Suspended Sentence

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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to dismiss the appeal.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

RE-2021-1290

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2021-1290, Vernon Shawn Miller, Jr. appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking Miller's suspended sentences but vacated the part of the order that imposed post-imprisonment supervision. One member of the court dissented. Vernon Shawn Miller, Jr. had a serious legal history. He pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including kidnapping and domestic assault, and was given a sentence but had part of it suspended after he completed a special drug program. However, in August 2021, the State filed a motion to revoke his suspended sentence because he broke the rules of his probation, which included failing to complete a required assessment and getting arrested for a new crime. The trial court held a hearing and decided to revoke all of Miller's suspended sentence. Miller argued against this decision, claiming it violated the rules because he should not serve more time than the sentence he was given. The court explained during the hearing that it intended to revoke all of the suspended time left on his sentence. Miller raised several arguments during his appeal. He thought the sentence should not exceed what he had left to serve and believed that the facts used to revoke his sentence came from an earlier trial rather than the hearing itself. Miller also said he did not get good help from his lawyer during the process. The court reviewed Miller's arguments closely. It confirmed that the judge's decision to revoke the entire suspended sentence was valid and within their rights. They found no specific errors in what the trial court did, except for the imposition of post-imprisonment supervision, which should not have been added since it was not part of the original sentence. In the end, the court upheld the revocation of Miller's suspended sentence but removed the part about post-imprisonment supervision, meaning Miller had to serve the time his sentence required without additional conditions.

Continue ReadingRE-2021-1290

RE-2021-1042

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2021-1042, Matthew Bryan Buttery appealed his conviction for a series of crimes including distribution of controlled substances and petit larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered that his new sentence run concurrently with a prior sentence from another case. One judge dissented on the issue of how the sentences should relate to one another. Matthew Buttery had previously pled guilty to several charges. He was given a ten-year suspended sentence, which means he didn't have to serve time in prison at that moment but had to follow certain rules. If he broke any rules, the court could take back that suspended sentence and send him to prison. The state claimed that Buttery did not report as required, did not pay his probation fees, and committed a new crime, for which they wanted to revoke his suspended sentence. During the hearing, the court found Buttery had violated the terms of his probation and revoked his suspended sentence. Buttery argued that the court made a mistake by not giving him credit for time he had already served and by ordering that his new sentence run after a different sentence from another county. The court explained that it had the right to revoke Buttery's suspended sentence because he violated the rules. They stated they didn't have to give him credit for time served because the suspended sentence is not changed by the violation. They also found that the judge improperly decided his new sentence would run after the one from the other county rather than at the same time. The judges clarified that when a sentence is revoked, it should not change how sentences from different cases affect each other. In the end, Buttery's appeal led to some changes. The court ordered that his new sentence should run concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time, rather than one after the other. However, the court upheld the overall decision to revoke his suspended sentence for breaking the rules of his probation. One judge agreed with the decision to affirm the revocation but disagreed with other parts of the analysis regarding the relationship between the sentences. So, to summarize, the main points from the case are that Matthew Bryan Buttery's suspension was revoked because he violated probation rules, but the court made a mistake when deciding how his new sentence should relate to an older sentence. He is to serve them at the same time now, according to the latest court ruling.

Continue ReadingRE-2021-1042

RE-2021-1202

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2021-1202, Jimmy Dale Jackson, Jr. appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his probation. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of his suspended sentence to six months instead of a longer term. One judge dissented. Here’s a summary of the case: Jimmy Dale Jackson, Jr. had a suspended sentence from a previous conviction for Lewd Molestation, which means he was not in prison but had to follow certain rules. In 2021, the State of Oklahoma accused him of breaking those rules. They said he did many things wrong, such as driving with a gun, using drugs, not paying the fees he needed to, and talking to a girl who was a minor, which he was told not to do. When Jackson went to the court for a hearing, the judge decided that he had indeed broken the rules, and as a result, revoked his suspended sentence completely. Jackson then appealed this decision. He argued that the judge's decision was too harsh and that he should not have been punished so severely for what he called technical violations. He also claimed that the judge improperly used the results of a lie detector test (polygraph) against him during the hearing. The court had to consider whether the judge had made a real mistake. They found out that Jackson's violations were mostly technical, meaning they were not serious crimes but rather rule-breaking issues. According to Oklahoma law, if a person on probation has technical violations for the first time, the judge can only revoke their suspended sentence for up to six months. The court decided that Jackson's violations did not include breaking any serious laws because he had never been told to follow specialized rules for sex offenders, which would have been more serious. They noted he was only accused of violating standard probation rules. Since the judge revoked his sentence for a period longer than what the law allows for technical violations, the court agreed that was a mistake. Regarding the polygraph results, Jackson's team had talked about them first, so the court said that Jackson could not complain about that now. They concluded that even without the polygraph, there were enough other reasons to revoke his probation. In the end, the court said Jackson's sentenced revocation would be adjusted to six months, meaning he would have to follow the suspension rules for just that amount of time instead of facing a longer prison term. The court emphasized that everyone must understand the rules when they are on probation and that following proper legal steps is important to ensure fairness. So, in summary, the court reduced Jackson's punishment because they found he was not given proper notice about the rules he had to follow and that he should not have been penalized so harshly for technical violations alone.

