Self-Representation Archives

RE-2020-452

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 30, 2021
Post category:RE

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

F-2018-1188

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 9, 2020
Post category:F

In this case summary, Alfonzo Lamonse Vineyard was convicted of multiple charges in the District Court of Tulsa County, including Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, First Degree Burglary, Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony, and several counts of Obstructing an Officer, among others. The jury found Vineyard guilty on all counts except one (Assault and Battery), and the court subsequently sentenced him to life imprisonment on the more serious counts, with concurrent and consecutive terms for other counts. Vineyard's appeal raised five main issues: 1. **Waiver of Right to Counsel**: The court found that Vineyard’s waiver of his right to counsel was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. He was adequately informed of the risks associated with self-representation. 2. **Right to Confrontation**: Vineyard argued that his right to confront witnesses was violated when the court allowed the reading of the victim's preliminary hearing testimony, as she did not appear at trial. The court found that the state had made sufficient efforts to locate the victim and that her unavailability was justified, thus upholding the admission of her prior testimony. 3. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Vineyard contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. The court determined that the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 4. **Lesser Included Offense Instruction**: Vineyard argued that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of Pointing a Firearm. While the court acknowledged that the lack of instruction was error, it did not affect the trial's outcome, and therefore did not warrant reversal. 5. **Cumulative Error**: Lastly, Vineyard claimed that the cumulative effect of errors warranted a new trial. The court found no individual errors that affected the trial's fairness, thus rejecting this claim. Ultimately, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence, concluding that none of the raised issues warranted relief. The decision highlighted the adherence to established legal standards regarding self-representation, confrontation rights, evidentiary sufficiency, jury instructions, and cumulative error analysis. [Download the full opinion here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1188_1734784723.pdf).

M-2017-511

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 14, 2019
Post category:M

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case: William Robert Burk vs. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No: M-2017-511** #### OPINION BY: Kuehn, VPJ **Background:** William Robert Burk was convicted of Obstruction of Public Officer in the District Court of Payne County, sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined $500. The case arose from an incident on December 13, 2015, where Burk was stopped for driving with an improper license tag. He refused to provide a driver's license, proof of insurance, or identify himself. Police officers were forced to break into his vehicle after he locked himself inside, leading to his arrest. **Proposition I: Self-Representation** Burk contends the trial court erred by allowing him to represent himself without ensuring he made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. The court finds that Burk effectively waived his right to counsel through his actions over time, including repeatedly refusing to secure legal representation. The court cites multiple precedents establishing that a defendant may waive the right to counsel by conduct, and emphasizes the need for a clear understanding of the risks involved in self-representation. While acknowledging Burk's claims of financial capacity to hire an attorney, he nevertheless insisted he would not apply for court-appointed counsel. The court concludes Burk’s behavior—self-characterization of being forced to represent himself and refusal to accept assistance—constituted an implied waiver of his right to counsel, allowing the trial to proceed without an attorney. **Proposition II: Sufficiency of Evidence** In his second claim, Burk argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. However, the court finds that Burk's refusal to provide identification and engage with police clearly obstructed their duties. Citing relevant statutes and case law, the court asserts that any rational jury could find him guilty of obstructing a public officer based on his actions during the encounter. **Conclusion:** The court affirms the judgment and sentence from the District Court of Payne County, asserting that Burk had sufficient warnings about self-representation risks and willingly chose to proceed without counsel. ### Dissenting Opinion - Judge Lumpkin Judge Lumpkin argues against affirming the conviction, citing concerns about Burk's mental state and the trial court's failure to ensure he was adequately informed of the consequences of self-representation. He emphasizes that Burk was not given proper Fairtta warnings about the implications of his decision and suggests that mental health issues should have prompted the court to reevaluate Burk's right to counsel. ### Concurring Opinion - Judge Hudson Judge Hudson agrees with the outcome but asserts that the basis for the decision hinges not on waiver by conduct but rather on forfeiture of counsel due to Burk's dilatory misconduct. He highlights the necessity for courts to maintain order and efficiently administer justice, especially when faced with obstructionist behavior from defendants. **Decision: The Judgment is AFFIRMED.** For further details and full opinions, you may refer to [this PDF link](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/M-2017-511_1734779027.pdf).

