Strickland v. Washington

F-2019-369

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-369, Collins appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment but vacated and remanded the restitution and fees due to errors in their assessment. One judge dissented. Joseph Willis Collins was found guilty by a jury for committing assault with a dangerous weapon. He faced this trial in Comanche County where he was sentenced to spend twenty-five years in prison and was ordered to pay restitution and court costs. Collins claimed that several things went wrong during his trial that justified overturning his conviction. First, Collins argued that when he asked police if he could go back downstairs, it meant he wanted to stop talking to them, and police should have immediately respected that request. He believed this request was an important part of his rights, which should not have been pushed aside during the questioning. However, the court decided that even though admitting his statements without considering his right not to speak was a mistake, it was not significant enough to change the outcome of the case because there was a lot of clear evidence proving he was guilty. Next, Collins argued that some embarrassing information from his cellphone should not have been used against him during the trial. He thought that this evidence made it hard for him to get a fair trial because it focused on his relationships in a negative way. However, the court did not find this evidence to be unfairly prejudicial, as it was used to help explain details relevant to the case. Collins also believed that his lawyer did not competently defend him, especially regarding the use of the testimony linked to the cellphone and the earlier statements made to police after he asked to stop being questioned. The court looked at all these claims and found that there were no significant mistakes made by Collins’s lawyer that affected the trial's outcome. The other issues Collins raised were about financial matters from his sentencing. Collins was ordered to pay $7,504 in restitution for the victim’s losses, but the court admitted this amount wasn't properly justified, so they decided it should be determined again. The court also acknowledged a mistake in charging Collins a $1,500 indigent defense fee instead of the maximum allowed of $1,000. There was also a dispute about the juror fees that Collins thought were incorrectly calculated, but since he did not raise this objection during the trial, the court decided not to change this part of the decision. In the end, the court upheld the conviction and the lengthy sentence Collins received. They ordered the lower court to redo the calculations for restitution and the indigent defense fee to comply with the law and ensure a fair process. The judgment of conviction and the twenty-five-year prison sentence were upheld, while the restitution and indigent fees were vacated and remanded for further action.

Continue ReadingF-2019-369

F-2018-336

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-336, Donnie Graham appealed his conviction for first degree rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to include three years of post-imprisonment community supervision but otherwise affirmed the conviction. One judge dissented. The case began when Donnie Graham was found guilty of first degree rape after a jury trial. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and a fine. The case was heard in the District Court of Comanche County. Graham's main argument was about his right to have effective legal help during his trial. He claimed that his lawyer did not investigate earlier rape claims made by the victim and did not present evidence that could have proved those claims were false. He insisted that because of his lawyer's mistakes, he did not get a fair trial. The court looked closely at this claim. They first checked if Graham’s lawyer did not do their job properly according to professional standards. They needed to see if the lawyer's performance was bad enough to have affected the trial's outcome. After reviewing everything, the court decided that Graham did not show enough proof that his lawyer was ineffective. They denied Graham's request for a hearing to further examine his claims. Overall, the court changed his sentence to include three years of supervision after his prison time but upheld the decision regarding his guilt.

Continue ReadingF-2018-336

C-2019-15

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

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

Continue ReadingC-2019-15

F-2019-224

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the appeal of Joseph Eugene Dean. He was convicted in Muskogee County District Court for endangering others while eluding or attempting to elude a police officer after having two or more prior felonies. The jury sentenced him to twenty years in prison and a $2,500 fine. Although he was acquitted of possessing a stolen vehicle, Dean appealed the decision on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he argued his attorney failed to request a cautionary instruction regarding eyewitness identification. The court considered the appeal but found Dean's argument lacked relevant authority or sufficient legal backing. As a result, they deemed the issue forfeited for appellate review in compliance with court rules. Furthermore, the court addressed the merits of the claim, applying the Strickland v. Washington standard. This requires showing both deficient performance by counsel and resulting prejudice to the defense. The court found the cautionary instruction unnecessary due to the reliability of the eyewitness identification in the case and determined the counsel's actions did not constitute ineffective assistance. Consequently, the court affirmed Dean's conviction and sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2019-224

F-2018-114

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2018-114

F-2018-835

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**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)

