In OCCA case No. C-2021-218, the petitioner appealed her conviction for outraging public decency and violation of a protective order. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the appeal. The court agreed that her due process rights were violated when the district court denied her motions to withdraw her pleas while she was absent from the hearing. No one dissented.
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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have the right to prosecute Ball because he is considered an Indian under federal law, and the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.
In OCCA case No. C-2019-489, Taheerah Ayesha Ahmad appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery by means likely to produce death, Child Neglect, and Arson in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to deny her petition for a writ of certiorari and affirmed the District Court's judgment. However, the case was remanded to the District Court to correct errors in the judgment regarding the imposition of costs. One judge dissented.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **TALISA NICOLE BANKS, Petitioner,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-415** **October 31, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION GRANTING CERTIORARI** Judge Hudson presiding: On November 8, 2016, Talisa Nicole Banks entered blind pleas of guilty to the following charges: Count 1 - Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance - Marijuana; Count 2 - Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug, Marijuana, With Intent to Distribute; and Count 3 - Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance - Methamphetamine in the District Court of Texas County, Case No. CF-2016-64. Sentencing occurred on February 28, 2018, resulting in a combined fifteen-year sentence with conditions on Counts 1, 2, and 3. After sentencing, on March 7, 2018, Banks filed a motion to withdraw her guilty pleas, which was supported by an additional pro se letter outlining her reasons. A hearing on this motion was held on April 4, 2018, but was denied by the Honorable Jon Parsley, District Judge. Banks appealed, arguing she faced multiple forms of conflict regarding her legal representation, which adversely affected her ability to receive effective assistance during her plea withdrawal hearing. This Court has previously established the right to effective counsel at plea withdrawal hearings. The arguments presented by Banks indicated an actual conflict of interest, as her counsel simultaneously represented conflicting interests regarding claims made against his own effectiveness. The evidence suggests Banks was denied the opportunity for conflict-free representation, and thus a new hearing is warranted for the motion to withdraw her guilty pleas. **DECISION** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. The case is REMANDED to the District Court for the appointment of new counsel for Banks’ motion to withdraw her guilty pleas and to conduct a new hearing regarding that motion. **Parties Appeared Below** - **Defense Counsel**: Robert H. Jaques - **Respondent Counsel**: Assistant District Attorney Buddy Leach; Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter **OPINION BY**: HUDSON, J. **CONCUR**: LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J. **[Download Full Decision](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-415_1734109426.pdf)**
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** *Case No. C-2018-1040* **ROLLO ROY WERLINE, IV,** *Petitioner,* *vs.* **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** *Respondent.* **FILED** *IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS* *OCT 31 2019* *JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK* **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Rolla Roy Werline, IV, represented by counsel, entered pleas of guilty to First Degree Manslaughter (Count I), Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident (Count II), and Failure to Maintain Insurance (Count III) in the District Court of Ottawa County, Case No. CF-2017-164. The pleas were accepted by the Honorable Robert G. Haney on April 19, 2018. On June 12, 2018, Petitioner was sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment for Count I, five (5) years imprisonment in Count II (suspended), and a $250.00 fine for Count III. On June 15, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, which was denied at a hearing on June 26, 2018. Petitioner appeals this denial, raising two propositions of error: 1. Petitioner should be allowed to withdraw his plea as it was not entered knowingly and intelligently, given he did not understand the consequences of entering a blind plea. 2. The imposed fines and costs were excessive. **Proposition I:** Petitioner contends that his plea was not entered voluntarily and was the result of being misadvised regarding the plea process. The trial court reviewed this issue during the motion to withdraw hearing. Assessing whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently is key. The record indicates the plea was knowing and voluntary, highlighting that the petitioner understood the court would determine punishment and could impose a sentence within statutory limits. The trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw is upheld. **Proposition II:** Petitioner claims his sentence is excessive, particularly citing a victim impact statement that contained a sentence recommendation, which he argues improperly influenced the court's decision. While acknowledging that victim impact statements may be considered during sentencing, those statements should not contain sentence recommendations. Any potential error here was harmless, as the overall sentence is seen as reasonable and within statutory limits. It was also noted that the issue of a $250.00 Victim Compensation Assessment in Count III was not raised previously and is thus waived for appeal. **DECISION:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. **OPINION BY:** **LUMPKIN, J.** *LEWIS, P.J.: Concur* *KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur* *HUDSON, J.: Concur* *ROWLAND, J.: Concur* **Click Here To Download PDF** [Link to PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-1040_1734225145.pdf)