J-2019-0092

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 13, 2019
Post category:J

**Summary of the Case: Jeremy Dwayne Lavorchek v. State of Oklahoma** **Court:** Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals **Case Number:** F-2018-263 **Decision Date:** June 13, 2019 **Overview:** Jeremy Dwayne Lavorchek was convicted by a jury in Garvin County for multiple crimes associated with an armed robbery at a pharmacy. The jury found him guilty on all counts, which included First Degree Robbery, Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony, Conspiracy to Commit a Felony, multiple counts of Kidnapping, and multiple counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. Following these convictions, the jury recommended life sentences on all counts. **Key Crimes Committed (Counts):** 1. First Degree Robbery 2. Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony 3. Conspiracy to Commit a Felony 4-6. Kidnapping (3 counts) 7-9. Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (3 counts) **Sentencing:** The trial court, upon sentencing, ordered the sentences for counts 2 through 9 to run concurrently but consecutively to Count 1, which meant that Lavorchek must serve 85% of the life sentence for the robbery before becoming eligible for parole. **Propositions of Error Raised on Appeal:** Lavorchek raised eight propositions, primarily focusing on claims of double punishment, denial of self-representation, ineffective assistance of counsel, errors in sentencing, and cumulative effect of errors. 1. **Double Punishment Allegations:** Lavorchek argued that his convictions for robbery and the various assaults and kidnappings constituted double punishment. The court rejected these claims, emphasizing that the crimes were distinct and occurred sequentially, and separate punishments were authorized. 2. **Self-Representation:** He contended he was denied the right to represent himself. However, the court upheld the trial judge's discretion, stating Lavorchek's request was made after the trial had already commenced, which could be seen as an abuse of the privilege. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Lavorchek claimed a continuance was wrongly denied, affecting his counsel's performance. The court found no constitutional deficiency as the counsel performed effectively under the circumstances. 4. **Fair Sentencing Hearing:** He alleged improper consideration of aggravating evidence at sentencing. The court found that the information presented was appropriate. 5. **Consecutive Sentencing:** Lavorchek argued the trial court abused its discretion by ordering consecutive sentences, but the court ruled this was within the judge's authority and not excessive. 6. **Cumulative Error:** The court ruled there was no error to accumulate since all propositions were denied. **Outcome:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment and sentence, indicating that Lavorchek received a fair trial and proper sentencing under the law. **Legal Principles Involved:** - Double jeopardy protections - Right to self-representation - Effective assistance of counsel - Sentencing discretion of trial courts - Cumulative error doctrine The case underscores the judicial principles guiding the implications of multiple charges arising from a single criminal event and the procedural safeguards in criminal trials. **Link:** For further reference, the full opinion can be found at [Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-0092_1734447399.pdf).

F-2017-1011

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1011, Johnny Ray Hopes appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute and two counts of Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. Johnny Ray Hopes was found guilty by a jury for having illegal drugs and for attacking police officers. The jury decided he should go to prison for four years for the drug crime and for thirteen months in jail with a $500 fine for each of the two assaults. The judge ordered that all of these punishments would happen one after the other, not at the same time. Hopes had a few reasons for his appeal. First, he said that the trial court did not properly explain what it meant to represent himself in court. He believed that because he was not fully informed, his choice to represent himself was not made knowingly or voluntarily. The court looked at the facts and found that Hopes was well informed about what it meant to represent himself. They agreed that he made a clear decision and understood the risks involved in not having a lawyer. Therefore, the court decided that he had made a valid choice to represent himself. Second, Hopes claimed that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing the jury to hear about a lesser crime called Resisting Arrest. The court explained that for a jury to receive instructions about a lesser crime, there must be enough evidence for a reasonable jury to be able to find the person guilty of that lesser crime instead of the more serious crime they were charged with. The court found that there wasn’t enough evidence to support a charge of Resisting Arrest because Hopes had attacked the officers rather than just resisting their attempts to arrest him. So, they decided the trial court did not make a mistake by not including that lesser charge. Lastly, Hopes argued that the trial court shouldn’t have made his punishments run consecutively. The court explained that there is no rule saying he must receive concurrent sentences, meaning they cannot run at the same time. They confirmed that the judge had the right to decide that Hopes should serve his time one after the other. The court found that there was no evidence showing that the judge didn't consider all the facts when making that decision. In conclusion, the court upheld Hopes’ convictions and punishments. The appeal did not change the earlier decision. One judge disagreed, believing there were reasons to reconsider the case.