Continue ReadingRE-2021-1202

C-2021-218

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2021-218, the petitioner appealed her conviction for outraging public decency and violation of a protective order. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the appeal. The court agreed that her due process rights were violated when the district court denied her motions to withdraw her pleas while she was absent from the hearing. No one dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2021-218

RE-2020-398

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2020-398, Kenneth Joe Norton appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but ordered the trial court to modify the term executed on one charge to one year. One judge dissented. Norton was charged with two crimes, Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Larceny of Merchandise, and he pleaded no contest in both cases. He was sentenced to ten years in prison, but part of that sentence was suspended as long as he completed a program. Later, the State claimed he broke the terms of his suspended sentence by getting into more trouble, which led to a court hearing. Norton argued that the sentence that was given to him was too long. He believed that the old law allowed a shorter sentence. The court looked at his claims and noted that, since the law changed after he was convicted, he should only serve one year on the larceny charge. This part of his appeal was accepted. Norton also tried to argue that some of the evidence during his revocation hearing should not have been allowed because it was obtained without proper procedures. He claimed that he had not been warned about his rights when he made a statement that led to his arrest. The court explained that during a revocation hearing, the same protections as a criminal trial do not apply. Therefore, the evidence was allowed. Moreover, he claimed his lawyer did not do a good job because they did not raise certain points about his case. However, since one of his claims was accepted, the court decided that it did not matter if the lawyer made mistakes because his issue was already resolved. In conclusion, the court allowed some changes to the sentence but maintained that his revocation was valid. The court focused on the rules for reviewing revocation cases and kept Norton accountable for his actions that led to the revocation of his suspended sentences.

Continue ReadingRE-2020-398

RE-2020-452

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingRE-2020-452

RE-2019-850

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-850, Jade Christian Nichols appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking four years of Appellant's suspended judgment and sentence and remanded the case for a new hearing before a different judge. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-850

RE-2019-683

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-683, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but modify it to be limited to six months. One member dissented. The case involved the appellant who had earlier been sentenced for multiple crimes, including possession of a controlled substance and driving under the influence. Initially, he was given a suspended sentence where he would serve time in jail only on weekends. However, he violated the terms of his probation several times by failing to report, pay fees, and complete required programs. After a while, he faced new charges for more serious crimes, which led to the state seeking to revoke his suspended sentence altogether. During the hearing for the revocation, the judge decided to revoke all five years of his suspended sentence. However, the court found later that this action was not appropriate. The court ruled that even though the appellant had committed technical violations, he could only be punished with a maximum of six months because the alleged new crimes occurred after his probation had expired. The court concluded that the trial judge had made a mistake when revoking the whole five years instead of just six months based on the technical violations proven. Thus, the revocation punishment was modified by the court to six months instead of five years.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-683

RE-2019-522

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-522, Leslie Ford appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentences in both cases but also instructed the lower court to correct a written order error regarding the duration of the revocation. One member of the court dissented. Leslie Ford had previously been sentenced in two cases for stalking, with each sentence being five years long but suspended, meaning he would not have to go to prison if he followed certain rules. However, he was accused of breaking these rules. The state said he didn’t pay the required fees, didn’t go to treatment for domestic abusers, drank alcohol, and even got in trouble for more offenses. At a hearing, the judge found that Leslie did indeed break the rules, leading to the full revocation of his sentences. Leslie then appealed the decision, bringing up several reasons why he thought the revocation was unfair. He argued about his mental fitness during the process and claimed there were time limit violations concerning the hearings. The court explained that they could only focus on whether the revocation was valid and that the evidence showed he broke the rules. They also found that a confusion on how long he was sentenced was a mistake, which they ordered to be fixed. Overall, Leslie did not manage to successfully argue for the reversal of his revocation, except for the correction regarding the error in the time of imprisonment mentioned in the written order.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-522

RE-2019-619

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-619, the appellant appealed his conviction for endangering others while trying to avoid the police and possession of a stolen vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered the district court to give him credit for four days he had already served in jail. One judge dissented from this decision.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-619

