Trial Court Discretion Archives

RE-2019-155

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 13, 2020
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MICHELLE MARIE MESPLAY,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2019-155** **FILED** IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA FEB 13 2020 **JOHN D. HADDEN** CLERK --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant Michelle Marie Mesplay appeals from the revocation of her suspended sentences in Ottawa County District Court Case No. CF-2015-134. On October 2, 2015, Appellant entered a plea of no contest to Child Neglect under 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(C). The trial court accepted her plea, withheld a finding of guilt, and delayed proceedings for ten years. On December 23, 2016, the State filed an Application to Accelerate Deferred Judgment, to which Appellant stipulated. The court then accelerated her deferred sentence to a conviction, sentencing her to ten years imprisonment with all ten years suspended. On May 3, 2018, the State moved to revoke the suspended sentence, citing failures to pay supervision fees and court costs, continued methamphetamine use, repeated failures to report, and unknown whereabouts. Appellant stipulated to the motion, and the Honorable Robert Haney revoked seven and a half years of her remaining ten-year suspended sentence. Appellant contends this revocation was excessive and claims an abuse of discretion regarding the length of the revocation. The court's decision to revoke is grounded in the understanding that a suspended sentence is a matter of grace (Demry v. State, 1999 OK CR 31, I 12, 986 P.2d 1145, 1147). The State must demonstrate only one violation of probation to revoke a suspended sentence in full (Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, I 10, 306 P.3d 554, 557). In this case, Appellant’s stipulation to violating the terms of her suspended sentence validates the trial court’s revocation decision. The trial court’s discretion in revocations remains crucial, and disturbances to this discretion are reserved for clear abuse (Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, I 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565). Evidence presented to justify the revocation aligned with statutory requirements (22 O.S.Supp.2018, § 991b(A)), and Appellant has not substantiated any claim of abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Ottawa County District Court Case No. CF-2015-134 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2020), MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** **ANDREW MELOY** – Counsel for Defendant **MARK HOOVER** – Counsel for Appellant **ROGER HUGHES**, **MIKE HUNTER** – Counsel for Appellee **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR --- For the complete opinion in PDF format, [click here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2019-155_1734334834-1.pdf).

F-2018-888

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 6, 2020
Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma regarding the appeal of Justin William Dunlap, who was convicted of First Degree Rape by Instrumentation of a Victim under the Age of Fourteen and sentenced to ten years in prison. Dunlap raised multiple propositions of error in his appeal, including claims of insufficient waiver of a jury trial, challenges to the credibility of the victim's testimony, allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, excessive sentencing, and inadequate defense representation, among others. The court considered each proposition in detail: 1. **Waiver of Jury Trial**: The court found that Dunlap's waiver was knowing and voluntary, supported by a written waiver signed by all necessary parties. 2. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: The court analyzed the testimony of the victim (D.H.) and found it sufficient to support the conviction, affirming that the evidence met the necessary legal standard. 3. **Prosecutorial Misconduct**: The court concluded there was no misconduct that affected the trial's fairness, finding that the prosecutor's comments did not misstate the evidence or improperly comment on Dunlap's failure to testify. 4. **Excessive Sentencing**: The court determined that the sentence was within statutory guidelines and did not shock the conscience given the serious nature of the crime. 5. **Right to Present a Defense**: The court upheld the trial court's decision to exclude certain evidence, finding no abuse of discretion in limiting what could be presented as a defense. 6. **Speedy Trial**: The court found no violation of Dunlap's right to a speedy trial, noting delays were justified and not solely attributable to the prosecution. 7. **Competency Evaluation**: The court ruled that since Dunlap did not request an evaluation and provided no evidence to support his claims, this argument was unmeritorious. 8. **Conflict of Interest**: The argument regarding conflicting interests between attorneys was found to lack merit as Dunlap did not demonstrate how this negatively impacted his defense. 9. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: The court scrutinized claims of ineffective assistance, applying the Strickland standard, and found that Dunlap did not demonstrate that any alleged deficiencies affected the trial's outcome. 10. **Cumulative Error**: The court dismissed this claim as there were no individual errors that would warrant a new trial. The court affirmed the judgment and sentence, upholding the findings of the lower court and denying Dunlap's requested evidentiary hearing related to ineffective assistance of counsel. Additionally, a concurring opinion emphasized the handling of extra-record materials submitted by Dunlap, noting the importance of adhering to established procedural rules and advocating for more careful consideration of supplementary materials going forward. In summary, the appeal was denied, and the conviction stands as affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

RE-2019-42

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 30, 2020
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.

