Statutory Authority

SR-2022-250

  • Post author:
  • Post category:SR

In OCCA case No. SR-2022-250, Dustin Daukei-Cole appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to dismiss the appeal. One judge dissented. Dustin Daukei-Cole was found guilty of possessing illegal drugs and was given a sentence of five years in prison, with three years of that sentence held back, called a suspended sentence. This meant that he wouldn't go to prison for those three years unless he broke the rules again. Later, the state wanted to take away those three years because they claimed he had violated the conditions of his suspended sentence. The trial court held a hearing and decided that they could only revoke one year of his sentence instead of the full three years because the law had changed. The state didn't agree with this decision and tried to appeal, asking the court to consider whether the law allowing this ruling was against the state constitution. However, the court explained that states can only appeal in certain situations, and this case did not fit that requirement. They highlighted that previous rulings allowed appeals only in cases where someone had been found not guilty or where there was a judgment preventing further prosecution. Since there wasn't a rule blocking further prosecution or an acquittal in this case, the court dismissed the appeal. In conclusion, the court said that the original decision to limit the time revoked was correct and the state could not appeal this issue. The judges decided not to change the trial court's decision.

Continue ReadingSR-2022-250

F-2018-780

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-780, Rawson appealed his conviction for lewd or indecent acts to a child under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Rawson was found guilty by a jury for multiple counts of lewd acts against a child. The jury recommended life imprisonment for each count, and the trial court imposed the sentences to run one after the other. Rawson challenged his conviction, claiming that the jury was not adequately instructed on the specific acts he allegedly committed. He did not argue that the law was incorrectly stated, just that the instructions should have outlined the acts in more detail. The court explained that instructions for juries are meant to accurately convey applicable law, and in this case, they properly followed the Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions. The trial court had provided sufficient instructions, describing the necessary elements that the prosecution needed to prove for each count. Even though Rawson's defense wanted more specificity in the instructions, the court found that the jury was clearly informed about the nature of the charges against him. Since he did not dispute the proof of the allegations or claim that the law was wrongly applied, the court decided that there was no abuse of discretion and upheld the original decision. In conclusion, the court affirmed Rawson's conviction, and the case was officially closed with no errors found in the trial process.

Continue ReadingF-2018-780

C-2018-315

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of David Duane Albright, a petitioner who sought to withdraw his guilty pleas related to charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of a controlled substance, and maintaining a place for keeping/selling controlled substances. ### Key Points: 1. **Background**: - Albright was originally charged in Delaware County with multiple drug-related offenses in 2010. - He entered a guilty plea in December 2010 and was accepted into the Delaware County Drug Court Program. - After being terminated from the program for non-compliance, he was sentenced in September 2013 to life imprisonment on two counts and 20 years on another, with fines imposed. 2. **Procedural Posture**: - Albright filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas shortly after sentencing, which was denied. - He initially failed to appeal but was granted an appeal out of time in 2018. 3. **Claims on Appeal**: Albright raised several propositions of error: - **Proposition I**: He argued his plea lacked an adequate factual basis. - **Proposition II**: Claimed his pleas were not entered knowingly and voluntarily. - **Proposition III**: Contended the $50,000 fine was unauthorized by statute. - **Proposition IV**: Asserted he should have received credit for jail time, violating his due process. - **Proposition V**: Claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. 4. **Court's Analysis**: - **Proposition I and II**: The court found Albright waived appellate review by not raising these claims in his motion to withdraw his plea. - **Proposition III and IV**: These claims were also deemed waived for similar reasons, not raised in the motion to withdraw. - **Proposition V**: While the court reviewed the ineffective assistance of withdrawal counsel, they found no evidence of deficiency or that it prejudiced Albright's case. 5. **Decision**: - The court affirmed the lower court's denial of Albright's Motion to Withdraw Plea, concluding that he did not demonstrate a valid basis for the claims made. 6. **Concurring Opinion**: - Judge Rowland specially concurred, expressing concern regarding the adequacy of the factual basis for the plea related to maintaining a place for keeping/selling a controlled dangerous substance. While recognizing the issues, he noted that because the facts weren’t adequately challenged during the proceedings, the claims were not actionable in this appeal. ### Conclusion: The petitioner's appeal was denied, and the trial court's decision stands, allowing the guilty pleas to remain in effect due to procedural waivers and the lack of substantive evidence to support the claims raised on appeal. The opinion highlights the importance of raising issues timely and thoroughly in the proper forums to preserve them for review.

Continue ReadingC-2018-315

M-2017-137

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2017-137, Jerrad Sterling Nunamaker appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and speeding in excess of the lawful limit. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Nunamaker's fine for speeding to $20.00 and vacated the victim compensation assessment for that offense. One member of the court dissented.

