Sentencing Hearing

C-2020-691

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2020-691, Raheem Travon Walker appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery on an Employee of a Juvenile Detention Facility. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Walker's request to withdraw his guilty plea and go to trial. One judge dissented. To explain further, Walker was 17 years old when he pleaded guilty to the crime. He entered into a deal, thinking he would be part of a special program for young adults where his sentence would be delayed. However, later it was discovered that he was not eligible for this program due to a past juvenile record for robbery. Because of this ineligibility, the judge gave him a different sentence, which he believed was not what he had agreed to. After realizing that he did not get what he had bargained for, Walker asked if he could change his mind about the plea. A hearing took place, but his request was denied. He then appealed the decision, arguing that he was not helped properly by his lawyer during the process. The court found that he had a valid point since he entered the agreement expecting specific benefits, which were not provided. Because of this, the court decided he should have another chance and allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea. The dissenting opinion argued that Walker had not raised the issue of not having a proper plea form and thus had waived that right. They believed there was no mistake about the plea agreement and questioned whether Walker's claim had enough basis to warrant this new decision. Regardless, the majority found that Walker’s concerns about his plea and the sentence should be addressed by allowing him to go to trial.

Continue ReadingC-2020-691

RE-2020-452

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingRE-2020-452

RE-2019-19

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

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.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-19

C-2019-15

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2019-15, Nicholas Allan Daniel appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder (Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance) and Robbery with a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his request for a writ of certiorari, modifying his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder while reversing his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm. One judge dissented from this opinion. Nicholas Daniel faced serious charges after being accused of killing a man while trying to sell drugs and also robbing him. He pleaded guilty to these charges but later wanted to withdraw his plea. He felt that his lawyer did not help him enough during the process, and he raised several reasons for this claim. He argued that the lawyer had a conflict of interest, that he did not fully understand the consequences of his plea, that the plea lacked a good factual basis, and that he did not get effective help from his lawyer. The court carefully examined each of Daniel's arguments. In the first argument, the court found no real conflict of interest because Daniel’s dissatisfaction stemmed from the state’s evidence and the sentence, not from his lawyer's performance. In the second argument, it was decided that Daniel had entered the plea with a clear understanding that he would face sentencing and that it was done voluntarily. For the third argument, about the factual basis for his felony murder conviction, the court found that there were issues with how the charges were presented. It was determined that the way Daniel described the incident in his plea was inadequate to meet the legal requirements for felony murder because he was treated primarily as a buyer, not a seller of drugs. Thus, the combined crimes could not both stand. In terms of Daniel's claims against his lawyer's effectiveness, the court acknowledged that his lawyer could have done better. However, it ruled against some of Daniel's more serious arguments on the effectiveness of his lawyer, finding that he did not provide sufficient proof that his lawyer’s actions negatively affected his defense. In the final decision, the court adjusted Daniel's felony murder conviction based on the issues around how the charges were processed and reversed the robbery conviction, as it should not stand alongside the adjusted murder charge. Ultimately, the court confirmed Daniel's modified conviction for felony murder but sent the case back regarding the robbery count. One judge disagreed with parts of this conclusion, stating that the trial court had not made a mistake in the first place and therefore should not have granted the appeal. The judge argued that since Daniel's plea was expressed clearly and voluntarily, it should have been upheld without modification. The judge emphasized the importance of adhering to proper legal processes and rules when making such determinations. Thus, the outcome celebrated the importance of ensuring that legal principles and procedures are correctly applied, even as it affirmed Daniel’s conviction under modified circumstances.