C-2017-1311

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 4, 2018
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-1311, Heath Justin Wright appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including Second Degree Burglary, Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant relief to Wright, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial. One judge dissented. Wright entered a negotiated plea without legal counsel and was accepted into the Pontotoc County Drug Court program. His plea agreement stated that if he successfully completed the program, his charges would be dismissed. However, if he failed, he would receive a lengthy prison sentence for each charge. After the State sought to terminate him from the drug court program, Wright tried to withdraw his plea. The court denied his request and sentenced him to the agreed-upon prison terms. Wright claimed his attorney did not assist him properly. He argued that he was not warned about the risks of representing himself in court. The court found that this lack of advice affected his decision to plead guilty. Since it was clear that Wright’s attorney did not address this issue, the court decided he should be allowed to withdraw his plea and face trial for the charges. The ruling concluded that because the initial plea was handled improperly, Wright should get another chance to defend himself in court.

M-2017-739

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 1, 2018
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2017-739, Jeremy L. Garza appealed his conviction for Driving under the Influence of Intoxicating Substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Garza to represent himself during the acceleration proceedings without him properly waiving his right to counsel. One judge dissented. Garza had initially entered a guilty plea to a DUI charge and was given eighteen months of probation. However, the State later accused him of not following the rules of his probation, such as failing to report and not paying fines. When Garza addressed the court without a lawyer during these acceleration proceedings, the court did not properly document that he understood his right to have a lawyer or that he chose to give up that right. The court's opinion stressed that anyone facing charges has the right to a lawyer and can only waive this right if they do so knowingly and intelligently. This means they need to understand the consequences of representing themselves. Since the court did not show that Garza waived his right to counsel properly, the decision to sentence him was reversed. The matter was sent back to the lower court, instructing them to vacate the judgment and hold further proceedings that follow this ruling.

F-2016-549

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 10, 2017
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-549, Jerome Deshone Hopkins appealed his conviction for Placing Bodily Fluid on a Government Employee. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jerome deshone Hopkins was found guilty by a jury for a crime related to putting bodily fluid on a government employee. This happened in the District Court of Muskogee County. The jury said he should go to prison for ten years, and the court agreed to give him credit for time he already served. Hopkins didn't think the trial was fair, and he told the court why. He raised several reasons for his appeal. First, he believed the trial court didn’t help him understand how to represent himself. Second, he said there were irrelevant details brought up during the trial that hurt his chances of a fair decision. Third, he mentioned that some actions by the prosecutors were unfair and made the trial unjust for him. He also claimed that mentioning his past felonies using suspended sentences made it harder for him to have a fair trial. Additionally, Hopkins felt that wearing shorts made jurors see him in an unfavorable light, and that being restrained in court was also unfair because it could sway the jurors' opinions of him. He said he wasn’t allowed to have good representation during the trial and believed all these factors together made the trial unfair. The court looked carefully at everything that happened. They found that the trial judge didn’t properly explain to Hopkins what self-representation meant. The court agreed that there should have been a clear warning about the risks of representing oneself without a lawyer. Also, they acknowledged that Hopkins was restrained in a way that was visible to jurors, which could affect how they viewed him. Given these issues, the court decided that Hopkins’s conviction should not stand and that he should have a new trial with proper legal counsel or a better understanding of representing himself if he chooses to do so. The court emphasized that the mistakes made could not be brushed aside as harmless because the right to legal representation is very crucial in ensuring a fair trial.