Continue ReadingM-2017-137

S-2016-169

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-169, Patrick Lee Walker appealed his conviction for distributing a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine) within 2,000 feet of a school. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that granted Walker's motion to quash and dismissed the case. One judge dissented. The case began when Walker was charged in Kay County District Court with distributing methamphetamine after a controlled purchase was made by a confidential informant. A deputy had coordinated this controlled buy and testified that the informant bought meth from Walker at a location in Kay County. The informant was searched before the transaction to ensure she had no drugs. After meeting Walker, they drove together to Osage County where the exchange happened. There was a lack of evidence presented about the exact location where the drugs were handed over, which was crucial to prove that the crime occurred within the required distance of a school. During the preliminary hearing, the judge decided that while the distribution started in Kay County, there wasn't enough evidence to show that the drugs were handed over in that county or within 2,000 feet from a school. Because of this, the judge dismissed the case when Walker's defense claimed that the evidence was insufficient. The court discussed whether the trial court had made an error in dismissing the case. The main two arguments from the State's appeal were that the district court wrongly decided it didn't have the required evidence for venue and that it unfairly denied the State's request to amend the Information (the official charge). The court explained that the State must show probable cause that a crime happened and clarify where that crime occurred. They noted that although it was shown that a crime likely happened, it was not in the form correctly charged due to not proving all essential elements of the offense, as required under Oklahoma law. While the trial court's decision to dismiss the case was recognized as legally incorrect, it did not lead to a different outcome because the State did not ask to amend the charge during the hearing. Therefore, even though the lower court may have acted without the right understanding of the law regarding amendments, it did not influence the decision because of the procedural issues involved. The court ultimately upheld the dismissal of the charges against Walker, agreeing with the lower court's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of the crime occurring within the jurisdiction required by law. The ruling was affirmed, and thus the case remained closed without further proceedings.

Continue ReadingS-2016-169

S-2013-510

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-509 and S-2013-510, two individuals appealed their convictions for first-degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against them based on their claim of immunity under the Stand Your Ground law. The court found that the appeal by the State of Oklahoma was not authorized to challenge the dismissal order. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2013-510

S-2013-509

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-509, Julio Juarez Ramos and Isidro Juarez Ramos appealed their convictions for first-degree murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling granting the Appellees immunity from prosecution under Oklahoma's Stand Your Ground law. #1 dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2013-509

S-2014-786

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2014-786, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Douglas Raymond Norwood for misdemeanor possession of marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which dismissed the felony charge that the State had brought against him. The court also accepted Norwood's guilty plea for the misdemeanor charge. One judge dissented. The case began when the State charged Norwood with felony possession of marijuana because he had three prior convictions related to drug offenses. Norwood argued that because his past convictions were not from the specific law under which the State was trying to charge him this time, his current charge should be treated as a misdemeanor instead of a felony. The trial court agreed with Norwood and dismissed the felony charge, allowing him to plead guilty to the lesser charge. The State then appealed, but the court explained that its ability to appeal was limited by law. They could only do so in specific situations, one of which is if there has been a dismissal that prevents further prosecution. The court indicated that the trial court had correctly dismissed the felony charge because the law only allows such enhancements to felony charges when a person has previous convictions specifically under that law. The court referred to a similar earlier case, showing that they had already decided against the State in a comparable situation. They reaffirmed that in order to enhance a charge to a felony, the previous convictions must originate from the same specific law, which was not the case for Norwood. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision of the lower court to dismiss the felony charge and accepted Norwood's guilty plea for misdemeanor possession. Thus, the appeal was rejected, and the original ruling was confirmed, with one judge explaining why he disagreed with the outcome.

Continue ReadingS-2014-786

S-2013-694

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-694, Fred A. Green, Ronald Krushe, and Christopher Thornburg appealed their conviction for kidnapping and first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against them. One judge dissented. The case began when the three men, who were bail bondsmen, went to a home to arrest two individuals, Billy and Pam Jones, who were staying there. They knocked on the door, entered the home, and handcuffed the Joneses to take them into custody. The homeowner, Patrick Wills, and his wife were not happy about this and called the police. While Green and his employees thought they were legally allowed to arrest the Joneses because they had a valid bond, the State of Oklahoma disagreed and charged them with burglary and kidnapping. The trial court disagreed, stating that the bondsmen did have the right to make the arrests. The State argued that the men acted unlawfully because of certain statements made during the incident, but the court found that they were working within their rights as bail bondsmen. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision to dismiss the charges, stating there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in concluding that the bondsmen were acting legally.