Continue ReadingC-2019-15

F-2018-114

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-114, Andrew Huff appealed his conviction for four counts of Child Neglect and one count of Child Sexual Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Andrew Huff was convicted of neglecting his children and sexually abusing a minor. He was sentenced to a total of twenty-five years for the neglect charges and thirty years for the sexual abuse, with all sentences running concurrently. He raised several arguments against his conviction, claiming his rights were violated through various means. First, Huff stated that his video-recorded statements to an investigator should not have been allowed in court because he didn't properly waive his right to counsel. The court found no error in admitting the statement, stating that Huff’s questioning did not clearly indicate he wanted a lawyer at that moment. Next, Huff argued that hearsay evidence was incorrectly allowed, which hurt his chance of a fair trial. However, the court found that any hearsay used was not harmful to the case since other clear evidence proved the charges. Huff also claimed improper admission of other crimes evidence during his police interview, but again, the court concluded there was enough evidence for a verdict regardless of those statements. Regarding jury instructions, Huff felt the jury did not receive proper guidance on the laws for child sexual abuse, which the court acknowledged but deemed harmless since overwhelming evidence supported the verdict. Huff’s claim of insufficient evidence was denied as the court found that evidence presented allowed for rational conclusions supporting the guilty verdicts on both child neglect and sexual abuse. He also brought up issues regarding prosecutorial misconduct during the trial. The court examined these claims and determined any alleged misconduct was not severe enough to warrant a reversal of the conviction. Huff argued that his counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the introduction of certain evidence and not properly advising him during the trial. The court disagreed, stating that the counsel's performance, while being scrutinized, did not affect the overall outcome of the trial as there was sufficient evidence against him. Lastly, Huff believed that his sentence was excessive, but the court noted that the punishment was within legal limits and that the nature of the crimes warranted the sentence imposed. The overall decision confirmed that there were no reversible errors during the trial, and the affirmance upheld Andrew Huff’s conviction and sentences.

Continue ReadingF-2018-114

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

F-2017-1261

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1261, Carlos Santana Gunter appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, assault, and battery with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Carlos Santana Gunter was found guilty by a jury in Canadian County for robbery and two counts of assault and battery. He received a sentence of thirty years for each count. The judge ruled that Gunter must serve at least 85% of the robbery sentence before being eligible for parole, and the assault sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the robbery sentence. Gunter raised several arguments on appeal. First, he claimed that asking the victims about the effects of their injuries during the trial was improper and prejudiced his case. The court found that this testimony was relevant to establish elements of the crimes and did not affect the outcome significantly. Second, Gunter argued that his right to remain silent was violated when a police officer mentioned that he asked for an attorney during questioning. The court agreed this was an error but concluded that the evidence against Gunter was so strong that it did not impact the fairness of the trial. Third, Gunter challenged the use of his previous felony convictions to enhance his sentence, saying he didn’t have a lawyer during those earlier convictions. The court noted that Gunter had acknowledged those convictions during the trial and failed to show any actual error regarding legal representation. Fourth, he alleged prosecutorial misconduct, claiming the prosecutor made unfair comments that influenced the jury. The court found these comments did not render the trial unfair. Fifth, Gunter argued he did not receive effective legal counsel during the trial. However, the court decided that because his other claims did not merit relief, he could not prove ineffective assistance of counsel. Lastly, Gunter asserted that the combined errors in his case deprived him of a fair trial. The court ruled that even when considering all claimed errors together, they did not affect the outcome. In the end, the court affirmed Gunter's conviction and sentence, concluding that the evidence against him was compelling, and the trial was fair despite the issues raised.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1261