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BILLIE WAYNE BYRD,** Appellant, vs. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. F-2018-867** **Not for Publication** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 19 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Billie Wayne Byrd was tried by jury and convicted of Child Sexual Abuse - Under 12 in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(F), in the District Court of Muskogee County, Case No. CF-2017-621. Following the jury's recommendation, the Honorable Norman D. Thygesen sentenced Appellant to twenty-five (25) years imprisonment, with a three-year term of post-imprisonment supervision. Appellant appeals this conviction and sentence. **Propositions of Error:** 1. Plain error occurred when the jury sought to see the judge but was directed to submit any question in writing. 2. Prosecutorial misconduct deprived Appellant of a fair trial. **Analysis:** After thorough consideration of the entire record, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits, and briefs, we find that the law and evidence do not require relief. **Proposition I: Jury Communication** We find that the trial court's failure to follow the mandatory procedure set forth in 22 O.S.2011, § 894 did not prejudice Appellant. He did not object to the use of written communication, so we review for plain error. Plain error must be an actual error that is evident and affects the defendant's substantial rights (Thompson v. State, 2018 OK CR 5). Jurors seeking information during deliberations must require the officer to conduct them into court, and answers must be given in the presence of, or after notice to, counsel and the defendant. The written response to a juror question is a plain violation of the statute (Nicholson v. State, 2018 OK CR 10). While we presume prejudice due to this error, it can be rebutted by demonstrating there was no actual prejudice. Here, the jury's questions were addressed accurately and appropriately. The judge's written response to the jurors' first inquiry did not prejudice Appellant. The second question resulted in a prompt indication for further written inquiries, which indicates communication continued rather than being foreclosed. Ultimately, no actual prejudice against the Appellant is evident on the face of the record. The minimum sentence imposed and lack of indications of serious jury concerns further support no shown prejudice. Thus, we find no error requiring reversal. **Proposition II: Prosecutorial Misconduct** The arguments presented in closing did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct. Attorneys have latitude in arguing evidence and its inferences unless such arguments negatively affect trial fairness (Barnes v. State, 2017 OK CR 26). Appellant did not object to the statements raised on appeal, so we review for plain error (Mathis v. State, 2012 OK CR 1). One contested statement asserted the victim's trustworthiness, which was in response to defense claims of inconsistency. While prosecutors should refrain from personal endorsements of credibility, the context mitigated the impact of this statement. In analyzing the comments regarding the victim's emotional struggles, the remarks were reasonable inferences drawn from evidence presented in trial. The overall context did not compromise the trial's fairness. **Decision:** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Muskogee County 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 NORMAN D. THYGESEN** --- **Attorneys on Appeal:** **Counsel for Defendant:** Dan Medlock **Counsel for Appellant:** Jeremy Stillwell **Counsel for the State:** Morgan Muzljakovich, Mike Hunter (Assistant District Attorney), Julie Pittman (Assistant Attorney General) --- **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **HUDSON, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BRADLEY WAYNE CHERRY,** **Petitioner,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-977** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA AUG 29 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Bradley Wayne Cherry entered guilty pleas in the District Court of Oklahoma County to charges of Second Degree Burglary under Case Nos. CF-2017-4883 and CF-2017-5420. These pleas were accepted by the Honorable Ray C. Elliott on November 15, 2017, as part of a plea agreement allowing Petitioner to enter the RID Program, with the potential for a more favorable sentence upon successful completion. His sentencing, set for September 19, 2018, was postponed to allow for completion of the program. Petitioner failed the RID Program and was charged with additional burglaries in Case No. CF-2018-2594. Pleas and sentencing for the three cases culminated on August 22, 2018, resulting in seven years imprisonment per case, ordered to run consecutively. Petitioner subsequently filed a pro se Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, which the trial court denied after a hearing. **Propositions of Error Raised by Petitioner:** 1. **Excessive Sentencing:** Petitioner claims the imposed sentences are shockingly excessive and not proportional to the crimes. The court finds this argument unpersuasive as the legislature defines punishment ranges for offenses. Given the nature of multiple burglaries, including home invasions, the maximum sentences were deemed appropriate. 