F-2018-1046

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

**Summary of the Case:** In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, Adam Russell Hemphill, Sr. was convicted by a jury of Child Neglect. He was sentenced to twenty-five years' imprisonment. Hemphill raised two issues on appeal: (1) allegations of prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments and (2) the trial court's admission of evidence regarding his prior drug use. **Issues Presented:** 1. **Prosecutorial Misconduct:** - Hemphill argued that prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument prejudiced his right to a fair trial, primarily due to the prosecutor's references to his past marijuana use and comments regarding uncharged crimes. - The Court found that although some remarks made by the prosecutor were questionable, they did not rise to the level of affecting Hemphill's substantial rights or rendering the trial fundamentally unfair. The absence of objection to most comments and the strength of the evidence against Hemphill contributed to this conclusion. 2. **Admission of Evidence:** - Hemphill contested the introduction of evidence regarding his past marijuana use, asserting it was irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence of bad acts. - Although the Court agreed that the evidence was not relevant to the case and constituted an error in its admission, it ultimately concluded that the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of Hemphill's guilt. **Decision:** The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence, determining that Hemphill was not entitled to relief on either of his claims. **Concurrences:** Judge Hudson concurred in the results but disagreed with the majority regarding the prosecutor's cross-examination about marijuana use. He believed the admission of this testimony did not constitute an abuse of discretion and was relevant to Hemphill's claims about his financial situation. --- For full details and legal citations, refer to the complete decision linked above.

F-2018-136

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 2, 2020
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-136, Michael Emmanuel Ishman appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Possession of a Firearm After Former Felony Conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Ishman's conviction and sentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Ishman who was trialed and convicted by a jury. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for each count, with all sentences running consecutively. Ishman raised several arguments in his appeal regarding the evidence presented, jury instructions, and the conduct of his trial. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for robbery and determined that the witness's corroboration was not required as she was not considered an accomplice. The court also addressed claims of instructional errors regarding the punishment range for firearm possession, finding that the errors were harmless because the jury recommended the maximum sentence. Moreover, the court dismissed claims about the introduction of evidence of other bad acts and the failure to instruct the jury on lesser offenses. The court determined that defense counsel performed adequately, stating that there was no evidence that any of the claimed errors affected the trial's outcome. The court summarized that the jury's recommendation of life sentences was appropriate given the circumstances of the case, and affirmed all judgments made by the trial court. Overall, the court did not find sufficient grounds for relief based on Ishman's claims and decided to uphold the conviction and sentencing.

F-2017-1215

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 5, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1215, Ganey Marques Fairley appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury and Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Fairley’s convictions but remanded the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Fairley was found guilty of abusing a child and neglecting them. The trial took place in Tulsa County, where the jury gave Fairley a long sentence. Fairley's appeal brought up several concerns about how the trial was conducted, particularly pointing out that the prosecutor acted inappropriately. The first issue was about the prosecutor’s behavior during the trial, which Fairley claimed made it impossible for him to have a fair trial. He believed the prosecutor mentioned past abuse claims related to him when questioning an expert witness and kept bringing it up during her closing statements. Fairley argued that this made the jury think he was guilty of past actions instead of focusing on the current case. The court found that the way the prosecutor questioned the expert did indeed go too far and included too much information that shouldn’t have been brought to the jury's attention. They agreed that this could have influenced the jury's decision and may have negatively affected the fairness of the trial. While the court believed that the evidence against Fairley was strong enough to still call him guilty, they recognized that the prosecutor's actions had created an unfair situation, especially during the part where the jury decided on the punishment. In conclusion, the court decided they would keep Fairley’s guilty verdict but would send the case back to be resentenced, as they felt the previous sentencing might have been tainted by the improper actions of the prosecutor. The dissenting judge thought that if the prosecutor's behavior was indeed so wrong, it should affect the conviction itself, not just the sentence.

F-2017-171

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 21, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-171, #William Hunter Magness appealed his conviction for #First Degree Child-Abuse Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to affirm his conviction and sentence. #One judge dissented. William Hunter Magness was found guilty by a jury for causing the death of his 22-month-old son, T.G. The incident happened on November 11, 2013, when T.G. was returned to Magness after spending the day with a friend. Shortly after T.G. returned, Magness called for help because T.G. was in distress. When emergency responders arrived, T.G. had multiple injuries, including bruises and a serious head injury. Tragically, T.G. died a few days later due to severe brain swelling from a large hematoma. During the trial, it was argued that Magness had intentionally harmed T.G., while the defense pointed to possible accidents that could explain the child’s injuries. Medical experts testified about the nature of T.G.'s injuries, and the key issues were whether the injuries were caused accidentally or intentionally. There were disagreements among the experts about the timing and cause of the injuries. Magness raised several arguments in his appeal. He claimed that the state did not prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was not given the proper tools to defend himself, and that important evidence was wrongly excluded. He also asserted prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of his attorneys. The court reviewed these claims and found that there was enough evidence for a reasonable juror to decide that Magness was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They concluded that the trial court had not denied him essential rights or that any errors made did not significantly affect the outcome of the trial. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction and sentence, stating that Magness would have to serve a significant portion of his life sentence before being eligible for parole.

