indian Country. Therefore, the state had no jurisdiction over the case. The court reversed the judgment and sent the case back to be dismissed.

Continue ReadingF-2017-889

F-2019-68

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-68, Johnny Edward Mize, II appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter (Heat of Passion). In a published decision, the court decided that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Mize. Mize had claimed that the State of Oklahoma did not have the authority to prosecute him because the victim was part of a federally recognized tribe and the crime occurred within a reservation. The court supported this claim after an evidentiary hearing, confirming that the victim had Indian status and that the crime happened in the boundaries of the Muscogee Creek Reservation. As a result, the original judgment and sentence were vacated, and the matter was sent back to the district court with instructions to dismiss the case. The decision relied on previous case law stating that Oklahoma does not have jurisdiction over crimes involving Indian victims that take place on tribal land.

Continue ReadingF-2019-68

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-2019-149

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-149, Kimberli Sue Dunham appealed her conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to terminate her from Drug Court and impose her sentences. One judge dissented. Dunham had been placed in the Delaware County Drug Court program after pleading guilty to several drug-related charges. The program was intended to help her recover from substance abuse. According to her agreement, if she was successful in the program, the charges would be dismissed. However, if she failed, she would face prison time. During her time in Drug Court, Dunham had several violations, including testing positive for methamphetamine. After admitting to more violations, the State sought her removal from the program. In a hearing, evidence of Dunham’s past violations was presented. The judge decided to terminate her from the program, leading to her appeal. In her appeal, Dunham claimed the termination was improper because she was sanctioned for previous violations. She also argued that the court did not follow proper procedures as required by the Oklahoma Drug Court Act, which aims to support individuals in recovery. Dunham claimed that a relapse should not automatically lead to termination and that the court should have used progressively increasing sanctions instead. The court reviewed these claims and found that Dunham had indeed admitted to new violations that justified her termination. Her request to consider her actions as mere relapses was denied, as the judge believed more severe action was necessary to maintain the integrity of the Drug Court program. Lastly, Dunham argued that she was misinformed about her rights to withdraw her guilty pleas. The court agreed that she should have been informed of her rights but ruled that her termination and conviction would still stand. The court upheld the trial court's decision but noted that it should have properly advised Dunham regarding her rights, allowing her the option to appeal her plea. Thus, while her conviction was confirmed, the case was remanded to correct the error about her rights.

Continue ReadingF-2019-149

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

C-2018-1167

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the case of Ronald Fitzgerald Williams. Williams entered a negotiated guilty plea to multiple counts related to drug offenses and other violations. After sentencing, he filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted a writ of certiorari (a type of court order) and remanded the case for a new hearing on Williams' motion to withdraw his plea. The court found significant errors: 1. Williams was allegedly misadvised about his appellate rights, affecting the voluntariness of his plea. 2. The evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea was held in his absence without a valid waiver of his right to be present. 3. Williams asserted he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The court emphasized that due process requires a defendant's attendance at a hearing concerning the withdrawal of a plea unless there’s evidence of a waiver, which was not present in this case. The court reversed the trial court’s denial of the motion to withdraw the plea and ordered a new hearing to ensure due process is upheld. The document concludes with information about the attorneys involved in the case and instructions for further proceedings. For additional details or specific legal arguments, you can download the full opinion using the link provided.

