Statutory Right Archives

RE-2020-452

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

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

F-2017-963

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 16, 2020
Post category:F

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.

J-2018-1066

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 8, 2019
Post category:J

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case No. J-2018-1066** **Decided on: August 8, 2019** **A.O. (Appellant)** **v.** **The State of Oklahoma (Appellee)** **Opinion of the Court by Presiding Judge Lewis:** **Background:** The appellant, A.O., a minor, was charged as a juvenile with Sexual Battery per 21 O.S. Supp. 2017, § 1123(B) in McIntosh County District Court (Case No. JDL-2017-29). Subsequently, on February 26, 2018, an Amended Delinquent Petition was filed, charging him with Child Sexual Abuse under 21 O.S. Supp. 2014, § 843.5(E). Following a non-jury trial held on September 25, 2018, the court adjudicated A.O. as delinquent. **Issues on Appeal:** 1. A.O. contends he was never informed of his right to a jury trial, claiming a violation of due process. 2. He argues that the conduct in question—touching the victim's buttocks over clothing—does not constitute Child Sexual Abuse as intended by the legislature. 3. A.O. claims the prosecutor expressed an opinion on his guilt, violating his due process rights. **Rulings:** 1. **Proposition I**: The court found no merit in A.O.'s claim regarding his jury trial rights. The record demonstrated that both A.O. and his guardian were informed of the right to a jury trial and that they consciously waived this right. 2. **Proposition II**: On this issue, the court ruled in favor of A.O. The court determined that the state failed to prove each element of the underlying crime of Child Sexual Abuse. Specifically, the court stated that to convict under § 843.5(E), the state bears the burden of proving the elements of lewd acts, which were not sufficiently demonstrated in court. 3. **Proposition III**: The court found the prosecution's remarks during the trial did not constitute plain error, as the comments related to the evidence presented and did not deprive A.O. of a fair trial. **Final Decision:** The adjudicating order of Child Sexual Abuse was **REVERSED**. The matter is **REMANDED** to the district court to amend the adjudication to Assault and Battery under 21 O.S. 2011, § 644. The court affirmed the adjudication as modified. **Dissenting Opinion by Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn:** Judge Kuehn expressed concerns about the implications of the majority ruling, arguing that it effectively renders § 843.5(E) unconstitutional due to its vagueness and conflict with age-based elements in other statutes, which could lead to arbitrary enforcement. The dissent maintains that the elements of § 843.5(E) should not require additional instructions unless those elements are included in the Information—and calls for the conviction to be reversed entirely based on the statute's broad language, which might punish conduct that is arguably not criminal. In conclusion, the court's ruling finds resonance in the legislative intention behind the statutes governing Child Sexual Abuse and the need for clarity in legal definitions, especially concerning age restrictions in sexual offenses. **Links:** [Download PDF of the Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2018-1066_1734449875.pdf)

RE-2015-735

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 30, 2016
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-735, Kathy Lynn Logan appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case. The court found that Logan was not given the proper opportunity to have a lawyer assist her during the revocation hearing, which is a requirement by law. The court noted that both Logan and the State agreed that the trial court did not properly check if Logan needed a lawyer, which meant she was denied her rights.

RE 2013-0523

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 6, 2014
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0523, Michelle Renea Runco appealed her conviction for Neglect by Caretaker. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of her suspended sentence and send the case back for a new hearing with legal representation. One judge dissented.

F 2012-294

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 15, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2012-294, Doris Jean Whitaker appealed her conviction for an unspecified crime. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and remand the case for a new trial due to a lack of adequate record on appeal. The State agreed with the decision, acknowledging that the failure to provide a trial transcript denied Whitaker her right to a meaningful review of her case. A dissenting opinion was not noted.

RE-2010-0510

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 7, 2010
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2009-0510, the appellant appealed his conviction for domestic abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence and ordered a new hearing. One judge dissented. In this case, the appellant, who had been previously convicted of domestic abuse, was sentenced to five years, with certain conditions. His sentence was largely suspended, meaning he wouldn’t have to serve most of it if he followed the rules set by the court. However, he faced trouble when the state accused him of violating those rules. There were two applications made by the state to revoke his suspended sentence. The first happened in 2007, where a judge found he broke the terms of his probation and took away three and a half years of his suspended sentence. He did not appeal this decision. The second application was filed in 2009, which led to a hearing in May of that year. During this hearing, the judge determined that the appellant had again violated the rules, resulting in a decision to revoke his entire suspended sentence. The appellant claimed he did not have a lawyer during the revocation hearing. He argued that he was not given enough time to find one and that this hurt his case. The state responded that the appellant missed the deadline to apply for a court-appointed lawyer and therefore gave up his right to have legal help. They believed he was trying to delay the hearing. The law states that individuals at revocation hearings should have the right to have a lawyer, but the court can proceed if a person knowingly waives that right. In earlier similar cases, if judges found an individual was just trying to delay things, they ruled that the person voluntarily gave up their right to have a lawyer. In this case, the court found that the appellant's delay of only six days did not show he was deliberately trying to postpone the proceedings. They also noted the lack of a proper review regarding whether he was unable to afford a lawyer. As a result, the appeal had merit, and his claim for lack of counsel was upheld. Since the court noted conflicts in the testimony presented during the hearing, they decided to reverse the revocation of the suspended sentence. They ordered that a new hearing take place, ensuring that the appellant has the chance to be represented by a lawyer or that his waiver of that right is properly recorded. In summary, the court ruled that the process leading to the revocation had issues that warranted a new hearing, ensuring fairness and proper legal representation for the appellant.

