In OCCA case No. C-2019-263, Floyd Joseph Ball, Jr. appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree and Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have the right to prosecute Ball because he is considered an Indian under federal law, and the crimes occurred in Indian Country. The judgment and sentence were reversed, and the case was remanded to the District Court with orders to dismiss it. One judge dissented from this decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2019-68, Johnny Edward Mize, II appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter (Heat of Passion). In a published decision, the court decided that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Mize. Mize had claimed that the State of Oklahoma did not have the authority to prosecute him because the victim was part of a federally recognized tribe and the crime occurred within a reservation. The court supported this claim after an evidentiary hearing, confirming that the victim had Indian status and that the crime happened in the boundaries of the Muscogee Creek Reservation. As a result, the original judgment and sentence were vacated, and the matter was sent back to the district court with instructions to dismiss the case. The decision relied on previous case law stating that Oklahoma does not have jurisdiction over crimes involving Indian victims that take place on tribal land.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-78, Jordan Batice Mitchell appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him. This means that the court could not judge this case because it involved issues concerning his status as an Indian and the location of the crime being within the Muscogee Creek Reservation. The finding was based on a previous case, McGirt v. Oklahoma, which affected how certain crimes involving Native Americans are prosecuted. Consequently, the court vacated Mitchell's sentence and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it. There was a dissenting opinion regarding the decision, as one judge expressed concerns about the implications of the ruling.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1186, Shannon James Kepler appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Kepler. The court found that he is an Indian and that the crime happened within the boundaries of the Muscogee Creek Nation Reservation. Therefore, the court granted his appeal and vacated the conviction. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2016-453, Grant N. Jackson, IV appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Jackson due to the circumstances of the case. Jackson's conviction was found to be invalid, and the court instructed to dismiss the case. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2018-640, Jimmie Dewayne Starr appealed his conviction for multiple crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate his convictions and remand the case for dismissal. One judge dissented. Starr had entered a guilty plea for crimes in three different cases, including endangering others while trying to escape from police, failure to wear a seatbelt, possession of a controlled substance, resisting an officer, and bail jumping. He received several sentences that were ordered to be served concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time, rather than one after the other. After his sentencing, Starr wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, so he asked the court to allow it. The court held a hearing on Starr's request but ultimately denied it. This led to Starr appealing the decision, raising several issues including whether the court had the right to sentence him, whether he had good legal help, whether improper evidence led to an unfair sentence, and whether the state had jurisdiction in his case. The court looked closely at one of Starr's arguments about jurisdiction. He claimed that the State of Oklahoma didn't have the right to prosecute him based on a previous Supreme Court decision known as McGirt v. Oklahoma. This case said that certain crimes committed by Native Americans on tribal land must be handled in federal court, not state court. To investigate his claims, the court sent the case back to the lower district court to gather facts, specifically focusing on Starr's status as an Indian and whether the crime happened within the boundaries of the Muscogee Creek Reservation. Both sides agreed on several important facts about Starr's Indian blood, his membership in the Creek Nation, and that the crime occurred on Creek land. The district court accepted these facts and concluded that under federal law, Starr was indeed considered an Indian, and the crime took place on the reservation. Because of the ruling in the McGirt case, the appellate court decided that the state court did not have the authority to prosecute Starr. As a result, the appellate court vacated all of Starr's convictions, which means they were canceled, and they instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. This decision emphasized that Starr should be prosecuted in federal court instead of state court.
In OCCA case No. F-2019-588, Ricky Eugene Spencer appealed his conviction for two counts of Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Ricky Eugene Spencer was found guilty of shooting at two people, which led to his conviction. The trial took place in Muskogee County, where the jury decided on a twenty-year sentence for each count. However, the judge allowed for some of that time to be suspended and had conditions for probation. During his appeal, Spencer raised several issues, but one stood out: the jury was given the wrong instructions about transferred intent. This is a legal concept that says if someone means to hurt one person but accidentally hurts someone else, the intent to harm can still apply to the actual victim. The court found there was indeed an error in how the jury was instructed. Spencer did not challenge the instruction during the trial, so the court reviewed the mistake under plain error, meaning it was an obvious error that affected the fairness of the trial. The judge explained that the jury was incorrectly told they could find Spencer guilty of intent to kill based on a lesser intention to injure or scare someone else. This meant they could convict him without the proof needed for a serious crime like shooting with intent to kill. The prosecution argued that Spencer aimed to kill one person and mistakenly shot two bystanders. However, the trial's instructions could have allowed the jury to convict him based on weaker proof than required. During discussions, the jury showed they weren't completely convinced, asking questions that suggested they were unsure. The prosecutor's arguments during the trial also emphasized the wrong aspects of the law, pushing the jury toward an improper conclusion. Overall, the court could not be sure that the jury understood what they needed to prove. Therefore, they ruled that the error affected Spencer's rights significantly, requiring a new trial to ensure fairness. The decision means that Spencer would get another chance to defend himself in court, as the guidelines for convicting him were not properly explained the first time.