Continue ReadingF-2018-835

F-2018-940

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the case of LeJeanna Sue Chronister v. State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed several appeals raised by the appellant following her conviction for Aggravated Manufacture of a Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine) and her subsequent sentencing to twenty years in prison. The appellant raised three primary propositions of error: 1. **Violation of Rights Regarding the 85% Rule**: The appellant contended that her sentence was unconstitutional because she was not informed that the 85% Rule (requiring her to serve 85% of her sentence before becoming eligible for parole) applied to her case. The court concluded that this argument did not hold merit in a non-jury trial setting, stating that the judge, not a jury, was responsible for sentencing and presumed to know the law. The court found no plain error as the sentence was within the statutory range and was the minimum allowed. 2. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: The appellant claimed her counsel was ineffective for not informing her about the 85% Rule, impacting her decision-making during her trial. The court applied the Strickland standard to evaluate the ineffectiveness claim, concluding that the appellant did not demonstrate how the alleged deficiency in counsel's performance prejudiced her case or altered the outcome. 3. **Cumulative Error**: The appellant argued that the combination of errors denied her a fair trial. The court determined that since none of the individual claims of error warranted relief, the cumulative error argument also lacked merit. Ultimately, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court of LeFlore County, stating that the appellant had not demonstrated any error that would necessitate modifying the sentence or overturning the conviction. The ruling emphasizes the distinction between non-jury trials and jury trials concerning informing defendants about parole-related laws and the importance of counsel's performance under the criteria established by the Strickland case.

Continue ReadingF-2018-940

F-2018-39

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-39, Robert Ephriam Smith appealed his conviction for two counts of Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentencing of life imprisonment on both counts, which were to run consecutively. One judge dissented. Robert Ephriam Smith was found guilty by a jury for abusing two children. The jury suggested that he should spend his life in prison for the acts he committed. The trial judge agreed and stated that Smith would serve his sentences one after the other. Smith raised several points in his appeal. He claimed that the instructions given to the jury were confusing. He believed they did not clearly explain what the jury needed to decide for his charges. He also said that evidence presented against him was unfair because it included things that weren't related to the case and might have made the jury feel negatively toward him. The judge's comments during the trial were also a point of concern for Smith. He thought the judge showed support for the young witnesses, which might have influenced the jury’s opinion unfairly. Moreover, he argued that notes from the forensic examiner and testimonies from his former step-daughter, who said he abused her when she was young, should not have been allowed as they added to the unfairness of the trial. Smith also argued that the way the prosecutor spoke during the trial was not appropriate and might have made it harder for him to get a fair trial. He thought that these methods used by the prosecutor could have led the jury to make a decision out of anger instead of focusing only on the facts. When it came to his lawyer, Smith claimed that his defense was weak and did not raise objections when they should have. He thought this lack of action harmed his case. However, the court decided that since no major errors were found in the trial, his lawyer’s performance could not be considered ineffective. In the end, the court found no grounds to change the original decision. They determined that the trial was fair despite Smith's complaints, and his life sentences would remain. The mandate for this decision was ordered to be issued immediately.

Continue ReadingF-2018-39

F-2018-158

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-158, Nathan Simmons appealed his conviction for accessory to first degree murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Nathan Simmons was found guilty after a jury trial held in Tulsa County. He was charged with being an accessory to first degree murder, which means he helped someone commit that crime, and for robbery with a dangerous weapon, which means he was involved in taking something with a weapon. The jury gave him a tough sentence: 36 years for being an accessory, 10 years for the first robbery, and 17 years for the second robbery. All the sentences were to be served one after the other. Simmons had two main arguments for his appeal. First, he said that the prosecutor made a mistake during the closing argument that took away his chance for a fair trial. He believed the prosecutor suggested that he would not serve the full amount of time for his first conviction and this made the jury decide to give him longer sentences. However, the court found that there was no significant error in what the prosecutor said during the trial that would change the outcome. Second, Simmons claimed that his lawyer did not do a good job because they did not object to what the prosecutor said. The court reviewed this claim carefully. Using a standard that looks at whether the lawyer's actions were truly wrong and if they affected the trial’s outcome, the court decided that Simmons did not have a strong case. Ultimately, the court kept the original sentence and decision made by the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2018-158

