Restitution

RE-2020-452

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2020-452, Katlin Maye Ford appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Katlin pled guilty to Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and received a ten-year sentence that was suspended. This means she did not have to go to prison right away but had to follow certain rules. One rule was that she needed to pay restitution, which is money that goes to the victim to help with their losses. In October 2018, the State of Oklahoma asked the court to end her suspended sentence because she had not paid the restitution. In November 2018, Katlin decided to represent herself in court, meaning she did not want a lawyer. She admitted that she had not paid the restitution as ordered. The court then allowed more time for her to get back on track with her payments. However, in June 2020, the court decided to take away three years of her suspended sentence because she still had not paid the restitution. Katlin thought this was unfair and appealed the decision, making some important claims: 1. She said she was not given proper legal help when she needed it. 2. She believed the court should have helped her get a lawyer for her hearing. 3. She argued that any failure to pay the restitution was not intentional. In examining her first claim, the court noted that people have the right to have a lawyer when their suspended sentences are being revoked. For someone to give up that right, they must do it knowingly, which means they understand what they are doing. The court found that there was no clear record showing that Katlin had enough information about self-representation or that she made her decision with full understanding of the consequences. Since the court did not make sure she understood everything about waiving her right to a lawyer, the appeal was successful. The original decision to revoke her suspended sentence was reversed, meaning Katlin would get another chance to address her restitution payments and have proper legal representation. Therefore, the court instructed for the case to go back to the lower court for further actions that are consistent with its opinion. One judge disagreed with the majority's decision.

Continue ReadingRE-2020-452

F-2018-1263

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-1263, Leatherwood appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree, Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Possession of a Firearm During Commission of a Felony, Maintaining a Place for Keeping/Selling Controlled Substances, and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. Travis Michael Leatherwood fatally shot Aaron Smith on Halloween night in 2017. They were once friends and worked together selling marijuana, but their friendship soured when Smith stole marijuana from Leatherwood. On the night of the shooting, Smith, upset by an exchange of insults with Leatherwood, went to confront him, unarmed. Leatherwood shot Smith with a rifle before he could say a word. Smith later died from the gunshot wound. After the shooting, police found a lot of evidence connecting Leatherwood to marijuana distribution at his home, including a rifle that he had used to shoot Smith and other drug-related items. Leatherwood argued in court that he acted in self-defense, but the jury did not agree. They concluded that he was the aggressor, especially since he called Smith a coward and provoked him. The jury found him guilty of first-degree murder, along with several drug-related charges. Leatherwood raised multiple issues on appeal, including claims that the state did not prove he acted outside of self-defense, that the court gave confusing jury instructions, allowed improper amendments to the charges, and that he had ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the court disagreed with all of his claims. In terms of self-defense, the court ruled that Leatherwood’s actions and words indicated he was not acting in self-defense but rather was the one who provoked the situation. He had armed himself before Smith arrived and shot him before any confrontation occurred. The court also discussed the jury instructions, concluding that the district court did not err by omitting instructions on a lesser charge of heat of passion manslaughter since there was no evidence to support that Smith's actions would provoke such a response from Leatherwood. As for the amendment of charges, the court determined that Leatherwood was sufficiently informed of the charges he faced and that he could defend against them adequately. The evidence showed that he had both the firearm and the controlled substances as part of his operations, fulfilling the requirements for his convictions. Leatherwood's claim that his lawyer was ineffective was also denied because the court found that the lawyer's strategies were reasonable given the overwhelming evidence against Leatherwood. The lawyer focused his arguments on the more serious murder charge rather than the drug offenses, which the jury could have easily decided against Leatherwood irrespective of those counts. Finally, the court ruled that Leatherwood's sentence was not excessive given the nature of the crime and his actions. The judge pointed out that the jury was aware of his age (20 at the time of the crime) and other circumstances, which did not make the sentence shockingly excessive. Ultimately, the court affirmed Leatherwood's convictions and ordered a separate hearing regarding the restitution amount, which needed to be calculated more accurately.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1263