2. **Restitution Order:** The claim regarding the trial court’s adherence to statutory procedures for restitution was waived, as it was not raised in the motion to withdraw the plea. 3. **Plea Agreement Not Honored:** Petitioner argues the trial court did not adhere to the plea agreement in CF-2018-2594. The court determined there was no formal plea agreement regarding concurrent sentencing; hence, the claim fails. 4. **Voluntariness of Pleas:** Petitioner asserts his pleas were not knowingly entered due to an alleged lack of understanding about possible sentencing. The court determined Petitioner was adequately informed about his potential sentencing and the implications of a blind plea. 5. **Bias of the Trial Court:** Petitioner claims bias during the proceedings; however, this issue was not preserved for appeal as it was not included in the withdrawal motion or addressed at the hearing. 6. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Petitioner asserts his appellate and trial counsel were ineffective, but these claims were not explicitly raised during the motion to withdraw. Concerning the effectiveness of conflict counsel at the withdrawal hearing, Petitioner failed to demonstrate any resulting prejudice. **DECISION:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED, and the Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. A mandate is ordered to be issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** - **For Petitioner at the Plea Hearing:** - Mark Hartshorn (Oklahoma City, OK) - **For Defense at Withdrawal Hearing:** - Thomas Hurley (Oklahoma City, OK) - **For the State:** - Dan Pond (Oklahoma City, OK) **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **Concurred by:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. --- **[Download PDF of Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-977_1734186380.pdf)**
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AARON MARCUS SHORES,** **Petitioner,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-1119** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Petitioner Aaron Marcus Shores entered a negotiated plea of no contest in the District Court of LeFlore County to resolve his felony and misdemeanor charges in three cases. The charges included: 1. **Case No. CF-2018-239:** Failure to Notify Address Change of Sex Offender (felony). 2. **Case No. CM-2018-371:** Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (misdemeanor). 3. **Case No. CM-2018-373:** Malicious Injury to Property Under $1,000.00 (misdemeanor). Pursuant to the plea agreement, one count of Obstructing an Officer and one count of Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia were dismissed by the State. Judge Marion Fry subsequently sentenced Shores to four years of imprisonment on the felony count and one year in the county jail for each misdemeanor count, with all sentences running concurrently. He was also ordered one year of post-imprisonment supervision and awarded credit for time served. Shores filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, which was denied after a hearing. He appeals this denial, claiming: 1. The district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea as he did not receive the benefits of his plea bargain. 2. He received ineffective assistance of counsel. **1. Denial of Motion to Withdraw Plea** Shores argues he did not receive the promised benefits of his plea bargain. The court evaluated this claim against the standard set forth in *Couch v. State*, noting that promises made in plea agreements must be fulfilled. While Shores did not specifically raise his current argument in his initial motion to withdraw, it was discussed during the evidentiary hearing. The appellate court reviews the denial for abuse of discretion and affirmatively holds that Shores received the benefits of his plea agreement. The district court's order confirmed that Shores's Oklahoma sentences would run concurrently with his sentences from Arkansas, fulfilling the terms agreed upon during the plea process. **2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel** Shores claims ineffective assistance from conflict counsel, who allegedly failed to preserve his claim regarding the benefits of the plea agreement. To prevail on such a claim, Shores must demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel's performance. The court found that conflict counsel adequately raised Shores's concerns at the withdrawal hearing, effectively preserving the issue for appeal. Therefore, Shores could not establish that his counsel's performance resulted in any prejudice. **CONCLUSION** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The district court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to withdraw plea is AFFIRMED. **MANDATE ordered to be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.** **Appearances:** - Doug Schmuck, Appellate Defense Counsel, for Petitioner. - Matt McBee, Counsel for Withdraw Motion. - Kevin Merritt and Margaret Nicholson, Assistant District Attorneys for the State. --- This summary is designed for clarity and understanding without retaining excessive legal jargon, while accurately reflecting the decisions and arguments presented in the original case summary.