In OCCA case No. F-2019-310, Kedrin Ray Dixon appealed his conviction for first-degree burglary, sexual battery, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for sexual battery to ten years imprisonment, making it consecutive to the other sentence, and otherwise affirmed the convictions. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence for sexual battery. Dixon was found guilty by a jury on multiple counts after a trial in the District Court of Washington County. The jury sentenced him to twenty years in prison for burglary and sexual battery, and one year for possession of a controlled substance. The trial judge ordered the sentences for burglary and sexual battery to be served back-to-back. Dixon then appealed, raising several points of error, including issues related to jury instructions and evidence. The first issue was about the trial judge not mentioning that he was presumed innocent in the instructions at the start of the trial. The court found this error was not significant since the final instructions did include the presumption of innocence. Next, Dixon claimed that the evidence was not strong enough for the first-degree burglary conviction. The court disagreed, stating that there was enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find him guilty. Dixon also argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence regarding his intoxication at the time of the crime. The court ruled that the trial judge had the right to refuse his request since the evidence did not clearly support intoxication as a defense. Another point of concern for Dixon was what he called evidentiary harpoons, which are when comments are made that suggest knowledge of other crimes. The court found that he did not object to these comments at the trial and they did not seriously affect the verdict. Dixon claimed that he was unfairly prevented from presenting a full defense regarding reports of his previous erratic behaviors. The court decided that these reports were not very relevant to his defense and that excluding them did not significantly harm his case. A notable issue was a mistake in how the jury was informed about the potential punishment for sexual battery. The trial judge incorrectly stated that it could be punished by twenty years, which was incorrect. The State agreed that this was an error. Instead of sending Dixon back for a new trial, the court decided to lower his sentence for sexual battery to ten years because of this error. Dixon stated that his total sentences were too harsh, but after reviewing the circumstances, the court determined that the sentences were acceptable even after the changes made to one of them. Lastly, Dixon argued that there were too many errors in the case that made it unfair for him. The court did acknowledge the instructional error but believed there were no other significant errors affecting the outcome of the trial. In summary, the court modified Dixon's sentence for sexual battery and kept the other parts of his conviction intact. The final decision still upheld his guilty verdicts on all counts.
In OCCA case No. F-2019-149, Kimberli Sue Dunham appealed her conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to terminate her from Drug Court and impose her sentences. One judge dissented. Dunham had been placed in the Delaware County Drug Court program after pleading guilty to several drug-related charges. The program was intended to help her recover from substance abuse. According to her agreement, if she was successful in the program, the charges would be dismissed. However, if she failed, she would face prison time. During her time in Drug Court, Dunham had several violations, including testing positive for methamphetamine. After admitting to more violations, the State sought her removal from the program. In a hearing, evidence of Dunham’s past violations was presented. The judge decided to terminate her from the program, leading to her appeal. In her appeal, Dunham claimed the termination was improper because she was sanctioned for previous violations. She also argued that the court did not follow proper procedures as required by the Oklahoma Drug Court Act, which aims to support individuals in recovery. Dunham claimed that a relapse should not automatically lead to termination and that the court should have used progressively increasing sanctions instead. The court reviewed these claims and found that Dunham had indeed admitted to new violations that justified her termination. Her request to consider her actions as mere relapses was denied, as the judge believed more severe action was necessary to maintain the integrity of the Drug Court program. Lastly, Dunham argued that she was misinformed about her rights to withdraw her guilty pleas. The court agreed that she should have been informed of her rights but ruled that her termination and conviction would still stand. The court upheld the trial court's decision but noted that it should have properly advised Dunham regarding her rights, allowing her the option to appeal her plea. Thus, while her conviction was confirmed, the case was remanded to correct the error about her rights.