RE-2019-19

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-19, Daniel Lee Hart appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that revoking his suspended sentence without him being present was a violation of his right to due process, and therefore, the revocation was reversed. One judge dissented. Daniel Lee Hart originally pleaded guilty in 2009 to trying to manufacture a controlled substance. He was given a 20-year sentence, with 12 years of that being suspended, meaning he didn't have to serve that part of the time as long as he followed certain rules. One of those rules was that he had to stay clean from drugs and check in regularly with his probation officer. In 2017, the state said that Hart had broken the rules. They said he had used drugs, didn’t show up for meetings with his probation officer in both Oklahoma and Kansas, didn’t register as a drug offender in Kansas, didn’t pay fees for his probation, and hadn’t completed his GED as he was supposed to. Hart later agreed to these claims but was able to be released for drug treatment for a few months before being sentenced. When the time came for his sentencing, Hart did not show up. Because he was absent, the court revoked the suspended part of his sentence completely. This meant he would have to serve the full 20 years instead of just the 8 years that he had left to serve. Hart appealed this decision, saying it was unfair for the court to make such a serious decision without him being there. The court looked at whether Hart's absence affected his right to defend himself. They said that everyone has the right to be present when decisions are made about their punishment. The court noted that Hart had not willingly chosen to skip the sentencing and that his absence could have greatly impacted the outcome. Because of these reasons, the court said Hart deserved a new hearing where he could be present to possibly explain why he wasn’t there and defend himself more fully. The final decision was to send the case back for another hearing. They wanted to make sure Hart had a fair chance to be present when the consequences of his actions were discussed again. In summary, because Hart was missing during a very important hearing, the court agreed that this was a mistake. They reversed the earlier decision and ordered a new hearing where he could be present.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-19

RE-2018-1233

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2018-1233, Joice appealed his conviction for obtaining cash or merchandise by bogus check/false pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the order revoking Joice's suspended sentence and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the State's application to revoke with prejudice. One judge dissented. Joice had originally entered a guilty plea in 2013 for writing a bogus check and received a twenty-year sentence, which was all suspended, meaning he would not serve time in prison if he followed the rules of his probation. However, in 2018, the State claimed he broke the rules of his probation and sought to revoke his suspended sentence. During the hearings, Joice argued that the original sentence was too long and that the State filed their application to revoke his probation too late. He also said his lawyer did not help him properly by not questioning the judge’s decision to revoke his sentence. The court agreed there were major issues with his original sentence and that the State was too late in trying to revoke it. They found that Joice did not get good legal help at his revocation hearing. Since the court recognized that the original sentence was illegal and the State's request to change it came too late, they decided to dismiss the application to revoke Joice’s probation. This means he won't have to serve time because the conditions under which his probation could be revoked were not met correctly.

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1233

RE-2019-57

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, Toni Lynn Cook appeals the revocation of her suspended sentence from the McIntosh County District Court. Cook had originally pled guilty to the charge of Obstructing an Officer. Following her guilty plea, the State filed a Motion to Revoke her suspended sentence, claiming she committed new crimes while on probation, which included multiple counts of Assault and Battery on a Police Officer and Indecent Exposure. The revocation hearing saw evidence presented, including testimonies from jailers detailing that Cook had exposed herself and physically resisted their attempts to move her to a solitary cell, leading to injuries to the officers involved. The trial court found that the State met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Cook had violated her probation. Cook raised several propositions on appeal: 1. **Insufficient Evidence**: Cook argued that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the alleged probation violations. However, the court found that the evidence sufficient and credible, affirming that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion. 2. **Waiver of Hearing Within Twenty Days**: Cook contended that her waiver of the right to a hearing within twenty days was not valid. The court ruled that Cook had waived this right knowingly, as she had not requested an early hearing and did not provide evidence that she was unaware of this right. 3. **Excessiveness of Revocation**: Cook argued the revocation was excessive. The court noted that revocation is a matter of grace, and since Cook committed multiple new offenses while on probation, the trial judge's decision to revoke her sentence in full was not an abuse of discretion. In conclusion, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to revoke Cook's suspended sentence, finding no merit in her claims. The mandate was ordered to be issued upon filing the decision.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-57

RE-2019-42

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. CF-2012-206, the appellant appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court affirmed the revocation of his suspended sentence. The appellant failed to pay restitution and supervision fees, and he was found guilty of a new crime, Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the sentence based on these violations. One judge dissented, arguing that the appellant’s failure to pay was not willful and should have been considered.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-42