F-2018-198

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 14, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-198, Ann Sykes appealed her conviction for Abuse by Caretaker (Neglect) and Abuse by Caretaker (Financial Exploitation). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Ann Sykes was found guilty of two types of abuse against her son, who is a vulnerable adult. The first conviction was for not providing him with basic needs like food and shelter. The second conviction was for mishandling his money. The court sentenced her to eight years in prison but suspended three years, meaning she would only serve five years in custody. Appellant raised several problems with the trial process. She claimed that hearsay evidence, which is when someone repeats what another person said outside of court, was used against her unfairly. However, the court found that much of the evidence was not considered hearsay because it was not meant to prove the truth of the statements, and any hearsay that was improperly admitted didn't impact the trial's outcome. Sykes also argued that witnesses were allowed to testify without personal knowledge of the information they shared. The court disagreed, stating that witnesses had information based on their own experiences or observations. Another point of appeal was about whether the trial court made mistakes by letting certain opinions into evidence. A social worker testified about how not getting enough nutrition could affect someone's mental state. The court decided that the social worker was qualified to give that information based on her experience. Sykes claimed her two convictions meant she was being punished twice for the same actions, which is called double punishment. The court found that the actions leading to the two charges were different enough to allow both charges to stand without violating the law. She also believed that the charges against her were not clearly stated in the official documents, but the court noted that she didn’t raise this issue during the trial, so it wasn’t considered on appeal. Another argument was that she was denied a right to have a lawyer appointed to help her during the trial. The court found that although there was a lack of a hearing on this, Sykes did have a lawyer who represented her during the trial. Sykes claimed her lawyer did not do a good enough job. The court noted that for a claim like this, Sykes needed to show both that her lawyer did not perform well and that this affected the trial's outcome. The court did not find evidence that the lawyer's actions changed the trial's result. Lastly, Sykes claimed that even with the errors made during her trial, they did not add up to deny her a fair trial overall. The court agreed, concluding that the errors did not require the reversal of her conviction. Overall, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence, meaning Sykes will continue to serve the time given by the lower court. The application to further review her claims about lawyer effectiveness was denied as well.

F-2018-1020

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 31, 2019
Post category:F

The document is an opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the case of Renese Bramlett, who was convicted of First Degree Murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The case summary includes the following key points: 1. **Background**: Bramlett's original conviction was affirmed, but his sentence was vacated, leading to a resentencing trial where the same life without parole sentence was imposed again. 2. **Appeal Issues**: Bramlett raised three main issues on appeal: - Alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. - Denial of due process due to the introduction of his prior felony convictions while being unable to present mitigating evidence. - A claim that the sentencing process should have been modified rather than remanded for resentencing. 3. **Court's Findings**: - **Prosecutorial Misconduct**: The Court found that the prosecutor's comments did not constitute inappropriate appeals to sympathy but were instead proper comments on the evidence. No relief was warranted. - **Due Process Concerns**: The Court upheld the procedure established by Oklahoma statute, which allows the State to introduce evidence of prior felony convictions without permitting the defendant to present mitigating evidence. The statutory framework was deemed to meet due process requirements. - **Remand vs. Modification**: The Court rejected Bramlett's argument that a modification of sentence was warranted. It ruled that the resentencing procedure did not disadvantage him, and there were no legal errors that warranted a modification of the sentence. 4. **Conclusion**: The Court affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court, confirming that the procedures followed during resentencing were consistent with due process and statutory law. The opinion also includes concurring opinions from Judges Lewis and Kuehn, who noted specific interpretations of the law regarding sentencing in noncapital cases. In summary, the Court's decision reinforces the legal standards governing the introduction of evidence during sentencing in noncapital murder cases and the limits on presenting mitigating evidence in light of prior felony convictions.

