Revocation Hearing

RE-2021-1202

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2021-1202, Jimmy Dale Jackson, Jr. appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his probation. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of his suspended sentence to six months instead of a longer term. One judge dissented. Here’s a summary of the case: Jimmy Dale Jackson, Jr. had a suspended sentence from a previous conviction for Lewd Molestation, which means he was not in prison but had to follow certain rules. In 2021, the State of Oklahoma accused him of breaking those rules. They said he did many things wrong, such as driving with a gun, using drugs, not paying the fees he needed to, and talking to a girl who was a minor, which he was told not to do. When Jackson went to the court for a hearing, the judge decided that he had indeed broken the rules, and as a result, revoked his suspended sentence completely. Jackson then appealed this decision. He argued that the judge's decision was too harsh and that he should not have been punished so severely for what he called technical violations. He also claimed that the judge improperly used the results of a lie detector test (polygraph) against him during the hearing. The court had to consider whether the judge had made a real mistake. They found out that Jackson's violations were mostly technical, meaning they were not serious crimes but rather rule-breaking issues. According to Oklahoma law, if a person on probation has technical violations for the first time, the judge can only revoke their suspended sentence for up to six months. The court decided that Jackson's violations did not include breaking any serious laws because he had never been told to follow specialized rules for sex offenders, which would have been more serious. They noted he was only accused of violating standard probation rules. Since the judge revoked his sentence for a period longer than what the law allows for technical violations, the court agreed that was a mistake. Regarding the polygraph results, Jackson's team had talked about them first, so the court said that Jackson could not complain about that now. They concluded that even without the polygraph, there were enough other reasons to revoke his probation. In the end, the court said Jackson's sentenced revocation would be adjusted to six months, meaning he would have to follow the suspension rules for just that amount of time instead of facing a longer prison term. The court emphasized that everyone must understand the rules when they are on probation and that following proper legal steps is important to ensure fairness. So, in summary, the court reduced Jackson's punishment because they found he was not given proper notice about the rules he had to follow and that he should not have been penalized so harshly for technical violations alone.

Continue ReadingRE-2021-1202

RE-2020-398

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2020-398, Kenneth Joe Norton appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but ordered the trial court to modify the term executed on one charge to one year. One judge dissented. Norton was charged with two crimes, Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Larceny of Merchandise, and he pleaded no contest in both cases. He was sentenced to ten years in prison, but part of that sentence was suspended as long as he completed a program. Later, the State claimed he broke the terms of his suspended sentence by getting into more trouble, which led to a court hearing. Norton argued that the sentence that was given to him was too long. He believed that the old law allowed a shorter sentence. The court looked at his claims and noted that, since the law changed after he was convicted, he should only serve one year on the larceny charge. This part of his appeal was accepted. Norton also tried to argue that some of the evidence during his revocation hearing should not have been allowed because it was obtained without proper procedures. He claimed that he had not been warned about his rights when he made a statement that led to his arrest. The court explained that during a revocation hearing, the same protections as a criminal trial do not apply. Therefore, the evidence was allowed. Moreover, he claimed his lawyer did not do a good job because they did not raise certain points about his case. However, since one of his claims was accepted, the court decided that it did not matter if the lawyer made mistakes because his issue was already resolved. In conclusion, the court allowed some changes to the sentence but maintained that his revocation was valid. The court focused on the rules for reviewing revocation cases and kept Norton accountable for his actions that led to the revocation of his suspended sentences.