Continue ReadingS-2013-694

S-2013-695

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-694, Fred A. Green appealed his conviction for kidnapping and first-degree burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against him and his co-defendants, Ronald Krushe and Christopher Thornburg. One judge dissented. The case began when Green, Krushe, and Thornburg were charged after they went to a home to arrest two individuals, Billy and Pam Jones, for breaching their bail bond. They entered the home without permission and removed the Joneses, leading to their arrest. However, the court found that since Green, Krushe, and Thornburg were acting as bail bondsmen with the legal authority to arrest, they did not commit the crimes of burglary or kidnapping. The state argued that their actions were unlawful since they entered the home with the intent to kidnap. However, the court determined that the bondsmen acted within their rights, resulting in the dismissal of charges.

Continue ReadingS-2013-695

S-2013-696

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-694, S-2013-695, S-2013-696, the defendants appealed their conviction for kidnapping and first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against the defendants. No one dissented. The case began when three bail bondsmen, Fred Green and his two employees, Ronald Krushe and Christopher Thornburg, were charged with kidnapping and burglary after they tried to arrest two people, Billy and Pam Jones, who had skipped out on their bail. They went to a home in Pawnee County where the Joneses were staying and entered without permission. They handcuffed the couple and attempted to take them to jail. However, the defendants argued that they had the legal right to arrest the Joneses because they had a valid bond with them. The court found that since they were acting within their legal authority when they arrested the couple, they did not commit kidnapping or burglary. The State disagreed, claiming that the defendants had intended to commit a crime. However, the court concluded that the defendants were within their rights and did not abuse their power. Therefore, the charges were dismissed, and the court upheld this dismissal in their ruling.

Continue ReadingS-2013-696

S-2012-1012

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-1012, Barry Lee Brown appealed his conviction for a traffic offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling to suppress evidence and dismiss the prosecution. One judge dissented. The case began when a police officer claimed to have seen a traffic violation, which led to a stop of Barry Lee Brown's vehicle. After stopping him, the officer suspected that Brown might be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. A second officer was called to the scene to perform sobriety tests. Before the trial, Barry Lee Brown argued that the stop was not legal and asked the court to throw out any evidence from the stop. During the hearing, the officer who stopped Brown had trouble remembering exactly what happened. He referred to a report written by the second officer, but that officer had not witnessed the stop himself. Initially, the trial court thought there was enough evidence to say the stop was legal, but later changed its mind. The court reviewed different points raised by the state about why the trial court’s decision should be changed. The state argued that the trial court made mistakes in its decision to suppress the evidence. However, the Appeals Court looked carefully at the facts and decided that the trial court had a good reason to change its decision. They noted that the officer who stopped Brown did not have a clear memory and his testimony was mainly based on what was written in another officer's report. The Appeals Court stated it respects the findings of the trial court unless they are clearly wrong or not supported by the evidence. After reviewing everything, they agreed with the trial court's ruling because it was based on the officer's inability to reliably remember the details of the stop. The Appeals Court also addressed the state’s claim that the trial court should not have been allowed to change its previous ruling. They found that the state did not provide enough legal backing for this claim, so they didn't consider it further. Finally, the court looked at whether the first officer could accurately use the report to refresh his memory about the stop. They concluded that just because he accepted the report as true did not mean it helped him remember the stop accurately. In the end, the court affirmed the decision to suppress the evidence that led to the conviction and agreed to dismiss the case.

Continue ReadingS-2012-1012

RE-2009-239

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2009-239, the appellant appealed his conviction for uttering a forged instrument. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the order of revocation to allow for concurrent sentences instead of consecutive sentences. One judge dissented regarding the finding of excessiveness in the revocation order. In the case, the appellant, who was originally given the benefit of a deferred sentence and then suspended sentences, was accused of violating his probation by not reporting to his probation officer. The sentencing judge ultimately revoked his suspended sentences and imposed a total of eight years in prison, which he argued was excessive. The court reviewed the record and statements made by the judge during the revocation hearing. They determined that although the judge had the power to revoke less than the full suspension, the circumstances of the case warranted a modification to allow the sentences to be served concurrently, rather than consecutively as originally ordered. Additionally, the appellant contended that a second assessment for victim compensation was unlawful, as it exceeded the statutory limit. However, the court noted that the compensation assessments were appropriate and not void, concluding that this issue did not affect the validity of the revocation order itself. The final decision directed the district court to change the revocation order to reflect concurrent serving of sentences while affirming the other aspects of the revocation.

Continue ReadingRE-2009-239

SR-2007-134

  • Post author:
  • Post category:SR

In OCCA case No. SR-2007-134, Patricia Campbell appealed her conviction for Second Degree Felony Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court properly sustained the demurrer to the evidence, meaning it found the evidence insufficient to support the charge of Child Neglect. The court also ruled that the trial court had the authority to allow Campbell to plead to the lesser crime of Second Degree Manslaughter. No judge dissented in this opinion.