RE-2018-932

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ANTHONY CURTIS CREEK,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. RE-2018-932** **SUMMARY OPINION** **Filed January 23, 2020** ROWLAND, JUDGE: Anthony Curtis Creek, Appellant, entered a guilty plea on March 16, 2015, in Garfield County District Court Case No. CF-2013-393, to Count 1 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, a misdemeanor, and Count 2 - Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a misdemeanor. He received a sentence of one year in the County Jail on Count 1, with 90 days to be served and the remainder suspended; Count 2 was sentenced to one year suspended, with penalties running consecutively. He was also fined $500.00. On January 20, 2017, the State applied for the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence on Count 2, alleging violations: (1) possession or consumption of alcohol; (2) DUI-A, a misdemeanor; and (3) Defective Equipment, a misdemeanor, in Oklahoma County Case No. CM-2016-2776. During the revocation hearing on June 2, 2017, Appellant admitted to the first allegation. The trial judge, Honorable Dennis Hladik, determined that the State proved the other allegations and revoked six months of Appellant's suspended sentence. Appellant appeals this decision, raising several propositions of error: 1. **Abuse of Discretion:** The trial court allegedly utilized a strict liability standard, resulting in a cruel and excessive sentence. 2. **Prosecutorial Misconduct:** Claiming that Appellant was deprived of a fundamentally fair proceeding due to misconduct. 3. **Plain Error:** The trial court's finding on the State's evidence and the standard of proof was erroneous. 4. **Equal Protection Violation:** Appellant asserts he was denied equal protection under the law. 5. **Cumulative Error:** The accumulation of errors deprived Appellant of due process. Upon review, the Court affirms the District Court's order revoking six months of Appellant's suspended sentence. 1. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence is within the substantial discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. The evidence supported Judge Hladik’s decision to revoke only part of the sentence after considering a stipulation and witness testimonies. 2. The Court agrees with Appellant's counsel that prosecutorial misconduct is more appropriate for post-conviction matters. The record does not support claims of misleading behavior by the prosecutors. 3. The standard of proof for such violations is a preponderance of the evidence, adequately satisfied in Appellant's case. Revocation is valid with any proven violation. 4. The trial court's exclusion of evidence does not equate to an equal protection violation. The ruling was consistent and reasonable. 5. As there were no individual errors identified, the argument for cumulative error also fails. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Garfield County District Court Case No. CF-2013-393 is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is ordered to be issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** **David J. Batton** Counsel for Defendant **Tallena Hart** Carter Jennings Assistant District Attorney Counsel for the State **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J:** **LEWIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **LUMPKIN, J: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-932_1734358983.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-932

RE-2018-1236

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Richard James Nunes, Appellant,** **-VS-** **The State of Oklahoma, Appellee.** **Case No. RE-2018-1236** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant, Richard James Nunes, appeals from the revocation of his eight-year suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2014-450 by the Honorable George Butner, District Judge, in the District Court of Seminole County. **Background:** On March 12, 2015, Nunes entered a guilty plea to Possession of a Stolen Vehicle (felony) and Altering License Plate/Decal (misdemeanor). He was sentenced to ten years on the felony, with the first two years to be served and the remainder suspended, and one year on the misdemeanor to be served concurrently. On December 27, 2017, the State filed a motion to revoke Nunes' suspended sentence, alleging probation violations. An initial appearance occurred on January 23, 2018, followed by the appointment of counsel on February 2, 2018. Nunes was released on bond on February 8, 2018 but failed to appear for a scheduled hearing on February 15, 2018. A hearing was ultimately held on November 26, 2018, where the probation officer testified that Nunes never reported after his release and was considered an absconder. Despite Nunes' testimony providing varying explanations for his actions, Judge Butner concluded that he violated probation and revoked the suspended sentence in full. **Proposition of Error:** Nunes asserts the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his suspended sentence because the revocation hearing was not timely. **Analysis:** According to 22 O.S.Supp.2016, § 991b(A), a revocation hearing must be held within twenty days following a plea of not guilty to the motion to revoke, unless waived. Nunes contends he never entered a plea and thus the hearing was untimely. However, as acknowledged by the State and Nunes himself, he never formally entered a plea of not guilty, meaning the twenty-day timeframe was never initiated. Moreover, the delay in the revocation hearing was primarily due to Nunes absconding and not fulfilling his responsibilities, further complicating the matter. **Decision:** The order of the District Court of Seminole County revoking Nunes' eight-year suspended sentence is therefore AFFIRMED. **OPINION BY: HUDSON, J.** **CONCUR: LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J. (CONCUR IN RESULTS); LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J.** --- For the full decision document, please visit the following link: [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-1236_1734353731.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1236