Continue ReadingRE-2020-398

F-2019-149

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2019-149

RE-2018-932

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ANTHONY CURTIS CREEK,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. RE-2018-932** **SUMMARY OPINION** **Filed January 23, 2020** ROWLAND, JUDGE: Anthony Curtis Creek, Appellant, entered a guilty plea on March 16, 2015, in Garfield County District Court Case No. CF-2013-393, to Count 1 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, a misdemeanor, and Count 2 - Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a misdemeanor. He received a sentence of one year in the County Jail on Count 1, with 90 days to be served and the remainder suspended; Count 2 was sentenced to one year suspended, with penalties running consecutively. He was also fined $500.00. On January 20, 2017, the State applied for the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence on Count 2, alleging violations: (1) possession or consumption of alcohol; (2) DUI-A, a misdemeanor; and (3) Defective Equipment, a misdemeanor, in Oklahoma County Case No. CM-2016-2776. During the revocation hearing on June 2, 2017, Appellant admitted to the first allegation. The trial judge, Honorable Dennis Hladik, determined that the State proved the other allegations and revoked six months of Appellant's suspended sentence. Appellant appeals this decision, raising several propositions of error: 1. **Abuse of Discretion:** The trial court allegedly utilized a strict liability standard, resulting in a cruel and excessive sentence. 2. **Prosecutorial Misconduct:** Claiming that Appellant was deprived of a fundamentally fair proceeding due to misconduct. 3. **Plain Error:** The trial court's finding on the State's evidence and the standard of proof was erroneous. 4. **Equal Protection Violation:** Appellant asserts he was denied equal protection under the law. 5. **Cumulative Error:** The accumulation of errors deprived Appellant of due process. Upon review, the Court affirms the District Court's order revoking six months of Appellant's suspended sentence. 1. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence is within the substantial discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. The evidence supported Judge Hladik’s decision to revoke only part of the sentence after considering a stipulation and witness testimonies. 2. The Court agrees with Appellant's counsel that prosecutorial misconduct is more appropriate for post-conviction matters. The record does not support claims of misleading behavior by the prosecutors. 3. The standard of proof for such violations is a preponderance of the evidence, adequately satisfied in Appellant's case. Revocation is valid with any proven violation. 4. The trial court's exclusion of evidence does not equate to an equal protection violation. The ruling was consistent and reasonable. 5. As there were no individual errors identified, the argument for cumulative error also fails. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Garfield County District Court Case No. CF-2013-393 is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is ordered to be issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** **David J. Batton** Counsel for Defendant **Tallena Hart** Carter Jennings Assistant District Attorney Counsel for the State **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J:** **LEWIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **LUMPKIN, J: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-932_1734358983.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-932

C-2018-1018

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**Summary Opinion Denying Certiorari** **Case:** Spencer Joe Cuccaro v. State **Judging Authority:** Judge Hudson **Background:** Spencer Joe Cuccaro appealed from a ruling by the District Court of Kay County, where Judge David Bandy denied his application to withdraw pleas entered in three criminal cases. Cuccaro had participated in the Kay County Drug Court program and entered no contest pleas in various counts related to drug possession and other offenses, with a plea agreement tied to his performance in Drug Court. Cuccaro was allegedly coerced into his plea by a law enforcement officer and claimed to be unaware of the severe penalties he would face if he was unsuccessful in completing the Drug Court program. After being terminated from Drug Court for failing to meet its requirements and committing new crimes, Cuccaro received significant prison sentences. **Propositions of Error:** 1. Cuccaro argued that his no contest pleas were entered due to coercion and therefore were not knowing or voluntary. 2. He claimed he did not fully understand the severe consequences of failing the Drug Court program. **Court Findings:** - The Court reviews denials of motions to withdraw guilty pleas for abuse of discretion, primarily assessing if pleas were made knowingly and voluntarily. - Cuccaro's challenge regarding coercion lacked evidence, and testimony at the hearing supported the conclusion that his plea was made with an understanding of the consequences. - Regarding the claim about the punishment understanding, the court noted that fully detailed documentation outlined the potential life sentence in the event of failure in Drug Court, which Cuccaro was aware of before entering his plea. **Conclusion:** The court denied Cuccaro’s petition for a writ of certiorari, affirmed the lower court's judgment, and ruled that there was no abuse of discretion in denying the plea withdrawal. The case exemplifies the requirement for defendants to understand the implications of their plea agreements and the importance of voluntary and informed consent in legal proceedings.

Continue ReadingC-2018-1018

RE 2018-1288

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-1288, Jose Santiago Hernandez appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and conspiracy to commit a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Hernandez had pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm and conspiracy in 2017, getting a ten-year sentence for each count, but only had to serve five years if he followed the rules set for his probation. The State accused him of perjury, claiming he lied during a court proceeding about his co-defendant's involvement in the crime. During a hearing in December 2018, the judge found enough evidence to revoke Hernandez’s suspended sentences because he did not truthfully testify. Hernandez argued that the State did not show he committed perjury, but the court explained that they only needed to prove the violation of his probation terms by presenting a greater weight of evidence. The court concluded that they had enough evidence to believe Hernandez had broken the rules. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision to revoke his suspended sentences, meaning he would have to serve the full ten years.