F-2018-901

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. F-2018-901** **NAJEE JAMALL COX, Appellant,** **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Najee Jamall Cox, appeals from the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2014-5486 in Oklahoma County, presided over by Judge Ray C. Elliott. On January 30, 2017, Cox entered a guilty plea to Burglary in the First Degree, and his judgment and sentencing were deferred for seven years, with probation conditions effective until January 29, 2024. On March 20, 2018, the State filed an application to accelerate the deferred sentence, citing multiple violations, including new criminal charges and failure to pay court costs. At the hearing on August 14, 2018, Judge Elliott denied Cox's request for a continuance to allow his co-defendant to testify, after which the hearing proceeded with the State's presentation of evidence from probation officers and law enforcement. **FINDINGS:** 1. **Evidence of Possession**: The court found sufficient evidence supporting that Cox had constructive possession of marijuana and related paraphernalia based on the circumstances surrounding the traffic stop and subsequent findings in his vehicle. 2. **Right to Present Testimony**: Cox was given the opportunity to present a defense but failed to secure the presence of his co-defendant through proper procedural channels. His claim of due process violation was denied due to lack of shown prejudice. 3. **Notice of Reimbursement Fee**: Sufficient evidence demonstrated that Cox was aware of his obligation to pay the District Attorney's fees. 4. **Judicial Notice**: The court's reference to Cox's counsel's reputation did not negatively impact his rights, as the violation found was supported by sufficient evidence regardless. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Cox did not demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient enough to have affected the outcome. Based on the analysis of these propositions, the order of acceleration issued by the District Court is **AFFIRMED**. **CONCLUSION**: The mandate will be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **Representatives:** - **Counsel for Appellant**: Matthew Tate Wise - **Counsel for State**: Kirk Martin, Mike Hunter **Decision by**: LEWIS, Presiding Judge **Concurrences**: KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. [Click here to download the full PDF of the opinion.](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-901_1735118825.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-901

F-2018-1082

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma** **Antonio Deondre Smith, Appellant, v. The State of Oklahoma, Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-1082** **Summary Opinion** **Judges:** Kuehn, Vice Presiding Judge; Lewis, P.J.; Lumpkin, J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. **Date Filed:** January 16, 2020 **Opinion Information:** - Appellant was convicted of Accessory to Murder, After Conviction of Two or More Felonies, related to the killing of his former step-father. - Sentenced to life imprisonment by Judge Kelly Greenough. **Propositions of Error:** 1. The trial court erred in admitting evidence of assault rifles and ammunition, impacting Appellant's right to a fair trial. 2. The sentence of life for Accessory to Murder is excessive. **Decision:** - The Court affirms the District Court’s judgment and sentence. **Details:** - Appellant was charged with First Degree Murder but was convicted of Accessory to Murder. - Evidence indicated that he was present at the murder and helped dispose of the weapon. He testified that another person was the actual killer. - The Court reviewed the admission of firearms evidence for abuse of discretion and found the introduction of the assault rifles irrelevant. - While acknowledged as an abuse, it was deemed harmless error given the trial court's jury instructions and Appellant's admissions during testimony. **On Sentencing:** - The circumstantial evidence and Appellant's criminal history made the life sentence appropriate, and it was not considered shocking. **Final Judgment:** - The District Court’s decision is upheld. - The mandate is to be issued upon filing this decision. **Dissenting Opinion:** - Judge Hudson concurs with the results but disagrees with the major opinion regarding the admissibility of firearms evidence, asserting it was relevant and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. **Download PDF:** [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1082_1734857545.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-1082

F-2018-349

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-349, John Albert Broomhall appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence, but vacated the order of restitution and remanded the case for a restitution hearing. One judge dissented. Broomhall was found guilty by a jury, and he was sentenced to one year in jail and a fine of $5000. He raised several claims in his appeal. First, he argued that the State did not provide enough evidence to prove that he committed the crime, which involved using a baseball bat to hurt someone. The court found that the jury had enough evidence to believe he did commit the crime. Next, Broomhall claimed he acted in self-defense, but the court ruled that he did not meet the burden of proof needed to show that his actions were justified. He also accused the prosecutor of misconduct during the trial, but the court decided that nothing the prosecutor did affected the fairness of the trial. Broomhall argued that the jury was given incorrect instructions, but the court found the instructions were proper. He also believed that the trial court made a mistake in how it ordered restitution for the victim's losses. The court agreed that the restitution order was not done correctly and needed to be revisited. Broomhall claimed he had ineffective assistance from his attorney, but the court found no basis for this claim, stating that the actions of his counsel did not harm his case. Lastly, Broomhall contended that there were numerous errors that, together, made his trial unfair; however, the court concluded that the only issue needing correction was the restitution order. In summary, while the court upheld Broomhall's conviction, it sent the restitution issue back for further consideration.