F-2018-289

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2018-289

F-2017-1098

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1098, Rodger Dale Stevens appealed his conviction for performing a lewd act in the presence of a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Stevens' conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Stevens was found guilty of a serious crime because he masturbated in front of a seven-year-old boy. The court looked closely at the evidence to see if it proved Stevens was doing this for sexual gratification. The victim testified and provided strong evidence that Stevens derived satisfaction from what he did. Even though Stevens argued that he was just trying to help the boy feel comfortable with his body, the jury did not believe him. Stevens also argued that his punishment was too harsh. Since he had previous felony convictions, his sentence was enhanced under a specific law that allows for harsher penalties for repeat offenders. Stevens said the law was applied wrongly and that he should have received a lighter sentence, but the court found that the jury was correctly instructed on the range of punishment. He raised several other issues, including claims that irrelevant and prejudicial evidence was admitted, and that his lawyer did not defend him properly. However, the court upheld that the lawyer's actions did not negatively impact the trial's outcome. Stevens argued that the life sentence he received was excessive, even claiming the situation was not severe enough for such a strong punishment. The court disagreed, noting the nature and seriousness of the crime and confirming that the sentence was within legal limits and did not shock the conscience. In summary, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence, ruling that the evidence supported the jury's decision and that the legal procedures followed were appropriate.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1098

F-2015-531

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-53, Dennis Ray Runnels appealed his conviction for Unlawful Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Runnels was convicted after a jury trial, where he was found guilty of distributing meth. The trial court sentenced him to 19 years imprisonment, with one year of post-imprisonment supervision, and ordered him to pay a fee for a court-appointed attorney and other costs. Runnels raised several issues in his appeal. First, he claimed that the state did not show a complete chain of custody for the meth. The court found that there was enough evidence for the jury to decide that Runnels was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also determined that Runnels had not shown any plain error regarding this issue. Second, Runnels argued that the state did not provide enough evidence to support his conviction. However, the court ruled there was sufficient evidence, including testimony and recordings from a controlled buy, for the jury to reach their conclusion. Third, he claimed the state failed to provide evidence that could have helped his case. He said the prosecutor did not correct a witness’s false testimony about prior convictions. The court found no wrongdoing by the state and ruled that Runnels had not shown how this affected the trial's outcome. In his fourth claim, Runnels argued that the jury was incorrectly instructed on punishment. The court agreed and found it was a plain error, which required modification of his sentence. Runnels also claimed the jury was led to think about probation and parole during the trial, but since the punishment was modified based on the previous claim, this point became moot. Regarding the claim that his sentence was excessive, the court agreed that it should be modified due to the instructional error and reduced it to 10 years with the same supervision and fees. Runnels also said his attorney was ineffective in several ways. However, the court found that these claims were moot because of the prior decision to modify his sentence. Lastly, Runnels asked the court to look at the overall errors during his trial to see if they denied him a fair outcome. The court determined that since they did not find any sustained errors, this request was denied. In conclusion, Runnels's conviction was upheld, but his sentence was reduced to 10 years in prison with supervision, and he will still pay the attorney fees and costs.

Continue ReadingF-2015-531

F 2015-121

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2015-121, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the district court, but vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Erica Lashon Harrison, who was accused of murder but was convicted of the lesser charge of first-degree manslaughter. The jury sentenced her to 25 years in prison and a fine of $10,000. Harrison raised multiple issues on appeal. She argued that the state did not prove she was not acting in self-defense, that improper evidence was allowed, and that she did not have proper legal representation. The court reviewed the case and found that the evidence supported the jury's verdict. They determined Harrison's claim of self-defense could not stand as there was not enough evidence to show she was in danger. The court noted that while some incorrect evidence was introduced, it did not affect the conviction. However, they decided that the sentence should be vacated and the case sent back for resentencing due to the improper character evidence brought up during the trial. The judges concluded that this error needed to be addressed, even if the earlier convictions were proper. The opinion recognized that although some arguments made by Harrison were valid, overall, the court found her conviction was supported by overwhelming evidence. The dissenting judges believed the error did not have a significant impact on the jury's decision. They argued that the sentence should not be changed since the evidence clearly proved guilt, even if procedural mistakes were made during the trial. Overall, the court upholds the conviction but sends the case back for a new decision on sentencing. The judges agreed on the main decision, while differing on whether the sentence change was necessary.