Continue ReadingRE 2018-1288

F-2018-691

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document you provided outlines a legal case involving Jose Santiago Hernandez, who had his suspended sentences revoked due to alleged perjury. Here’s a summary of the key points: 1. **Background**: Hernandez entered a guilty plea to charges of robbery with a firearm and conspiracy in January 2017, resulting in a ten-year sentence with the last five years suspended. 2. **Revocation**: The State filed an application to revoke his suspended sentences on the grounds that he committed perjury by providing false statements regarding his co-defendant's involvement in the robbery during court proceedings. 3. **Hearing**: A revocation hearing took place on December 19, 2018, where the judge found that Hernandez did not provide truthful testimony. The judge ruled in favor of the State's application to revoke his suspended sentences. 4. **Appeal**: Hernandez appealed the revocation, arguing that the State did not present sufficient evidence of perjury, violating his due process rights. 5. **Court's Decision**: The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that violations of suspended sentences need only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation and found no abuse of discretion by the trial court. 6. **Conclusion**: The revocation of Hernandez's suspended sentences was upheld. For any further inquiries or specific details about the case, feel free to ask!

Continue ReadingF-2018-691

RE-2018-645

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **ANTWOIN LEE WALKER, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **Case No. RE-2018-645** **Summary Opinion** **File Date: December 12, 2019** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Antwoin Lee Walker appeals the full revocation of his six-year suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2015-675 by District Judge Paul Hesse of the Canadian County District Court. **Background:** On October 27, 2015, Walker pled guilty to Petit Larceny (Count 1) and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property (Count 2), resulting in a six-month county jail sentence on Count 1 and a ten-year sentence on Count 2, with four years suspended. On May 30, 2017, the State filed to revoke his suspended sentence, citing new charges including Attempt to Kill, Rape in the First Degree, and two instances of Petit Larceny, in Case No. CF-2017-445. Walker was subsequently convicted on May 10, 2018, of all counts in that case. During a hearing on June 19, 2018, which combined revocation and sentencing phases, Judge Hesse considered evidence from the jury trial and sentenced Walker to life imprisonment on Counts 1 and 2, among others. In the revocation portion, Walker’s attorney agreed to incorporate the trial evidence in assessing the probation violation. Judge Hesse found Walker had violated his probation and revoked the suspended sentence in full, ordering it to run concurrently with his sentences from Case No. CF-2017-445. **Proposition of Error:** Walker asserts the trial court erred by taking judicial notice of evidence from the prior trial. **Analysis:** The appellate court finds that there was no judicial notice taken. Walker consented to the combination of hearings and did not object to the incorporation of trial evidence into the revocation proceedings. The court notes the distinction from precedent cases, as Walker's situation involves a combined hearing rather than separate unrelated proceedings. Given that the trial court is afforded discretion in revocation matters and there was no abuse of that discretion, the court ultimately finds no reversible error. **Decision:** The order revoking Walker’s six-year suspended sentence is AFFIRMED. **Appearances:** - **For the Appellant:** Craig Corgan, Sarah MacNiven - **For the State:** Eric Epplin, Mike Hunter, Theodore M. Peeper **Opinion by:** KUEHN, V.P.J. **Concurred by:** LEWIS, P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. **Note:** For the full opinion, see [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-645_1734427729.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-645

RE-2018-1071

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOSE ANGEL LOPEZ, ) Appellant, ) V. ) No. RE-2018-1071 THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) Appellee.** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 26 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** *KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:* Appellant, Jose Angel Lopez, pled guilty to Count 1 - Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Intentional Discharge of a Firearm, a felony, and Count 2 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, a misdemeanor, in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2010-3550. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment for Count 1 and one year imprisonment for Count 2. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, with all but the first five years suspended. Following a one-year Judicial Review hearing, Appellant’s sentence for Count 1 was modified to three years to serve and seven years suspended. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence, alleging Appellant violated the terms of his suspended sentence by failing to pay supervision fees, failing to report as directed, and committing the new crime of Possession of CDS, as alleged in Lincoln County Case No. CF-2014-343. The application to revoke was later amended to further allege Appellant committed the new crimes of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Felon in Possession of a Firearm, as alleged in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2017-4230. Following a revocation hearing before the Hon. Glenn M. Jones, District Judge, Appellant's suspended sentence was revoked in full. Appellant appeals the revocation of his suspended sentences, raising a sole proposition of error: the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Appellant's sentence based entirely upon hearsay evidence with no particularized guarantee of reliability. We affirm the order of the District Court revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in full. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence, in whole or in part, is within the sound discretion of the trial court and such decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof. Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, 10, 306 P.3d 554, 557. An 'abuse of discretion' is defined by this Court as a 'clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented in support of and against the application.' Walker v. State, 1989 OK CR 65, 5, 780 P.2d 1181, 1183. Alleged violations of conditions of a suspended sentence need be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. Tilden, 2013 OK CR 10, 5, 306 P.3d at 556. Judge Jones determined that the State showed, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Appellant committed the new crimes alleged in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2017-4230. This decision was reached after reviewing the preliminary hearing's transcript from Case No. CF-2017-4230, in which the victim testified Appellant entered his yard and shot him while he was sitting on his front porch. This Court has held that neither the relaxed due process standards nor the provisions of Section 991b are violated when a transcript of a previous judicial hearing is admitted into evidence at a revocation hearing so long as the defendant was allowed to confront and cross-examine the witnesses at the previous judicial hearing. Wortham v. State, 2008 OK CR 18, 15, 188 P.3d 201, 206. A review of the preliminary hearing transcript shows that Appellant’s trial counsel, who also represented him at the revocation hearing, cross-examined the State's only witness. The testimony of a witness about his personal knowledge of the events, under oath and subject to cross-examination, is not hearsay. Appellant has not shown an abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The District Court's revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2010-3550 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 OKLAHOMA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE GLENN M. JONES, DISTRICT JUDGE** APPEARANCES AT HEARING: LYDIA FIELDS ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT TIFFANY NOBLE ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OKLAHOMA COUNTY COUNSEL FOR THE STATE MIKE HUNTER ATTORNEY GENERAL CAROLINE E.J. HUNT ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J.: LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: RECUSE 005 [Download the PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-1071_1734355190.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1071

