Ruling Archives - OCCA Opinions

S-2018-1026

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 11, 2019
Post category:S

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellant,** **V.** **NICHOLAS LOWELL TURNER,** **Appellee.** **Case No. S-2018-1026** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JUL 11 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** On April 4, 2018, Nicholas Lowell Turner was charged in Tulsa County with multiple drug offenses and related charges. After a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search warrant, the lower court initially denied the motion based on a good faith exception, but later reversed that decision, leading the State to appeal. The key issues before the Court were whether the trial court abused its discretion by ruling that the search warrant lacked probable cause and, if so, whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. **Background:** The case arose from evidence gained during the execution of a search warrant on Turner's residence, which led to the seizure of illegal drugs, firearms, and cash. The warrant was issued based on statements from an informant who had been arrested in possession of illegal drugs and had identified Turner as his supplier. Despite the affidavit's deficiencies in detailing direct observations of illegal activity at Turner's residence, the appellate court found there was a sufficient connection established between the residence and Turner's alleged criminal activity. Importantly, the court noted that the officers acted reasonably based on the magistrate's determination of probable cause, allowing for the good faith exception to apply. **Decision:** The Court found that the trial court had erred in not applying the good faith exception properly, stating that a properly issued search warrant, despite some lack of detail in the affidavit, should not have resulted in suppressed evidence. The appellate court ruled to reverse the trial court's decision and remand the case for further proceedings. **Concurring Opinion:** LEWIS, P.J., specially concurs, acknowledging the weaknesses in the affidavit but ultimately agreeing with the application of the good faith exception as the officers acted reasonably in executing the search warrant. --- For full details refer to the decision [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2018-1026_1734276181.pdf).

F-2017-189

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 24, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-189, William Todd Lewallen appealed his conviction for Child Neglect, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court. A dissenting opinion was not recorded. Lewallen was found guilty in a previous trial and sentenced to twenty-three years in prison. He appealed this sentence, and the court decided to change the sentence to fourteen years during a resentencing trial. Lewallen wanted to testify during this resentencing but was not allowed to do so by the trial court. This decision led to Lewallen's appeal. Lewallen claimed that not allowing him to testify was a serious mistake called structural error, which means it affected the fairness of the entire trial process. However, the court explained that most errors in trials can be harmless unless they are structural errors. The court ultimately found that Lewallen's case did not involve what would be classified as structural error. The court noted that while everyone has the right to present a defense and testify, this right has limits and must follow the rules of court. In Lewallen's case, his request to testify was denied because the court believed it didn't relate to the sentencing phase of his case. The court held that his testimony would not change the outcome of the sentencing because it was not relevant to the issues that the jury was deciding at that time. The decision emphasized that the resentencing was not a chance to revisit the guilt or innocence of Lewallen, as he was already found guilty. The new jury was only tasked with deciding how long his punishment should be based on what they learned from the original trial. In summary, the court affirmed Lewallen's new sentence and ruled that there were no errors that would affect the outcome of the case, including the denial of his request to testify.

S-2015-771

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 8, 2018
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-771, the defendant appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower courts' rulings. One judge dissented. Carl Edward Prince, also known as Carl Edward Harper, was arrested for having marijuana and other related charges. He was charged with three main offenses regarding drug possession and use of a police radio. During the early stages of the trial, a magistrate judge decided there wasn't enough evidence for one of the charges, which was about maintaining a place used for selling drugs. The prosecution believed that this decision was wrong and appealed it. The appeal against the magistrate's decision went to another judge who agreed with the first judge, stating that the evidence given by the prosecution was not strong enough to prove that Prince had maintained a location where marijuana was kept with the intent to distribute it. Because of this, they could not prove that there was a pattern or habit of drug use or sales at the location. The case was taken to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The main issues raised by the prosecution were about whether the requirement for a pattern of activity (habitualness) should be considered a fact that needed to be proven and whether there was enough evidence to bring the case to a jury. The Appeals Court decided that the past decisions regarding drug cases required proof of more than just a single event of drug possession. They reasoned that a location must show a pattern of illegal drug activity or use before a person can be convicted under this law. The court looked carefully at what evidence was presented while considering the arguments from both sides. They concluded that there were no clear mistakes made by the lower courts. The evidence didn’t meet the standard needed to prove that Prince’s home was used primarily for drug activity. They upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which means that Prince was not found guilty of that charge. One judge disagreed with this final decision, feeling that the lower courts made a mistake in throwing out the charge about maintaining a place for drugs. This dissenting opinion argued that the law should allow for flexibility and not just rely on showing repeated actions or habits to prove the case. The dissenting judge expressed that the current interpretation of the law was too strict and made it difficult to prosecute based on the evidence presented. In summary, the Appeal Court confirmed that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge Prince with maintaining a place for drug distribution, leading to the upholding of his preliminary ruling.