Continue ReadingF-2018-349

RE-2018-662

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **RYAN MITCHELL CRONIC,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-662** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA AUG 29 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Ryan Mitchell Cronic, pleaded guilty to three felony counts of Concealing Stolen Property in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2013-2184. He was sentenced to five years suspended on each count and was ordered to pay restitution. Additionally, he pleaded guilty to one felony count of Concealing Stolen Property in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2015-580, which resulted in a five-year imprisonment sentence, also suspended in full and ordered to run concurrently with Case No. CF-2013-2184, with credit for time served. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence for each case, alleging Appellant failed to pay supervision fees and restitution. Appellant stipulated to these allegations and received a sentence of thirty days in the custody of the Oklahoma County Sheriff. The applications to revoke were later dismissed by the State's motion. A second Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence was filed alleging that Appellant again failed to pay supervision fees and restitution, as well as including new charges: Aggravated Attempting to Elude a Police Officer, Driving While Revoked, and Failure to Provide Proof of Security Verification. After a hearing, the Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge, ordered Appellant's suspended sentences revoked in full. Appellant appeals this revocation, claiming it was an abuse of discretion. We affirm the order of the District Court regarding the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences. The decision to revoke suspended sentences lies within the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed unless there is an abuse. An abuse of discretion is described by this Court as a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented. Appellant has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion in the present case. However, there is a discrepancy in the record regarding Appellant's sentences. The Judgment and Sentence for both cases states Appellant was given a ten-year suspended sentence, while all other documents refer to a suspended sentence of five years. Consequently, we remand this matter to the District Court to address this inconsistency. **DECISION** The District Court's revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2013-2184 and CF-2015-580 is **AFFIRMED**, but the case is **REMANDED** to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the **MANDATE is ORDERED** to be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY R. HENDERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT APPEAL REVOCATION HEARING** **RICHARD HULL** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **HALLIE E. BOVOS** **611 COUNTY OFFICE BLDG.** **OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102** **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** **KELLY COLLINS** **OKLAHOMA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY** **MIKE HUNTER** **ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA.** **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J.: **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR**

Continue ReadingRE-2018-662

RE-2018-657

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BRANDON LEE SHARP,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. RE-2018-657** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AUG 29 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant Brandon Lee Sharp appeals the revocation of his suspended sentences from the Delaware County District Court in Case Nos. CF-2012-441, CF-2013-145, and CF-2014-152. ### Background On October 8, 2013, Appellant pled guilty to Possession of a Firearm (21 O.S.2011, § 1283) and Bail Jumping (59 O.S.2011, § 1335), receiving a ten-year concurrent sentence in each case, suspended in full. On May 6, 2014, he faced new charges, including Endeavoring to Manufacture Methamphetamine, triggering petitions to revoke his suspended sentences based on these new allegations. He pled guilty to the new charges and stipulated to the petitions to revoke the earlier sentences, resulting in a life sentence in Case No. CF-2014-152, with the first 15 years suspended. After completing the Keys to Life Program, Appellant was released on February 4, 2016. However, on November 3, 2017, the State filed a second amended motion to revoke his suspended sentences based on new charges of Kidnapping and Escape from Arrest or Detention in Case No. CF-2017-330A, alongside allegations of failing to report to his probation officer. ### Issues on Appeal 1. **Multiple Violations**: Appellant argues the State did not prove specific claims regarding restitution and DA fees. However, only one violation needs to be established to revoke a suspended sentence. The State successfully proved multiple unrelated violations in the petition to revoke, so this argument is meritless. 2. **Notice of Violations**: Appellant contends that revocation for obstructing officers was inappropriate since it was not included in the initial petition. Nonetheless, obstructing was deemed a lesser included charge of the alleged Escape from Arrest or Detention, thus establishing adequate grounds for revocation. 3. **Timeliness of Revocation Hearing**: Appellant claims a violation of the 20-day rule for revocation hearings as stipulated by 22 O.S.Supp.2016, § 991b(A). However, the record indicates that he acquiesced to continuances within the 20-day window and agreed to postpone the hearing multiple times with counsel. ### Conclusion The trial court possessed the discretion to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentences, and no abuse of discretion is found considering the established violations. Therefore, the decision to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2012-441, CF-2013-145, and CF-2014-152 is hereby **AFFIRMED**. ### Issuance of Mandate Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE will be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** - **FOR APPELLANT**: Kathy Baker, Grove, OK - **FOR APPELLEE**: Nicholas Lelecas, Assistant District Attorney; Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma. **OPINION BY**: ROWLAND, J. **CONCUR**: LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J. **[Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-657_1734426402.pdf)**