RE-2018-855

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DAKOTA MICHAEL SHANE BELL, Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-855** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 26 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** ### SUMMARY OPINION **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant Dakota Michael Shane Bell appeals from the revocation of suspended sentences in Payne County District Court Case Nos. CF-2016-375 and CF-2016-952. He pleaded guilty on April 5, 2017, to Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony (Count 2) in Case No. CF-2016-375 and Unlawful Use of a Vehicle in Case No. CF-2016-952. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment in each case, with all but the first sixty days suspended, and the sentences ordered to be served concurrently. On January 22, 2018, the State filed motions to revoke these suspended sentences, citing several violations by Appellant, including failure to pay required fees, absconding from supervision, and failing to complete mandated evaluations. After a hearing, Judge Kistler allowed Appellant until May 16, 2018, to comply with the conditions. When he did not appear, a warrant was issued. On July 24, 2018, following further proceedings, the trial court revoked Appellant's remaining suspended sentence. A violation report submitted by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections indicated Appellant failed drug tests and several other requirements. On July 11, 2019, the State sought to supplement the record with an Amended Judgment and Sentence After Revocation, which was granted by the court. **Proposition I:** Appellant claims the revocation constituted an abuse of discretion based on his personal disadvantages. This argument is without merit, as a suspended sentence is a discretionary grace. The State must prove only one violation for revocation. Here, multiple violations were established, and Appellant received considerable leniency but failed to adhere to the conditions of his probation. Thus, no abuse of discretion is shown. **Proposition II:** Appellant asserts that the revocation order omitted credit for time served and mandated post-imprisonment supervision. This concern has been addressed by the filing of the amended revocation orders, rendering this proposition moot. ### DECISION The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Payne County District Court Case Nos. CF-2016-375 and CF-2016-952 is **AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is to be issued upon the filing of this decision. ### APPEARANCES - **For Appellant:** Virginia Banks, Ricki Walterscheid - **For Appellee:** Sierra Pfeiffer, Mike Hunter, Tessa Henry **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J.

Continue ReadingRE-2018-855

RE-2018-348

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In the case of Darrin Wayne Culley v. The State of Oklahoma, the Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the appellant's appeal from the partial revocation of his suspended sentence. Culley had initially entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of Child Abuse and was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment, which was suspended. However, after a motion to revoke his suspended sentence was filed due to new charges of Domestic Abuse, Culley stipulated to the allegations against him and accepted a plea agreement. Culley raised two main propositions of error in his appeal: 1. He argued that the revocation hearing violated his due process rights because his stipulation was not made knowingly and voluntarily. He claimed that he felt rushed and pressured into making his stipulation and that he had not been adequately informed about potential defenses to the allegations against him. 2. He contended that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, resulting in a poor decision to stipulate to the State's revocation application. The court addressed both propositions together. They noted that Culley did not claim that he was deprived of the minimum due process rights established in Morrissey v. Brewer but instead argued that counsel’s actions made his stipulation invalid. The court emphasized that the trial judge had thoroughly questioned Culley regarding his stipulation, confirming that he was acting voluntarily and understood the implications of his decision. The court concluded that his stipulation was indeed made knowingly and voluntarily. Regarding the claim of ineffective assistance, the court applied the Strickland v. Washington standard, which requires showing that the lawyer's performance was deficient and that this deficiency prejudiced the defendant. The court found that Culley did not establish that his counsel's performance was objectively unreasonable or that he was prejudiced by his representation. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the partial revocation of Culley's suspended sentence, finding no merit in his claims. The ruling highlights the importance of thorough questioning and confirmation by the court to ensure that a defendant's rights are protected during such proceedings.