Continue ReadingC-2018-1167

F-2018-900

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ANGEL MUNOZ,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-900** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAN - 9 2020** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Angel Munoz, appeals from the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2016-701 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, by the Honorable Glenn M. Jones, District Judge. On March 7, 2018, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to Count 1: Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon, with sentencing deferred for a period of five years under probation conditions until March 6, 2023. On June 26, 2018, the State filed an application to accelerate Appellant's deferred judgment and sentencing, alleging he violated probation by committing the new crime of Possession of a Firearm after a prior felony conviction, as charged in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2018-2625. An amended application was filed on August 21, 2018. At the hearing on this application, the State called Appellant's probation officer, Tammera Saavedra. During a home visit on April 13, 2018, Officer Saavedra found a nine-millimeter semiautomatic pistol and ammunition in plain view in a garage where Appellant claimed to be staying. Additionally, personal items belonging to Appellant were found near the firearm, leading to his arrest for possessing the firearm. Appellant's brother-in-law, Arturo Plascencia, testified that Appellant did not live in the garage, stating that he had never stayed there. Appellant corroborated this, but both testimonies were contradicted by evidence showing Appellant's possession and control of the area where the gun was found. After hearing the evidence, Judge Jones found that Appellant violated his probation. Consequently, he accepted the State's recommendation and sentenced Appellant to a term of ten years. Appellant raises two propositions of error on appeal: 1. **Proposition I**: The trial court abused its discretion by accelerating Appellant's sentence when the State failed to provide sufficient competent evidence of the alleged new offense. 2. **Proposition II**: The acceleration judgment should reflect Appellant's conviction for Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon, rather than Assault and Battery With a Deadly Weapon. **ANALYSIS** In **Proposition I**, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish his knowledge of the firearm's presence. The standard for reviewing such claims requires that the court finds whether a rational trier of fact could have concluded the essential elements of the probation violation were met by a preponderance of the evidence. Evidence presented indicated Appellant's admission to living in the garage at the time the firearm was discovered. Testimony from Officer Saavedra and physical evidence reinforced the conclusion that Appellant had dominion and control over the area where the firearm was located. Conflicting testimonies regarding Appellant's residence and possession were matters for the court to evaluate. Thus, Appellant failed to substantiate that Judge Jones acted irrationally in his ruling. In **Proposition II**, Appellant argues for a correction of the accelerating judgment to accurately reflect his offense. The State agrees that this matter warrants attention. Therefore, it should be remanded to the District Court for the necessary correction. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County accelerating Appellant's deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2016-701 is AFFIRMED. However, the case is REMANDED to the District Court for a correction in accordance with Appellant's request. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2020), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** **For the Appellant:** Kenneth C. Watson, Nancy Walker-Johnson Attorney at Law 119 N. Robinson, Suite 640 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **For the State:** Tiffany Noble, Mike Hunter, Diane L. Slayton Assistant District Attorneys 505 County Office Building Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-900_1735119586.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-900

C-2013-254

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2013-254, Gina Diane Eslick appealed her conviction for multiple drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her petition for certiorari, meaning they agreed to look at her case closely. The court found that she did not have effective help from her lawyer when she tried to change her guilty plea, as her lawyer had a conflict of interest. The court ordered that her case be sent back to the District Court so she could have a new hearing with a lawyer who did not have a conflict. No one dissented in this decision.

Continue ReadingC-2013-254

C-2018-1174

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA **Case No. C-2018-1174** **OCT 31, 2019** **STEVEN JOSEPH BEATY, Petitioner, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent.** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Steven Joseph Beaty entered guilty pleas to the following charges in the District Court of Grady County, Case No. CF-2018-115: **Count I** - Felony Domestic Assault and Battery, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies (21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644 (C)); **Count II** - Misdemeanor Violation of Protective Order (22 O.S.Supp.2012, § 60.6); **Count III** - Obstructing An Officer (21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 540). The Honorable Kory Kirkland accepted the pleas on October 16, 2018. The sentences imposed included the following: **Count I** - ten (10) years imprisonment with the last seven (7) years suspended and a $500.00 fine; **Count II** - one year imprisonment and a $200.00 fine; **Count III** - one year imprisonment and a $100.00 fine, with all sentences served concurrently and additional requirements such as costs, victim compensation assessments, and referral to the Batterer's Intervention Program. On October 25, 2018, Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. After a hearing on November 13, 2018, Judge Kirkland denied the motion. Petitioner now appeals this denial and raises the following propositions of error: 1. The lack of a factual basis for the plea renders it involuntary due to not being served with the Protective Order. 2. The trial judge failed to consider Petitioner’s ability to pay the victim compensation fee. 3. Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel during both the plea hearing and at the plea withdrawal hearing. **Analysis:** After thorough review of the petitions, records, and transcripts, the court finds no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. A plea is evaluated based on whether it was voluntary and intelligent, requiring the Petitioner to show it was entered inadvertently or without consideration. In his first two propositions, Petitioner alleges he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea due to inadequate factual basis and failure to inquire about ability to pay the compensation fee. However, these claims were not raised in the motion to withdraw nor in the certiorari petition, waiving their consideration on appeal. In Proposition III, relating to ineffective assistance of counsel at the withdrawal hearing, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable probability that such deficiencies would have altered the outcome. The court affirms that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and not coerced. The claim about the court’s failure to record considerations for the victim compensation assessment is acknowledged; thus, that part of the assessment is vacated, and the case is remanded for a hearing to address this requirement properly. **Conclusion:** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is **DENIED**. The Judgment of the District Court is **AFFIRMED**. The current victim compensation assessments are **VACATED**, and the case is **REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT** to consider all necessary factors for assessment under 22 O.S.2011, § 142.18(A). **OPINION BY**: LUMPKIN, J. **CONCUR**: LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. **COUNSEL FOR DEFENSE AT THE PLEA HEARING**: Bill Smith, P.O. Box 926, Norman, OK 73070 **COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER ON APPEAL**: Danny Joseph, Oklahoma City, OK **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE**: Jason M. Hicks, District Attorney, Kara Bacon, Assistant District Attorney, Chickasha, OK. [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-1174_1734227971.pdf)