RE-2015-922

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 4, 2017
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-922, Palmer appealed his conviction for perjury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Palmer's suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Palmer had previously received a deferred sentence for a case in 2010. In 2015, he pleaded no contest to a perjury charge and got another suspended sentence that he was serving at the same time as the first one. Later, the State of Oklahoma filed to revoke his suspended sentences, claiming he had violated probation by not reporting, not paying court costs, and not completing a required program. They also added new charges of kidnapping and assault. During the revocation hearing, Palmer was removed from the courtroom because he was disruptive. He interrupted the judge repeatedly and was warned to stop, but he did not listen. The court found that because he was behaving disruptively, his absence from the hearing did not make the process unfair. Palmer also claimed that he wanted to represent himself but was forced to have a lawyer. The court determined he had not made any formal request to represent himself, so this claim was rejected. Additionally, Palmer argued that the court did not explain why his sentences were revoked. However, the court noted that there is no requirement to provide detailed reasons at a revocation hearing. Palmer's failure to follow even one condition of his probation was enough to justify the revocation of his sentences. Finally, Palmer thought the judge did not have the power to impose supervision following his imprisonment. However, the court found this issue was already resolved and was therefore moot. The court's overall ruling was to confirm that Palmer's suspended sentences were revoked, maintaining that proper procedures were followed during the revocation hearing.

M-2016-268

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 2, 2017
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2016-268, the appellant appealed his conviction for threatening to perform an act of violence and resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court made an error by not properly informing the appellant about the risks of representing himself without a lawyer. The court found that there was not enough evidence to show that the appellant understood what he was doing when he waived his right to a lawyer. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and ordered a new trial. One judge dissented.

C-2014-854

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 6, 2015
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-854, Cory James Leon Whiteside appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery and Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition, allowing him to withdraw his pleas. One member of the court dissented. Whiteside pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges involving domestic violence. The court sentenced him to one year in jail for each charge, with the sentences to run one after the other. Shortly after pleading guilty, Whiteside asked to change his plea from guilty to not guilty, stating he had not understood the consequences of his plea. His request to withdraw his plea was denied by the court. Whiteside then appealed this decision, arguing two main points. First, he claimed he did not knowingly and voluntarily give up his right to have an attorney represent him during the case. Second, he argued that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because he didn't fully understand what he was agreeing to. The court reviewed the entire record of the case. It found that Whiteside's waiver of his right to counsel was not made in a knowing and voluntary way, meaning there was no clear record showing that he understood what self-representation involved or that he had been advised of the risks of not having a lawyer. The state even agreed with this point. Because this error was significant, the court decided to let Whiteside withdraw his guilty pleas. Following this decision, the other issue Whiteside raised became unnecessary to address. Therefore, the court ordered that Whiteside be allowed to withdraw his pleas.

F-2014-22

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 9, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-22, Padillow appealed his conviction for rape and sexual offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but reversed a citation for direct contempt of court and vacated the associated sentence. One judge dissented. Earnest Eugene Padillow faced serious charges in two cases related to the sexual abuse of young girls. The first case involved the abuse of his nine-year-old great-niece, S.G., during a single day in August 2007, and the second case involved the sexual assault of his 11-year-old niece, D.P., in 2011. In both instances, Padillow was accused of serious crimes, including rape and inappropriate sexual contact. During the trial, Padillow had a tumultuous relationship with his attorneys. He expressed dissatisfaction with their defense strategies and at times chose to represent himself. This led to a chaotic scene in the courtroom where Padillow violently attacked one of his attorneys, resulting in his removal from the courtroom. Despite his outbursts, the trial proceeded, and he was found guilty. The court sided with the trial judge's decision that Padillow waived his rights to be present during certain trial stages due to his disruptive conduct. Padillow also claimed that his constitutional right to testify was violated when he was removed from the courtroom. However, the court ruled that his violent actions constituted a waiver of that right. In another point of contention, Padillow argued that he should have been given the chance to respond to a direct contempt charge when the judge found him guilty of contempt for his outburst. Although the court acknowledged he did not have the opportunity to be heard, they decided to reverse the contempt finding rather than require a new hearing given the context of his other convictions. Lastly, it was determined that some of the judgment documents contained errors regarding sentences, which the court directed to be corrected. Overall, the court upheld the significant portions of Padillow's convictions while addressing some procedural errors related to his contempt citation and record-keeping in the judgments.

