Restitution Order

F-2019-369

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-369, Collins appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment but vacated and remanded the restitution and fees due to errors in their assessment. One judge dissented. Joseph Willis Collins was found guilty by a jury for committing assault with a dangerous weapon. He faced this trial in Comanche County where he was sentenced to spend twenty-five years in prison and was ordered to pay restitution and court costs. Collins claimed that several things went wrong during his trial that justified overturning his conviction. First, Collins argued that when he asked police if he could go back downstairs, it meant he wanted to stop talking to them, and police should have immediately respected that request. He believed this request was an important part of his rights, which should not have been pushed aside during the questioning. However, the court decided that even though admitting his statements without considering his right not to speak was a mistake, it was not significant enough to change the outcome of the case because there was a lot of clear evidence proving he was guilty. Next, Collins argued that some embarrassing information from his cellphone should not have been used against him during the trial. He thought that this evidence made it hard for him to get a fair trial because it focused on his relationships in a negative way. However, the court did not find this evidence to be unfairly prejudicial, as it was used to help explain details relevant to the case. Collins also believed that his lawyer did not competently defend him, especially regarding the use of the testimony linked to the cellphone and the earlier statements made to police after he asked to stop being questioned. The court looked at all these claims and found that there were no significant mistakes made by Collins’s lawyer that affected the trial's outcome. The other issues Collins raised were about financial matters from his sentencing. Collins was ordered to pay $7,504 in restitution for the victim’s losses, but the court admitted this amount wasn't properly justified, so they decided it should be determined again. The court also acknowledged a mistake in charging Collins a $1,500 indigent defense fee instead of the maximum allowed of $1,000. There was also a dispute about the juror fees that Collins thought were incorrectly calculated, but since he did not raise this objection during the trial, the court decided not to change this part of the decision. In the end, the court upheld the conviction and the lengthy sentence Collins received. They ordered the lower court to redo the calculations for restitution and the indigent defense fee to comply with the law and ensure a fair process. The judgment of conviction and the twenty-five-year prison sentence were upheld, while the restitution and indigent fees were vacated and remanded for further action.

Continue ReadingF-2019-369

C-2018-1184

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In the case of Hipolito John Herrera v. The State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed Herrera's appeal concerning his guilty plea to Conjoint Robbery. The key issues raised by Herrera were: 1. **Plea Validity**: Herrera argued that his guilty plea was not entered freely, knowingly, and intelligently, citing misadvice from his legal counsel regarding his potential maximum sentence. The State conceded this point, acknowledging that the plea was not made with the requisite understanding. The court found that this constituted an abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying Herrera's motion to withdraw his plea. 2. **Restitution Order**: Herrera's second and third propositions focused on the restitution order, arguing that the trial court did not have sufficient proof of actual losses incurred by the victim and a bail bondsman, and that the bail bondsman should not be considered a victim under Oklahoma restitution laws. However, these propositions became moot due to the decision on the plea validity. Ultimately, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of Herrera's Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea and remanded the case for further proceedings. This ruling emphasized the importance of ensuring a defendant's plea is made with full understanding and without coercion or misinformation. The judicial decision highlighted in the summary opinion grants Herrera relief, enabling him to withdraw his plea and possibly reassess the legal consequences and restitution implications of his case.

Continue ReadingC-2018-1184

C-2018-977

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**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)**

Continue ReadingC-2018-977

F-2015-909

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-909, Ricky Nolan Ennis appealed his conviction for multiple offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but vacated the restitution order and remanded the case for a proper determination of the victim's loss. Ricky Nolan Ennis pled guilty to burglary and domestic assault and battery, with sentencing delayed so he could complete a rehabilitation program. After he completed the program, the court agreed to delay his sentencing for five years. However, later on, the State alleged he violated his probation by committing new crimes. He was tried by jury for these new charges and found not guilty of kidnapping but guilty of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, assault and battery in the presence of a minor, and threatening violence. The jury recommended various sentences, which the judge followed along with increasing his sentences from the earlier cases due to probation violations. Ennis raised several arguments in his appeal, questioning whether he was properly advised about his right to appeal, claiming he did not plead to the new charges, and arguing that the trial judge considered irrelevant information and that the evidence against him was unfairly prejudicial. Ennis also claimed his attorney did not represent him effectively, that the prosecutor misbehaved, and that the sentences he received were excessive. After a thorough review, the court found Ennis's complaints about not being advised on the right to appeal and other issues did not warrant relief. They noted that he did not raise many of these issues in a timely manner and that most of his claims did not show he was denied a fair trial. However, the court did find an error in how restitution was determined, as there was not enough evidence to justify the amount ordered. Ultimately, the court’s decision affirmed Ennis’s convictions but also required the case to return to the lower court to correctly handle the victim's restitution claim.