C-2018-1040

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** *Case No. C-2018-1040* **ROLLO ROY WERLINE, IV,** *Petitioner,* *vs.* **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** *Respondent.* **FILED** *IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS* *OCT 31 2019* *JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK* **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Rolla Roy Werline, IV, represented by counsel, entered pleas of guilty to First Degree Manslaughter (Count I), Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident (Count II), and Failure to Maintain Insurance (Count III) in the District Court of Ottawa County, Case No. CF-2017-164. The pleas were accepted by the Honorable Robert G. Haney on April 19, 2018. On June 12, 2018, Petitioner was sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment for Count I, five (5) years imprisonment in Count II (suspended), and a $250.00 fine for Count III. On June 15, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, which was denied at a hearing on June 26, 2018. Petitioner appeals this denial, raising two propositions of error: 1. Petitioner should be allowed to withdraw his plea as it was not entered knowingly and intelligently, given he did not understand the consequences of entering a blind plea. 2. The imposed fines and costs were excessive. **Proposition I:** Petitioner contends that his plea was not entered voluntarily and was the result of being misadvised regarding the plea process. The trial court reviewed this issue during the motion to withdraw hearing. Assessing whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently is key. The record indicates the plea was knowing and voluntary, highlighting that the petitioner understood the court would determine punishment and could impose a sentence within statutory limits. The trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw is upheld. **Proposition II:** Petitioner claims his sentence is excessive, particularly citing a victim impact statement that contained a sentence recommendation, which he argues improperly influenced the court's decision. While acknowledging that victim impact statements may be considered during sentencing, those statements should not contain sentence recommendations. Any potential error here was harmless, as the overall sentence is seen as reasonable and within statutory limits. It was also noted that the issue of a $250.00 Victim Compensation Assessment in Count III was not raised previously and is thus waived for appeal. **DECISION:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. **OPINION BY:** **LUMPKIN, J.** *LEWIS, P.J.: Concur* *KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur* *HUDSON, J.: Concur* *ROWLAND, J.: Concur* **Click Here To Download PDF** [Link to PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-1040_1734225145.pdf)

Continue ReadingC-2018-1040

F-2018-622

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The opinion you provided appears to be a detailed court ruling from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of Jasmine Michelle Irvin, who was convicted of First Degree Murder. Below is a summary of the key points from the opinion: ### Case Summary - **Appellant**: Jasmine Michelle Irvin - **Appellee**: State of Oklahoma - **Case Number**: F-2018-622 - **Court**: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals - **Judge**: Cynthia Ferrell Ashwood - **Verdict**: Convicted of First Degree Murder - **Sentence**: Life in prison without the possibility of parole ### Facts of the Case - The victim, Robert Godwin, was found shot to death in a secluded area. - Evidence indicated that Appellant had expressed a desire to have the victim killed and had made attempts to recruit others to help. - Appellant contacted the victim, leading him to the location where he was killed. - The victim suffered multiple gunshot wounds to the back, and information from cell phone data supported the timeline of events leading to the murder. ### Legal Propositions 1. **Waiver of Jury Trial**: Appellant challenged whether she knowingly and intelligently waived her right to a jury trial. The court found that the waiver was clear and the trial court had adequately assessed her understanding of the waiver. 2. **Victim Impact Testimony**: Appellant contended that her due process rights were violated due to the admission of victim impact testimony from a non-family member. The court acknowledged the error but did not find it sufficient to warrant relief since the trial judge was presumed to consider only competent evidence in sentencing. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Appellant alleged her counsel was ineffective for not ensuring her waiver of the jury trial was valid and for failing to object to the victim impact testimony. The court found no deficiency in counsel's performance. 4. **Accumulation of Errors**: The court addressed Appellant's claim that the cumulative errors denied her a fair trial. It was determined that since no reversible errors were found, the cumulative error claim lacked merit. ### Conclusion - The court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court, concluding there were no reversible errors present. - An additional concurrence discussed the standard of review for the waiver of jury trial but ultimately supported the affirmation of the conviction. For more details or to read the full opinion, you may refer to the link provided in your original text.

Continue ReadingF-2018-622

F-2018-401

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-401, Collins appealed his conviction for Felon in Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Martino L. Collins was found guilty of having a gun even though he had previous felony convictions. He was sentenced to fourteen years in prison. Collins claimed that the trial was unfair because there was too much evidence about a shooting that he was not charged with, that certain expert testimony was wrong, and that he deserved credit for time spent in jail before the trial. The court looked at the evidence and decided that the shooting information was important for understanding why Collins was found with a gun. The jurors needed all the facts to make a fair decision. They found that there wasn't a mistake made by the trial court and that no one was unfairly harmed by this information. Collins also argued against certain things that witnesses said in court, but he didn't object to most of it during the trial, which meant he couldn’t complain about it later. Even when the court looked into the testimony by a ballistic expert, they found that it was okay for the expert to talk about his own findings. Lastly, the court said the law didn’t allow him credit for time he spent in jail before the trial began. Overall, after looking closely at everything, the court found no issues that would change Collins's conviction or sentence, so they kept the original decision.