F-2012-172

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 24, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-172, Mark Wallace Williams appealed his conviction for attempted burglary in the first degree, possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of material with intent to manufacture, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and resisting an officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified his sentence for attempted burglary from 14 years to 10 years. One judge dissented. Williams was arrested after being found in a vehicle at the scene of a reported burglary. He argued that his arrest was illegal and the evidence obtained should not have been used against him. The court disagreed, ruling that there was enough probable cause for the arrest. Williams also challenged the searches of his car, particularly the trunk, claiming they were unlawful. The court recognized some issues with the search but determined that the evidence could still be used because the police would have found it during an inventory search of the car. During the trial, Williams made statements to police which he later contested as improperly admitted. The court found any potential error harmless given the other evidence presented against him. Further, Williams argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support his conviction for attempted burglary, but the court found that evidence, including his actions and items found with him, was sufficient for a jury to reasonably conclude he was attempting to commit a crime. He also claimed that jury instructions were mistaken about his prior convictions, but the court held that these errors did not harm his case significantly. Williams raised concerns about his competence to stand trial, and the court reviewed multiple evaluations of his mental health history. Ultimately, the court upheld the jury's conclusion that he was competent to stand trial. Additionally, he argued that his trial counsel was ineffective and that he could not have waived his right to counsel due to incompetence. The court found no merit to this assertion, concluding that Williams did indeed understand and make a valid choice to represent himself. Overall, the court affirmed most of Williams' convictions, modified one sentence, denied a request to supplement the record, and found no grounds for a new trial or hearing on these matters.

M-2011-1083

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 1, 2013
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2011-1083, the appellant appealed his conviction for resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Franklin Savoy Combs, who was found guilty of resisting an officer after a jury trial. The trial took place in Hughes County, and the appellant received a sentence of ninety days in jail and a fine of $300. Combs later appealed this decision, challenging the way he represented himself in court. In his appeal, Combs argued that the trial court did not properly inform him of the risks of self-representation. The court looked at the records from the trial to see if Combs had knowingly decided to waive his right to have a lawyer. They found that there was not enough evidence to show that he fully understood what he was doing when he chose to represent himself. The court explained that before someone can represent themselves, it is very important that they know what that means and what they might be giving up. If there are doubts about whether a person really understood their rights, those doubts should be viewed in favor of that person. Since the court determined that Combs did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel, they decided that his conviction needed to be reversed. The case was sent back for a new trial where he can have proper legal representation.

F-2011-866

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 20, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-866, Emanuel D. Mitchell appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony (Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Mitchell's case for a trial where he may be allowed to represent himself. One judge dissented. This case began when Mitchell was found guilty of murder and conspiracy after a jury trial. He was sentenced to life in prison for the murder and 35 years for conspiracy, along with an additional 10 years for unauthorized vehicle use. Mitchell appealed, stating four main reasons why he believed his conviction should be overturned. First, Mitchell claimed that he was not allowed to represent himself during his trial, which he argued violated his rights. He believed he could defend himself better than his attorney. However, the court denied his request for self-representation, stating that it was not in his best interest. The court should have ensured that he was fully aware of the potential risks associated with representing himself before denying his request. Second, Mitchell argued that the laws applied to him during his murder prosecution were not supported by the evidence presented. He believed his rights were violated, which would require the court to dismiss the murder charge. Third, Mitchell stated that he was not allowed to present a full defense in court, suggesting that this was an unfair violation of his rights. Finally, he claimed that his attorney did not provide effective assistance, which is a right guaranteed by law. After reviewing all the information in the case, the court found that Mitchell's first argument was valid. It concluded that the trial court had wrongly denied his request to represent himself and that this mistake warranted a reversal of his conviction. They remanded the case back to the lower court so Mitchell could exercise his right to defend himself. Although the court found that the felony-murder charge against Mitchell was valid, and that there was no error in the jury instructions about the defenses, they acknowledged that these points were not the main issue due to the ruling on self-representation. Consequently, the matter about ineffective counsel was deemed moot. The final decision was to reverse the current judgments against Mitchell and send the case back to start fresh, allowing Mitchell the opportunity to represent himself.