Continue ReadingRE-2018-348

RE-2018-426

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CALVIN TAYLOR HERRIEN,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-426** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 19 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Calvin Taylor Herrien, appeals from the revocation of four years of his twenty-five year suspended sentences in Case No. CF-2011-4693 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, presided over by the Honorable Cindy H. Truong. **Background:** On November 2, 2012, Appellant entered a guilty plea to two counts of Lewd Acts With a Child Under Sixteen, resulting in a twenty-five year sentence for each count, both suspended under specific probation conditions. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence on November 1, 2017, alleging Appellant violated probation by failing to reside in a lawfully approved residence and not truthfully answering inquiries from the DOC and law enforcement. A hearing commenced on November 21, 2017, where evidence was presented, including testimony from police chief Allen Lane, who testified regarding Appellant's residence proximity to a park and his notification to Appellant to relocate. Further testimony came from probation officer Daniel Straka, who reported Appellant's admission about the residence, discrepancies about probation requirements, and additional violations not included in the revocation application. Appellant testified on his own behalf, offering explanations but ultimately, after considering arguments, Judge Truong found that Appellant had committed the two breaches alleged in the application. Following a continuance, on December 1, 2017, Judge Truong revoked four years of the suspended sentence. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Inadequate Notice:** Appellant contends that the consideration of testimony regarding uncharged violations denied him adequate notice, which impeded his ability to prepare a defense. 2. **Right to Confront:** Appellant alleges deprivation of his right to confront witnesses and due process during the hearing. 3. **Excessive Sentence:** Appellant argues that the four-year revocation of his suspended sentence is excessive. **Analysis:** The evidence presented at the revocation proceedings clearly showed that Appellant violated the terms of his probation. Appellant does not contest the findings concerning the recognized violations. He does not argue that he was unaware of the specifics related to the alleged probation violations or that he lacked the opportunity to defend himself against those violations. In regards to Propositions I and II, while Appellant claims other violations were improperly admitted, the court's finding that he committed the alleged violations outlined in the application suffices to validate the revocation. Furthermore, due process entitles Appellant to argue mitigating circumstances, which was provided by Judge Truong. Concerning Proposition III, revocation decisions are primarily at the discretion of the trial court and will only be overturned in cases of demonstrable abuse of that discretion. Appellant has not shown that the four-year revocation was disproportionate relative to the violations committed. **Decision:** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking four years of Appellant's twenty-five year suspended sentences in Case No. CF-2011-4693 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** to be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **Appearances:** **For Appellant:** Joshua C. Smith Attorney at Law 217 N. Harvey, Ste. 108 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **For Appellee:** Ryan P. Stephenson Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma County 320 Robert S. Kerr, Ste. 505 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **CONCUR IN RESULTS:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. *Click Here To Download PDF*

Continue ReadingRE-2018-426

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

F-2018-84

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-84, #1 appealed his conviction for #2 driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. In a (published) decision, the court decided #3 to affirm the trial court's order to terminate #1 from the Drug Court Program. #n issued a dissenting opinion. Summary: Carl David Wagnon was charged in 2015 with a serious crime for driving under the influence of alcohol after having previous felony convictions. He pleaded guilty and entered a Drug Court program, which was part of an agreement that allowed him to avoid a long prison sentence if he was successful. However, in 2017, he was accused of a new crime, which led to a hearing where the court decided to remove him from the Drug Court program. Wagnon argued that his removal was unfair for several reasons. He claimed that the court relied too much on secondhand information and did not give him a chance to challenge the evidence against him. He also said that his removal was based on a crime that was not formally charged and that he did not receive enough warnings or chances to correct his behavior before being expelled from the program. Lastly, he believed that the court did not clearly explain why he was being removed. The court looked at these arguments but found that Wagnon was treated fairly and that the decision to terminate him from the Drug Court program was appropriate. They stated that the judge had the right to make this decision and had done so correctly, so they upheld the lower court's ruling. The case was affirmed and Wagnon was sentenced to twenty years in prison.