Continue ReadingC-2018-1174

F-2017-1176

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1176, Anthony Dean Wilkerson, Jr., appealed his conviction for seven counts of Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence given to him. One judge dissented. Wilkerson was convicted by a jury for serious crimes against a child. The jury decided on the punishments for each count, giving him long sentences, including life imprisonment for some of the counts. The trial court judge sentenced him to serve these sentences one after the other, meaning he would spend a long time in prison. Wilkerson raised several issues in his appeal, saying that his trial was not fair. He argued that he was punished too harshly for the same crime (double punishment), that the trial court made mistakes during the trial, and that the total effect of these mistakes made it unfair for him. The court looked at all the evidence and decided that Wilkerson's arguments were not strong enough to change the original decision. For his first point about double punishment, the court noted that the crimes were separate acts, so it was okay for him to be convicted on all counts without violating laws against multiple punishments. For his second and third points, the court said the trial judge was allowed to let the state ask questions that helped the young victim, J.W., remember her experiences better and to clarify her testimony about what happened to her. Regarding the length of his sentences and how they were administered (running consecutively), the court found no reason to change what the jury and trial judge decided. The punishments fell within legal limits, and the court didn't find that they were too harsh when considering the seriousness of the crimes. Wilkerson also claimed there was an error about a fine that was not mentioned at his sentencing. The court agreed that it was a simple mistake and ordered the lower court to correct this. Finally, the court did not find any combined errors that affected the fairness of the trial, so they rejected his last claim about cumulative error. In conclusion, the court upheld the original decision and confirmed Wilkerson's convictions, but instructed the lower court to fix the written sentencing document to remove the fine.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1176

S-2018-978

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

**State v. Cousan: Summary of the Court's Decision** In the case of *State of Oklahoma v. William Lee Cousan*, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed the legality of the police actions leading to the arrest of Cousan and the subsequent search of his person that resulted in the discovery of crack cocaine. **Background:** William Lee Cousan was charged with Illegal Drug Trafficking, Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. The charges arose from a police investigation initiated by an anonymous tip suggesting that Cousan was dealing drugs from a Motel 6 room. Following a surveillance operation and gathering additional evidence, police obtained a search warrant for Cousan's motel room. While executing the warrant, Cousan left the motel in a vehicle, and police conducted a traffic stop approximately eight blocks away. During this stop, officers found cocaine on him and placed him under arrest. Cousan argued that the officers exceeded the scope of the search warrant during his detention and that the subsequent search of his person was unlawful. **District Court Ruling:** The district court agreed with Cousan's motion to suppress evidence, stating that the search was not justified as incident to the execution of the search warrant since it occurred outside the immediate vicinity of the premises. **Court of Criminal Appeals Decision:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the district court's ruling, holding: 1. **Probable Cause:** The court found that the officers had probable cause to arrest Cousan at the time of his detention based on the tips and surveillance evidence indicating he was dealing drugs. 2. **Lawful Search Incident to Arrest:** The search of Cousan's person was deemed lawful as a search incident to arrest because probable cause existed for that arrest, independent of the execution of the search warrant. 3. **Inevitability Doctrine:** Even if the court did not find probable cause at the time of the stop, the officers could have made a valid investigative stop based on reasonable suspicion. Given the circumstances, the evidence inevitably would have been discovered after the execution of the warrant. 4. **Categorical Detention Rules:** The appeals court acknowledged that while the detention of Cousan was not justifiable under the Summers rule (as it did not occur immediately near the premises), the officers still had the right to detain Cousan based on the totality of circumstances, including the undercover work that had identified him as a key suspect. **Conclusion:** The appellate ruling overturned the district court's decision to suppress the evidence found on Cousan, allowing the State of Oklahoma to continue its prosecution for illegal drug trafficking and associated charges. **Final Note:** The opinion reflects on the importance of understanding both the probable cause standard for arrest and the rules surrounding lawful searches and seizures, emphasizing the balance between individual rights and public safety in law enforcement practices.