In OCCA case No. RE-2019-522, Leslie Ford appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentences in both cases but also instructed the lower court to correct a written order error regarding the duration of the revocation. One member of the court dissented. Leslie Ford had previously been sentenced in two cases for stalking, with each sentence being five years long but suspended, meaning he would not have to go to prison if he followed certain rules. However, he was accused of breaking these rules. The state said he didn’t pay the required fees, didn’t go to treatment for domestic abusers, drank alcohol, and even got in trouble for more offenses. At a hearing, the judge found that Leslie did indeed break the rules, leading to the full revocation of his sentences. Leslie then appealed the decision, bringing up several reasons why he thought the revocation was unfair. He argued about his mental fitness during the process and claimed there were time limit violations concerning the hearings. The court explained that they could only focus on whether the revocation was valid and that the evidence showed he broke the rules. They also found that a confusion on how long he was sentenced was a mistake, which they ordered to be fixed. Overall, Leslie did not manage to successfully argue for the reversal of his revocation, except for the correction regarding the error in the time of imprisonment mentioned in the written order.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-894, Olubanji Milton Macaulay appealed his conviction for possession of counterfeit driver licenses. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm some counts but reverse others. One judge dissented. Summary: Olubanji Milton Macaulay was found guilty by a jury of seven counts of possessing counterfeit driver licenses after a trial in Oklahoma. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison, with sentences running at the same time for each count. He argued that law enforcement illegally searched his rental car, that he faced double punishment for the same crime, and that the trial court wrongly refused to instruct the jury about missing video evidence. When he appealed, the court looked closely at each of his claims. About the first point, the court ruled that the police had the right to search the car because Macaulay had given up any claim of privacy when he said he walked to the bank and did not indicate he owned the vehicle. Thus, his evidence was allowed in court. Regarding the second point, Macaulay claimed he should only be charged with one count since he possessed all the fake IDs in one event. The court agreed that multiple counts for a single act were not allowed. They found he should only be guilty of two counts: one for fake ID he took into the bank and another for the ID found in his car. On the third point about the jury instruction regarding the missing bank video, the court said there was no proof that the police acted in bad faith. Therefore, the request for a jury instruction explaining this did not need to be granted. In summary, the court upheld some of his convictions while reversing others, leading the case forward to dismiss those extra counts.
In OCCA case No. C-2019-489, Taheerah Ayesha Ahmad appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery by means likely to produce death, Child Neglect, and Arson in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to deny her petition for a writ of certiorari and affirmed the District Court's judgment. However, the case was remanded to the District Court to correct errors in the judgment regarding the imposition of costs. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2018-1233, Joice appealed his conviction for obtaining cash or merchandise by bogus check/false pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the order revoking Joice's suspended sentence and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the State's application to revoke with prejudice. One judge dissented. Joice had originally entered a guilty plea in 2013 for writing a bogus check and received a twenty-year sentence, which was all suspended, meaning he would not serve time in prison if he followed the rules of his probation. However, in 2018, the State claimed he broke the rules of his probation and sought to revoke his suspended sentence. During the hearings, Joice argued that the original sentence was too long and that the State filed their application to revoke his probation too late. He also said his lawyer did not help him properly by not questioning the judge’s decision to revoke his sentence. The court agreed there were major issues with his original sentence and that the State was too late in trying to revoke it. They found that Joice did not get good legal help at his revocation hearing. Since the court recognized that the original sentence was illegal and the State's request to change it came too late, they decided to dismiss the application to revoke Joice’s probation. This means he won't have to serve time because the conditions under which his probation could be revoked were not met correctly.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOSEPH EUGENE DEAN,** **Appellant,** **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. F-2019-224** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant, Joseph Eugene Dean, was tried and convicted by a jury in Muskogee County District Court, Case No. CF-2017-1030, of Endangering Others While Eluding or Attempting to Elude Police Officer, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies (Count 2), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 540(B). The jury recommended a sentence of twenty years imprisonment and a $2,500.00 fine. The Honorable Bret A. Smith, District Judge, presided at trial and sentenced Dean in accordance with the jury's verdict, including various costs and fees. The jury acquitted Appellant of Count 1 - Possession of a Stolen Vehicle. Dean appeals, raising the following proposition of error: **I. APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ART. II, §§ 7, AND 20, OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION.** After thorough consideration of the record, including transcripts and the parties' briefs, we find that no relief is warranted. **Proposition I:** Dean asserts that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request a cautionary eyewitness identification instruction (OUJI-CR (2d) 9-19). However, Dean fails to provide relevant authority or argument supporting his claim, thus forgoing appellate review of the issue as per Rule 3.5(C)(6) of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Moreover, we alternatively reject Dean's ineffectiveness claim on its merits. To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must demonstrate both that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). In this case, a cautionary eyewitness identification instruction was unwarranted as no serious question exist[ed] concerning the reliability of the [eyewitness's] identification[s] (Robinson v. State, 1995 OK CR 25, ¶ 56, 900 P.2d 389, 404). Counsel’s failure to request such instruction, therefore, was not ineffective since there was no merit to such a request (Logan v. State, 2013 OK CR 2, ¶ 11, 293 P.3d 969, 975). **DECISION** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. **MANDATE** is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision, pursuant to Rule 3.15 of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. --- **APPEARANCES:** **AT TRIAL:** LARRY VICKERS 600 Emporia, Suite B Muskogee, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT **ON APPEAL:** DERECK J. HURT Oklahoma Indigent Defense System P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT SEAN WATERS Asst. District Attorney Muskogee District Attorney's Office 220 State Street Muskogee, OK 74401 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR KUEHN, V.P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR --- [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2019-224_1734779625.pdf)
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SHANNON SHEREE JOHNSON,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-1004** **FILED FEB 13, 2020** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** On April 18, 2017, Appellant Shannon Sheree Johnson entered a plea of guilty in Oklahoma County District Case No. CF-2015-8771. The trial court delayed her sentencing in this case and suspended the probation requirements for her prior cases—CF-2013-2846, CF-2014-1596, and CM-2015-1832—pending successful completion of the Oklahoma County Mental Health Court program. According to the plea agreement, if Appellant did not successfully complete the Mental Health Court, the trial court would revoke her suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2013-2846 and CF-2014-1596, convert her deferred sentences to convictions with a one-year prison sentence in Case No. CM-2015-1832, and impose concurrent ten-year sentences for Counts 1 and 2 in Case No. CF-2015-8771. The State filed a motion to terminate Appellant’s participation in the Mental Health Court, alleging her non-compliance with the program, including failure to follow court rules, lack of progress, unauthorized departure from inpatient treatment, and not graduating from treatment. After a hearing, Special Judge Geary Walke terminated her participation in Mental Health Court and sentenced her in accordance with her plea agreement. Appellant contends that the termination was an abuse of discretion, arguing that the judge should have considered intermediate sanctions before imposing the sentences. She cites her period of sobriety prior to the hearing as a reason for less severe punishment options. However, evidence presented at the hearing indicated that Appellant had consistently missed meetings, court appearances, and drug tests, and had not made adequate efforts to complete her treatment. Appellant's counsel argues that Judge Walke should have recognized relapses as part of the rehabilitation process under 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 472(F). This section allows for discretion in determining whether conduct justifies revocation of a participant from the program. The record does not support Appellant's position that Judge Walke acted unreasonably or arbitrarily in the face of substantial evidence demonstrating her failure to comply with the program. As Appellant has not shown that the trial court's decision was contrary to law or the facts of the case, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The termination of Appellant's participation in the Mental Health Court program is AFFIRMED. The mandate is ordered to be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES** **ON APPEAL** Melissa French, Counsel for Defendant Andrea Digilio Miller, Counsel for Appellant Heather Coyle, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Oklahoma Attorney General Tessa Henry, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. F-2018-901** **NAJEE JAMALL COX, Appellant,** **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Najee Jamall Cox, appeals from the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2014-5486 in Oklahoma County, presided over by Judge Ray C. Elliott. On January 30, 2017, Cox entered a guilty plea to Burglary in the First Degree, and his judgment and sentencing were deferred for seven years, with probation conditions effective until January 29, 2024. On March 20, 2018, the State filed an application to accelerate the deferred sentence, citing multiple violations, including new criminal charges and failure to pay court costs. At the hearing on August 14, 2018, Judge Elliott denied Cox's request for a continuance to allow his co-defendant to testify, after which the hearing proceeded with the State's presentation of evidence from probation officers and law enforcement. **FINDINGS:** 1. **Evidence of Possession**: The court found sufficient evidence supporting that Cox had constructive possession of marijuana and related paraphernalia based on the circumstances surrounding the traffic stop and subsequent findings in his vehicle. 2. **Right to Present Testimony**: Cox was given the opportunity to present a defense but failed to secure the presence of his co-defendant through proper procedural channels. His claim of due process violation was denied due to lack of shown prejudice. 3. **Notice of Reimbursement Fee**: Sufficient evidence demonstrated that Cox was aware of his obligation to pay the District Attorney's fees. 4. **Judicial Notice**: The court's reference to Cox's counsel's reputation did not negatively impact his rights, as the violation found was supported by sufficient evidence regardless. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Cox did not demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient enough to have affected the outcome. Based on the analysis of these propositions, the order of acceleration issued by the District Court is **AFFIRMED**. **CONCLUSION**: The mandate will be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **Representatives:** - **Counsel for Appellant**: Matthew Tate Wise - **Counsel for State**: Kirk Martin, Mike Hunter **Decision by**: LEWIS, Presiding Judge **Concurrences**: KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. [Click here to download the full PDF of the opinion.](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-901_1735118825.pdf)