It appears that you've shared a document detailing a legal opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals denying a writ of certiorari for petitioner Jerry Ray Hawkins. He was appealing his convictions related to exhibiting obscene material to minors, procuring child pornography, and lewd acts, asserting that his guilty pleas were not made knowingly, that he did not receive conflict-free counsel, and that his sentence was excessive. Here’s a summary of the main points covered in the opinion: ### Case Overview: - **Petitioner**: Jerry Ray Hawkins - **Charges**: Multiple counts including Exhibiting Obscene Material to a Minor, Procuring Child Pornography, and Lewd Acts. - **Sentencing**: Total of twenty years for some charges and ten years for others, with certain counts running concurrently and others consecutively. ### Key Legal Issues Raised by Petitioner: 1. **Withdrawal of Guilty Pleas**: Hawkins argued he should be allowed to withdraw his pleas because they were not made knowingly or voluntarily, claiming that he was misled by his attorney regarding potential plea agreements. 2. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: He claimed that the failure to appoint conflict-free counsel during the plea withdrawal hearing resulted in inadequate legal representation. 3. **Excessive Sentence**: He contended that the aggregate sentence was excessive for the charges he pleaded to. ### Court's Findings: - **Proposition I (Withdrawal of Pleas)**: The court found that Hawkins had waived his right to argue that his pleas were not knowing and voluntary by failing to raise it during his motion to withdraw. Therefore, this claim was denied. - **Proposition II (Ineffective Assistance of Counsel)**: The court concluded that there was no actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel's performance, as Hawkins did not accuse his plea counsel of misconduct. Therefore, this claim was also denied. - **Proposition III (Excessive Sentence)**: The court noted that Hawkins similarly failed to raise this issue during the appropriate proceedings, resulting in a waiver of his excessive sentence claim. ### Conclusion: The court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court, concluding that no legal grounds existed to warrant relief. #### Final Notes: Petitioner’s appeals were denied on all fronts, with the court emphasizing the need for claims to be preserved at the trial level to be considered on appeal. If you have any specific questions or need further analysis regarding this case or related legal concepts, feel free to ask!
It appears that you have provided a court document from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals relating to the case of Larado James Smith, who entered a guilty plea to multiple counts of rape and sodomy. The document outlines the background of the case, the procedural history, and the court's decision to deny Smith's petition for a writ of certiorari. To summarize the key points: 1. **Background of the Case**: Larado James Smith entered a negotiated guilty plea to six counts of Second Degree Rape and three counts of Forcible Sodomy, resulting in a 15-year prison sentence. 2. **Motion to Withdraw Plea**: Smith later filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he had valid reasons for doing so, including alleged pressure from his counsel and stress from his incarceration. 3. **Court's Findings**: The trial court conducted a hearing on this motion and ultimately denied it, finding that Smith had entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily. This decision was based on the court's assessment of the circumstances and Smith's understanding of the plea. 4. **Appeal**: Smith appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw the plea. The appellate court reviewed the record and determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. It was concluded that Smith’s plea was made voluntarily, after a thorough understanding of the implications. 5. **Final Decision**: The Court of Criminal Appeals denied Smith's petition for certiorari, affirming the lower court's judgment and sentence. If you have specific questions about the case or need information on a particular aspect of the document, please let me know!