Continue ReadingF-2018-84

F-2018-0851

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**In The Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Keye Yarnell Smith,** Appellant, **v.** **The State of Oklahoma,** Appellee. **No. F-2018-0851** **Filed August 15, 2019** **Summary Opinion** **Presiding Judge Lewis:** On December 23, 2014, Keye Yarnell Smith was charged in Tulsa County Case No. CF-2014-6405 with: - Count 1: Possession of Controlled Drug (felony) - Count 2: Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (misdemeanor) - Count 3: Obstructing an Officer (misdemeanor) Smith pled guilty to all counts on August 26, 2015. Sentencing was deferred until August 17, 2018, pending successful completion of the Tulsa County Drug Court program, which would result in a four-year deferred sentence for Count 1, with Counts 2 and 3 dismissed. If terminated from the program, he would face six years imprisonment for Count 1 and one year in the County Jail for Counts 2 and 3, with sentences running concurrently and credit for time served. On July 5, 2018, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Smith’s participation in Drug Court, citing violations of program rules. After a hearing, Special Judge April Seibert ordered Smith's termination from the program and sentenced him per the plea agreement. Smith appeals this decision, claiming the trial court abused its discretion in terminating him from Drug Court. On appeal, Smith argues the court lacked adequate information due to the absence of the Performance Contract and Rules of Drug Court in the record. However, evidence provided during the hearing demonstrated that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Oklahoma Statute Title 22 O.S. § 471.7(E) outlines that drug court judges must recognize relapses and provide progressive sanctions, rather than automatic termination, unless the offender's conduct warrants such action. The judge has broad authority over program removal decisions as outlined in § 471.7(G). This Court reviews the lower court’s decisions for abuse of discretion, which requires Smith to show that the court reached a clearly erroneous conclusion. No objections were raised by Smith regarding the allegations or the lack of understanding of the program's rules. **Decision:** The Court affirms the State’s Motion to Revoke Smith’s participation in Drug Court in Tulsa District Court Case No. CF-2014-6405. The mandate will be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision in accordance with Rule 3.15 of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. **Appearances:** - **Counsel for Appellant:** Stephanie Singer - **Counsel for Appellee:** Cindy Cunningham, Assistant District Attorney - **Attorney General:** Mike Hunter, Sher M. Johnson **Opinion By:** Presiding Judge Lewis **Concurred by:** Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn, Judge Lumpkin, Judge Hudson, Judge Rowland. [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-0851_1735123379.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-0851

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

RE 2018-0457

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-0457, Tommy Lee Tucker appealed his conviction for domestic assault and battery along with other charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings to fix some inconsistencies in the records. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE 2018-0457

RE 2018-0457

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-0457, Tommy Lee Tucker appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery After Prior Conviction, Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation, and Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but remanded the case to the District Court to correct inconsistencies in the sentencing documents. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE 2018-0457

RE-2018-89

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In the case of Brandon Christopher Looney v. The State of Oklahoma, the Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the trial court's decision to revoke Looney's twenty-year suspended sentence based on multiple violations of probation. Looney had pled nolo contendere to assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, leading to a suspended sentence on the condition he comply with certain probation rules. The court reviewed allegations against Looney, including failing to report to his probation officer, changing his residence without notification, associating with convicted felons, failing a drug test, possessing weapons, and being charged with multiple offenses related to drug and firearm possession. At the revocation hearing, evidence was presented detailing these violations, including a deputy witnessing drug use and discovering firearms and drugs in the residence where Looney was staying. Looney argued that the judge erred in denying his demurrer regarding weapon-related allegations since the firearms were not found in his specific bedroom and there was no evidence he was aware of their presence. However, the court explained that as a convicted felon on probation, his residency rules prohibited him from firearms, regardless of awareness. The burden of proof for probation violations is a preponderance of evidence, and the trial judge's discretion to revoke the sentence was upheld. Looney also claimed that the judge did not consider lesser sentencing options and that the revocation was excessive. The court found no evidence that the judge neglected to consider alternatives and noted that Looney had repeatedly ignored probation requirements immediately after being placed on probation. Ultimately, the court denied all of Looney's propositions of error, concluding there were no abuses of discretion or violations of due process. Therefore, the order to revoke his suspended sentence was affirmed.