Continue ReadingF-2018-401

RE-2018-1039

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **FRANK REVILLA PAIZ, JR.,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. --- **Case No. RE-2018-1039** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 12 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** On January 4, 2017, Appellant Frank Revilla Paiz, Jr., represented by counsel, entered guilty pleas to multiple charges including Possession of CDS - Methamphetamine (Count 2), Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Count 4), Driving Without a Driver's License (Count 5), Failure to Maintain Insurance or Security (Count 6), and Failure to Pay Taxes Due to the State (Count 7) in Woodward County Case No. CF-2016-114. He received an eight-year sentence for Count 2 and a one-year sentence for Count 4, with all but the first year suspended, subject to probation conditions. Sentences were concurrent. On the same day, Paiz pleaded guilty in Woodward County Case No. CF-2016-117 to Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance - Methamphetamine (Count 1) and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Count 2), receiving similar sentences. On June 2, 2017, the State filed an Application to Revoke Paiz's suspended sentences in Cases CF-2016-114 and CF-2016-117, citing new charges for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance in Case No. CF-2017-142 and failure to pay court costs. Paiz pled guilty to the new offense, receiving a suspended sentence of ten years, contingent on completing a drug treatment program. The State filed another Application to Revoke on August 14, 2018, due to new charges of Carrying Weapons and violations of probation. Following a revocation hearing on September 28, 2018, Paiz stipulated to the allegations, leading to the revocation of approximately 2,495 days of suspended sentences by the District Court of Woodward County. Paiz appeals, arguing the revocation was excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion. He cites that simple possession became a misdemeanor effective July 1, 2017, and criticizes the court for not exploring alternate sanctions. The scope of review in a revocation appeal focuses on the validity of the revocation order. This Court has held that even a single violation justifies revocation. Paiz admitted to multiple violations and new criminal activity, justifying the District Court's actions. **DECISION**: The revocation of Paiz's suspended sentences in Woodward County Case Nos. CF-2016-114, CF-2016-117, and CF-2017-142 is **AFFIRMED**. **Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.** **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WOODWARD COUNTY, THE HONORABLE DON A. WORK, ASSOCIATE DISTRICT JUDGE** --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL:** **CURTIS BUSSETT, ATTORNEY AT LAW** P.O. BOX 1494 CLINTON, OK 73601 **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** **CHAD JOHNSON** P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** **SUSAN K. MEINDERS** **MIKE HUNTER** ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY WOODWARD COUNTY 1600 MAIN STREET WOODWARD, OK 73801 **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE** **CAROLINE E.J. HUNT** ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21 ST STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE** **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-2018-1039_1734355896.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1039

C-2018-977

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BRADLEY WAYNE CHERRY,** **Petitioner,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-977** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA AUG 29 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Bradley Wayne Cherry entered guilty pleas in the District Court of Oklahoma County to charges of Second Degree Burglary under Case Nos. CF-2017-4883 and CF-2017-5420. These pleas were accepted by the Honorable Ray C. Elliott on November 15, 2017, as part of a plea agreement allowing Petitioner to enter the RID Program, with the potential for a more favorable sentence upon successful completion. His sentencing, set for September 19, 2018, was postponed to allow for completion of the program. Petitioner failed the RID Program and was charged with additional burglaries in Case No. CF-2018-2594. Pleas and sentencing for the three cases culminated on August 22, 2018, resulting in seven years imprisonment per case, ordered to run consecutively. Petitioner subsequently filed a pro se Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, which the trial court denied after a hearing. **Propositions of Error Raised by Petitioner:** 1. **Excessive Sentencing:** Petitioner claims the imposed sentences are shockingly excessive and not proportional to the crimes. The court finds this argument unpersuasive as the legislature defines punishment ranges for offenses. Given the nature of multiple burglaries, including home invasions, the maximum sentences were deemed appropriate. 2. **Restitution Order:** The claim regarding the trial court’s adherence to statutory procedures for restitution was waived, as it was not raised in the motion to withdraw the plea. 3. **Plea Agreement Not Honored:** Petitioner argues the trial court did not adhere to the plea agreement in CF-2018-2594. The court determined there was no formal plea agreement regarding concurrent sentencing; hence, the claim fails. 4. **Voluntariness of Pleas:** Petitioner asserts his pleas were not knowingly entered due to an alleged lack of understanding about possible sentencing. The court determined Petitioner was adequately informed about his potential sentencing and the implications of a blind plea. 5. **Bias of the Trial Court:** Petitioner claims bias during the proceedings; however, this issue was not preserved for appeal as it was not included in the withdrawal motion or addressed at the hearing. 6. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Petitioner asserts his appellate and trial counsel were ineffective, but these claims were not explicitly raised during the motion to withdraw. Concerning the effectiveness of conflict counsel at the withdrawal hearing, Petitioner failed to demonstrate any resulting prejudice. **DECISION:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED, and the Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. A mandate is ordered to be issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** - **For Petitioner at the Plea Hearing:** - Mark Hartshorn (Oklahoma City, OK) - **For Defense at Withdrawal Hearing:** - Thomas Hurley (Oklahoma City, OK) - **For the State:** - Dan Pond (Oklahoma City, OK) **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **Concurred by:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. --- **[Download PDF of Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-977_1734186380.pdf)**