**Summary of Case No. C-2018-1002: Carey James Buxton v. The State of Oklahoma** **Court:** Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals **Date Filed:** June 13, 2019 **Parties:** - **Petitioner:** Carey James Buxton - **Respondent:** The State of Oklahoma **Background:** Carey James Buxton entered a negotiated plea of no contest on multiple criminal charges across three cases in the District Court of Kay County. The charges included unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, second-degree burglary, and knowingly concealing stolen property. The plea agreement included entering a drug court program, which promised potential leniency upon completion. **Plea Agreement Details:** - **Successful Completion:** District Attorney would recommend dismissal of certain charges and suspended sentences. - **Failure:** Imposition of lengthy prison time. The State later filed a motion to terminate Buxton from the drug court program, which was granted after a hearing. Consequently, Buxton was sentenced according to the plea agreement. Attempting to contest this outcome, Buxton filed a motion to withdraw his plea, claiming it was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. **Issues on Appeal:** Buxton appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by not allowing him to withdraw due to the involuntariness of his plea. **Court Findings:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the district court's decision, determining that: 1. The review of the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea is for an abuse of discretion. 2. It is the petitioner's burden to prove that there was a defect in the plea process. 3. The district court based its ruling on a comprehensive review of the record, included plea forms, and Buxton's testimony. Ultimately, the appeal court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Buxton's request to withdraw his plea, affirming the decision. **Decision:** - The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. - The district court's denial of Buxton's Motion to Withdraw Plea is AFFIRMED. **Mandate:** The mandate will be issued following the filing of this decision as per the applicable court rules. **Opinion Author:** Judge Rowland **Concurring Judges:** Lewis, Kuehn, Lumpkin, Hudson
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 23, 2019** **DANA MECHELE LANGLEY,** Petitioner, vs. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Respondent. **Case No. C-2017-1036** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Petitioner Dana Mechele Langley was charged in the Tulsa County District Court with multiple counts, including **Lewd Molestation**, **Enabling Child Sexual Abuse**, and **Child Sexual Abuse**. Langley entered a blind plea of guilty to these charges on June 19, 2017. Following a hearing, Judge Sharon K. Holmes sentenced her to significant prison terms. On September 6, 2017, Langley, through her counsel, filed an application to withdraw her guilty plea, which led to the appointment of conflict counsel. After a hearing, her request was denied. Langley then sought a writ of certiorari, raising three propositions of error: 1. The trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw her guilty plea was plain error and an abuse of discretion due to an inadequate factual basis. 2. Denial of effective assistance of counsel during both the plea hearing and the plea withdrawal hearing. 3. The sentences imposed were excessive given the circumstances. **DECISION:** After reviewing the complete record, including transcripts and exhibits, the Court found no grounds for relief. **Proposition I:** The claim regarding the factual basis for the lewd molestation counts was not raised at the withdrawal hearing; thus, it was procedurally defective and not properly before the Court. **Proposition II:** The ineffective assistance claim was similarly waived as it was not included in her motion to withdraw. Furthermore, the Court found sufficient evidence supporting the factual basis of her pleas, dismissing claims about the inadequacy of representation. **Proposition III:** The sentences were consistent with statutory ranges and did not shock the conscience of the Court. **CONCLUSION:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is **DENIED**, and the judgment and sentence from the district court are **AFFIRMED**. **Pursuant to Rule 3.15, RULES OF THE OKLAHOMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.** --- **Click Here To Download PDF** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2017-1036-1_1733900854.pdf)
This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of David Duane Albright, a petitioner who sought to withdraw his guilty pleas related to charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of a controlled substance, and maintaining a place for keeping/selling controlled substances. ### Key Points: 1. **Background**: - Albright was originally charged in Delaware County with multiple drug-related offenses in 2010. - He entered a guilty plea in December 2010 and was accepted into the Delaware County Drug Court Program. - After being terminated from the program for non-compliance, he was sentenced in September 2013 to life imprisonment on two counts and 20 years on another, with fines imposed. 2. **Procedural Posture**: - Albright filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas shortly after sentencing, which was denied. - He initially failed to appeal but was granted an appeal out of time in 2018. 3. **Claims on Appeal**: Albright raised several propositions of error: - **Proposition I**: He argued his plea lacked an adequate factual basis. - **Proposition II**: Claimed his pleas were not entered knowingly and voluntarily. - **Proposition III**: Contended the $50,000 fine was unauthorized by statute. - **Proposition IV**: Asserted he should have received credit for jail time, violating his due process. - **Proposition V**: Claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. 