F-2011-866

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 20, 2013
Post category:F

F-2012-437

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 6, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-437, Mark J. Lawler appealed his conviction for rape in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Mark J. Lawler was found guilty of rape in the first degree by a jury and given a sentence of thirty-five years in prison. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes during his trial. First, Lawler thought he should have been allowed to represent himself instead of having a lawyer. He argued that this was his right under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court agreed with him, stating that he had clearly asked to represent himself at least five days before the trial, which was a reasonable request. The court also found that Lawler understood the risks involved in defending himself without a lawyer. The trial court was wrong to deny his request, so that was a significant error. Second, Lawler argued that he did not get a speedy trial, which is another right he had under the law. Although there were delays in the trial, the court found that they were not entirely Lawler's fault. The reasons for the delays included busy courts and other issues that were not intentional. However, the court also decided that Lawler did not show he was hurt by the delay, so they did not agree with his claim on this point. In summary, the court found that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing Lawler to represent himself. Because of this error, they reversed his conviction and sent the case back for a new trial.

M 2011-0870

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 8, 2013
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2011-0870 and case No. M 2011-0871, Sherry Kay Taylor appealed her conviction for driving under the influence and other related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and ordered a new trial. One judge dissented.

F-2012-112

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 25, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-112, Gene Freeman Price appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Gene Freeman Price was found guilty of breaking into a building with the intention of committing a crime. He was given a sentence of twelve years in prison. However, Price argued that he did not fully understand his rights before he decided to represent himself in court instead of having a lawyer help him. The court looked closely at the case. They believed the trial court did not do a good job explaining to Price the risks of going to court alone without a lawyer. This meant that Price could not have truly given up his right to a lawyer because he didn't really understand what that meant. The judges decided that because of this mistake, Price's right to have a lawyer was violated. Since this was such a serious error and affected the whole case, the court said they could not ignore it. They ruled that the earlier decision needed to be thrown out, and Price should get a new trial where he could have a lawyer help him.

F-2010-548

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-548, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple charges including unlawful possession of a firearm and drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial, finding that the trial court failed to properly inform the appellant about the dangers of representing himself. One judge dissented.

C-2011-592

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 10, 2012
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2011-592, Philipe Jean Pace appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the writ and allow the Petitioner to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial. One judge dissented. Philipe Jean Pace was charged with a crime and, instead of going to trial, he decided to plead nolo contendere, which means he did not contest the charges. The trial judge accepted his plea and sentenced him to twenty years in prison, but he only had to serve the first ten years. After the plea, Pace wanted to change his mind and asked to withdraw his plea, but the court said no. In his appeal, Pace argued two main points. First, he said he didn't understand what he was doing when he gave up his right to have a lawyer help him. He claimed that he didn't really know what would happen if he represented himself. Second, he believed that he was confused and didn’t make a proper decision to plead guilty. The higher court looked at all the details, including what happened in the trial court. They found that the original court did not really explain to Pace the risks of not having a lawyer. They noted that just because he had signed a form saying he wanted to waive his right to counsel, it didn't mean he actually understood what he was giving up. The judges pointed out that there was no evidence in the record that he was properly informed about the dangers of self-representation or that he clearly stated he wanted to represent himself. Because of these problems, the higher court ruled that the lower court made a mistake when it denied Pace's request to withdraw his plea. They believed it was important for a person to fully understand their rights and the consequences of their choices in court. As a result, the court decided that Pace could withdraw his plea and would be able to have a trial.

F-2010-267

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 19, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-267, James Lyman Mahaffey appealed his conviction for Assault & Battery with a Deadly Weapon, Kidnapping, and Possession of Firearm After Conviction. In a published decision, the court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences to be served concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Mahaffey was accused and found guilty of serious crimes against his wife, including assault and kidnapping. The trial took place in the District Court of Grady County. After the jury convicted him, the judge sentenced him to life in prison for the assault, 10 years for the kidnapping, and 6 years for possession of a firearm, all lined up to be served one after the other, or consecutively. Mahaffey asked to represent himself during the trial, which means he wanted to defend himself without a lawyer. He argued that the court should not have allowed him to do this because he didn't clearly understand the risks involved in self-representation. However, the court decided that he was competent to represent himself and had made an informed decision. They had warned him that representing himself could be risky and could lead to mistakes that might change the outcome of the trial. During the trial, Mahaffey raised some claims against the prosecutor's behavior. He argued that the prosecutor acted unfairly by making comments that may have influenced the jury. For instance, Mahaffey claimed the prosecutor misrepresented the meaning of a life sentence and made other comments that distracted from the trial's fairness. However, the court concluded that while there were some mistakes made by the prosecutor, they were not serious enough to change the outcome of the case concerning his guilt. Despite this, the court found that the conduct during sentencing raised concerns about the fairness of the sentencing itself. The jury specifically asked about how the sentences would be served, indicating they were worried about the total time Mahaffey would spend in prison. Because of this, although Mahaffey’s convictions were upheld, the court changed the sentences to allow them to be served concurrently, meaning all the prison time would be served at the same time rather than one after the other. Ultimately, the court's decision meant Mahaffey would still have to serve his time, but the way his sentences were structured was altered to be less severe. The case was sent back to the lower court to fix the official documents to reflect that change in sentencing.