RE-2018-1006

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case No. RE-2018-1006** **Jose Adolfo Rios, Appellant,** **vs.** **The State of Oklahoma, Appellee.** **Summary Opinion** **Judge Lumpkin:** Appellant, Jose Adolfo Rios, appeals from the revocation in full of his concurrent ten-year suspended sentences in Case No. CF-2006-6132. The Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, ruled on this matter. On April 4, 2008, Appellant entered a guilty plea to two counts of Rape in the First Degree and two counts of Indecent or Lewd Acts With a Child Under Sixteen, resulting in sentences of twenty-two years for the rape counts (with the first twelve years suspended) and twenty years for the lewd acts counts (with the first ten years suspended), all to run concurrently. On July 25, 2018, the State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence, asserting multiple violations of probation, including failing to report, change of address, pay supervision fees, attend mandated treatment, and committing a new crime—Domestic Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon. During the revocation hearing before Judge Elliott, substantial evidence was presented regarding Appellant's violation of probation terms, including testimonies from Appellant’s probation officer and other evidence illustrating Appellant's failure to comply with treatment and reporting requirements. Appellant testified about personal struggles following a crime in which he was a victim, stating he had fallen victim to substance abuse and homelessness. After reviewing the evidence, Judge Elliott found sufficient basis to revoke the suspended sentences, having established by a preponderance of the evidence that Appellant had committed multiple violations, including failing to report and failing to attend treatment. **Proposition of Error:** Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in fully revoking his sentence, asserting that Judge Elliott did not adequately consider alternatives to full revocation. **Analysis:** The decision to revoke a suspended sentence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned without evidence of abuse of that discretion. Here, Judge Elliott had unrefuted evidence of Appellant's violations. The record demonstrates that Appellant acknowledged his failures and did not meet the terms of probation. While Appellant claimed that less severe measures should have been considered, the applicable statutes do not mandate such considerations during revocation proceedings. As such, Appellant has not demonstrated that the trial court erred or abused its discretion in revoking the sentences in full. **Decision:** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's concurrent ten-year suspended sentences is AFFIRMED. **Appearances:** **For Appellant:** Ben Munda, Assistant Public Defender Hallie Elizabeth Bovos, Assistant Public Defender 320 Robert S. Kerr, Suite 400 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **For the State:** Suzanne Lavenue, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma Tessa L. Henry, Assistant Attorney General 320 Robert S. Kerr, Suite 505 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **Opinion By:** Lumpkin, J. **Concurred by:** Lewis, P.J.; Kuehn, V.P.J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. [Download Full Opinion PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-1006_1734358375.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1006

RE-2018-645

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **ANTWOIN LEE WALKER, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **Case No. RE-2018-645** **Summary Opinion** **File Date: December 12, 2019** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Antwoin Lee Walker appeals the full revocation of his six-year suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2015-675 by District Judge Paul Hesse of the Canadian County District Court. **Background:** On October 27, 2015, Walker pled guilty to Petit Larceny (Count 1) and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property (Count 2), resulting in a six-month county jail sentence on Count 1 and a ten-year sentence on Count 2, with four years suspended. On May 30, 2017, the State filed to revoke his suspended sentence, citing new charges including Attempt to Kill, Rape in the First Degree, and two instances of Petit Larceny, in Case No. CF-2017-445. Walker was subsequently convicted on May 10, 2018, of all counts in that case. During a hearing on June 19, 2018, which combined revocation and sentencing phases, Judge Hesse considered evidence from the jury trial and sentenced Walker to life imprisonment on Counts 1 and 2, among others. In the revocation portion, Walker’s attorney agreed to incorporate the trial evidence in assessing the probation violation. Judge Hesse found Walker had violated his probation and revoked the suspended sentence in full, ordering it to run concurrently with his sentences from Case No. CF-2017-445. **Proposition of Error:** Walker asserts the trial court erred by taking judicial notice of evidence from the prior trial. **Analysis:** The appellate court finds that there was no judicial notice taken. Walker consented to the combination of hearings and did not object to the incorporation of trial evidence into the revocation proceedings. The court notes the distinction from precedent cases, as Walker's situation involves a combined hearing rather than separate unrelated proceedings. Given that the trial court is afforded discretion in revocation matters and there was no abuse of that discretion, the court ultimately finds no reversible error. **Decision:** The order revoking Walker’s six-year suspended sentence is AFFIRMED. **Appearances:** - **For the Appellant:** Craig Corgan, Sarah MacNiven - **For the State:** Eric Epplin, Mike Hunter, Theodore M. Peeper **Opinion by:** KUEHN, V.P.J. **Concurred by:** LEWIS, P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. **Note:** For the full opinion, see [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-645_1734427729.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-645