Continue ReadingF 2015-121

C 2014-920

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2014-920, John Edward Oxford appealed his conviction for several serious crimes including robbery, burglary, and conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but also ordered a hearing to review the amount of restitution he was ordered to pay. Oxford was charged with multiple counts and, on July 10, 2014, he entered a blind plea, which means he pleaded guilty without negotiating a deal, to all the charges. The court sentenced him to a total of over 70 years in prison and ordered him to pay about $67,539 in restitution to the victims. After his sentencing, Oxford tried to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he did not understand the charges and was not fully informed about his rights. The trial court held a hearing on this and ultimately denied his request. Oxford then appealed this decision, arguing several points. First, he believed he should not have been sentenced for certain counts because it violated laws against double punishment. However, the court noted that his arguments about double jeopardy were not raised in the earlier stages and thus were not considered. Second, he argued there wasn't enough evidence to support the restitution amount, but again the court found this issue had not been raised before and rejected it. Oxford also claimed he did not receive effective legal help during his plea and the hearing to withdraw it. The court agreed that there were problems with how his attorney handled the restitution order, focusing mainly on the lack of detailed documentation justifying the restitution amount. This lack of evidence meant the restitution order was not valid. While the court found that Oxford's guilty plea was made voluntarily, it did acknowledge inadequate support for the restitution order. Therefore, it denied his appeal regarding the guilty plea but vacated the restitution order, sending the case back to the lower court for a proper review of how much compensation was truly owed to the victims. One judge dissented, noting that the case should have been looked at more closely regarding the earlier claims. So, in summary, the appeal was mainly denied except for the part about restitution, which was sent back to the lower court for further review.

Continue ReadingC 2014-920

F-2013-732

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-732, Bryan Thomas Delaney appealed his conviction for Escape from a Penal Institution and Resisting Arrest. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence for post-imprisonment supervision but upheld the rest of his conviction. One member of the court dissented. Delaney was found guilty by a jury after a trial where he faced charges for escaping a jail and resisting the police. As a result of these charges, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for the escape and 1 year in the county jail for the resisting arrest. The judge also ordered him to have 2 years of supervision after his prison time. Delaney argued that he was treated unfairly during the sentencing. He felt that the jury was wrongly told that his previous felony convictions could lead to a harsher sentence. However, he did not raise this issue during the trial, which made it harder for him to win the appeal. The court found that his past crimes were separate incidents and did not fall under the rules for counting prior offenses. Delaney also claimed that his lawyer did not do a good job because they did not challenge the jury instruction about the prior convictions. For his appeal to be successful on this point, he needed to show that his lawyer's mistakes really changed the outcome of his trial. The court decided that, since the jury's instruction was appropriate, his lawyer's actions did not affect his case. Finally, the court noted that while neither side pointed it out, Delaney was sentenced to longer supervision than what the law allows. They corrected this by reducing the supervision time to just 1 year. In summary, the court made some changes to Delaney's post-prison supervision but agreed with the rest of his sentencing and conviction. The decision was mostly upheld, and only one part was changed to be in line with the law.

Continue ReadingF-2013-732

M 2010-1026

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2010-1026, Luck appealed his conviction for Malicious Mischief. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence but vacate the restitution order, remanding the matter for a hearing to determine the correct amount of restitution. No dissent was registered.

Continue ReadingM 2010-1026

F-2008-061

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-061, Antwaun Deon Lewis appealed his conviction for First Degree Malice Murder and Robbery with a Firearm. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence for first degree murder from life without the possibility of parole to life imprisonment but affirmed the judgment and sentence for robbery. One judge dissented regarding the issue of the introduction of certain testimony. The case began when Lewis and another person killed Orlando Prudom at a park in Tulsa, Oklahoma. They shot Prudom multiple times and took items from him. Lewis was found guilty by a jury and received a harsh sentence because of his previous criminal record. During the appeal, Lewis raised several issues. One concern was about the trial procedure used when the jury decided his sentence after learning of his past conviction. He argued that the jury should not have known about his prior conviction when deciding the murder sentence. The court agreed that the trial procedure was flawed, which affected the fairness of his sentencing, leading them to change his sentence. Lewis also argued that a witness's testimony from a previous trial was used improperly without giving him a chance to confront her. However, the court decided that this error did not significantly affect the outcome because there was a lot of strong evidence against him, such as his own admissions and other witnesses' accounts. Another point Lewis raised was about the introduction of photographs of the victim, which he described as gruesome. The court ruled that these photographs were relevant to the case and did not unfairly prejudice the jury against him. Lastly, Lewis claimed he had ineffective assistance from his lawyer during the trial. The court found that the arguments regarding the trial process were enough to provide relief, while other claims did not show that he suffered from any real prejudice during the trial. The final decision upheld the conviction for murder and robbery, modified the murder sentence, and confirmed the revocation of a previously suspended sentence for another crime. In conclusion, while some issues found in the trial were acknowledged, the court maintained that the evidence against Lewis was very strong.