RE 2006-0808

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 26, 2007
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2006-0808, Covey appealed her conviction for revocation of her suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation order and send the case back for a new hearing with counsel present. One judge dissented. Covey had pled guilty to a crime and was given a suspended sentence, meaning she wouldn't serve time unless she broke the rules again. The State thought she had broken the rules and asked the court to take away her suspended sentence. At the hearing, Covey didn’t have a lawyer because she claimed she couldn’t pay for one. The judge said Covey had enough chances to get a lawyer but decided to go ahead without one. However, the court found that there was no clear proof that Covey was okay with not having a lawyer or that she understood the risks of representing herself. This is important because everyone has the right to have a lawyer help them during important hearings like this one. Because the court didn’t follow the proper rules for allowing Covey to go without a lawyer, they reversed the previous decision and said she should have another hearing with a lawyer or a clear agreement that she didn’t want one.

F-2006-113

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 28, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-06-113, Brown appealed his conviction for drug trafficking and other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions related to drug trafficking and possession with intent to distribute but reversed the conviction for possession of MDMA with intent to distribute, ordering it dismissed. One judge dissented regarding the dismissal of the MDMA possession charge. Brown was on trial for three main charges: trafficking in illegal drugs (crack cocaine), possession of MDMA with intent to distribute, and eluding a police officer. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole for trafficking, along with fines for the other charges. The case started when Brown led police on a car chase. During the chase, he threw out a bag that was later found to contain crack cocaine and MDMA pills. Brown argued that the trial court made mistakes, including not allowing him a continuance to prepare for trial after he decided to represent himself. The court noted that Brown had a long time to prepare since the case had been ongoing for two years and had already received several continuances. When he asked for a delay on the morning of the trial, it was denied since Brown had indicated he wanted to proceed. He also argued that he should have been given a lesser charge of possession with intent to distribute instead of trafficking. However, since he had over 16 grams of crack cocaine, which met the requirements for trafficking, the court did not agree with this. In another point, Brown claimed that having charges related to two different drugs was unfair and violated laws against double punishment for the same act. The court agreed that both drugs were in one bag and thus counted as a single act, leading them to reverse the MDMA conviction. Brown complained about the removal of a juror who was an intern for the public defender's office, claiming it was unjust. The court found that the trial judge acted properly to ensure an unbiased jury since the intern had worked with Brown's attorney. Lastly, Brown argued that his life sentence was harsh and that he was not allowed to present evidence in his favor during sentencing. However, the court pointed out that presenting such evidence is not a right in non-capital cases. Overall, the court upheld most of the trial's decisions while acknowledging a legal distinction that warranted the dismissal of the MDMA charge. One judge disagreed, feeling the convictions were justified and should stand.

F-2005-1094

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 28, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1094, #x appealed his conviction for #y. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. #n dissented. Charles Arnold Fields was found guilty of delivering a controlled drug after having been convicted of felonies before. The jury gave him a sentence of 15 years to life in prison and a big fine. Fields did not like his representation during the trial, and he wanted to fire his lawyers. But the judge told him he could either continue with his lawyers or represent himself with them helping him. The case had three main issues. The first one was about whether Fields gave up his right to have a lawyer in a way that was clear and fair. The second issue questioned whether his long sentence was okay. The last issue looked at whether the judge made a mistake by not allowing Fields to challenge some evidence. The court found that Fields did not really ask to represent himself, and the judge did not explain to him the problems that could arise from not having a lawyer. Because of this, the court said he deserved a new trial. Since they decided on the first issue, they did not need to look into the other two issues. The court's final decision was to cancel the previous judgment and send the case back for a new trial.