C-2019-227

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CYNTHIA ROWSHELL GAY,** Petitioner, **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Respondent. **Case No. C-2019-227** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **OCT 31 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** Petitioner Cynthia Rowshell Gay, represented by counsel, entered guilty pleas as part of a plea agreement with the State to the charges of Count 1, Driving While Under the Influence, a violation of 47 O.S.2011, § 11-902, and Count 2, Driving While Under Suspension, a violation of 47 O.S.2011, § 6-303(B), in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2019-369. The Honorable Kathryn R. Savage, Special Judge, accepted the pleas on February 19, 2019. The plea agreement included a five-year sentence on Count 1, with all but the first thirty days suspended, and a one-year suspended sentence on Count 2, with the sentences running concurrently. On March 1, 2019, Petitioner filed an Application to Withdraw Guilty Plea, and a hearing was held on March 21, 2019, which resulted in the denial of her application. Petitioner claims the following error: Ms. Gay did not knowingly and voluntarily enter her plea of guilty, and thus the District Court erred when it denied her Application to Withdraw her Guilty plea. Upon thorough review of the record, including original documents, transcripts, and briefs, we find no need for reversal or modification. Our evaluation of a guilty plea focuses on its voluntary and intelligent nature (Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-43, 1969; Ocampo v. State, 1989 OK CR 38, ¶ 3). We review the denial of a petitioner's motion to withdraw a plea for an abuse of discretion (Lewis v. State, 2009 OK CR 30, ¶ 5). Petitioner acknowledged signing the Plea of Guilty Summary of Facts form, which reflected her voluntary decision to plead guilty and accept a suspended sentence. With prior felony convictions, she was familiar with the process. Her motivations for signing the plea agreement, including a desire to expedite her release from jail, do not render the plea involuntary (United States v. Webb, 433 F.2d 400, 404 (1st Cir. 1970)). Petitioner’s change of heart after consulting relatives does not provide grounds for withdrawal, nor does disappointment with her sentence (Miles v. U.S., 385 F.2d 541, 544 (10th Cir. 1967); Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, ¶ 44). The trial court found her plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, and its findings during the hearing on the application to withdraw were credible. The record shows that Petitioner was fully informed of and understood the consequences of her plea. Her later claim regarding misunderstanding the conditions of her suspended sentence was deemed incredible by the trial court. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Therefore, the proposition is denied. **DECISION:** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. **Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED to be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.** **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE KATHRYN R. SAVAGE, SPECIAL JUDGE** **APPEARANCES IN DISTRICT COURT:** NICOLE BURNS, ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER HALLIE E. BOVOS, ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER 320 ROBERT S. KERR, #400 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** RICKY LUTZ, ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 320 ROBERT S. KERR, #505 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE **NO RESPONSE NECESSARY** **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **LEWIS, P.J.: Concur** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** **ROWLAND, J.: Concur** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2019-227_1734232520.pdf)

Continue ReadingC-2019-227

RE-2018-604

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **LEROY ALEXANDER, JR.,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-604** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **OCT 10 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Leroy Alexander, Jr., was sentenced to a total of fifteen years for the crime of Rape in the Second Degree, with all but the first year suspended. This appeal arises from the revocation of the remainder of his suspended sentence by the Honorable George W. Butner, District Judge of Seminole County. **Facts:** On April 5, 2018, the State of Oklahoma filed a motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence, alleging violations related to failure to attend sex offender treatment and failure to submit to required polygraph examinations. An amended motion on June 1, 2018, added allegations of inappropriate employment at a children's carnival ride during a festival. During the revocation hearing, the State's probation officer testified that Appellant had initially attended treatment sessions but was terminated for non-attendance. Appellant claimed his violations stemmed from financial hardship and lack of transportation. The Court ultimately found that Appellant had not made genuine efforts to comply with the terms of his probation. **Points of Error:** 1. **Proposition I:** Appellant argues that the trial court lacked authority to revoke more than the actual suspended portion of his sentence. He claims the written order incorrectly states that all of the fifteen years was revoked. However, the oral pronouncement during the hearing indicated the revocation was for the remainder of the suspended sentence. The court later issued an amendment to clarify the written judgment, aligning it with the oral ruling. 2. **Proposition II:** Appellant contends the full revocation of his suspended sentence was excessive, arguing that his violations were a result of indigence and lack of resources. The court's discretion in revoking a suspended sentence is established unless there is an abuse of discretion. Judge Butner found the violations were due to Appellant's lack of effort rather than financial difficulties, which was supported by evidence in the record. **Decision:** The order of the District Court of Seminole County revoking the remainder of Appellant's fifteen-year suspended sentence is AFFIRMED. The Mandate is ordered issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **ATTORNEYS:** - **ZACHARY L. PYRON** - **CHAD JOHNSON** (Appellate Defense Counsel) - **CHRISTOPHER G. ANDERSON** - **MIKE HUNTER** - **THEODORE M. PEEPER** (Assistant District Attorney / Attorney General of Oklahoma) **OPINION BY:** **KUEHN, V.P.J.** **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** --- [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-604_1734429602.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-604

