Sixth Amendment Archives - Page 2 of 5

F-2018-289

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-289, Anthony Douglass Crisel, Jr., appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Anthony Douglass Crisel, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for engaging in inappropriate conduct with a child. The jury decided that he should spend six years in prison, and he has to serve 85% of that time before he can ask for parole. Crisel claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly during the trial, which he believed went against his rights. He said his attorney made mistakes in three important areas: not opposing a witness’s testimony, not bringing in a witness who was related to the victim, and not challenging the qualifications of an expert witness who testified against him. The court looked closely at these claims and the complete record of what happened during the trial. They explained that to show his lawyer was ineffective, Crisel needed to prove that his lawyer didn’t do their job well and that this affected the outcome of the case. The judges noted that there is a strong assumption that a lawyer’s actions are based on good judgment. For the first claim, Crisel argued his lawyer should have stopped a witness from talking about some old accusations against him. However, the court found that the information the witness shared was already given to the jury through other evidence. Therefore, the lawyer's choice to not object was a reasonable decision. For the second claim, Crisel wanted his brother to testify but did not show how having his brother's testimony would have helped him win the case. The court stated that the lawyer's decision to not call the brother was likely a strategic choice and they won’t question that. Lastly, regarding the expert witness, the court found that the lawyer did question the qualifications of this expert, and since many lawyers might handle this differently, having a different strategy does not necessarily mean the lawyer did a bad job. After reviewing everything, the court concluded that Crisel’s lawyer did not act ineffectively. The judges affirmed the decision of the lower court, and the request for more evidence or hearing on this issue was denied.

C-2018-489

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2019
Post category:C

**SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Mario Donsheau Cherry entered blind pleas of guilty to multiple charges including First Degree Manslaughter, Causing an Accident Resulting in Great Bodily Injury, and Leaving the Scene of an Accident, among others, in the District Court of Oklahoma County. His pleas were accepted by the Honorable Bill Graves on February 23, 2018. After a sentencing hearing on April 5, 2018, Cherry was sentenced to life in prison on some counts, with additional sentences for other counts that ran concurrently. On April 12, 2018, he filed an application to withdraw his plea, which was denied on May 4, 2018. Cherry appeals this denial, raising the following issues: 1. **Denial of Withdrawal of Plea:** Cherry argues he should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming it was not entered knowingly and voluntarily partly because he was not adequately informed about waiving his right to appeal. 2. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** He claims his counsel did not sufficiently inform him about the consequences of waiving his appeal rights through his plea. 3. **Excessive Sentence:** Cherry contends that the imposed sentences are excessive and shock the conscience. After reviewing the case, including the original record and briefs, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cherry's motion to withdraw his plea. The court cited that the plea was determined to be knowing and voluntary as Cherry acknowledged understanding of the consequences including the nature and severity of the charges and the rights he was waiving. Regarding ineffective assistance, the court noted that this claim was not raised in the initial application to withdraw the plea or in the petition for certiorari, resulting in a waiver for appellate review. On the issue of sentencing, the court confirmed that the sentences were within statutory guidelines and that running some counts consecutively was within the trial court’s discretion. The court found no excessive or shocking elements in the imposed sentence in light of Cherry's guilty admissions and prior felony history. **DECISION** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

F-2017-1038

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 1, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1038, Zachary Craig Anderson appealed his conviction for Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Zachary Craig Anderson was found guilty after a trial for neglecting a child, which is against the law. The judge gave him a sentence of 20 years in prison but also gave him credit for the time he had already served. Anderson did not agree with his conviction and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to review the decision made in his original trial. Anderson claimed that his lawyer did not help him effectively by not challenging the statements he made to the police. He argued that his lawyer should have questioned whether those statements could be used against him in court because he was not read his rights, which are important for protecting people when they are being questioned by police. These rights are known as Miranda rights, and they are designed to help ensure that people are not forced to speak without understanding their rights. In the appeal, the court looked at whether Anderson's lawyer did a good job or not. To win this argument, Anderson had to show that his lawyer's performance was poor and that this hurt his chances of a fair trial. The court found that Anderson did not show evidence that his lawyer was ineffective. They said that Anderson actually voluntarily talked to the police and did not feel pressured or threatened. Since he cooperated, the court thought there was no reason for the lawyer to challenge his statements to the police. After looking at all the evidence and arguments, the court decided to keep Anderson's conviction and sentence as they were. They also denied his request for a hearing to discuss the effectiveness of his lawyer's help during the trial. In summary, Anderson's appeal did not lead to any changes in his conviction. The court agreed that the statements he made to the police were allowed and that his lawyer’s actions were reasonable in the situation.