Continue ReadingRE-2018-657

M-2018-335

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JULIUS LAMAR WRIGHT,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE 2018-0144** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JUL 11 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant Julius Lamar Wright entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2009-228, for Count 1 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute (Marijuana) and Count 2 - Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. On April 28, 2009, Appellant received a five-year deferred sentence on each count. On March 6, 2012, Appellant pled guilty to allegations in the application to accelerate his deferred sentences, resulting in a ten-year suspended sentence (first five years in custody) for Count 1, and one year in the Oklahoma County Jail for Count 2. These sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other and with CF-2011-1457. Appellant was charged with Domestic Abuse by Strangulation on December 9, 2015, in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2015-8860. He entered a no contest plea and was given a ten-year suspended sentence with probation conditions, which ran concurrently with the earlier cases and included credit for time served. The State's motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2009-228 due to the new charge and failure to pay restitution was dismissed on June 28, 2016, as part of the plea agreement in Case No. CF-2015-8860. On June 29, 2017, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in Cases CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860, alleging a new crime of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2017-2733. After a revocation hearing on January 31, 2018, Appellant's suspended sentences in both cases were revoked. Appellant appeals the revocation of his suspended sentences, raising two propositions of error: 1. The evidence presented during his revocation hearing should have been excluded as it was obtained through egregious police conduct violating his Fourth Amendment rights. 2. The trial court abused its discretion by revoking Appellant's sentences in full, constituting a violation of his due process rights and resulting in an excessive sentence. We affirm the District Court's decision to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in full. Appellant's first argument was not raised at the revocation hearing, leading us to review for plain error. To claim relief under the plain error doctrine, Appellant must prove: (1) an actual error occurred; (2) the error is clear and obvious; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights, impacting the outcome of the hearing. We find no plain error and conclude that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in finding Appellant violated the conditions of his suspended sentences. Regarding the second argument, the court has broad discretion in revoking suspended sentences, and this discretion will not be disturbed without showing an abuse thereof. Appellant has not demonstrated any such abuse. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860 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 filing of this decision. **REVOCATION APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS** **THOMAS HURLEY** **MARVA A. BANKS** Assistant Public Defender Oklahoma County Public Defender's Office 611 County Office Building 320 Robert S. Kerr Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for Defendant **KIRK MARTIN** Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma County 320 Robert S. Kerr Suite 505 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for the State **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur **[PDF VERSION AVAILABLE HERE](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/M-2018-335_1734421708.pdf)**

Continue ReadingM-2018-335

F-2018-513

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-513, Bobby Lee Ruppel, Jr. appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and robbery with a weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Ruppel's conviction but vacated the restitution order, meaning a proper determination of the victim's economic loss must take place. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2018-513

F-2017-1118

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-0397, Wesley Scot Kilpatrick appealed his conviction for robbery in the second degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Wesley Scot Kilpatrick had pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree, and a more serious charge of burglary in the first degree was dropped. He received a seven-year suspended sentence, which means he would not go to prison right away if he followed certain rules. He also had to pay a fine and court costs. Later, the state said Kilpatrick did not follow the rules of his suspended sentence. They claimed he failed to pay his costs and restitution, got into trouble with the police, and committed another crime. Because of this, a court hearing was held to decide if his suspended sentence should be revoked. At the hearing, the judge decided to revoke his sentence completely, meaning Kilpatrick would have to serve the full seven years in prison. Kilpatrick disagreed with this decision and appealed, arguing that the judge made a mistake in revoking his sentence. However, the court found that the judge did not make an error. They believed the judge had the right to make that decision based on the facts presented. The court defined an abuse of discretion as a decision that is clearly wrong and not based on logic or evidence. Since Kilpatrick did not show that the judge was wrong, the court affirmed the decision to revoke his suspended sentence. In the end, Kilpatrick would have to serve the full time in prison for his robbery conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1118

F-2018-167

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-167, Roland G. Torgerson, Jr. appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing. One member of the court dissented. The case began when Torgerson entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest) in 2015 for concealing stolen property. His sentencing was delayed for three years, during which time he was required to make payments for restitution and district attorney fees. However, he failed to make these payments, leading the State to request that his deferred judgment be accelerated. Torgerson admitted he had not made the payments and asked for more time to do so several times. His illness and difficulty finding work made it hard for him to pay. At the hearing, he stated that he was trying to get Social Security to help his financial situation. Despite his claims, the judge decided he had not done enough to show he was unable to make the payments, and therefore, he was sentenced to a five-year suspended sentence. Torgerson raised two main arguments in his appeal. First, he claimed the court was wrong to accelerate his sentence based on his failure to pay, stating that doing so violated his constitutional rights. Second, he argued that the five-year suspended sentence was too harsh. However, the court found that Torgerson had not proven he could not pay and ruled that the judge exercised proper discretion in his decision. Ultimately, the court affirmed the decision to accelerate Torgerson's sentencing, while one judge dissented and expressed concern that the failure to pay was more about his financial situation than a willful disregard of the court's orders.