Continue ReadingF-2015-909

F-2014-1019

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-1019, Charles Leonard Bennett, III appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the district court. One judge dissented. Bennett was found guilty after a trial where the judge, not a jury, listened to the case. He received a sentence of fifteen years in prison. Bennett raised several issues on appeal. He first argued that the evidence did not prove he did not act in self-defense. The court found enough evidence that a reasonable person could decide he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This means they believed the victim and the facts presented at the trial supported the conviction. Bennett also wanted to argue other issues that could lead to a new trial. However, he decided to withdraw those arguments and only focus on the issues that might lead to his case being dismissed or his sentence being changed. He signed a document saying he knew what he was doing by waiving those rights. Another issue was about restitution, which is when a person convicted of a crime has to pay the victim for their losses. Bennett contested the court's order for him to pay restitution because the required paperwork showing the victim's losses was not properly presented during the trial. Since no proof of the victim's financial losses was provided, the court agreed that the restitution order was arbitrary and sent the case back to the district court to properly determine the victim's losses. Overall, while Bennett's conviction was upheld, the court required a re-evaluation of the restitution owed to the victim. The case was sent back to the district court for this purpose, but other than that, the court found no significant errors that would change the outcome of the case.

Continue ReadingF-2014-1019

F-2014-974

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-974, Donald Edward Tolliver, Jr. appealed his conviction for Shooting With Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence but vacated the restitution order, requiring a new determination of the victim's losses. One judge dissented. Tolliver was found guilty by a jury and received a thirty-five-year sentence, with thirty-two years suspended. He had to pay over $10,000 in restitution, which he appealed, arguing several points about his trial. He claimed the trial court made several errors. First, he believed the court should have instructed the jury on lesser-included offenses, like Assault and Battery, but the court noted that Tolliver had proclaimed his innocence and did not show he committed any lesser crime. Second, he argued the court should have included an instruction about flight, which might help explain his actions after the shooting. However, because he did not properly ask for this during the trial, the court ruled he could not bring this up on appeal. Third, he accused the prosecution of misconduct, arguing this affected his chance for a fair trial. However, the court found that while some actions by the prosecution could be questionable, they didn't constitute an error that would change the outcome of the trial. In his fourth argument, Tolliver said the court didn't follow proper rules regarding restitution calculations. The appellate court agreed with this point, stating that the evidence did not clearly show the victim's actual losses. Fifth, he argued the thirty-five-year sentence was excessive. The court disagreed, finding the sentence appropriate given the crime. Finally, he claimed that all the errors combined took away his right to a fair trial, but the court noted there wasn’t enough evidence to support this claim either. Ultimately, while Tolliver's conviction and sentence were upheld, the restitution order was sent back to the lower court for further consideration of the victim's financial losses.