C-2018-648

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 28, 2019
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2018-648, Denisa Dawn Duvall appealed her conviction for domestic assault and battery in the presence of a minor. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her request for a new hearing to withdraw her plea. One judge dissented. Duvall was charged with a misdemeanor and decided to enter a plea of no contest. The court accepted her plea and gave her a deferred sentence, which included supervision and counseling. Later, Duvall filed a request to withdraw her plea, saying she wanted an attorney to help her. However, when the court held a hearing, it was unclear if she was offered a lawyer or if she had decided to represent herself. Duvall claimed that she didn’t understand the charges or the meaning of her plea when she first entered it. The court didn’t allow her a lawyer during the hearing to withdraw her plea, which is against her rights under the Constitution. The court recognized that Duvall should have had legal help during that critical moment. The State agreed that Duvall didn’t receive a fair process because she was not represented by counsel. The court decided that they needed to redo the hearing where Duvall could have a lawyer present, and she should be allowed to explain why she wants to withdraw her plea. The court ordered that Duvall be given a new chance to file a motion for withdrawing her plea with her new lawyer and scheduled an evidentiary hearing on that motion. If her request to withdraw her plea is denied again, her lawyer must help her with an appeal. The decision from the court resulted in Duvall getting a new hearing, where she can properly address her plea's withdrawal with the support of an attorney.

M-2017-954

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 7, 2019
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2017-954, Christian Wages appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his conviction to simple Assault and Battery and remanded the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Christian Wages was found guilty of Domestic Abuse in a trial without a jury. The judge sentenced him to one year in jail, with all but the first thirty days suspended, and a fine of $500. He was also required to attend counseling and was placed on probation. Wages appealed the decision, claiming three main errors in the trial. First, he believed the court wrongly allowed hearsay evidence that violated his right to confront witnesses. This hearsay was about R.S., the alleged victim, who did not testify at the trial. Second, he argued that the evidence wasn't enough to prove he battered R.S. because the witnesses did not clearly identify her. Lastly, he claimed that the errors in the trial added up to deny him a fair trial. The court reviewed the evidence and mentioned that while there was enough proof for a simple Assault and Battery charge, the evidence for the Domestic Abuse charge was based on inadmissible hearsay that stated R.S. lived with Wages. Since there wasn’t sufficient admissible evidence to prove the domestic relationship, Wages' conviction was modified to simple Assault and Battery. As for the last argument regarding cumulative errors, the court pointed out that it only found one significant error, meaning cumulative error could not be applied. In conclusion, the punishment was lessened from Domestic Abuse to simple Assault and Battery, and the court instructed to resentence Wages according to this new finding.