Continue ReadingC-2018-977

C-2018-1235

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AUGUST 29, 2019** **CASE NO. C-2018-1235** **ROY DEAN HARJO,** *Petitioner,* **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** *Respondent.* **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Roy Dean Harjo entered a blind plea to Counts I, Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, and Counts II-V, Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, after previous convictions for two or more felonies, in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Case No. CF-2017-665. Following a sentencing hearing, the Honorable John Canavan sentenced Harjo to life on each Count I-V, concurrent for Counts II-V but consecutive to Count I, requiring Harjo to serve 85% before parole eligibility. Harjo filed a motion to withdraw his pleas, which was denied after a hearing on November 28, 2018. Harjo then filed a timely Petition for Writ of Certiorari, asserting four propositions of error: I. Harjo should be allowed to withdraw his pleas for Counts II-V due to lack of factual basis. II. His plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was uninformed about sentencing ranges, violating his rights under the Constitution. III. His plea was not knowing and voluntary due to misinformation regarding sentencing. IV. He was denied effective assistance of counsel. **Decision:** After comprehensive review, we find the evidence does not warrant relief. Proposition I cannot be considered as it was not presented in the motion to withdraw or the certiorari petition. In Propositions II and III, we find the pleas were knowing and voluntary. Harjo's assertion that he believed he would receive a thirty-year maximum sentence is contradicted by the record, which shows he understood the plea form stating potential life sentences. Therefore, his claims regarding plea counsel’s advice lack merit. In Proposition IV, we determine that there was no ineffective assistance from either plea or conflict counsel. Harjo's claim regarding the factual basis for his plea is unsupported, as ample facts exist to justify the plea. Any assertion that conflict counsel was ineffective for not challenging plea counsel also fails, as no substantial claims could have been made given the determination of a solid factual basis. **Conclusion:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is therefore **DENIED**. Upon filing this decision, the **MANDATE is ORDERED issued.** **This decision is concurred by all Justices.** --- *To view the complete decision, click [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-1235_1734229271.pdf).*