Continue ReadingS-2018-978

PR 2018-1203

  • Post author:
  • Post category:PR

OPINION ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF AND REMANDING MATTER TO DISTRICT COURT On November 29, 2018, Petitioner, by and through counsel Melissa A. French, filed an application for an…

Continue ReadingPR 2018-1203

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

C-2018-225

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. C-2018-225** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Petitioner:** STEVEN LEON GRIMMETT **Respondent:** THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **Opinion by: LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Steven Leon Grimmett (Petitioner) was charged with multiple felony counts and entered a blind plea of no contest. After sentencing, he sought to withdraw his plea, claiming coercion and misunderstandings regarding his sentence. His motion was denied, and he appealed the decision, raising several propositions of error. 1. **Coercion and Voluntariness of Plea**: Petitioner claimed his plea was coerced and involuntary. The court evaluated whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently, emphasizing the importance of confirming that the plea was not the result of force or threats. The court concluded that evidence demonstrated the plea was voluntary. 2. **Advice on Sentencing Requirements**: The Petitioner contended he was not adequately informed about the 85% rule applicable to his sentence or the post-imprisonment supervision requirement. However, since these claims were not raised in his Motion to Withdraw Plea, the appellate court found he waived the right to contest these issues. 3. **Clerical Error Argument**: Petitioner argued there was a clerical error in the judgment regarding the requirement of post-imprisonment supervision. The court did not find this to be an obvious error but remanded the matter to the district court to address the claim. 4. **Effective Assistance of Counsel**: The court assessed his claims of ineffective assistance of both plea and withdrawal counsel using the Strickland test, which evaluates counsel's performance and whether any deficiencies prejudiced the defense. The court determined that Petitioner was sufficiently informed about his plea and that withdrawal counsel's performance did not constitute ineffective assistance. **DECISION**: The court affirmed the denial of the Motion to Withdraw Plea and remanded for the district court to address the clerical error regarding post-imprisonment supervision. **Counsel Information:** - **Counsel for Petitioner at Trial and Appeal**: Shelley Levisay, Kimberly D. Heinze - **Counsel for the State**: Adam Panter, Mike Hunter, David Hammer, Joshua Fanelli **Opinion filed: May 9, 2019** **Mandate ordered upon filing**. For full opinion documents, refer to [the PDF link here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-225_1734103367.pdf).

Continue ReadingC-2018-225

C-2018-648

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2018-648, Denisa Dawn Duvall appealed her conviction for domestic assault and battery in the presence of a minor. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her request for a new hearing to withdraw her plea. One judge dissented. Duvall was charged with a misdemeanor and decided to enter a plea of no contest. The court accepted her plea and gave her a deferred sentence, which included supervision and counseling. Later, Duvall filed a request to withdraw her plea, saying she wanted an attorney to help her. However, when the court held a hearing, it was unclear if she was offered a lawyer or if she had decided to represent herself. Duvall claimed that she didn’t understand the charges or the meaning of her plea when she first entered it. The court didn’t allow her a lawyer during the hearing to withdraw her plea, which is against her rights under the Constitution. The court recognized that Duvall should have had legal help during that critical moment. The State agreed that Duvall didn’t receive a fair process because she was not represented by counsel. The court decided that they needed to redo the hearing where Duvall could have a lawyer present, and she should be allowed to explain why she wants to withdraw her plea. The court ordered that Duvall be given a new chance to file a motion for withdrawing her plea with her new lawyer and scheduled an evidentiary hearing on that motion. If her request to withdraw her plea is denied again, her lawyer must help her with an appeal. The decision from the court resulted in Duvall getting a new hearing, where she can properly address her plea's withdrawal with the support of an attorney.

Continue ReadingC-2018-648

F-2017-950

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-950, Terry Lyn Elkins appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine and Resisting an Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but remand for resentencing on the possession count. One judge dissented. Terry Lyn Elkins was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine and for resisting a police officer. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison for the drug charge and fined $500 for resisting the officer. The jury did not find him guilty of assaulting a police officer. Elkins argued that the trial was unfair because the jury saw evidence that was not relevant to his case, which might have affected their decision about his punishment. The evidence included a document from the Department of Corrections that had many details about Elkins’ past, including other crimes he committed many years ago. Some of this information was not needed for the current case and could have made the jury think more negatively about him. The judges decided that while the evidence showing Elkins’ past convictions was correctly used, parts of the additional information were not relevant and should not have been presented to the jury. They believed that this extra information could have influenced how the jury decided on the punishment. Therefore, they decided to keep the convictions as is, but send the case back to lower court for a new review of his punishment for the meth charge. In a separate opinion, a judge agreed with keeping the conviction but believed that sending the case back for resentencing was not necessary since Elkins did not receive the maximum punishment possible.

Continue ReadingF-2017-950