F-2016-194

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 8, 2018
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DONTE LEMAR PAYTON,** Appellant, *Case No. F-2016-194* v. **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant, Donte Lemar Payton, was convicted in the Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2014-7586, of Manslaughter in the First Degree, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 711(3). The jury acquitted him of first-degree murder but found him guilty of the lesser-included offense. The Honorable Donald L. Deason sentenced him to life imprisonment, and Payton appeals, presenting six propositions of error: **I.** The trial court erred in failing to comply with statutory law regarding juror contact, violating Appellant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. **II.** The court's communication with the jury improperly suggested they could avoid their duty to assess punishment. **III.** Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel. **IV.** The life sentence imposed was excessive under the circumstances. **V.** The trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury on self-defense, violating Appellant's rights. **VI.** Cumulative errors deprived Appellant of due process. Upon thorough review, including the evidence and arguments presented, the Court finds no relief necessary. The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. ### Propositions I and II A presumption of prejudice arises from unauthorized judicial communications with a jury after they commence deliberations (Givens v. State, 1985 OK CR 104). In this case, the jury was informed by the bailiff about the trial court's potential to impose a sentence if they could not reach an agreement. This occurred after they had already found Appellant guilty. An evidentiary hearing confirmed that the communication, while improper, was addressed within the statutory framework (22 O.S.2011, § 927.1) regarding jury deadlock. The communication was limited and factual, and the jury was informed to continue deliberations, which ultimately established that they were deadlocked. Appellant failed to object to any of these proceedings or request an Allen charge, thus forfeiting those claims on appeal. The communication did not undermine the integrity of the proceedings, and therefore the presumption of prejudice was adequately overcome. Hence, we deny Propositions I and II. ### Proposition III To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant must show both deficient performance and resulting prejudice (Strickland v. Washington, 1984). In this case, the existing record did not support claims of ineffective assistance. Furthermore, there is no clear and convincing evidence suggesting that counsel's failure to present character witness statements at sentencing prejudiced the outcome. Accordingly, Proposition III is denied. ### Proposition IV Considering the complete context, we agree that Appellant's life sentence is not so excessive as to shock the conscience (Duclos v. State, 2017 OK CR 8). The nature of the crime was severe, further justifying the sentence based on the facts presented. ### Proposition V The trial court's decision to deny a self-defense instruction was within its discretion. The standard for prima facie evidence was not met since Appellant's testimony did not suggest a reasonable belief in imminent danger, thus precluding such an instruction (Davis v. State, 2011). ### Proposition VI Allegations of cumulative error must be based on actual determinations of error, which were not established here (Neloms v. State, 2012). Therefore, we deny Proposition VI as well. ### DECISION The judgment and sentence of the District Court are AFFIRMED. Appellant's Application for an Evidentiary Hearing on Sixth Amendment Claims is DENIED. **APPEARANCES:** * For Appellant: Stacy Smith, Attorney at Law * For Appellee: Mike Hunter, Attorney General; John Salmon, Assistant District Attorney; Matthew D. Haire, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. *LUMPKIN, P.J.: CONCUR* *LEWIS, V.P.J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS* *KUEHN, J.: CONCUR* *ROWLAND, J.: RECUSE* **NOTE**: The presence of procedural errors warrants caution, but in this instance, they did not materially affect the outcome. Trial courts should maintain vigilance regarding communications with jurors to avoid future complications.

C-2017-33

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

In OCCA case No. C-2017-33, a person appealed his conviction for manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to run concurrently with another sentence. One judge dissented. In this case, the person, who we'll refer to as the appellant, had entered a guilty plea to first degree manslaughter. He ended up being sentenced to twenty-three years in prison. After some time, the appellant decided he wanted to take back his guilty plea. He claimed he didn't fully understand the consequences of his plea when he entered it, and he felt he was pressured into making that choice. The court held three hearings to talk about the appellant’s request to withdraw his guilty plea. Ultimately, the judge denied his request, finding that his plea was made voluntarily and knowingly. The appellant raised two main arguments in his appeal. First, he argued that his plea was not given voluntarily or knowingly. Second, he said he did not get proper legal help from his attorney, which affected his case. The court looked closely at the entire record, including the hearings and the agreements made during the plea process. They found that even though the appellant felt he was pressured, he actually understood what he was doing when he entered his plea. They decided that the plea was valid and should not be withdrawn. However, the court also recognized that the state did not follow the agreement regarding a related case. The state had promised not to seek a revocation of the appellant's other suspended sentence, but after the appellant filed to withdraw his plea, the state moved to revoke that sentence anyway. The court determined that this was a significant breach of the plea agreement, which affected the fairness of the situation. Since the appellant was also facing the loss of additional years in prison because of the state's actions, the court decided to modify his sentence. Instead of having the two sentences run one after the other, the court ordered them to run at the same time. This way, the appellant would not be unfairly punished because of the state’s breach of their agreement. In conclusion, the court agreed the appellant’s plea was valid and was made knowingly and voluntarily. However, to correct the mistake made by the state regarding the plea agreement, they modified his sentence to ensure fairness. One judge disagreed with some parts of the decision.