Continue ReadingC-2018-1235

F-2018-411

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-411, Joey Elijo Adames appealed his conviction for Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold his convictions and the order revoking his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when Adames was charged with several serious offenses. After a trial, a jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to a total of 45 years in prison. This included 35 years for the conspiracy charge and 10 years for the gun possession charge, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. Adames had previous felony convictions, which affected his sentences. Furthermore, Adames had prior suspended sentences due to earlier charges, including Domestic Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. The state decided to revoke those suspended sentences after Adames committed the new crimes. During the trial, Adames argued that the prosecutor acted unfairly by making comments that hinted he should have testified, which he did not. He believed this made it hard for him to get a fair trial. However, the court examined Adames' claims. They found that the prosecutor’s comments did not directly force attention to the fact he did not testify and were within the acceptable limits of court arguments. The judges believed the jury was properly instructed to not hold his silence against him, and thus they did not see an error in the trial process. Adames also complained about the sentencing part of the trial, saying the prosecutor made remarks that were inappropriate and could have influenced the jury to give him a harsher sentence. Again, the court found that the comments focused more on his past behavior and did not unfairly sway the jury’s decision. Lastly, about the revocation of Adames' previous suspended sentences, he argued that he should have had a hearing within 20 days after pleading not guilty to the revocation. The court reviewed the record and concluded that Adames had waived his right to that fast hearing when he entered his plea of not guilty. Therefore, the court ruled that since no rule was broken, the revocation of his suspended sentence was valid. In summary, the court found no significant errors in Adames' trial or the revocation order. As a result, his convictions and the revocation of his suspended sentences were upheld, affirming the decisions made by the lower court.

Continue ReadingF-2018-411

F-2017-1301

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1301, William Curtis Box appealed his conviction for Aggravated Domestic Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of his deferred judgment, which meant that his earlier decision to defer judgment was changed to a conviction. One judge dissented. The case started when Box was found guilty of a crime related to domestic violence and was given a deferred judgment, meaning he wouldn’t have a criminal record if he followed certain conditions for ten years. However, he did not follow those conditions and committed another crime called Obstructing an Officer. When the State of Oklahoma found out, they asked the court to change his deferred judgment to a conviction. Box argued that his probation should not be accelerated because the court did not have a written list of rules for his probation. He referred to previous cases from 1969 and 1970 which ruled in favor of defendants when there were no signed probation rules. However, the court explained that in later cases, they decided that a person on probation should understand they cannot commit any further crimes, even without a written agreement. Box also asked to withdraw his agreement to the State's application to change his probation status but could not find any laws that allowed him to do so. The court noted that a stipulation, or agreement, to accelerate a deferred judgment is different from things like guilty pleas, and there is no established way to take back such an agreement. Moreover, Box claimed that his sentence was too harsh. However, the court stated that during an acceleration appeal, they can only examine whether the acceleration was lawful, not whether the sentence was too long. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision to accelerate Box's judgment to a conviction based on his probation violation. They found no evidence of an abuse of discretion by the lower court in making this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1301

C-2018-441

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2018-441, Clinton Lee Myers appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute near a school. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal. One judge dissented. Clinton Lee Myers entered a plea of guilty to two serious charges. He was sentenced to a long time in prison and had to pay a large fine. After he was sentenced, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, but the court said no after listening to evidence in a hearing. Myers complained that his punishment was too harsh and that the prosecutor shouldn't have talked about his past crimes during the sentencing. He felt this information was unfair and should not have been used against him. However, the court explained that this type of information can be considered at sentencing. They also decided that his sentence was within legal limits and did not shock their conscience, so they would not change it. Additionally, Myers believed that there was a mistake in the written records of his sentence regarding the amount of the fine. The court found that there was, in fact, a clerical error in the documents about the fine amount. They agreed that the error should be corrected to match what the judge said during the sentencing. In conclusion, the court denied Myers' request to change his sentence, but they agreed to correct the written record to reflect the right fine amount.