Continue ReadingF-2018-167

RE-2018-342

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOSHUA ERIC ARMSTRONG,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. No. RE-2018-342 **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY - 9 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant Joshua Eric Armstrong appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence from the Woodward County District Court Case No. CF-2017-5, overseen by the Honorable David A. Work, Associate District Judge. ### Background On March 31, 2017, Appellant pled no contest to the charge of Possession/Concealing Stolen Property, leading to a five-year sentence, with all but the first two months suspended. On March 8, 2018, the State sought to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence on various grounds: failure to report, providing a false address, testing positive for methamphetamine, failing to pay court costs, prosecution reimbursement fees, restitution, and committing Grand Larceny (Case No. CF-2018-11). At the March 27, 2018, hearing, Judge Work revoked four years of Armstrong's suspended sentence. ### Appellant's Claims 1. **Proposition I**: Judge Work’s pronouncements were insufficient regarding the alleged probation violations. - **Finding**: No statutory requirement exists for detailed findings at revocation. The petition sufficiently informed Appellant of the grounds. 2. **Propositions II, III, and V**: The State did not prove certain alleged violations. - **Finding**: The State proved other violations; only one is necessary for revocation. 3. **Proposition IV**: Insufficient evidence to prove a false address. - **Finding**: Evidence indicated Appellant likely provided a false address. 4. **Proposition VI**: Improper revocation for unemployment not alleged in the petition. - **Finding**: Appellant failed to object during the hearing, waiving the issue for all but plain error review, which he did not establish. 5. **Proposition VII**: The trial court abused discretion in revoking part of the suspended sentence instead of requiring treatment. - **Finding**: Evidence supported the violations alleged in the petition, and there was no abuse of discretion. ### Decision The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Woodward County District Court Case No. CF-2017-5 is **AFFIRMED**. Mandate to be issued upon filing of this decision. **Appearances**: **Counsel for Defendant**: Ryan D. Recker **Counsel for Appellant**: Sarah MacNiven **Counsel for the State**: Kate Loughlin, Mike Hunter, Keeley L. Miller **OPINION BY**: HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.**: CONCUR **KUEHN, V.P.J.**: CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.**: CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.**: CONCUR [Download PDF of Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-342_1734697264.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-342

RE-2017-706

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **THOMAS LYNN SPANN,** Appellant, **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. No. RE-2017-706 **FILED ** IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOV 8 2018 JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** In the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CF-2012-436A, Appellant, while represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty to the offense of Cruelty to Animals. On October 10, 2013, in accordance with a plea agreement, the Honorable Joe H. Enos, District Judge, sentenced Appellant to a $1,000.00 fine and to five (5) years imprisonment, with all but the first one (1) year of that term conditionally suspended under written rules of probation. On October 20, 2016, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence. The Motion alleged Appellant had violated his probation by: 1. Failing to provide verification of employment; 2. Being in $920.00 in arrears on supervision fees due to the Department of Corrections; 3. Failing to pay restitution of $152.44; 4. Failing to pay $75.00 per month beginning October 2015 towards costs, fines, and fees, resulting in arrears of $675.00. On November 10, 2016, the parties appeared before the Honorable Ken Graham, District Judge, regarding the Motion to Revoke. While represented by counsel, Appellant stipulated to the probation violations contained in that Motion. Further revocation proceedings regarding punishment were postponed for two months, allowing Appellant time to comply with his probation requirements. This period was later expanded twice, eventually leading to a hearing on June 22, 2017. At this June 22nd hearing, Appellant again appeared with counsel. The probation officer provided a Supplemental Report indicating that Appellant remained significantly delinquent in fulfilling payment obligations, although he had paid off the restitution. Additionally, the report noted that Appellant had not verified employment nor demonstrated compliance with job search requirements. There were also reports of unsigned traffic citations and evidence of an altered appointment slip presented by Appellant. After considering testimonies and evidence regarding Appellant's compliance, Judge Graham revoked Appellant's suspended sentence in full. Appellant now appeals that final order of revocation, asserting that the court denied due process and abused its discretion by revoking the remaining suspended sentence based on extra-application allegations. After careful review, we find no error warranting reversal. Appellant had stipulated to the probation violations, providing the State with the necessary grounds to prove the allegations. Consequently, the trial court had the authority to revoke the suspended sentence. Appellant failed to demonstrate significant compliance with probation requirements over an extended period, despite having opportunities to rectify the situation. The revocation order is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2018), MANDATE IS ORDERED ISSUED on the filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** **R. L. WILLIAMS** P.O. BOX 2095 LAWTON, OKLAHOMA 73502 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT **GREG STEWARD** ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY STEPHENS COUNTY COURTHOUSE 101 SOUTH 11TH STREET DUNCAN, OKLAHOMA 73533 ATTORNEY FOR STATE OF OKLA. --- **OPINION BY: HUDSON, J.** **LUMPKIN, P.J.: CONCUR** **LEWIS, V.P.J.: CONCUR** **KUEHN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** --- **KUEHN, JUDGE, CONCURRING IN RESULT:** I concur in the result. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in full. Appellant stipulated to the Application to Revoke, making only the issue before the trial court whether to revoke the suspended sentence in part or in full. While Appellant used this opportunity to pay restitution, he failed to comply with the rest of the conditions. The trial court reasonably considered Appellant's interim behavior, given the evidence of continued violations, leading to the conclusion to revoke. The failure to make a determination regarding Appellant’s ability to pay was error, but not dispositive as Appellant had already stipulated to the original allegations. The trial court properly considered the evidence presented in mitigation when deciding the final revocation of the sentence.