C-2016-1000

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 2, 2017
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.

F-2016-696

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 21, 2017
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-696, Mesfun appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol, transporting an open container of liquor, driving without a license, and driving left of center. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the sentence on one count and affirmed the rest of the judgment. One justice dissented. Mesfun was found guilty of multiple offenses in Tulsa County District Court. The charges included driving drunk, having an open container of alcohol while driving, not having a driver's license, and driving in the wrong lane. He received a long sentence, including years in prison and fines, to be served one after the other. Mesfun's appeal included three main points. First, he argued that the jury was wrongly told how much punishment they could give him for transporting an open container of liquor. The court agreed with him on this point and changed that sentence to a shorter jail time and fine. Second, Mesfun claimed that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial, which hurt his chances of a fair trial. However, the court found that the prosecutor's comments were allowed and did not harm Mesfun's case. Third, he said that his lawyer did not do a good job to help him. The court looked at this claim and said that his lawyer's actions did not affect the trial's outcome, so this point was also denied. Overall, the court modified one part of his sentence but upheld the rest of the decision from the trial court.

F-2015-963

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 13, 2017
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-963, Daniel Bryan Kelley appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation and Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Assault and Battery but reversed the conviction for Rape by Instrumentation and remanded for resentencing. One judge dissented. Kelley was found guilty by a jury of committing rape and an assault. The crimes occurred in Tulsa County. The jury recommended a sentence of 20 years for the rape and a 90-day sentence for the assault, which would happen at the same time as the longer sentence. Kelley appealed for several reasons. Firstly, Kelley argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence that the victim had previously said the crime happened somewhere else. The court found this request did not violate his rights. The court also ruled that other evidence, including statements from witnesses, was presented correctly according to the law. Kelley further claimed that the detective’s testimony included hearsay and should not have been allowed. The court disagreed, stating that the testimony did not qualify as hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter. He also objected to the admission of a Kansas judgment that concerns his past criminal record. The court found that the state failed to prove that this past conviction should be used to increase his sentence as a felony under Oklahoma law, which was a significant factor in the decision to remand for resentencing. Kelley argued that the prosecutor made mistakes during his closing arguments, but the court didn’t find enough errors to affect his right to a fair trial. On the matter of whether Kelley received effective help from his lawyer, the court determined that no deficiencies were present that impacted his case. The final summary was that while Kelley’s conviction for Assault and Battery remained intact, the conviction for Rape by Instrumentation was reversed due to a lack of sufficient evidence regarding his previous crime, leading to a mandate for resentencing.

F-2014-1078

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 11, 2016
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-1078, Robert Bradley Champlain appealed his conviction for three counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his judgment and sentence but vacated the imposition of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. The case involved allegations against Champlain for inappropriate conduct with a minor, and a jury found him guilty. Each count resulted in a recommendation for life imprisonment, to be served consecutively. Champlain raised several arguments on appeal, claiming errors in the trial process, including the imposition of consecutive sentences as a punishment for opting for a jury trial and issues regarding evidence of his past convictions. The court did not find merit in these claims. It clarified that the determination of consecutive versus concurrent sentences is within the trial court's discretion. The court also concluded that prior felony convictions had been proven properly, with no significant errors affecting Champlain's rights during the trial. They explained that the State's evidence was sufficient for the jury to uphold the conviction. Champlain also argued that the conduct of the prosecution and the trial court's instructions were unfair. However, the court stated that the issues raised did not prove any misconduct that made the trial fundamentally unfair. His claims regarding ineffective assistance from his counsel were also dismissed, as the court did not see a failure that affected the outcome of the trial. While Champlain did receive life sentences, the court vacated the post-imprisonment supervision, stating it was not applicable in cases of life sentences. In conclusion, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence while correcting certain references related to the timing of the offenses.