Here is a summary of the Court of Criminal Appeals decision regarding Darryn Lamar Chandler, Jr.: **Case Summary:** - Appellant: Darryn Lamar Chandler, Jr. - Appellee: The State of Oklahoma - Case Numbers: CF-2015-2683 and CF-2016-534 - Date of Decision: February 6, 2020 - Judge: Honorable Glenn Jones **Background:** - Chandler was previously convicted in two separate cases involving serious crimes: 1. Case No. CF-2015-2683: Guilt for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, possession of an offensive weapon during a felony, and possession of an imitation controlled substance. 2. Case No. CF-2016-534: Guilt for robbery with a firearm and conspiracy to commit robbery with a firearm. - Sentences: In both cases, he received suspended sentences with the first year of incarceration. **Allegations of Violation:** - On September 21, 2018, the State filed to revoke Chandler’s suspended sentences due to new charges related to his involvement in a violent robbery while on probation. **Revocation Hearing:** - The hearing began on November 27, 2018, where evidence was presented by the State indicating Chandler's direct involvement in the robbery of a loan business, during which he threatened employees with a firearm. - Chandler did not present any evidence in his defense. - The judge found Chandler in violation of probation, leading to the revocation of his suspended sentences. **Sentencing Hearing:** - A presentence investigation report was requested and filed before the sentencing hearing, which took place on December 20, 2018. - The State argued for full revocation based on the violent nature of the robbery, while Chandler's counsel argued for a more lenient approach citing Chandler's background and potential for rehabilitation. **Court's Decision:** - The Court upheld the trial court's decision to revoke the suspended sentences in full, emphasizing that Chandler committed a violent crime in direct violation of the conditions of his probation, which warranted no abuse of judicial discretion. **Conclusion:** - The Court affirmed the revocation of Chandler's suspended sentences, noting the trial court’s discretion in making its determination based on the evidence of Chandler’s actions while on probation. **Final Note**: For more detailed information, there is a downloadable PDF available [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-1287_1734352969.pdf).
In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, Toni Lynn Cook appeals the revocation of her suspended sentence from the McIntosh County District Court. Cook had originally pled guilty to the charge of Obstructing an Officer. Following her guilty plea, the State filed a Motion to Revoke her suspended sentence, claiming she committed new crimes while on probation, which included multiple counts of Assault and Battery on a Police Officer and Indecent Exposure. The revocation hearing saw evidence presented, including testimonies from jailers detailing that Cook had exposed herself and physically resisted their attempts to move her to a solitary cell, leading to injuries to the officers involved. The trial court found that the State met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Cook had violated her probation. Cook raised several propositions on appeal: 1. **Insufficient Evidence**: Cook argued that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the alleged probation violations. However, the court found that the evidence sufficient and credible, affirming that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion. 2. **Waiver of Hearing Within Twenty Days**: Cook contended that her waiver of the right to a hearing within twenty days was not valid. The court ruled that Cook had waived this right knowingly, as she had not requested an early hearing and did not provide evidence that she was unaware of this right. 3. **Excessiveness of Revocation**: Cook argued the revocation was excessive. The court noted that revocation is a matter of grace, and since Cook committed multiple new offenses while on probation, the trial judge's decision to revoke her sentence in full was not an abuse of discretion. In conclusion, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to revoke Cook's suspended sentence, finding no merit in her claims. The mandate was ordered to be issued upon filing the decision.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **WILLIAM ALVIN WIMBLEY,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2019-99** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAN 30 2020** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** On April 30, 2018, Appellant entered pleas of guilty in McCurtain County District Court to the following charges: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Count 1, Case No. CF-2016-103) and multiple counts in Case No. CF-2017-147, including another charge of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Count 1), Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony (Count 2), and another Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Count 3). As part of a plea agreement, Appellant was admitted to the McCurtain County Drug Court Program, which stipulated that successful completion would lead to the dismissal of charges, while termination would result in a twenty-year imprisonment sentence for all four counts, served concurrently. Subsequently, on October 3, 2018, the State filed an Application to Revoke from Drug Court, citing numerous violations of the program's terms by Appellant despite receiving multiple graduated sanctions. A hearing was conducted, resulting in the Honorable Walter Hamilton, Special Judge, determining the defendant had indeed violated his performance contract, leading to his termination from the drug court program and imposition of the agreed twenty-year sentence. Appellant's sole proposition for appeal is grounded in an assertion of ineffective assistance of termination counsel, based on comments made by Judge Hamilton during the hearing regarding the sentencing implications of the termination and potential reversal by this Court. Under the legal framework established by *Strickland v. Washington*, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance, an appellant must demonstrate (1) deficient performance by counsel and (2) resulting prejudice. Appellant's claim does not find support in the record, as he fails to establish that his counsel's performance was deficient under *Strickland*'s rigorous standards. Termination of drug court participation, as outlined by Oklahoma law, requires a factual determination by the trial court regarding violations of the performance contract and the sufficiency of disciplinary sanctions. Judge Hamilton's determination hinged on whether any violations were proven by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than any alleged bias from his statements. Ultimately, Appellant has not demonstrated that Judge Hamilton abused his discretion in terminating his drug court participation. **DECISION** The termination of Appellant's participation in the McCurtain County District Court Drug Court in Case Nos. CF-2016-103 and CF-2017-147 is **AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2020), the **MANDATE** is ordered to be issued upon the filing of this decision. **TERM OF THE COURT:** **Affirmed.** **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur *Counsel in trial and on appeal: Hugh Hood (Appellant's Counsel), Mark Uptegrove, and others representing the State.*