Continue ReadingRE-2018-89

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

RE-2018-630

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CHRISTOPHER CHARLES DOWNUM,** **Appellant,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-630** **FILED JUN 20 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** On July 14, 2017, Appellant Downum, represented by counsel, entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of Malicious Injury to Property in McIntosh County Case No. CM-2017-317. Downum was sentenced to one (1) year in the McIntosh County jail, all suspended, subject to terms and conditions of probation. On October 18, 2017, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Downum's suspended sentence alleging he committed the new offenses of Public Intoxication and Obstructing An Officer in McIntosh County Case No. CM-2017-457. The District Court of McIntosh County, presided over by the Honorable James D. Bland, held a combined revocation hearing and preliminary hearing on May 31, 2017, and revoked ten (10) days of Downum's suspended sentence in Case No. CM-2017-317. From this Judgment and Sentence, Downum appeals with the following propositions of error: 1. The trial court used the wrong legal standard in revoking Downum's suspended sentence. 2. The evidence was insufficient to show that Downum committed the acts of public intoxication and obstructing an officer. 3. The sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive. The revocation of Downum's suspended sentence is **AFFIRMED**. The scope of review in a revocation appeal is limited to the validity of the revocation order executing the previously imposed sentence. The Court examines the basis for the factual determination and considers whether the court abused its discretion. Downum agues in Proposition I that Judge Bland used the wrong standard in revoking his suspended sentence by confusing the burden of proof for revoking a suspended sentence with that required for a preliminary hearing. This concern relates to Proposition II, where Downum claims there was insufficient evidence even if the appropriate standard had been applied. However, alleged violations of conditions of a suspended sentence need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court finds no evidence in the appeal record supporting Downum's claim that Judge Bland did not apply the correct standard. The record shows competent evidence was presented at the revocation hearing, allowing the court to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Downum violated his probation terms. Consequently, Propositions I and II are denied. In Proposition III, Downum argues that the ten-day revocation is excessive, citing no supporting authority. The Court has established that violation of any condition of probation can justify revocation of a suspended sentence. No abuse of discretion is found in Judge Bland's decision to revoke ten days of Downum's suspended sentence. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of McIntosh County revoking ten (10) days of Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CM-2017-317 is **AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MCINTOSH COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE JAMES D. BLAND, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** WARREN GOTCHER GOTCHER & BEAVER 323 E. CARL ALBERT PKWY. P.O. BOX 160 MCALESTER, OK 74502 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** WARREN GOTCHER GOTCHER & BEAVER 323 E. CARL ALBERT PKWY. P.O. BOX 160 MCALESTER, OK 74502 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT GREGORY R. STIDHAM ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY MCINTOSH COUNTY 110 NORTH FIRST STREET EUFAULA, OK 74432 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE MIKE HUNTER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA THEODORE M. PEEPER ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21ST STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** **[END OF DOCUMENT]** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-630_1734428440.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-630

RE-2018-425

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ROBERT JOSEPH CLARK, JR.,** **Appellant,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-425** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** On April 9, 2015, Appellant Clark, represented by counsel, entered a guilty plea to Count 1, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (CDS) (Methamphetamine), and Count 2, Possession of a CDS (Psilocybin) in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2014-8289. Sentencing was deferred for five (5) years, subject to terms and conditions of probation. On September 9, 2015, Clark's sentence in Case No. CF-2014-8289 was accelerated, and he was sentenced to eight (8) years each for Counts 1 and 2, all suspended, with terms and conditions of probation. That same date, Clark entered a guilty plea to Count 1, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Count 2, Possession of a CDS in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2015-3126. He was sentenced to eight (8) years for each count, all suspended, also subject to terms and conditions of probation. Clark's sentences in Case No. CF-2015-3126 were ordered to run concurrently with his sentences in Case No. CF-2014-8289. Additionally, Clark entered a guilty plea in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2015-3693 for Possession of a CDS, receiving a sentence of three (3) years, all suspended, which was ordered to be served consecutively to his sentence in Case No. CF-2015-3126. On March 24, 2017, the State filed an Application to Revoke Clark's suspended sentences in all three referenced cases, alleging the commission of new offenses in Oklahoma County Case Nos. CF-2016-7039 (possession of stolen property and possession of drug paraphernalia) and CM-2016-2833 (obstructing an officer and failing to wear a safety belt). Following a revocation hearing on April 17, 2018, the District Court of Oklahoma County, presided over by the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, revoked Clark's suspended sentences in full. Clark's sole proposition of error on appeal alleges an abuse of discretion in revoking his suspended sentences, claiming that the sentence is excessive. The revocation of Clark's suspended sentences is AFFIRMED. The scope of review in a revocation appeal is limited to the validity of the revocation order executing the previously imposed sentence. We examine the basis for the factual determination and assess whether there was an abuse of discretion. It is established that violation of even one condition of probation is sufficient to justify the revocation of a suspended sentence. Based on the appeal record, there appears to be no merit in Clark's contention that the full revocation of his suspended sentences is excessive, nor do we find an abuse of discretion in Judge Elliott's decision. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2014-8289, CF-2015-3126, and CF-2015-3693 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. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** **THOMAS HURLEY** **ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER** **OKLAHOMA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE** **611 COUNTY OFFICE BLDG.** **320 ROBERT S. KERR AVE.** **OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102** **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** **KIRK MARTIN** **ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY** **OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **320 ROBERT S. KERR SUITE 505** **OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102** **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **LUMPKIN, J.: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** **ROWLAND, J.: Concur** --- [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-425_1734692953.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-425