F-2014-500

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 29, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-500, Dale Lynn Taylor appealed his conviction for Second Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to fifteen years in prison. No judges dissented. Dale Lynn Taylor was put on trial and found guilty of Second Degree Rape after a jury deliberated on the evidence presented. He had a previous felony conviction from 1992, which the State tried to use to enhance his punishment. However, since the previous conviction was over ten years old, it was considered stale and should not have been used for increasing his sentence. The jury originally recommended a punishment of twenty years in prison. The court reviewed Taylor's claims of error, which included the improper use of the old conviction, the admission of certain evidence, and the actions of the prosecution during the trial. The court found that while some issues raised were valid, others were not significant enough to alter the outcome of the case. After looking closely at all the evidence, the court decided that Taylor's sentence should be reduced to fifteen years in prison. They believed this was a fair outcome considering the circumstances of the case and the nature of the crime. Taylor's arguments about the trial process raised important points, but in the end, they did not change the decision about his guilt. The final outcome was that Taylor's conviction remained, but his punishment was adjusted to be more appropriate under the law. The court emphasized that even though there were problems, they did not warrant completely overturning the conviction. Therefore, he would still serve time but for a reduced period.

J-2015-353

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 27, 2015
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.

F-2014-279

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 19, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-279, Cruz-Brizuela appealed his conviction for Aggravated Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for new trials with conflict-free counsel. Guevara also appealed his conviction for the same charge, and the court made a similar decision for him. A dissenting opinion was filed. Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara were both found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County for having a large amount of cocaine hidden in a truck they were driving. The police had stopped them for a minor traffic issue and, upon inspection, discovered the cocaine in a secret compartment. During the trial, both men claimed they did not know about the drugs, but because they shared the same lawyer, there were concerns about an actual conflict of interest that seemed to affect their defense. The case stemmed from an incident on April 25, 2012, when an officer pulled their truck over. The officer had suspicions about the trip based on the men's log books and their explanations about stops they made along the way. The prosecutor argued that it was more likely that either Cruz-Brizuela or Guevara had placed the cocaine in the trailer during a long stop during their journey. Both men argued that their lawyer’s conflict made it impossible for him to defend them properly, as he could not use certain evidence to benefit one without hurting the other. Because their defense relied on the idea that neither of them knew about the drugs, the conflict prevented their lawyer from arguing effectively. The court found that the actual conflict had indeed affected the counsel's performance and, thus, both convictions were reversed. The judges agreed that it was important for defendants to have lawyers without conflicting interests to ensure a fair trial. The case was remanded for new trials where both Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara could have separate attorneys who could focus on their individual defenses. So, the outcome was that Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara were given another chance to defend themselves against the charges, this time with legal representation that wasn’t hindered by conflicts of interest.

C-2013-1046

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2014
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2013-1046, Ronald Franz appealed his conviction for Accessory After the Fact to Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for writ of certiorari and remanded the case to the district court for a proper hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented.

C-2013-1030

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 1, 2014
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2013-1030, the petitioner appealed his conviction for grand larceny, false declaration of ownership in pawn, and bail jumping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the petitioner's request for certiorari. One judge dissented. Kevin Anthony Eifert pleaded guilty to several charges in the District Court of Ottawa County. These included two counts of grand larceny, one count of false declaration of ownership in pawn, and one count of bail jumping. The court placed him in Drug Court but later removed him from that program. Following this, he was sentenced to serve prison time and pay fines. After his sentencing, Eifert tried to withdraw his guilty pleas. He argued that the court did not have proper records to support the pleas, that he was not competent to enter them, and that some of the fines were too high according to the law. He also claimed he did not receive effective help from his lawyers during his hearings. The court looked at his claims and decided that he had not made a proper challenge to some of his arguments when he initially tried to withdraw his pleas. Because of this, some of his complaints were not reviewed. While reviewing the case, the court found that one of the fines imposed was indeed higher than what the law allowed. They modified that fine to the correct amount. In the end, the court denied Eifert's request to change his sentence but changed one fine to align with the legal limits. Most of the judgments from the Ottawa County District Court were confirmed. Overall, while Eifert's appeal was mostly unsuccessful, one part of his sentence was modified due to an error, showing that the court takes care to ensure fairness in sentencing.