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MICKEY JOE EDWARD RICHARDSON,** **Appellant,** **VS.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-975** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA JAN 30 2020** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Mickey Joe Edward Richardson, was convicted by a jury in Haskell County District Court, Case No. CF-2016-91, of several crimes, receiving the following sentences: - **Assault and Battery on a Police Officer**, After Conviction of a Felony (Count 1) - **5 years** - **Larceny of an Automobile**, After Conviction of a Felony (Count 2) - **20 years** - **Feloniously Pointing a Firearm**, After Conviction of a Felony (Count 4) - **30 years** - **Felon in Possession of a Firearm**, After Conviction of a Felony (Count 5) - **Life** - **Escape from Detention** (Count 8) - **1 year** On September 11, 2018, the trial court, presided by the Honorable Brian C. Henderson, Associate District Judge, imposed the jury-recommended sentences to be served consecutively. This appeal followed. Appellant raises six propositions of error: 1. **Misinstruction on Sentencing Range** for Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony. 2. **Violation of Fourteenth Amendment Due Process** regarding jury instructions. 3. **Improper Victim Impact Statements** affecting the fairness of the sentencing hearing. 4. **Abuse of Discretion** with respect to the policy of consecutive sentencing. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel** violating constitutional rights. 6. **Cumulative Errors** affecting the fairness of the proceedings. After thorough consideration of the propositions, briefs, and the entire record, we affirm. Appellant was convicted after attacking a sheriff’s deputy, stealing a patrol car, and attempting to evade other officers. ### Analysis of Propositions: **Proposition I: Misinstruction on Sentencing Range** Appellant claims misinstruction regarding the sentencing range for Count 5, asserting it should be one to ten years under 21 O.S. 2011, § 1284. However, the jury was properly instructed on the sentencing range pursuant to 21 O.S.2011, §§ 51.1(A)(2) and 1284. **Proposition II: Jury Instruction on Statement Voluntariness** Appellant argues the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the voluntariness of his statement to police. As Appellant testified and did not claim the statements were involuntary, this contention lacks merit. **Proposition III: Victim Impact Statements** Appellant objected to victim impact statements, claiming they were inadmissible since the crimes were not violent. However, one conviction (Pointing a Firearm) was classified as a violent crime, making the inclusion of the statements appropriate. **Proposition IV: Consecutive Sentencing Policy** Appellant alleges the trial court enforced a policy of consecutive sentencing for defendants who exercise their right to a jury trial. The record indicates the trial court exercised discretion properly, adhering to the statutory default for consecutive sentences. **Proposition V: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel** Appellant contends his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to previous claims. As we found those claims meritless, trial counsel cannot be faulted for failing to raise meritless objections. **Proposition VI: Cumulative Errors** No errors were identified in prior propositions, thus, there are no cumulative errors to evaluate. ### Decision The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Haskell County is **AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ordered issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **Appeal from the District Court of Haskell County** **The Honorable BRIAN C. HENDERSON, Associate District Judge** **Attorneys for Appellant: ROGER HILFIGER, SARAH MACNIVEN** **Attorneys for Appellee: CHRISTINA BURNS, MIKE HUNTER, ASHLEY L. WILLIS** **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** --- [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-975_1734872271.pdf)
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DUSTIN SCOTT PATTON,** Appellant, Case No. F-2018-957 **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Dustin Scott Patton was convicted in the District Court of Kay County, Case No. CF-2017-258, of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, violating 21 O.S.2011, § 652(C). A jury recommended a ten-year sentence, and Honorable David Bandy, District Judge, imposed the sentence as per the jury's verdict. Patton appeals with two propositions of error. 1. **The modified jury instruction improperly relieved the State of proving an essential element of the crime charged.** 2. **Appellant was deprived of a fair trial due to numerous pleas for sympathy for the victim during trial.** Upon thorough review of the record and arguments presented, we find no grounds for relief. Patton's judgment and sentence are **AFFIRMED**. **Proposition I:** Patton concedes he did not object to Instruction No. 24 at trial, necessitating plain error review. To establish plain error, Patton must show an actual error that is obvious and affects his substantial rights. Previous case law indicates that certain weapons, like knives, are per se deadly weapons. Instruction No. 24, which classified a knife as a deadly weapon, was not erroneous, and thus Proposition I is **denied**. **Proposition II:** For prosecutorial misconduct claims, relief is granted only if the misconduct renders the trial fundamentally unfair. Patton only objected to the display of the victim’s scars. The presentation of the victim’s injuries primarily served to illustrate the crime's severity and the use of force, which was pertinent to the charges against Patton. This evidence was not unduly prejudicial, and thus, Proposition II is also **denied**. **DECISION:** The District Court's Judgment and Sentence are **AFFIRMED**. *Issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.* **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J. --- For further details, you can download the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-957_1734873972.pdf).