S-2016-1126

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 22, 2018
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-1126, David James Miller appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to dismiss the appeal. No one dissented. In this case, the State charged the defendant with a serious crime after an incident where he allegedly shot someone. The defendant argued that he acted in self-defense. He wanted the court to believe that he should not be punished for what he did because he was protecting himself. During a hearing, the defendant provided his explanation, while the State presented evidence to counter his claims. The court listened to both sides and eventually agreed with the defendant, deciding that he was immune from prosecution based on self-defense laws. This ruling meant that the case against him could not continue. The State did not agree with the court's decision and decided to appeal. They believed that the judge did not consider their evidence properly and that the ruling was unfair. However, when the appeal was reviewed, the court found that the State did not show clear legal reasons for their complaint. The judges noted that the lower court had allowed the State to present their evidence and arguments. In the end, the court concluded that this was not a matter they could reconsider as it had to do with factual evidence rather than legal issues. Because of this, the court dismissed the State's appeal.

S-2015-87

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 14, 2016
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-87, Donna Long and Lillian Shipman appealed their conviction for Financial Exploitation by Caretaker. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's dismissal of the case. One judge dissented. The State of Oklahoma charged Long and Shipman with financially exploiting Shipman's mother-in-law, who had passed away. The case revolved around two checks signed by the mother-in-law shortly before her death. The first check was for $5,500, and the second check was for $250,000, which the defendants deposited. During the preliminary hearing, the judge found that the evidence did not support the State's claims that the defendants were caretakers or that they exploited the deceased. The judge noted that while there were checks involved, there wasn't enough proof that Long and Shipman acted improperly or had bad intent in obtaining these checks. Both defendants filed motions to quash the information, claiming there was not enough evidence for the case to continue. Ultimately, the judge ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that the prosecution did not provide enough evidence to prove their guilt. The case was then appealed to a higher court, which reviewed the lower court's decision. The higher court concluded that the lower court did not make an error and affirmed the dismissal of the charges against Long and Shipman, agreeing that there was insufficient evidence presented during the preliminary hearing to justify proceeding with the case. In summary, the case focused on whether the defendants financially exploited their relative, but the court found the evidence lacking, leading to the dismissal of the charges.

F 2012-639

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 28, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2012-639, Marty Lee Langley appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Langley was found guilty of lewd molestation after a jury trial in Marshall County. The incident involved two separate and unrelated claims of molestation, but the jury was instructed that they could convict Langley based on either act. Langley argued that this was unfair because the jury should have agreed on one specific act. The court agreed that this was a significant error, stating that all jurors must be on the same page about which act they are considering when deciding a case. Additionally, the prosecutor made comments during closing arguments that suggested the jury should convict Langley to prevent him from harming other children in the future. The court found this to be improper as it is not right to convict someone based on the idea that they might commit future crimes. While Langley had other claims about the fairness of his trial and the effectiveness of his legal counsel, the court determined that the main issue had to do with the way the jury was instructed and the prosecutor's comments. Because of these errors, Langley's original trial was deemed unfair, leading to the decision for a new trial.

S-2011-774

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 15, 2012
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-774, the State of Oklahoma appealed the decision regarding the conviction of DeJear. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the previous ruling, which found there was not enough evidence to prove that DeJear was under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, making the charges not applicable. One judge dissented from this opinion.

S-2009-235

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 14, 2009
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-235, Angel Chavez appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling, which granted a motion to suppress evidence. The court found that the police officer did not have enough reason to keep Chavez detained after a traffic stop, meaning the search that followed was not valid. One judge dissented.