F-2013-305

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2014
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-305, Lonnie Waylon Craighead appealed his conviction for endeavoring to manufacture methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Craighead's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Craighead was found guilty in a jury trial and sentenced to thirty years in prison with a $50,000 fine. He raised several complaints about his trial, including that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof, his arrest was not lawful, and his rights were violated during questioning. He also claimed that the evidence against him was not strong enough, and he was not given fair representation by his lawyer. After reviewing the case, the court wrote that they did not see a problem with how the prosecution handled the case. They felt there was enough evidence for the jury to find Craighead guilty. The court believed the police had valid reasons for stopping and questioning him. They stated that Craighead had been informed of his rights before being interviewed and that he agreed to talk. The court also noted that while the prosecutor made a few mistakes, they did not harm Craighead’s right to a fair trial. The details of his previous crimes were shared, but it did not seem to affect the outcome of the trial. The jury also had enough evidence to verify that Craighead had prior felony convictions. Regarding the claim of ineffective help from his lawyer, the court decided that Craighead was not denied a good defense. They found that the sentence he received was not excessive, given the nature of his actions and past crimes. However, the court did find an issue with the jail fees Craighead was assessed after sentencing. These fees were not discussed during the trial, and Craighead was not given a chance to contest them. Therefore, the court sent the case back to the district court to address the jail fee situation. In summary, the court upheld Craighead’s conviction but revised the part about the jail fees, ordering a hearing for that matter.

RE-2012-1043

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 12, 2014
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2012-1043, Phillip Wade Barton appealed his conviction for violating probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his ten-year suspended sentence. No one dissented. Phillip Wade Barton had originally pled guilty to trying to make a controlled substance and was given a ten-year suspended sentence in 2010. This meant he wouldn't go to prison, but he had to follow certain rules. In May 2011, he got in trouble again for trying to make a controlled substance, which led the state to ask for his probation to be revoked. In October 2012, a hearing took place to see if Barton really broke the rules of his probation. The state presented only one piece of evidence, which was a document showing that Barton had pleaded guilty to the new crime. However, this document did not prove that he violated his probation since the new crime's judgment was not final. The court stated that for the state to revoke a suspended sentence due to a new crime, they either need to show that the new crime's conviction is final or prove each part of the new crime. Since the state did not provide the necessary evidence, the court agreed with Barton and decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. They sent the case back to the lower court to make sure everything was handled correctly.

