In OCCA case No. C-2021-218, the petitioner appealed her conviction for outraging public decency and violation of a protective order. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the appeal. The court agreed that her due process rights were violated when the district court denied her motions to withdraw her pleas while she was absent from the hearing. No one dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2019-19, Daniel Lee Hart appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that revoking his suspended sentence without him being present was a violation of his right to due process, and therefore, the revocation was reversed. One judge dissented. Daniel Lee Hart originally pleaded guilty in 2009 to trying to manufacture a controlled substance. He was given a 20-year sentence, with 12 years of that being suspended, meaning he didn't have to serve that part of the time as long as he followed certain rules. One of those rules was that he had to stay clean from drugs and check in regularly with his probation officer. In 2017, the state said that Hart had broken the rules. They said he had used drugs, didn’t show up for meetings with his probation officer in both Oklahoma and Kansas, didn’t register as a drug offender in Kansas, didn’t pay fees for his probation, and hadn’t completed his GED as he was supposed to. Hart later agreed to these claims but was able to be released for drug treatment for a few months before being sentenced. When the time came for his sentencing, Hart did not show up. Because he was absent, the court revoked the suspended part of his sentence completely. This meant he would have to serve the full 20 years instead of just the 8 years that he had left to serve. Hart appealed this decision, saying it was unfair for the court to make such a serious decision without him being there. The court looked at whether Hart's absence affected his right to defend himself. They said that everyone has the right to be present when decisions are made about their punishment. The court noted that Hart had not willingly chosen to skip the sentencing and that his absence could have greatly impacted the outcome. Because of these reasons, the court said Hart deserved a new hearing where he could be present to possibly explain why he wasn’t there and defend himself more fully. The final decision was to send the case back for another hearing. They wanted to make sure Hart had a fair chance to be present when the consequences of his actions were discussed again. In summary, because Hart was missing during a very important hearing, the court agreed that this was a mistake. They reversed the earlier decision and ordered a new hearing where he could be present.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-384, Jimmy Dean Coke, Jr. appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property and Obstructing an Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Jimmy Dean Coke, Jr. was convicted of two crimes. The first was knowing concealment of stolen property, and the second was obstructing an officer. The court sentenced him to twenty-five years for the first charge and one year for the second, and he also had to pay fines. Coke argued that the proof against him was not strong enough. He believed there was not enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt for either charge. However, the court reviewed the evidence in a way that favored the state. This meant they looked for any reasonable way a jury could have found him guilty. They decided there was enough evidence to support both convictions. Coke also claimed the trial court didn’t tell the jury about the value of the stolen property, which he thought was a mistake. For a charge of concealing stolen property to be a felony, the property must be worth $1,000 or more. Although the judge did not instruct the jury about this value, they still found that the property was worth $1,500 based on testimony, so the court determined that the omission was harmless. Coke left the courthouse during the jury's deliberation. The jury reached a verdict, and he was not there. Coke argued that he had the right to be present during this critical time. The court decided that because Coke chose to leave, he waived his right to be there, and the judge acted correctly by continuing without him. Coke believed that the prosecutor’s arguments were unfair and made it hard for him to have a fair trial. They reviewed the claims of misconduct and found that some were not objected to during the trial; therefore, they could only check for obvious errors. The court found minimal misconduct and did not feel it affected his trial's fairness. He also felt that he was not treated fairly by the judge. However, the court believed the evidence did not show that the judge was biased against him. The decisions made during the trial were consistent with legal practices. Coke said the judge gave him fines even though the jury did not decide on fines. The court agreed that the judge could impose fines even if the jury did not because the law allows it. Coke claimed that his lawyer did not do a good job and that this hurt his chance for a fair trial. The court found that since there were no significant mistakes made, the claims for ineffective counsel did not hold. Coke lastly argued that even if no single mistake was significant enough to reverse the decision, the total of all mistakes could warrant a new trial. The court decided that since they did not find any errors, this claim was also denied. In conclusion, the court affirmed the original decision, meaning Coke would remain convicted and serve his sentences as decided by the original trial.
**Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma Summary Opinion** **David Neil Dunn v. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No. C-2017-1050** **Filed November 8, 2018** **Summary:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the case of David Neil Dunn, who sought to withdraw his no contest plea for various serious charges. Dunn appealed on the basis that he was denied his due process right to be present during the evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw the plea, and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. **Key Points:** 1. **Charges and Plea**: Dunn was charged with multiple felonies, including First Degree Robbery and Burglary. He entered a blind plea of no contest, which resulted in significant prison sentences. 2. **Motion to Withdraw Plea**: Dunn filed a motion to withdraw his plea shortly after sentencing, claiming various legal grounds, including concerns about the validity of his plea. An evidentiary hearing was held, but Dunn was not present as he had been transported to the Department of Corrections. 3. **Court's Ruling**: The Court found that Dunn had a due process right to be present during this critical stage of the proceedings. The absence of Dunn hindered a fair and just hearing, particularly concerning his claims about the voluntariness of his plea. 4. **Counsel’s Role**: The court clarified that defense counsel's belief that Dunn's presence was unnecessary does not equate to a valid waiver of his right to be present. The decision emphasized that Dunn's testimony was crucial for effectively contesting the plea's validity. 5. **Outcome**: The Court granted Dunn's petition for certiorari and remanded the case back to the District Court for a proper evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw the plea, ensuring he would be present. 6. **Dissenting Opinion**: One judge dissented, arguing that the absence of Dunn did not constitute a violation of his rights, noting that his counsel had effectively represented him at the hearing. It was contended that the procedural complexities of representation should not be interpreted as waivers of due process. **Conclusion**: The Court ruled in favor of Dunn, stressing the importance of a defendant's presence in legal proceedings, particularly when their rights and pleas are being challenged, which underscores the principles of fairness and due process within the judicial system. For a detailed reading, [click here to download the PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2017-1050_1733996496.pdf).
In OCCA case No. C 2002-1379, the petitioner appealed his conviction for kidnapping. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the appeal and remand the case for a proper hearing on the petitioner's application to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. The case started when the petitioner entered a guilty plea to the crime of kidnapping. He was sentenced to seventeen years in prison as part of a plea agreement. However, shortly after, the petitioner wanted to withdraw his guilty plea. He filed a motion for this, but during the hearing, he was not present, even though he had the right to be there. His lawyer asked the court to move forward without him, believing it was best since the petitioner was already in custody. The court looked at whether the absence of the petitioner from this critical hearing was a serious mistake. The petitioner did not agree to waive his right to be present, which the court pointed out as important. The judges discussed that being absent from such a crucial part of the trial could lead to unfair treatment. While the State argued that the absence was not a big deal and didn't affect the outcome, the court disagreed. They emphasized that this hearing was meant to gather facts and needed the petitioner's presence. The court found that merely saying the absence was harmless was not enough in this case. The lawyer who represented the petitioner at the hearing did not provide evidence or firsthand statements from the petitioner, only mentioning a letter the petitioner had written earlier. The court raised concerns that the lawyer might not have properly consulted with the petitioner about not attending the hearing. Since the petitioner claimed he entered the plea without properly thinking it over and believed he had a valid defense, the case could not fall under rules that would let the court dismiss his request without consideration. The judges decided that the petitioner's right to a fair hearing had been violated because he was not there to fully participate and because his lawyer did not act effectively for him in this situation. Therefore, the court ruled that the case should go back to the district court to ensure the petitioner can have a complete hearing on his wish to withdraw his guilty plea.
In OCCA case No. C-2001-1425, Byron Lynn White appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for a proper hearing on White's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. White dissented.