Continue ReadingC-2018-441

F-2017-532

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-532, Shane Allen Vanderpool appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder, Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction, and Eluding a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when Vanderpool shot and killed Blaine Wells in an incident that was determined to be a case of mistaken identity following an encounter at an intersection in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Vanderpool did not know Wells, and the circumstances of the shooting involved a misunderstanding about the identities of the people involved. Vanderpool was later connected to the crime through evidence that included phone records and testimonies that linked him to the location of the shooting. Witnesses to the shooting were able to identify Vanderpool as the shooter, and forensic evidence further implicated him. Vanderpool was charged with First Degree Murder and other related offenses, ultimately leading to a conviction and a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder charge. During the appeal, Vanderpool raised several issues regarding the trial court's admission of evidence relating to his character and gang affiliations. He claimed that such evidence denied him a fair trial. However, the court found that the evidence was admissible as it was closely connected to the events of the shooting. Vanderpool also challenged certain photographic evidence presented at trial, arguing it was prejudicial and lacked relevance. The court, however, concluded that these photographs had significant probative value and did not substantially outweigh any potential prejudicial effect. Another argument Vanderpool made was about the unconstitutionality of a statute regarding the sentencing of noncapital murder defendants, which he felt limited his ability to present mitigating evidence during sentencing. The court held that the statute was constitutional and provided due process protections. Furthermore, Vanderpool contended that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to raise certain objections during trial. The court noted that his counsel's performance did not result in prejudice that would impact the trial's outcome; therefore, this claim was also denied. Finally, Vanderpool argued that the cumulative effect of errors during his trial denied him a fair trial. The court ruled that as they found no substantial errors, this claim also failed. In conclusion, the court affirmed Vanderpool's convictions and the sentences imposed by the trial court. The opinions aligned with the decisions made regarding the evidentiary rulings and the interpretation of the relevant statutes. One judge expressed a differing view but ultimately the majority ruled in favor of upholding the lower court's decision.

Continue ReadingF-2017-532

C-2016-1000

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-1000, Bryan Keith Fletcher appealed his conviction for multiple charges including kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon, rape, and child abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant part of his appeal regarding one misdemeanor charge while denying all other claims. The court modified the sentence for the misdemeanor related to threatening violence to six months in jail but affirmed the sentences for all other counts, which resulted in a significant time in prison. The petitioner argued several points, including that he did not receive effective legal help, that he was not competent when he entered his plea, and that his plea was not voluntary. However, the court reviewed these claims and found that they did not hold up under scrutiny. The judges opined that the actions taken during the plea process were appropriate and upheld the ruling on the grounds that there was no evidence of ineffective assistance or invalid plea. One judge disagreed with some aspects of the decision.

Continue ReadingC-2016-1000

F-2015-909

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2015-909

C-2017-104

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-104, McLaughlin appealed his conviction for burglary and unlawful use of a police scanner. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the sentences for burglary and unlawful use of a police scanner but reversed the sentence for possession of burglary tools. One judge dissented. McLaughlin had pleaded no contest to charges of burglary in the second degree and unlawful use of a police scanner in a district court. At sentencing, he received life imprisonment for each of those counts, along with a fine for the second count. However, there was an additional charge for possession of burglary tools that had been dismissed earlier, but the court sentenced him for that count as well. McLaughlin wanted to withdraw his no contest plea later, but his request was denied. He filed for an appeal to challenge that denial, which was allowed to proceed. He raised three main arguments: one regarding the court's authority to sentence him for the dismissed charge, another about failing to bring him to trial on time, and the last about the severity of his life sentences being excessive. The court found that it was wrong for the district court to impose a sentence on the dismissed possession charge, and so it directed that judgment to be vacated. However, it ruled that McLaughlin had missed his chance to challenge the timing of his trial. The court also determined that his life sentences were not shockingly excessive, thus they would not be disturbed. In summary, McLaughlin's appeal was granted in part and denied in part: the decision on the burglary and police scanner charges stood, but the judgment on the possession of burglary tools was reversed, and the case was sent back to the lower court for corrections.

Continue ReadingC-2017-104

C-2016-813

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-813, Derlin Lara appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including Manslaughter in the First Degree and Driving Under the Influence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny in part and grant in part the appeal. One judge dissented. Derlin Lara was involved in a serious legal situation where he entered an Alford plea. This type of plea means that he did not admit guilt but agreed that there was enough evidence to convict him. His charges included killing someone while driving under the influence, injuring another person while DUI, driving without a license, and transporting alcohol in the car. After he pleaded guilty, he was sentenced by a judge. The judge gave him a long sentence that meant he’d serve a lot of time in prison. Lara later wanted to take back his plea because he felt it wasn’t fair and that he didn't fully understand what he was doing. He argued that he was confused during the process, and that he had received poor advice from his lawyer. The court looked carefully at Lara's case and found several key points: 1. The judges believed that Lara's plea was actually made with understanding, even though he insisted that he did not understand everything. They noted that he had an interpreter during his hearings. 2. The court decided that Lara was not unfairly punished multiple times for the same actions. They explained that each charge had different parts and involved different victims, so they did not violate any laws regarding multiple punishments. 3. Lara’s claims about his lawyer not helping him were also rejected. The court found that Lara did not show that having a different lawyer would have changed his decision to plead guilty. 4. The sentence he received for one of the charges was too harsh according to the law. He was given a year in jail for driving without a license, but that punishment was higher than allowed. The court changed that sentence to a shorter one of just thirty days. Lastly, the court found that the amounts assessed for victim compensation and restitution were not properly explained during sentencing. Therefore, they canceled those amounts and decided that a hearing should be held to determine fair compensation. In summary, while the court denied most of Lara's requests, they did change one of his sentences and agreed that some financial penalties needed to be rethought.