Continue ReadingF-2008-061

F-2007-200

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-200, Jamie Cruz appealed his conviction for Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Jamie Cruz, who was found guilty on two counts of engaging in inappropriate conduct with an eight-year-old boy named T.M. Cruz was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for each count, to be served concurrently. The case had a long history of delays and court proceedings before it finally went to trial. During the trial, the evidence included Cruz’s admissions made during a polygraph examination he took while on probation. His defense argued that these admissions were wrongly obtained and that the trial court made errors in not considering his motion to suppress these statements. The trial court denied requests for continuances which the defense claimed were needed to prepare adequately for trial. Several arguments were made on appeal, including claims that the trial court should have suppressed the admissions made during the polygraph test because it violated his right against self-incrimination. Cruz argued that the compulsion to take the polygraph test because of his probation created a situation where he did not have a true choice, as refusing to comply could lead to his imprisonment. The court ruled that Cruz's rights were not violated. They said he had failed to assert his privilege against self-incrimination when he did not refuse to answer questions during the polygraph. The majority opinion found the polygraph examination was part of the conditions of his probation, and thus the admissions were not compelled in a manner that would invalidate them. Cruz also argued about other evidentiary issues during the trial, including the admission of prior bad acts as evidence and restrictions on jury selection. The court noted that while some of the trial court’s actions could be seen as problematic, they did not rise to the level of prejudice needed to overturn the conviction. In conclusion, while the court affirmed the convictions, they found that Cruz should not have received the life sentences as structured and directed that the case be sent back for proper resentencing under the relevant laws, as the previous sentencing did not follow the correct statutory guidance.

Continue ReadingF-2007-200

F-2006-341

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-341, Steven Dale Countryman appealed his conviction for attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, unlawful possession of methamphetamine, possession of a police scanner during a felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the sentences to run concurrently, with three years of the sentence on the first count being suspended. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2006-341

F-2004-1216

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1216, the appellant appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse-Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the fine. One judge dissented. Michael Hodges was found guilty by a jury in a district court. After the trial, he was sentenced to ten years in prison and asked to pay a $10,000 fine. He believed there were mistakes made during his trial and in how he was sentenced. Hodges raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that the punishment given was not right and that the fine should have been lower. Second, he said that his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial, which was unfair. Third, he thought that his sentence was too severe. Finally, he claimed that the court documents did not clearly show the law he had broken. After looking at all the information, the court found that Hodges's sentence was correct but changed his fine from $10,000 to $5,000. They also agreed that the official documents should be updated to correctly show the law he was convicted of breaking. The appeal did not show that he was treated unfairly during his trial, so the main conviction was kept. Overall, the court's main message was that while Hodges's sentence was mostly upheld, they also wanted to make sure he was charged the right amount for his fine and that the records reflected the correct details of his case.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1216

C 2004-69

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2004-69, McCarroll appealed his conviction for unlawful distribution of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) and possession of CDS in the presence of a child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant McCarroll's petition for a writ of certiorari. One judge dissented. The case involved Corey Dion McCarroll, who pleaded guilty to multiple charges, which included selling drugs near a daycare center and having drugs while a child was present. McCarroll was sentenced to a total of 60 years in prison, with some hefty fines. After feeling that he didn't get a fair trial and claiming he was innocent, McCarroll asked the judge to let him change his plea. McCarroll raised several reasons for his appeal. He argued that the charges for selling drugs near a daycare didn't apply because the law was not in effect at the time of his actions. He believed that his guilty pleas were not entered knowingly, and he felt the judge was unfair in giving him consecutive sentences, which made them seem too harsh. McCarroll also claimed that his lawyer didn't represent him properly. The court reviewed all the details of the case and decided favorably for McCarroll. They found that the law didn't fully apply to his situation when he was charged with the first two counts. Therefore, the court changed these charges to a different type of drug offense that was valid at that time. They also modified the sentences, stating that some of them should run at the same time (concurrently) rather than one after the other (consecutively). Overall, while the court granted McCarroll some relief in his appeal by changing the charges and modifying the sentences, they did not agree that his lawyer's help was inadequate enough for his plea to be withdrawn. Thus, the decisions were adjusted to ensure fairness while still holding McCarroll accountable.