4. **Court's Analysis**: - **Proposition I and II**: The court found Albright waived appellate review by not raising these claims in his motion to withdraw his plea. - **Proposition III and IV**: These claims were also deemed waived for similar reasons, not raised in the motion to withdraw. - **Proposition V**: While the court reviewed the ineffective assistance of withdrawal counsel, they found no evidence of deficiency or that it prejudiced Albright's case. 5. **Decision**: - The court affirmed the lower court's denial of Albright's Motion to Withdraw Plea, concluding that he did not demonstrate a valid basis for the claims made. 6. **Concurring Opinion**: - Judge Rowland specially concurred, expressing concern regarding the adequacy of the factual basis for the plea related to maintaining a place for keeping/selling a controlled dangerous substance. While recognizing the issues, he noted that because the facts weren’t adequately challenged during the proceedings, the claims were not actionable in this appeal. ### Conclusion: The petitioner's appeal was denied, and the trial court's decision stands, allowing the guilty pleas to remain in effect due to procedural waivers and the lack of substantive evidence to support the claims raised on appeal. The opinion highlights the importance of raising issues timely and thoroughly in the proper forums to preserve them for review.
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.
In OCCA case No. C-2016-718, Jones appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon and kidnapping. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the sentence for one count where he was not charged, but affirmed the rest of the convictions. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2015-1063, Pete Wolfe appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including attempted robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his request for a writ of certiorari and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Pete Wolfe entered guilty pleas without fully understanding what that meant. He later said that his lawyer's advice was not good and wanted to take back his guilty pleas. The court looked at whether he had a fair chance to do this and said that he did not have a lawyer who could represent him properly during the hearing. The court agreed that his lawyer might not have given him the best advice, which was important. So, they decided to let him have a new lawyer who could help him better and to have a new hearing on his request to withdraw the guilty pleas. This was to make sure his rights were protected in the legal process.
In OCCA case No. C 2015-980, Gary Thomas Schofield appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence, Driving Under Suspension, and Failure to Use Child Restraint. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the denial of his motion to withdraw his nolo contendere pleas but modified his fine for the Failure to Use Child Restraint charge from $50.00 to $10.00. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-584, Gilbert Paz appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, Shooting with Intent to Kill, Conspiracy, Attempted Robbery with a Firearm, and Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the District Court's denial of Paz's Motion to Withdraw Plea and remanded the case for further proceedings. One member of the court dissented. Gilbert Paz was involved in a serious crime case where he initially pleaded guilty to multiple charges. After some time, he wanted to take back his guilty pleas, claiming that he didn’t fully understand what he was doing when he agreed to the plea deal. He felt confused and believed his lawyer wasn't helping him properly. The case started when a burglary went badly, resulting in one person being killed and another being hurt. After his guilty pleas were accepted in court, Paz tried to withdraw them, but the judge said no. The judge continued to give him time to get a new lawyer but did not allow him to take back his pleas. Paz argued five main points in his appeal. He claimed that the judge helped too much during his plea negotiations, that his guilty plea was not made knowingly or intelligently, that he was denied his right to have a lawyer present during important parts of the trial, and that his lawyer did not provide effective help. He also claimed that all these issues together made it unfair for him. The court reviewed everything and determined that the main issue was that Paz did not receive the help of a lawyer when trying to withdraw his guilty pleas. Both Paz and the State agreed that he should have had a lawyer to assist him in this situation. The court recognized that without proper counsel, Paz's claim that his pleas were not voluntary could not be dismissed as harmless. As a result, the court decided to vacate the previous decision and send the case back to the District Court so they could properly address Paz's request to withdraw his pleas.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-139, Clifford Eugene Teel appealed his conviction for lewd molestation, forcible sodomy, and indecent exposure. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his request to withdraw his guilty pleas and allowed him to enter new pleas for the charges. The dissenting opinion was not specified. Teel had entered a plea of nolo contendere, which means he did not admit guilt but accepted the punishment. The judge sentenced him to a total of twenty years for some charges and ten years for another, all to be served together. Later, Teel wanted to change his plea because he believed he had been given wrong information about the length of his possible prison time. He thought he could get life in prison, but it turned out that the maximum punishment for his charges was actually much less. Teel's claims were that he did not get proper advice from his lawyer and that the judge did not explain the correct punishments before he accepted the plea. During a review, it was found that the trial court had indeed not informed him right about the maximum punishments he faced. The Attorney General even admitted there was a mistake in how Teel was advised. The court decided that since Teel's plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily due to the wrong advice, he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and enter new ones concerning his charges. The original judgment and sentence from the District Court were reversed, and the case was sent back for further actions.