RE-2018-1071

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOSE ANGEL LOPEZ, ) Appellant, ) V. ) No. RE-2018-1071 THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) Appellee.** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 26 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** *KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:* Appellant, Jose Angel Lopez, pled guilty to Count 1 - Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Intentional Discharge of a Firearm, a felony, and Count 2 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, a misdemeanor, in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2010-3550. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment for Count 1 and one year imprisonment for Count 2. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, with all but the first five years suspended. Following a one-year Judicial Review hearing, Appellant’s sentence for Count 1 was modified to three years to serve and seven years suspended. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence, alleging Appellant violated the terms of his suspended sentence by failing to pay supervision fees, failing to report as directed, and committing the new crime of Possession of CDS, as alleged in Lincoln County Case No. CF-2014-343. The application to revoke was later amended to further allege Appellant committed the new crimes of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Felon in Possession of a Firearm, as alleged in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2017-4230. Following a revocation hearing before the Hon. Glenn M. Jones, District Judge, Appellant's suspended sentence was revoked in full. Appellant appeals the revocation of his suspended sentences, raising a sole proposition of error: the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Appellant's sentence based entirely upon hearsay evidence with no particularized guarantee of reliability. We affirm the order of the District Court revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in full. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence, in whole or in part, is within the sound discretion of the trial court and such decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof. Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, 10, 306 P.3d 554, 557. An 'abuse of discretion' is defined by this Court as a 'clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented in support of and against the application.' Walker v. State, 1989 OK CR 65, 5, 780 P.2d 1181, 1183. Alleged violations of conditions of a suspended sentence need be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. Tilden, 2013 OK CR 10, 5, 306 P.3d at 556. Judge Jones determined that the State showed, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Appellant committed the new crimes alleged in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2017-4230. This decision was reached after reviewing the preliminary hearing's transcript from Case No. CF-2017-4230, in which the victim testified Appellant entered his yard and shot him while he was sitting on his front porch. This Court has held that neither the relaxed due process standards nor the provisions of Section 991b are violated when a transcript of a previous judicial hearing is admitted into evidence at a revocation hearing so long as the defendant was allowed to confront and cross-examine the witnesses at the previous judicial hearing. Wortham v. State, 2008 OK CR 18, 15, 188 P.3d 201, 206. A review of the preliminary hearing transcript shows that Appellant’s trial counsel, who also represented him at the revocation hearing, cross-examined the State's only witness. The testimony of a witness about his personal knowledge of the events, under oath and subject to cross-examination, is not hearsay. Appellant has not shown an abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The District Court's revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2010-3550 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE GLENN M. JONES, DISTRICT JUDGE** APPEARANCES AT HEARING: LYDIA FIELDS ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT TIFFANY NOBLE ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OKLAHOMA COUNTY COUNSEL FOR THE STATE MIKE HUNTER ATTORNEY GENERAL CAROLINE E.J. HUNT ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J.: LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: RECUSE 005 [Download the PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-1071_1734355190.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1071

RE-2018-855

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DAKOTA MICHAEL SHANE BELL, Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-855** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 26 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** ### SUMMARY OPINION **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant Dakota Michael Shane Bell appeals from the revocation of suspended sentences in Payne County District Court Case Nos. CF-2016-375 and CF-2016-952. He pleaded guilty on April 5, 2017, to Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony (Count 2) in Case No. CF-2016-375 and Unlawful Use of a Vehicle in Case No. CF-2016-952. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment in each case, with all but the first sixty days suspended, and the sentences ordered to be served concurrently. On January 22, 2018, the State filed motions to revoke these suspended sentences, citing several violations by Appellant, including failure to pay required fees, absconding from supervision, and failing to complete mandated evaluations. After a hearing, Judge Kistler allowed Appellant until May 16, 2018, to comply with the conditions. When he did not appear, a warrant was issued. On July 24, 2018, following further proceedings, the trial court revoked Appellant's remaining suspended sentence. A violation report submitted by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections indicated Appellant failed drug tests and several other requirements. On July 11, 2019, the State sought to supplement the record with an Amended Judgment and Sentence After Revocation, which was granted by the court. **Proposition I:** Appellant claims the revocation constituted an abuse of discretion based on his personal disadvantages. This argument is without merit, as a suspended sentence is a discretionary grace. The State must prove only one violation for revocation. Here, multiple violations were established, and Appellant received considerable leniency but failed to adhere to the conditions of his probation. Thus, no abuse of discretion is shown. **Proposition II:** Appellant asserts that the revocation order omitted credit for time served and mandated post-imprisonment supervision. This concern has been addressed by the filing of the amended revocation orders, rendering this proposition moot. ### DECISION The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Payne County District Court Case Nos. CF-2016-375 and CF-2016-952 is **AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is to be issued upon the filing of this decision. ### APPEARANCES - **For Appellant:** Virginia Banks, Ricki Walterscheid - **For Appellee:** Sierra Pfeiffer, Mike Hunter, Tessa Henry **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J.