Continue ReadingRE-2017-706

C-2016-813

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-813, Derlin Lara appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including Manslaughter in the First Degree and Driving Under the Influence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny in part and grant in part the appeal. One judge dissented. Derlin Lara was involved in a serious legal situation where he entered an Alford plea. This type of plea means that he did not admit guilt but agreed that there was enough evidence to convict him. His charges included killing someone while driving under the influence, injuring another person while DUI, driving without a license, and transporting alcohol in the car. After he pleaded guilty, he was sentenced by a judge. The judge gave him a long sentence that meant he’d serve a lot of time in prison. Lara later wanted to take back his plea because he felt it wasn’t fair and that he didn't fully understand what he was doing. He argued that he was confused during the process, and that he had received poor advice from his lawyer. The court looked carefully at Lara's case and found several key points: 1. The judges believed that Lara's plea was actually made with understanding, even though he insisted that he did not understand everything. They noted that he had an interpreter during his hearings. 2. The court decided that Lara was not unfairly punished multiple times for the same actions. They explained that each charge had different parts and involved different victims, so they did not violate any laws regarding multiple punishments. 3. Lara’s claims about his lawyer not helping him were also rejected. The court found that Lara did not show that having a different lawyer would have changed his decision to plead guilty. 4. The sentence he received for one of the charges was too harsh according to the law. He was given a year in jail for driving without a license, but that punishment was higher than allowed. The court changed that sentence to a shorter one of just thirty days. Lastly, the court found that the amounts assessed for victim compensation and restitution were not properly explained during sentencing. Therefore, they canceled those amounts and decided that a hearing should be held to determine fair compensation. In summary, while the court denied most of Lara's requests, they did change one of his sentences and agreed that some financial penalties needed to be rethought.

Continue ReadingC-2016-813

C-2015-1063

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

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.

Continue ReadingC-2015-1063

C 2014-920

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2014-920, John Edward Oxford appealed his conviction for several serious crimes including robbery, burglary, and conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but also ordered a hearing to review the amount of restitution he was ordered to pay. Oxford was charged with multiple counts and, on July 10, 2014, he entered a blind plea, which means he pleaded guilty without negotiating a deal, to all the charges. The court sentenced him to a total of over 70 years in prison and ordered him to pay about $67,539 in restitution to the victims. After his sentencing, Oxford tried to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he did not understand the charges and was not fully informed about his rights. The trial court held a hearing on this and ultimately denied his request. Oxford then appealed this decision, arguing several points. First, he believed he should not have been sentenced for certain counts because it violated laws against double punishment. However, the court noted that his arguments about double jeopardy were not raised in the earlier stages and thus were not considered. Second, he argued there wasn't enough evidence to support the restitution amount, but again the court found this issue had not been raised before and rejected it. Oxford also claimed he did not receive effective legal help during his plea and the hearing to withdraw it. The court agreed that there were problems with how his attorney handled the restitution order, focusing mainly on the lack of detailed documentation justifying the restitution amount. This lack of evidence meant the restitution order was not valid. While the court found that Oxford's guilty plea was made voluntarily, it did acknowledge inadequate support for the restitution order. Therefore, it denied his appeal regarding the guilty plea but vacated the restitution order, sending the case back to the lower court for a proper review of how much compensation was truly owed to the victims. One judge dissented, noting that the case should have been looked at more closely regarding the earlier claims. So, in summary, the appeal was mainly denied except for the part about restitution, which was sent back to the lower court for further review.

Continue ReadingC 2014-920

RE 2014-0536

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2014-0536, Matthew Carl Eddings appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Substance and Driving Under the Influence of Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Eddings' suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Eddings was originally given a deferred sentence with rules for probation and fines for his crimes. However, over the years, he struggled to meet the conditions of his probation, which included paying fines and child support. The state moved to revoke his sentence because of these issues. When the court reviewed Eddings' case, they found enough evidence to support the revocation. Eddings had not made required payments for over a year and had not shown a good faith effort to comply with the rules. The court also noted that since there were new facts presented during the latest revocation hearing, the principle of res judicata, which prevents re-judging the same issue, did not apply. However, there was an issue identified with an added requirement for supervision after imprisonment. The court agreed that the requirement for one year of supervision after his sentence was not appropriate, as new laws did not apply to his case. In conclusion, while Eddings’ suspended sentence was revoked, the court ordered that the requirement for post-imprisonment supervision be removed.