Continue ReadingF-2014-974

F-2014-698

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-698, Weimer appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder (Child Abuse). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence but vacated the order of restitution. One judge dissented. Weimer was found guilty after a jury trial in Comanche County and was sentenced to life in prison. He also had to pay restitution of $6,395. During his appeal, Weimer claimed several issues. He argued that evidence from the Medical Examiner's office was not valid because the office was not accredited. He also said that he could not present his defense properly and that he could not confront the witnesses effectively. Another issue was his complaints about gruesome photos shown during the trial, saying they made the trial unfair. Weimer's defense team also argued that not letting the jury visit the crime scene was unfair and that the restitution amount was not backed by real evidence. Lastly, he expressed that the total mistakes during the trial made the whole process unfair. The court reviewed each of Weimer's points. They decided that even though the Medical Examiner's office was not accredited, it did not make the evidence inadmissible. They also ruled that Weimer was able to defend himself properly and that he was not unfairly restricted in doing so. The court allowed the autopsy photos because they were relevant to the case. Regarding the jury's visit to the crime scene, the court agreed with the trial judge that it was not necessary. On restitution, the court found the trial judge had not given a clear basis for the restitution amount, which led to the decision to vacate the order and send it back to the lower court for further evaluation of the actual loss. In the end, the court found no errors in the trial that would require a new trial. Therefore, they affirmed Weimer's conviction but sent the case back for more work on the restitution amount because there wasn't enough evidence to support it. One judge disagreed with part of the ruling about the Medical Examiner’s office not being accredited but agreed with the final result of the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2014-698

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

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

F-2012-212

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-212, Bryce Andrew Davis appealed his conviction for Aggravated Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the District Court abused its discretion in ordering restitution, and they remanded the case for modification of the restitution order. One member of the court dissented. The case began when Bryce Andrew Davis entered a plea to the crime of Aggravated Assault and Battery against a minor at a Walmart store. The minor suffered serious injuries, including a crushed cheekbone and an orbital wall fracture, needing significant medical treatment. After Davis completed a rehabilitation program, a hearing was held to determine the amount of restitution he would have to pay to cover the victim's expenses. The court ordered Davis to pay a total of $30,528.43 in restitution, which was meant to cover the victim's medical expenses, lost wages of his parents due to caring for him, travel costs for doctor visits, and fees for copying records. However, Davis argued that the restitution amount was too high and that the court had exceeded its authority by not limiting the amount to the actual economic loss suffered by the victim. The law states that restitution is only supposed to cover actual financial detriment suffered by the victim, meaning help for their real costs like medical bills that have to be paid out of pocket. Davis pointed out that the amount awarded to the victim included expenses that were not certain, such as lost wages for the victim's father and future medical costs. After reviewing the evidence and the court's decisions, the appellate court found that the trial court did not calculate the restitution correctly. They realized that the court had used the total medical bills before insurance adjustments, which was not allowed. Instead, they should have calculated the actual amount paid by the family, which was much lower. The court modified the restitution order to reflect three times the actual economic damage for medical costs, reducing that portion of the restitution significantly. They also struck down the father's lost wages because there was not enough proof to support the amount claimed. The future medical costs award was also removed because they were too uncertain and speculative. The decision outlined the need for a clear basis for any loss that a victim claims, stating that the evidence must be strong enough to establish real losses. The court upheld other parts of the restitution order, which were justified. In summary, the court found that while the victim suffered injuries and needed help, the original calculations for restitution went beyond what was allowed by law, leading to significant modifications in the amount that Davis would have to pay. They ordered adjustments to ensure that restitution reflected actual, proven losses.

Continue ReadingF-2012-212

C-2010-940

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-940, Gregory Davis Wabaunsee appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including two counts of Second Degree Burglary and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss one of the firearm charges due to a double punishment issue, but they upheld the other convictions and sentences. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2010-940

C-2010-431

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-322, Kinter appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate his conviction and grant him a new trial. One judge dissented. Silvon Dane Kinter was charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon in 2009. He had trouble paying his lawyer, and she withdrew from the case. Kinter asked for a public defender but was denied. Kinter then pleaded guilty to the charges because he felt pressured and did not want to represent himself at trial. After pleading guilty, Kinter quickly sought to withdraw his plea, claiming he was not given fair legal help. He argued that his rights were violated because he was not allowed to have a lawyer he could trust and that he was forced to plead guilty under pressure. The court found that Kinter did not get a chance for a proper assessment of his financial situation and that the denial of counsel affected his decision to plead guilty. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with Kinter, stating that he was denied a fair right to legal representation. They ruled in his favor, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea and giving him a chance for a new trial. The case highlights the importance of having a lawyer who can represent a defendant without any problems and ensures they understand their rights fully.

Continue ReadingC-2010-431