Continue ReadingC 2004-69

F 2003-196

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-196, Joe Dean Meadows appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One member of the court dissented. Joe Dean Meadows was tried for First Degree Murder after a jury found him guilty. The trial took place in Oklahoma County District Court, and the jury decided he should be sentenced to life in prison. After the trial, Meadows appealed the decision because he believed there had been many mistakes. He claimed several things went wrong during his trial: 1. Meadows argued that there was not enough proof to show he was guilty of First Degree Murder. 2. He said that his statements to the police should not have been allowed in court because they were taken after an illegal arrest, and he did not receive proper warnings about his rights. 3. He also believed he could not question his co-defendant's confession, which mentioned him as guilty. 4. He thought his lawyer did not do a good job defending him. 5. Finally, he claimed that all the mistakes together meant he did not get a fair trial. The court looked carefully at all the claims made by Meadows. They agreed that allowing his co-defendant's confession was wrong because it violated his right to confront the witness against him. A law called the Sixth Amendment gives people the right to question witnesses during their trial, and this was not respected in Meadows' case. The court also agreed that Meadows should have received warnings about his rights before speaking to the police. They found that the police did not follow proper procedures, so his statements should not have been used in the trial. The judges felt that the combination of these two mistakes could have affected the outcome of the trial and made it unfair. They decided that Meadows should get a new trial because these errors were serious. Since the court reversed the conviction, they did not consider the other arguments Meadows made. In conclusion, the court's decision meant Meadows would have another chance to prove his case in a new trial. The dissenting judge thought the trial court had correctly allowed Meadows' confession to be used, but agreed the co-defendant's statement was a problem that needed to be fixed.

Continue ReadingF 2003-196

F 2003-648

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-648, Remigio Rivas appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Acts with a Child under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences from 100 years to 75 years for each count. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF 2003-648

F-2001-1514

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1514, Montain Lamont Maxwell appealed his conviction for Robbery with Firearms. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Montain Lamont Maxwell was tried by a jury and found guilty of robbery using a firearm. The jury decided he should be sentenced to 20 years in prison. Afterwards, he appealed his conviction, saying there were problems during his trial. First, Maxwell claimed the prosecution said things that made it seem like he was guilty for not speaking up during the trial. This goes against his right to remain silent, a protection given by the U.S. Constitution. He argued that the prosecutor asked improper questions and made unfair comments about his silence before and after his arrest. Second, Maxwell said the way he was identified as the robber wasn't reliable, and he argued that the trial court should have told the jury to be careful about believing eyewitness accounts. He also argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he committed the robbery with a dangerous weapon. Finally, Maxwell said his lawyer didn’t help him enough during the trial, which violated his rights. The court took a close look at all the problems raised by Maxwell. They found that the prosecution had indeed made mistakes regarding his right to stay quiet. They commented unfairly about his silence, which might have led the jury to think he was hiding something. The court also noted that the evidence against Maxwell came down to conflicting stories between him and the victim. The jury had a hard time reaching a decision and sent many notes during their deliberation. Because of the unfair treatment regarding his silence and the lack of a proper defense from his lawyer, the court decided these issues were serious enough that they couldn't ignore them. In the end, the court reversed Maxwell's conviction and ordered a new trial to make sure he gets a fair chance to defend himself.

Continue ReadingF-2001-1514

F-2001-1061

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1061, Gibbs appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, Second or Subsequent Offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to eight years in prison. One judge dissented. Gibbs was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to ten years, along with a fine and recommended counseling. Gibbs argued that the evidence against him wasn't enough to convict him. However, the court found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction. Gibbs' defense claimed he wasn’t driving under the influence; he said his car’s accelerator stuck and that someone gave him a ride home. He also stated that his sister saw him drinking at home. The prosecutor, during the trial, made errors when questioning Gibbs about the burden of proof and his rights. Even though there were issues with the prosecutor's comments, the court believed these mistakes did not greatly affect the overall outcome of the case. While the conviction remained, the court decided to lessen Gibbs' sentence due to the errors noted during the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2001-1061