F-2013-36

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 22, 2014
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-36, Jasper appealed his conviction for Conspiracy, Kidnapping, Attempted First Degree Rape, and First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Jasper's convictions but modify the sentence for First Degree Robbery. One judge dissented. Jasper was found guilty by a jury of four serious crimes. For Conspiracy, he was sentenced to ten years and fined $5,000. For Kidnapping, he received a 20-year sentence. Attempted Rape meant he was sentenced to 22.5 years, and for First Degree Robbery, he was given ten years. The sentences were supposed to be served one after the other, which made his total time in prison very long. Jasper raised several arguments on why he thought his convictions should be changed. He argued that the evidence didn't prove he was part of a conspiracy to commit rape, meaning there wasn't enough proof of an agreement to commit a crime. He also claimed that he shouldn't have been punished for both Kidnapping and Attempted Rape because they were connected to the same act. He believed this meant he faced double punishment for the same offense, which should not happen. Regarding his robbery conviction, Jasper contended that he shouldn't be punished for it because of double jeopardy, a rule that stops someone from being tried for the same crime twice. He also claimed the judge made a mistake when telling the jury about the sentence they could give him for robbery, which he believed went against his rights. Another argument was that some evidence presented during the trial wasn't fair and made him look bad but was not relevant to the case. He asserted that a lot of hearsay evidence was introduced that made his trial unfair and that his lawyer didn’t help him properly. After review, the court found that Jasper's conviction for Conspiracy was supported enough by evidence for the jury to make its decision. They ruled that the convictions for Kidnapping and Attempted Rape were also valid because they were considered separate crimes, meaning he could be punished for both. The claim of double jeopardy concerning his robbery conviction was rejected because the crimes he committed had different elements, making each punishment lawful. When it came to the sentencing instructions for First Degree Robbery, the court recognized a clear error since the jury was told wrong information about the possible sentence. They found that the minimum prison term should have been five years instead of ten. Because of this mistake, Jasper’s sentence for First Degree Robbery was modified. Other claims by Jasper about unfair evidence and the effectiveness of his lawyer did not convince the court to overturn his other convictions. The court believed that, aside from the sentencing issue, his trial was fair overall. At the end, the court kept Jasper’s convictions for Conspiracy, Kidnapping, and Attempted First Degree Rape as they were but changed his sentence for First Degree Robbery to five years. Thus, the court’s decision was mostly in favor of maintaining the original verdict and just correcting the sentencing issue.

F-2011-473

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

In OCCA case No. F-2011-473, Joseph Randal Arndt appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm. In a published decision, the court decided that Arndt's right to cross-examine his co-defendant was denied, which required a reversal of his conviction and a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Arndt, his co-defendant, and another man who planned to buy marijuana from a person named Ouni. Instead of a legal transaction, things turned violent when Arndt's accomplice pulled a gun and shot Ouni when he thought he was cheated. Arndt was in the car during this event and was accused of participating in the robbery. During the trial, Arndt argued that he should have been allowed to question his co-defendant about important details that could affect his case. These details included accusations that Arndt had a shotgun and was told to push Ouni out of the vehicle. Arndt's lawyer objected when this information was presented during the trial, but the judge denied the request to cross-examine the co-defendant. Arndt maintained that both he and the co-defendant claimed to have no knowledge of any robbery plan. When the co-defendant testified against Arndt, the court should have allowed Arndt to cross-examine him. The court found that the judge's failure to do so was a serious error that harmed Arndt's rights. In conclusion, the decision emphasized that when someone testifies against you in court, you have the right to question them. Since Arndt was not given this opportunity, the court decided that he deserves a new trial where he can fully defend himself.

F-2011-866

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

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-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.

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-2011-568

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 7, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-568, Gary Patrick Ciancio, Jr. appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Ciancio was found guilty of hurting a child, identified as C.D. He was accused of causing burns on C.D.’s hand with a cigarette lighter and hitting C.D. with a belt, leading to severe bruises. The jury sentenced him to 25 years in prison along with a fine. Ciancio argued that his trial was not fair because the court allowed evidence that showed his bad character and past actions that were unrelated to the charges. He also claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly during his trial because the lawyer did not challenge these pieces of evidence. During the trial, C.D. testified that Ciancio was responsible for his injuries and described different ways Ciancio had punished him in the past. Ciancio denied causing the injuries, saying they were accidental. His defense included claims that C.D. got hurt while playing. The court allowed many pieces of evidence that painted Ciancio in a negative light but were not directly related to the specific charges against him. Ciancio's appeals were based on these issues, saying they made his trial unfair. The court noted that while there was a lot of damaging evidence presented against Ciancio, the key facts still proved he was guilty. However, the blend of improper evidence and the lack of objection from Ciancio's lawyer led the court to feel that the sentence might have been unfairly harsh. The court decided that because of the ineffective assistance from his lawyer, Ciancio's sentencing should be reduced from 25 years to 15 years. In conclusion, Ciancio’s conviction was upheld, but his time in prison was reduced due to problems with how his trial was handled.