In OCCA case No. C-2013-973, Nick Rodriguez appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence with Great Bodily Injury, Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (Subsequent Felony), and Driving with License Revoked. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences for Driving Under the Influence with Great Bodily Injury and Driving with License Revoked but to reverse and dismiss the conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (Subsequent Felony). One justice dissented. Rodriguez was charged in Garfield County after entering a plea of nolo contendre, which means he did not contest the charges. He was sentenced to 10 years for each of the first two counts, which were to be served one after the other, while he received a one-year sentence for the last count, to be served at the same time as one of the other sentences. Rodriguez later asked to withdraw his pleas, but the court denied his application. He claimed his appeals were based on four main points: 1) that he should not have been punished for both charges of DUI because it was against the rules, 2) that he did not understand what he was doing when he pleaded guilty, 3) that he did not get good help from his lawyer, and 4) that his sentence was too harsh. The court reviewed his arguments. For the first point, they noted that Rodriguez didn't mention this issue when he first asked to withdraw his pleas, so they couldn't consider it now. The court also found that Rodriguez's pleas were made voluntarily, meaning he understood what he had done. His argument about not having a good lawyer was accepted partly because the lawyer had not raised the double punishment issue. In the end, the court decided to keep the first and third convictions but agreed to toss out the second conviction because it was unfair to punish him twice for the same action. However, they determined that the remaining sentences were suitable based on the situation, meaning they found no reason to change them. Through this decision, the court tried to ensure fairness and that justice was served correctly in the case against Rodriguez.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-79, Walker appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, Resisting an Officer, and Trespassing. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to dismiss Walker's appeal because her application to withdraw her guilty plea was not properly heard by the trial court. One judge dissented, arguing that a hearing had indeed taken place.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-945, Hall appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny Hall's petition to withdraw his plea but reversed the conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1139, a petitioner appealed his conviction for False Personation of Another to Create Liability. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the appeal. The court concluded that the trial court made a mistake by not holding a hearing on the petitioner's request to withdraw her no-contest plea. The decision requires the case to go back to the lower court for this necessary hearing. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-765, Polk appealed his conviction for multiple counts including Child Sexual Abuse, First Degree Rape by Instrumentation, Kidnapping, and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his appeal in part by reversing and dismissing the conviction for Lewd Molestation but affirmed the other convictions. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2009-239, the appellant appealed his conviction for uttering a forged instrument. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the order of revocation to allow for concurrent sentences instead of consecutive sentences. One judge dissented regarding the finding of excessiveness in the revocation order. In the case, the appellant, who was originally given the benefit of a deferred sentence and then suspended sentences, was accused of violating his probation by not reporting to his probation officer. The sentencing judge ultimately revoked his suspended sentences and imposed a total of eight years in prison, which he argued was excessive. The court reviewed the record and statements made by the judge during the revocation hearing. They determined that although the judge had the power to revoke less than the full suspension, the circumstances of the case warranted a modification to allow the sentences to be served concurrently, rather than consecutively as originally ordered. Additionally, the appellant contended that a second assessment for victim compensation was unlawful, as it exceeded the statutory limit. However, the court noted that the compensation assessments were appropriate and not void, concluding that this issue did not affect the validity of the revocation order itself. The final decision directed the district court to change the revocation order to reflect concurrent serving of sentences while affirming the other aspects of the revocation.