S-2006-117

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 29, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2006-117, the husband and wife, Larrie and Theresa Moyers, appealed their case concerning charges related to a scheme to defraud the State. They were originally indicted for multiple counts including conspiracy, bribery, and tax violations. Larrie had previously entered a guilty plea and received a sentence. Later, he sought to modify this sentence, which the court granted by reducing his time in prison and adding conditions like probation and treatment. After this modification, the State brought new charges against both Larrie and Theresa. They argued that these charges were unfair and retaliatory, claiming it was revenge for the sentence modification. The trial court agreed, finding that the new charges were indeed retaliatory and dismissed them, stating that this was against due process rights. The State then appealed this dismissal. The court reviewed whether it could hear the appeal and decided it could, as the dismissal was tied to constitutional issues. Ultimately, they affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that the State's action against the Moyers was inappropriate. The decision was published and affirmed the dismissal of all charges against them, maintaining the previous ruling of retaliation based on the lawful actions taken by Larrie Moyers to modify his sentence.

F-2005-619

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 7, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-619, Ralph Emerson Jones, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. Two judges dissented. Ralph Jones was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine and was sentenced to two years in prison. He believed that the evidence against him was not enough to prove he knew he had the drug, claiming that just having drug paraphernalia was not good enough for a conviction. When reviewing the case, the court found that there was a problem during the trial. Jones was only allowed to use three of his five chances to challenge potential jurors, which is not what the law says should happen. This was seen as a violation of his rights, and the court ruled that he should get a new trial. The final decision was to throw out Jones’s conviction and start the trial over again. Two judges disagreed with this decision, arguing that the appeals court should only look at issues that were raised during the trial and that the evidence actually supported Jones’s conviction. They felt that giving him another chance could lead to unnecessary complications since he might not even want to go through a new trial.

F-2004-1266

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 10, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1266, Darrell W. Hogan appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Hogan's conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Hogan was found guilty of killing his cellmate, James Wise, at the prison. On the morning of February 24, 2004, Wise had threatened Hogan with a knife. Later, Hogan killed Wise by choking him with a laundry bag drawstring and then called for help, but Wise died weeks afterward. Hogan confessed to the crime when investigators spoke with him. During his trial, Hogan was supposed to have nine chances to dismiss potential jurors, known as peremptory challenges, but he was only allowed five. He argued that this was unfair and violated his rights. The court agreed with Hogan's argument, stating that denying him the proper number of peremptory challenges was a serious mistake. They ruled that he deserved a new trial where he would have all his legal rights. The dissenting judge felt that the mistake was not harmful and that Hogan did not prove he was disadvantaged by the limited number of challenges, and therefore, the trial's outcome should have been upheld.

C-2004-739

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 8, 2005
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2004-739, Billy Jack Brown, Jr. appealed his conviction for Attempt to Manufacture the Controlled Dangerous Substance Methamphetamine and/or Amphetamine, Child Endangerment, and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance Methamphetamine or Amphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for a writ of certiorari and remand the case for a new hearing on his application to withdraw his plea. One member of the court dissented. Billy Jack Brown pleaded no contest to three charges related to drugs and child endangerment. He was given a long prison sentence and a large fine. After some time, Brown wanted to change his plea. He said he felt pressured to plead guilty, claiming his lawyer told him if he didn’t, his wife wouldn’t be accepted into Drug Court. Brown said he didn't agree with his lawyer on many things and felt that it was hard for him to make a good decision about his plea. During a hearing about his request to change his plea, his lawyer said he was unsure about how to proceed because he couldn’t recommend that Brown change his plea. The court found that because Brown and his lawyer had a conflict of interest, he did not receive effective help, which is a right every person has. The court decided that Brown should have a new hearing so he could properly address his reasons for wanting to withdraw his plea. The decision was made to let Brown have this chance, and the appeals court ordered that the case be sent back for a new hearing to properly look at his request. One judge disagreed with this decision, saying that Brown's statements about being coerced were not supported by the evidence and that he had made a voluntary plea.

F 2001-465

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 4, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-465, Tashiro Rudy Tillman appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute and Obstructing an Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction on the drug charge but vacated the sentence for that charge, requiring resentencing. The conviction for obstructing an officer was upheld. One judge dissented.