Continue ReadingRE 2014-0536

C-2014-254

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-254, the petitioner appealed his conviction for embezzling over $25,000. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling regarding the petitioner's motions, but vacated the restitution order and remanded the case for a new determination of the victim's loss. One judge dissented. The petitioner, who is William Reeves Cathey, was accused of embezzlement by the state. He pleaded guilty to the charge in 2012, and his sentencing was delayed multiple times so he could repay the money he took. When his sentencing finally took place in January 2014, he decided to represent himself after dismissing his lawyer due to their illness. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison, but allowed him to suspend six years of that sentence and ordered him to pay $96,500 in restitution to the victim. Before he was sentenced, the petitioner made several requests to withdraw his guilty plea and to disqualify the District Attorney's office, claiming it was unfair. The court denied these requests. He also claimed that he did not understand the plea agreement because he thought the maximum fine would be much lower than what it was. He felt that the judge had not properly explained the charges to him when he entered his plea and claimed this made his plea involuntary. During the appeal process, the court looked at the petitioner's points. They decided that his concerns about the restitution order were valid. The court found that the lower court had not made it clear how the restitution amount was determined, and they thought that a new hearing was needed to sort this out. The court also rejected all of the petitioner's other arguments. They believed that he had entered his plea knowingly and that his sentence, while long, was not excessively severe. In conclusion, the court confirmed the denial of his motions to withdraw his plea but returned the issue of the restitution amount back to the trial court for further evaluation.

Continue ReadingC-2014-254

RE-2013-1027

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-1027, Justin Michael Jay appealed his conviction for Forgery in the Second Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for corrections. One judge dissented. Justin Michael Jay was in trouble with the law and had a suspended sentence, which means he wouldn’t have to serve time in jail if he followed the rules. He had pleaded guilty to forgery and was given a suspended sentence of five years, but he had to spend the first 30 days in jail. However, things changed when he was accused of breaking the rules of his probation. The State, which is the side that brings charges, said that Jay did not pay the money he owed for supervision, restitution (the money owed to victims), and court costs. They also noted that Jay was charged with more crimes: Domestic Abuse and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Because of these new charges and failures to pay, the State asked the court to revoke Jay's suspended sentence. The court held a hearing to discuss Jay's situation. After listening to the evidence and arguments, the judge decided to revoke the rest of Jay's suspended sentence. This meant that Jay would have to serve the time he had left, which was almost five years. Later, the court filed a document that said Jay was revoked for 4 years and 335 days, and that he would have to be supervised after getting out of jail. Jay appealed this decision, arguing two main points. First, he claimed that the amount of time the judge revoked was wrong because he should have received credit for more days served when he was part of a special program for youthful offenders. Both Jay and the State agreed on this point, saying he should have been credited for 183 days instead of just 30. Therefore, they asked to change the revocation time to 4 years and 182 days. The second point Jay argued was that the court did not have the authority to order him to be under supervision after finishing his time in jail because the law about that only applies to those who were sentenced after November 1, 2012. Since Jay's original guilty plea and sentencing were before that date, the judge should not have included that supervision requirement. In the end, the court agreed with Jay on both points. They reversed the judgment that included the incorrect time and the unnecessary supervision requirement. They ordered the lower court to make the corrections and update the documents accordingly.

Continue ReadingRE-2013-1027

F-2013-994

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-994, Horace Joe Bigmedicine appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court but vacated the order of restitution. One judge dissented. Bigmedicine was found guilty in a trial held in Blaine County and was sentenced to thirty years in prison. He raised two main issues in his appeal. First, he argued that misconduct by the prosecutor unfairly influenced the trial. The court stated that it would only grant relief for prosecutorial misconduct if it was very serious and made the trial unfair. The court found the prosecutor's comments were appropriate and did not make the trial unfair, so they did not grant relief on that issue. Second, Bigmedicine claimed that the court did not properly follow the rules when it ordered him to pay $2,000 in restitution. The court pointed out that Bigmedicine did not object to the restitution at the time, so he could not challenge it later unless there was a serious mistake. The law allows a trial court to require a defendant to pay restitution for the victim's financial losses, but these losses must be proven with reasonable certainty. In Bigmedicine’s case, the evidence about the victim’s financial loss was lacking because the victim did not testify about it, and the necessary documents were not presented in court. Therefore, the court ruled that the restitution order was arbitrary and that it had to be canceled. Ultimately, the court affirmed Bigmedicine's conviction but required that the issue of restitution be looked at again in the lower court to make sure it was handled correctly.