Continue ReadingC-2016-813

C-2015-942

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-942, Prince Edward Myers appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including Running a Roadblock and Eluding a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm several parts of the case. However, they found errors concerning sentences that exceeded what was allowed by law. Myers received a mix of sentences, including prison time and fines, and the court ruled that some of his jail sentences were not valid because the offenses only allowed for fines. One judge disagreed with some aspects of the decision.

Continue ReadingC-2015-942

F 2015-738

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2015-738, Richard Jerrel Jackson appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses and driving with a suspended license. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss some of the charges while affirming the rest of the conviction. One judge dissented. Jackson was found guilty of possessing methamphetamine, marijuana, alprazolam, drug paraphernalia, and driving with a suspended license. His sentences included life imprisonment for the methamphetamine conviction and varying years for the other charges, all to be served consecutively. Jackson raised several arguments on appeal, mainly focusing on claims of double jeopardy, ineffective counsel, and evidence errors. The court found that it was wrong for Jackson to be convicted of possession of three drugs when they were all found together. The State agreed that this violated the rules against double punishment, leading to a reversal of the convictions related to the marijuana and alprazolam. For the other claims, including the effectiveness of Jackson's lawyer and various evidentiary issues, the court ruled largely in favor of the trial's findings, concluding that Jackson had not demonstrated any substantial harm or errors that affected his conviction significantly. This included affirming the use of prior felony convictions for sentencing enhancements and the handling of evidence during the trial. In summary, while the court dismissed two of the charges against Jackson, it upheld the others and determined that there were no significant errors in how the trial was conducted. The judges agreed on most aspects of the case, with one judge expressing a differing opinion on some points.

Continue ReadingF 2015-738

F-2014-830

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-830, Cody Wayne Mayfield appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and failure to stop at a red light. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Count 2 and remand with instructions to dismiss it, while affirming the other counts. One judge dissented. The case involved Mayfield being found guilty of two counts of possession of a controlled dangerous substance and one count of failure to stop at a red light. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the drug charges and ten days in jail for the traffic violation. Mayfield raised several points in his appeal. He claimed that being convicted for two types of possession from the same incident violated double jeopardy rules, which protect against being punished twice for the same crime. He also argued that certain evidence presented in court, including information about his past crimes and a photograph of a piece of cellophane, was not relevant and unfairly biased the jury. The court found that the first count of possession was improperly charged alongside the second due to double jeopardy, so they reversed the second charge. However, in relation to the other arguments, the court decided that the admission of the pen packet evidence and the photograph did not greatly affect the trial's outcome. The court also ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence for Mayfield to claim that he wasn't connected to the drugs found in the area. Additionally, Mayfield's complaints about his lawyer's performance did not lead to a different outcome, as the court found the defense wasn't significantly lacking. Finally, the court noted that Mayfield’s life sentence was appropriate and consistent with the law because of his past criminal record. Most of Mayfield's arguments were rejected, leading to the final decision.

Continue ReadingF-2014-830

J-2015-353

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2015-353, E.A.F. appealed his conviction for robbery and attempted robbery. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order to sentence E.A.F. as an adult and instructed for a new hearing to be held before a different judge, only after a psychological evaluation was completed. Two judges dissented.

Continue ReadingJ-2015-353