In OCCA case No. F-2017-963, Randall Duane Throneberry appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts with a Child Under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and the sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. One judge dissented. Randall Duane Throneberry was tried and found guilty in an Oklahoma court for lewd acts with an child under the age of 16. The jury recommended that he be sentenced to life in prison without any chance for parole because he had a prior conviction for a similar crime. The case began when a young girl named R.F. reported that Throneberry had molested her while she was sleeping on a couch. The events happened in August 2015 when R.F. and her mother were staying at a family friend's house, where Throneberry was also visiting. One night, while R.F. was sleeping, Throneberry was found standing too close to her and had his hand under her blanket. The next morning, R.F. woke up to find Throneberry touching her inappropriately. During the trial, Thorneberry argued that some testimonies regarding R.F.'s behavior after the incident should not have been allowed, claiming that it unfairly impacted the jury. However, the court ruled that this evidence was relevant to show the credibility of R.F.'s testimony. Throneberry also challenged the admission of testimony from another victim, D.W., who had been molested by him when she was seven years old. The court allowed this testimony as it demonstrated Throneberry's pattern of behavior. Despite Throneberry's claims, the court found that the testimony was relevant and important for the case. Throneberry's argument that his life sentence without parole was unconstitutional was also denied. The court stated that the sentence was not excessively harsh compared to the serious nature of the crime and Throneberry's history of similar offenses. The judge noted that sentencing is ultimately a matter for the legislature, and in these kinds of cases, severe punishments are justified. In summary, the court upheld Throneberry's conviction and life sentence, finding no errors in the trial or the evidence presented. The judgment was affirmed, with one judge expressing a different opinion.
This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case involving Chris Forte and Skyla Forte, who were charged with Child Abuse by Injury and Child Neglect. The order of the District Court, which quashed the child abuse charge due to insufficient evidence, has been reversed by the appellate court. Key points from the document include: 1. The appellate court held that the District Court abused its discretion in determining that the magistrate's bind-over order for Count 1 (Child Abuse by Injury) was not based on competent evidence. 2. The preliminary hearing established that the alleged victim, a six-year-old girl named K.K., suffered extensive bruising and malnourishment which were reported as a result of the conduct of the Appellees. 3. Evidence included testimony from a child abuse pediatrician whose findings indicated that the injuries were consistent with abuse rather than legitimate disciplinary actions. 4. The court stated that the determination of whether the force used was reasonable or excessive is typically a matter for a jury to decide. 5. Ultimately, the matter has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. The case illustrates the legal standards for assessing probable cause during preliminary hearings and clarifies the threshold for determining whether the use of physical discipline may cross into abusive conduct under Oklahoma law.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ANGEL MUNOZ,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-900** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAN - 9 2020** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Angel Munoz, appeals from the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2016-701 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, by the Honorable Glenn M. Jones, District Judge. On March 7, 2018, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to Count 1: Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon, with sentencing deferred for a period of five years under probation conditions until March 6, 2023. On June 26, 2018, the State filed an application to accelerate Appellant's deferred judgment and sentencing, alleging he violated probation by committing the new crime of Possession of a Firearm after a prior felony conviction, as charged in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2018-2625. An amended application was filed on August 21, 2018. At the hearing on this application, the State called Appellant's probation officer, Tammera Saavedra. During a home visit on April 13, 2018, Officer Saavedra found a nine-millimeter semiautomatic pistol and ammunition in plain view in a garage where Appellant claimed to be staying. Additionally, personal items belonging to Appellant were found near the firearm, leading to his arrest for possessing the firearm. Appellant's brother-in-law, Arturo Plascencia, testified that Appellant did not live in the garage, stating that he had never stayed there. Appellant corroborated this, but both testimonies were contradicted by evidence showing Appellant's possession and control of the area where the gun was found. After hearing the evidence, Judge Jones found that Appellant violated his probation. Consequently, he accepted the State's recommendation and sentenced Appellant to a term of ten years. Appellant raises two propositions of error on appeal: 1. **Proposition I**: The trial court abused its discretion by accelerating Appellant's sentence when the State failed to provide sufficient competent evidence of the alleged new offense. 