Continue ReadingSR-2007-134

RE 2006-0260

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2006-0260, Rudy Leon Brockelsby appealed his conviction for Burglary II. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but remanded the matter to the District Court for modification of the sentence to give credit for all time served during the period of the suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Brockelsby originally pled guilty to Burglary II in 2002 and was given a five-year suspended sentence, which meant he would not go to prison if he followed the rules of probation. He had to spend the first ten days in jail and was also ordered to pay some fines and restitution. Over the years, there were several attempts to revoke his suspended sentence. Two applications from the State to revoke his sentence were dismissed after he faced sanctions and served jail time. However, in 2005, the State filed a third application, leading to a hearing in March 2006. After this hearing, the judge decided to revoke Brockelsby's suspended sentence entirely, sending him to prison for five years. On appeal, Brockelsby argued that the judge wrongly made him serve a longer sentence than originally given because he believed that he should get credit for the days he already spent in jail. He claimed he had served 190 days in jail during his suspended sentence. The State agreed that he should receive credit for those days but argued that he was still responsible for other parts of his probation. Brockelsby also said that there was not enough evidence to prove that he willfully failed to pay the restitution that was ordered. However, the court found that Brockelsby had violated other rules of his probation, not just the restitution ruling. The court ruled that the judge had the right to revoke Brockelsby's sentence based on the evidence presented and found no abuse of discretion. Therefore, while they upheld the decision to revoke the suspended sentence, they ordered that Brockelsby receive credit for the time he served while on probation.

Continue ReadingRE 2006-0260

F 2005-659

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-659, Sundeep Kishore appealed his conviction for Conspiracy to Commit Murder and Embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences but vacated the order of restitution, sending it back to the district court for further determination. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF 2005-659

F-2001-687

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-687, #1 appealed his conviction for #Uttering Two or More Bogus Checks Exceeding $50.00. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #the case should be remanded for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. #2 dissented. Summary: The appellant, a person accused of writing bad checks, entered a plea in 1995 but later faced problems with following court rules. She was supposed to pay money back for the checks she wrote, but she didn't pay all of it. Over the years, the state said she had not done what she needed to do, like meeting with a probation officer and paying fees. As a result, her sentence was changed and she spent time in jail. The appellant had two cases against her. The first case involved writing four bad checks totaling $140, but she was told to pay back over $6,000, which she felt was too much. She argued that the court should not make her pay for other checks she wasn't charged with. The second case involved her admitting guilt for a poor check and being given jail time that was suspended, meaning she wouldn't go to jail unless she misbehaved. But the state also said she didn’t follow the rules connected to this case. During the hearings, the court decided she had broken the rules, leading to her jail time and fees. The key issues in her appeal were whether she should pay restitution for other checks and whether the amounts charged were fair. The court found that the records were unclear, so they sent the case back to get more facts about how much she really owed and if she could pay it back without it being a big problem for her or her family. The court needed to figure out three main things: why she had to pay for checks she wasn't charged with, if she could pay without hardship, and the correct amount she actually owed. The other point brought up was whether the fees for being in jail were too high and if the way those fees were charged followed the law. In conclusion, the court said the lower court needs to look at these issues again to make sure everything is fair.

Continue ReadingF-2001-687

RE-2001-887

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. F-2001-687, the appellant appealed her conviction for Uttering Two or More Bogus Checks Exceeding $50.00. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the matter for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. One judge dissented. The case began in 1995 when the appellant entered a plea of Nolo Contendere, which means she did not admit guilt but accepted the punishment for the crime. She was found guilty of writing bad checks to a grocery store, and her sentence was put on hold for five years, during which she had to pay restitution and other costs. However, she violated her probation by not making payments or reporting to her probation officer, leading to the state requesting her sentence be enforced in 1999. On May 23, 2001, the court found the appellant had violated her probation and sentenced her to one year in jail. She was also ordered to pay restitution for her bad checks, but the total amount was very high compared to the checks she admitted writing. The appellant argued that she should not have to pay such a large amount of restitution because she was not convicted of all the other related checks that contributed to that total. There were many checks between different years, and she felt the court had made an error by imposing restitution for checks she never had to answer for in court. Additionally, the appellant felt that the court had not looked into whether she could afford to pay the restitution without hardship to herself or her family. The court had different amounts recorded for restitution over time, which contributed to her confusion regarding what she owed. Also, when she was jailed, the appellant thought the fees for her time in jail were unfair and more than the actual cost of her incarceration. She claimed that the costs were not justified by evidence and that no one checked if paying these fees would create a financial burden for her. The court recognized the problems she raised about her case, particularly regarding her obligation to pay the reported costs and restitution without proof they were correct or fair. They decided that the lower court needed to review everything again: why the appellant was ordered certain restitution, if she could afford to pay it, and what the correct amounts should be. In summary, the court referred the case back to the lower court to have them investigate these issues further. The goal was to ensure that the appellant's rights were protected and that the law was being correctly applied.

Continue ReadingRE-2001-887