Continue ReadingF-2013-994

F-2013-619

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-619, Carty appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the restitution order. One judge dissented. Carty was found guilty of using a dangerous weapon during a robbery. He was sentenced to ten years in prison and had to pay $625 in restitution to the victim. Carty thought that the trial court made a mistake when it decided how much he should pay as restitution. He argued that the court did not follow the correct rules when ordering the restitution. The court explained that when a victim suffers financial loss because of a crime, the trial court can order the defendant to pay restitution. However, this amount must be proven with reasonable certainty. This means that the victim needs to provide clear evidence of their financial loss, like how much they spent on medical bills or other costs resulting from the crime. The judges reviewed the records from Carty’s trial. They found that there was no evidence showing how the victim calculated their financial loss, and the victim did not share their losses during the sentencing. Because there was not enough proof provided to establish the victim's economic loss, the court agreed that the trial court made a mistake in deciding the restitution amount. The court ultimately upheld Carty's conviction but ordered that the restitution amount be looked at again to ensure it was determined correctly based on the victim’s actual losses.

Continue ReadingF-2013-619

S-2013-315

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

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

Continue ReadingS-2013-315

F-2012-1126

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-1126, Kevon Andra McLaren appealed his convictions for robbery with a firearm and conspiracy to commit robbery with a firearm, among other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse one of the counts of kidnapping while affirming the other convictions. One judge dissented. In the case, McLaren was found guilty of several serious crimes, including robbery, kidnapping, and shooting with intent to kill. The court focused on multiple offenses he committed against several people, determining that some of the convictions did not violate laws against double punishment because they were for different acts against different victims. However, they found one of the kidnapping charges was too similar to a robbery charge; thus, they reversed that particular conviction. Additionally, McLaren challenged the trial court’s decision to order restitution, claiming it did not follow proper procedures. However, the court ruled that he did not raise this issue correctly and that there was enough evidence to support the restitution ordered for the victims. Overall, while the court reversed one conviction, most of McLaren's convictions and sentences were upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2012-1126

F-2012-721

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-721, Deshaunte Devon Coulter appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Coulter's conviction and sentence but vacated the restitution order, directing a new determination of the victim’s loss. One judge dissented. Coulter was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to thirty years in prison, along with an order to pay $2,300 in restitution. He raised several issues on appeal, including claims of unfair trial due to the admission of other crimes evidence, DNA evidence issues, prosecutorial misconduct, and excessive sentencing. The court looked closely at each of Coulter’s arguments. For the first claim about other crimes evidence, the court found there was no actual error because the officers’ testimonies did not specifically reference other crimes involving Coulter. Since Coulter did not challenge this during the trial, he could only appeal on the grounds of plain error, which the court ruled did not occur. In the second argument about DNA evidence, the court noted that Coulter had not shown that the State had erred. The evidence was timely provided, and the court did not find a Brady violation regarding the lack of lab notes since Coulter did not request them in time. For the third claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the court found that there was no actual error. The prosecutor’s comments during the trial were not improper, and thus did not violate Coulter's rights. In the fourth argument, regarding the claim that his sentence was excessive, the court concluded that the sentence fell within the legal limit and was not shockingly inappropriate under the circumstances. In the fifth claim, which concerned the assessment of restitution, the court found that the trial court did not follow proper procedures. The evidence presented at the sentencing didn’t adequately prove the victim's financial losses, so the restitution order was vacated. Finally, Coulter claimed that the cumulative effect of all errors deprived him of a fair trial, but the court found that wasn't the case. The decision affirmed Coulter's conviction and sentence while remanding the restitution matter for proper evaluation.

Continue ReadingF-2012-721

F-2011-1019

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-1019, Timmy Howard Dickey appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his conviction to Incest instead. Two judges dissented. Timmy Howard Dickey was tried by a jury and found guilty of Child Sexual Abuse. The trial occurred in the District Court of Caddo County, and the judge sentenced him to 5 years in prison. Dickey was charged with having sex with his 17-year-old niece, B.D. The charges came to light when B.D. reported to the police that Dickey had raped her. Dickey's main argument on appeal was about the definition of a person responsible for the health, safety, or welfare of a child. He claimed that the court didn't have enough evidence to show that he was in a position of responsibility for B.D. at the time of the incident, which was necessary for a conviction of Child Sexual Abuse according to the law. The court agreed with Dickey’s argument, stating that there wasn't enough proof that he was a custodian as defined by the law. The law categorized those responsible for a child’s welfare, and the court found that Dickey did not fit into these categories like parents or legal guardians do. Since the legal definition of custodian requires formal authority granted by a court, and Dickey did not have such authority, the court found his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse could not stand. Even though they found insufficient evidence for that specific charge, the court acknowledged that Dickey did commit a serious crime against B.D. They indicated that it would be more fitting to change his conviction to Incest, recognizing that Dickey admitted to having consensual sex with B.D. during an interview after the incident. Ultimately, the court decided to change Dickey's conviction from Child Sexual Abuse to Incest but kept the sentence at 5 years of imprisonment. The decision was made to send a strong message about the seriousness of the crime. In conclusion, Dickey's charge was modified to recognize the seriousness of his actions, but technically, he was incorrectly charged at first. The judges had different opinions on the case, with two of them disagreeing with the court's decision to alter the conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2011-1019