Continue ReadingRE-2018-855

RE-2018-348

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In the case of Darrin Wayne Culley v. The State of Oklahoma, the Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the appellant's appeal from the partial revocation of his suspended sentence. Culley had initially entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of Child Abuse and was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment, which was suspended. However, after a motion to revoke his suspended sentence was filed due to new charges of Domestic Abuse, Culley stipulated to the allegations against him and accepted a plea agreement. Culley raised two main propositions of error in his appeal: 1. He argued that the revocation hearing violated his due process rights because his stipulation was not made knowingly and voluntarily. He claimed that he felt rushed and pressured into making his stipulation and that he had not been adequately informed about potential defenses to the allegations against him. 2. He contended that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, resulting in a poor decision to stipulate to the State's revocation application. The court addressed both propositions together. They noted that Culley did not claim that he was deprived of the minimum due process rights established in Morrissey v. Brewer but instead argued that counsel’s actions made his stipulation invalid. The court emphasized that the trial judge had thoroughly questioned Culley regarding his stipulation, confirming that he was acting voluntarily and understood the implications of his decision. The court concluded that his stipulation was indeed made knowingly and voluntarily. Regarding the claim of ineffective assistance, the court applied the Strickland v. Washington standard, which requires showing that the lawyer's performance was deficient and that this deficiency prejudiced the defendant. The court found that Culley did not establish that his counsel's performance was objectively unreasonable or that he was prejudiced by his representation. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the partial revocation of Culley's suspended sentence, finding no merit in his claims. The ruling highlights the importance of thorough questioning and confirmation by the court to ensure that a defendant's rights are protected during such proceedings.

Continue ReadingRE-2018-348

RE-2018-426

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CALVIN TAYLOR HERRIEN,** **Appellant,** **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-426** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 19 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Calvin Taylor Herrien, appeals from the revocation of four years of his twenty-five year suspended sentences in Case No. CF-2011-4693 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, presided over by the Honorable Cindy H. Truong. **Background:** On November 2, 2012, Appellant entered a guilty plea to two counts of Lewd Acts With a Child Under Sixteen, resulting in a twenty-five year sentence for each count, both suspended under specific probation conditions. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence on November 1, 2017, alleging Appellant violated probation by failing to reside in a lawfully approved residence and not truthfully answering inquiries from the DOC and law enforcement. A hearing commenced on November 21, 2017, where evidence was presented, including testimony from police chief Allen Lane, who testified regarding Appellant's residence proximity to a park and his notification to Appellant to relocate. Further testimony came from probation officer Daniel Straka, who reported Appellant's admission about the residence, discrepancies about probation requirements, and additional violations not included in the revocation application. Appellant testified on his own behalf, offering explanations but ultimately, after considering arguments, Judge Truong found that Appellant had committed the two breaches alleged in the application. Following a continuance, on December 1, 2017, Judge Truong revoked four years of the suspended sentence. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Inadequate Notice:** Appellant contends that the consideration of testimony regarding uncharged violations denied him adequate notice, which impeded his ability to prepare a defense. 2. **Right to Confront:** Appellant alleges deprivation of his right to confront witnesses and due process during the hearing. 3. **Excessive Sentence:** Appellant argues that the four-year revocation of his suspended sentence is excessive. **Analysis:** The evidence presented at the revocation proceedings clearly showed that Appellant violated the terms of his probation. Appellant does not contest the findings concerning the recognized violations. He does not argue that he was unaware of the specifics related to the alleged probation violations or that he lacked the opportunity to defend himself against those violations. In regards to Propositions I and II, while Appellant claims other violations were improperly admitted, the court's finding that he committed the alleged violations outlined in the application suffices to validate the revocation. Furthermore, due process entitles Appellant to argue mitigating circumstances, which was provided by Judge Truong. Concerning Proposition III, revocation decisions are primarily at the discretion of the trial court and will only be overturned in cases of demonstrable abuse of that discretion. Appellant has not shown that the four-year revocation was disproportionate relative to the violations committed. **Decision:** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking four years of Appellant's twenty-five year suspended sentences in Case No. CF-2011-4693 is **AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the **MANDATE is ORDERED** to be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **Appearances:** **For Appellant:** Joshua C. Smith Attorney at Law 217 N. Harvey, Ste. 108 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **For Appellee:** Ryan P. Stephenson Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma County 320 Robert S. Kerr, Ste. 505 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **CONCUR IN RESULTS:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. *Click Here To Download PDF*

Continue ReadingRE-2018-426