2. **Proposition II**: The acceleration judgment should reflect Appellant's conviction for Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon, rather than Assault and Battery With a Deadly Weapon. **ANALYSIS** In **Proposition I**, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish his knowledge of the firearm's presence. The standard for reviewing such claims requires that the court finds whether a rational trier of fact could have concluded the essential elements of the probation violation were met by a preponderance of the evidence. Evidence presented indicated Appellant's admission to living in the garage at the time the firearm was discovered. Testimony from Officer Saavedra and physical evidence reinforced the conclusion that Appellant had dominion and control over the area where the firearm was located. Conflicting testimonies regarding Appellant's residence and possession were matters for the court to evaluate. Thus, Appellant failed to substantiate that Judge Jones acted irrationally in his ruling. In **Proposition II**, Appellant argues for a correction of the accelerating judgment to accurately reflect his offense. The State agrees that this matter warrants attention. Therefore, it should be remanded to the District Court for the necessary correction. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County accelerating Appellant's deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2016-701 is AFFIRMED. However, the case is REMANDED to the District Court for a correction in accordance with Appellant's request. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2020), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** **For the Appellant:** Kenneth C. Watson, Nancy Walker-Johnson Attorney at Law 119 N. Robinson, Suite 640 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **For the State:** Tiffany Noble, Mike Hunter, Diane L. Slayton Assistant District Attorneys 505 County Office Building Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-900_1735119586.pdf)
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ANTHONY BRUCE HENSON, SR.,** Appellant, **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. Case No. F-2018-835 Summary Opinion FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA JAN - 9 2020 **OPINION** *LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:* Anthony Bruce Henson, Sr., Appellant, was tried by jury and found guilty on Counts 1 through 6 for sexual abuse of a child under twelve (12) years, violating 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(F); and Count 7 for child abuse, violating 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(A), in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2017-3127. The jury sentenced the Appellant to life imprisonment and a $1,000.00 fine for each of Counts 1 through 6, and six (6) years imprisonment for Count 7. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively, though the court did not impose the fines. The State dismissed Count 8, charging child abuse, prior to trial. The jury deadlocked on Counts 9 and 10, also charging sexual abuse of a child under twelve, leading the State to dismiss those counts. Mr. Henson raises the following propositions of error on appeal: 1. The District Court erred in admitting bad act evidence of pornography, violating provisions of the Oklahoma Evidence Code and denying due process and a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment. 2. The jury instruction concerning the other crimes evidence was erroneous, as it did not limit its admission purpose. 3. The consecutive life sentences are excessive and should be modified. 4. Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel per the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. **Proposition One:** Appellant argues the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his possession of child pornography on a cell phone, which counsel did not object to at trial, waiving all but plain error. As established in *Simpson v. State*, Appellant must demonstrate that this plain error affected the trial's outcome. The Court finds no error in the admission of this evidence to show motive or intent for the charged crimes. **Proposition Two:** Appellant contends the trial court used an incorrect limiting instruction for the other crimes evidence of child pornography. The request for this instruction constituted a waiver of the standard error analysis. Although the court erred in using a modified instruction, it did not compromise the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings, thus, relief is unwarranted. **Proposition Three:** Appellant claims his six consecutive life sentences are excessive. The Court will not alter sentences within statutory limits unless they are so excessive that they shock the court’s conscience. The sentences here do not shock the conscience and are within legal limits. **Proposition Four:** The Appellant argues ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to inadmissible evidence and not requesting a proper limiting instruction. Following *Strickland v. Washington*, the Court finds no reasonable probability that the outcomes would have differed due to trial counsel's performance. **DECISION** The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES** **AT TRIAL** Richard Koller, Attorney for Appellant Barbara Woltz **ON APPEAL** Nicole Dawn Herron, Attorneys for Defendant Katie Koljack, Mike Hunter, Mark Morgan, Asst. District Attorneys Sheri M. Johnson, Asst. Attorney General **OPINION BY:** Lewis, P.J. Kuehn, V.P.J.: Concur Lumpkin, J.: Concur in Results Hudson, J.: Concur Rowland, J.: Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-835_1735212413.pdf)