RE-2017-1287

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Darmaecia Brendette Hill, Appellant,** **vs.** **The State of Oklahoma, Appellee.** **No. RE-2017-1287** **Summary Opinion** **Filed June 6, 2019** **Judge Lewis, Presiding** **ORDER** This appeal arises from the revocation of three and one-half years of suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2014-506 and CF-2015-773 in the District Court of Payne County, presided over by Honorable Stephen R. Kistler. **BACKGROUND** In Case No. CF-2014-506, Appellant was convicted of Child Neglect (felony) and Unlawful Possession of Marijuana (misdemeanor), receiving a seven-year sentence with all but the first 120 days suspended. Case No. CF-2015-773 involved a conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) (felony), also sentenced to seven years with similar suspension conditions. Multiple motions to revoke were filed due to alleged probation violations, including positive drug tests and failure to comply with GPS monitoring. The final revocation hearing on July 25, 2017, resulted in the court revoking three and one-half years of Appellant's suspended sentences. **PROPOSITIONS OF ERROR** 1. **Jurisdictional Issue**: Appellant argues that the District Court unlawfully extended her original sentence by imposing a twelve-month post-confinement supervision after the suspended sentence was revoked. 2. **Excessive Revocation**: Appellant contends that the revocation of three and one-half years of her suspended sentences is excessive considering the circumstances of her case. **ANALYSIS** **Proposition I**: The court finds Appellant’s argument unpersuasive due to the twelve-month post-confinement supervision being within the balance of her original sentences. The initial seven-year sentence, with revocations, allows for this additional supervision under Title 22, § 991a. **Proposition II**: The court concludes that Judge Kistler acted within his discretion in revoking three and one-half years of Appellant's suspended sentences based on the repeated violations of her probation terms. The evidence presented supported the court’s decision as Appellant was granted multiple opportunities for compliance. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Payne County revoking three and one-half years of Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2014-506 and CF-2015-773 is ***AFFIRMED.*** **MANDATE**: Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the mandate is ordered issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** - **For Appellant**: Sarah J. Kennedy (Appellate Defense Counsel), Danny Joseph (Appellate Defense Counsel) - **For Appellee**: Karen Dixon (Attorney General of OK), Mike Hunter (Assistant District Attorney), Cierra Saltan (Assistant Attorney General) **OPINION BY**: LEWIS, P.J. **KUEHN, V.P.J.**: Concur **LUMPKIN, J.**: Concur **HUDSON, J.**: Concur **ROWLAND, J.**: Concur **Download PDF**: [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2017-1287_1734707641.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2017-1287

RE 2018-0118

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-0118, Samuel Keith Carolina appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Samuel Keith Carolina had originally been sentenced to twenty years for burglary, but the last ten years were suspended while he followed certain rules. However, in December 2017, the state accused him of committing several new crimes, including assault and battery with a deadly weapon and shooting with intent to kill. Some of these claims were removed before the revocation hearing. At the hearing held on January 30, 2018, the judge found enough evidence to support the state's claims, specifically the first allegation. Carolina argued that the evidence was not strong enough to prove he broke the terms of his sentence. The court explained that to revoke a suspended sentence, the evidence just needs to show that it's more likely true than not, meaning the evidence has to be convincing. Ultimately, because they found that there was enough evidence to support at least one of the violations, the court decided to uphold the revocation of Carolina's suspended sentence.

Continue ReadingRE 2018-0118

F-2018-199

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-0118, Samuel Keith Carolina appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order of the District Court revoking his suspended sentence. One justice dissented. Samuel entered a guilty plea to burglary and was given a suspended sentence, which meant he would not serve his full sentence unless he broke the rules. However, after some time, the State accused him of committing new crimes, which led to the revocation hearing. The court found enough evidence to support the claims against him and revoked his suspended sentence. On appeal, Samuel argued that the evidence presented was not sufficient to prove he had committed the new crimes. However, the court explained that for revoking a suspended sentence, the state only needs to show that it is more likely than not (a preponderance of the evidence) that the person violated the terms. Since the court found that the state met this burden, they confirmed the decision to revoke Samuel's sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2018-199