F-2008-538

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 17, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-538, Jerry Johnson appealed his conviction for Robbery by Force. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Johnson did not competently, knowingly, and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial, which means that he deserves a new trial. However, the evidence presented in his bench trial was sufficient to support his conviction, so they remanded the case for a new trial. One judge dissented.

S-2007-668

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 1, 2008
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2007-668, the defendant appealed his conviction for Second Degree Rape and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that the defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial. One judge dissented.

J-2008-02

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 6, 2008
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2008-02, the appellant appealed her conviction for murder in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her motion to be treated as a youthful offender. One judge dissented. The case involved a young person who was trying to be treated differently under the law because of her age. She argued that she should not face adult sentencing for her crime and provided evidence to support her request. The court looked at this evidence and decided that she had established enough reasons to be classified as a youthful offender. The ruling from the lower court had denied her request, but the appeals court reversed that decision. They instructed the lower court to certify her as a youthful offender, meaning she would be treated more like a minor in terms of sentencing. The dissenting judge believed the initial court hearing was thorough and that the reasons to deny youthful offender status were valid and supported by the facts. This judge argued that the decision to overturn the denial did not stand against the well-reasoned basis that was originally provided.

S-2005-1250

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 19, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-1250, Dinkins appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs, assaulting a police officer, attempted destruction of evidence, and driving without a seatbelt. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court’s ruling, which had granted Dinkins's motion to suppress evidence collected during an illegal search. One judge dissented.

S-2005-1067

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 18, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-1067, one person appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, Kidnapping, and Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that denied the State's request to use the transcript of a witness's preliminary hearing testimony during the trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Deangelo Favors and another person who were charged with serious crimes. During the preliminary hearing, a key witness, Roberta Verner, testified, but another potential witness, Lesha Huggins, was not allowed to testify even though the defense wanted to present her testimony, claiming it would prove Verner lied about the crimes. The judge decided that Verner was unavailable for the trial, which meant her earlier statements could not be used unless the defense had a chance to fully question her and present their case. The judge believed that not allowing Huggins to testify took away the defense's opportunity to question Verner properly. The State wanted to appeal the decision, saying it was wrong to not allow them to use Verner’s testimony. However, after looking closely at the facts and arguments from both sides, the court found that the trial judge acted correctly in not letting the State use Verner's earlier testimony. The court noted that it is important for defendants to have the right to question witnesses against them, and that this right was not met in the preliminary hearing because the defense could not call Huggins to support their case. In the end, the decision to deny the State's appeal was upheld, and the case was sent back to the lower court for more proceedings based on the ruling.

PR-2006-120

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 18, 2006
Post category:PR

In OCCA case No. PR-2006-120, a petitioner appealed her conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug (methamphetamine) and driving without seatbelts. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner's request for relief in part and deny it in part. One judge dissented. The case began when the petitioner was charged with possessing methamphetamine and driving without a seatbelt. She initially agreed to a plea deal with the state, which involved accepting guilt for the drug charge and a fine for the seatbelt violation. However, when the petitioner refused to follow through with the state’s conditions for the plea, she attempted to enter a non-negotiated or blind guilty plea. The judge refused to accept her blind plea and insisted she proceed to trial, stating she did not have an absolute right to plead guilty. The petitioner believed she should be allowed to enter her guilty plea without the state’s conditions. This disagreement led her to file a petition with the court seeking orders to either allow her to plead guilty or to prevent the judge from forcing her to go to trial. After reviewing the facts of the case, the court found that the petitioner had a clear legal right to have her guilty plea accepted if it met the necessary legal requirements. The court noted that it was a mistake for the judge to reject her plea without evaluating whether it was voluntary and if there was a factual basis for it. The court granted part of the petitioner’s request by directing the district court judge to conduct a hearing on her blind plea and accept it if it correctly fulfilled the legal standards. However, the court denied her request to have her plea regarding the seatbelt violation accepted, as that plea required the judge’s approval. The dissenting judge expressed concerns about whether the petitioner had truly shown that she was being harmed by the trial court's refusal to accept her plea, suggesting that any challenges to a guilty plea rejection should typically be taken up in direct appeals rather than with this type of petition. The dissenting judge also supported the trial judge's discretion, arguing that the right to a jury trial must be upheld. In summary, the court ruled that the petitioner should be given a chance to enter her guilty plea under the law, but that her plea regarding the seatbelt violation did not have to be accepted.