F-2018-624

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 3, 2019
Post category:F

**Case Summary: Bryon Lynd Gordon v. The State of Oklahoma** **Court:** Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals **Case No.:** F-2018-624 **Date Filed:** October 3, 2019 **Judges:** Lumpkin (Majority Opinion), Lewis (Partial Concurrence and Dissent), Kuehn (Partial Concurrence and Dissent) **Background:** Bryon Lynd Gordon was convicted by a jury in the District Court of Bryan County for Forcible Oral Sodomy (Count 1), and the jury recommended a ten-year prison sentence. Gordon appealed the conviction, raising several points of error relating to the trial proceedings. **Key Propositions Raised on Appeal:** 1. **Competency of Witness:** Gordon argued the trial court abused its discretion by ruling the alleged victim, R.S., competent to testify without an inquiry into his ability to distinguish between truth and fiction. The court found that R.S. demonstrated competency and the ruling was not an abuse of discretion. 2. **Preliminary Hearing Testimony:** Gordon contended that the magistrate abused discretion by allowing R.S. to testify at the preliminary hearing without confirming his competency. However, the court ruled that the failure to file a motion to quash before trial waived this claim. 3. **Admission of Hearsay Evidence:** Gordon claimed that the trial court erred by admitting unreliable hearsay statements made by R.S. without a required reliability hearing. The court recognized the error but deemed it harmless, asserting that the statements were inherently trustworthy based on available evidence. 4. **Sufficiency of Evidence:** Gordon argued that R.S.’s testimony was inconsistent and required corroboration. The court ruled that the victim's testimony was sufficient to sustain the conviction without the need for corroboration as the testimony was clear and coherent regarding the acts committed. 5. **Jury Instructions:** Gordon contended that the jury should have been instructed on how to handle R.S.’s prior inconsistent statements. The court found this omission did not affect the outcome of the trial. 6. **Vouching for Credibility:** Gordon argued that a witness, Palmore, impermissibly vouched for R.S.’s credibility. The court acknowledged this was error but did not rise to the level of plain error as it did not affect the trial's outcome. 7. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Gordon claimed his counsel failed to request certain jury instructions and did not object to Palmore's testimony. The court found no basis for an ineffective assistance claim as Gordon failed to show a reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different with better representation. 8. **Cumulative Errors:** Gordon finally argued that the accumulation of errors deprived him of a fair trial. The court concluded that since the individual errors were found to be harmless, their cumulative effect did not warrant relief. **Decision:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence of the trial court, stating that after reviewing the entire record, no reversible errors were found that affected Gordon's substantial rights. **Outcome:** Judgment and sentence affirmed. **Dissenting Opinions:** Judges Lewis and Kuehn provided partial dissent regarding the handling of preliminary hearing procedures and the application of plain error review, suggesting that certain errors and the lack of timely objections should still be considered under principles of fairness and justice. For the full opinion, you can [download the PDF here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-624_1735226692.pdf).

RE-2018-426

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 19, 2019
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*

F-2018-194

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 12, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-194, the appellant appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child under twelve and child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. The appellant, William Harold Pittman, was convicted by a jury for serious crimes against children. The jury gave him a punishment of thirty years in prison for each crime, and both sentences were meant to be served one after the other. The judge who oversaw the trial also ordered the appellant to pay various costs and fees. Pittman appealed his conviction, claiming that the trial court made a mistake by allowing expert testimony about something called the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS). He argued that this evidence was not relevant and should not have been allowed, saying it was not proven to be reliable. The court explained that the decision to allow expert evidence is usually up to the trial judge. If a specific objection is made during the trial, then the appeal cannot rely on a different argument later. Pittman did not object during the trial to the CSAAS evidence based on its relevance or reliability, which made his chance for appeal more difficult. To win an appeal based on a plain error, the appellant needs to show three things: that there was a real error, that it was obvious, and that the error affected the case's outcome. The court found that Pittman could not prove any such errors in this case. The court stated that previously, CSAAS had been accepted as reliable evidence in prior cases. This evidence can help explain why some children might take a long time to talk about the abuse or might change their statements after initially making claims. In this case, the court confirmed that the CSAAS evidence was relevant to the victim's delay in talking about the abuse. Pittman also claimed that there wasn't enough data to prove CSAAS was reliable and asked the court to reconsider accepting it as reliable evidence. However, the court refused to change its stance, stating that it would not revisit this issue. Lastly, Pittman argued that the CSAAS testimony was too supportive of the victim's story and could not be considered harmless. The court pointed out that this evidence was permissible because it only served to support what the victim and other witnesses testified about. The court ultimately found no errors in the trial regarding the way CSAAS evidence was handled, and therefore affirmed the judgments and sentences against Pittman.

RE-2018-484

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 29, 2019
Post category:RE

**In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case No. RE-2018-484** **Summary Opinion** **Appellant:** Orville Tabe Keith, Jr. **Appellee:** The State of Oklahoma **Judge Hudson:** Orville Tabe Keith, Jr. appeals the revocation of his concurrent twelve-year suspended sentences following a revocation hearing where the State alleged that he violated probation by committing Manslaughter in the First Degree. **Background:** On March 5, 2009, Appellant pled guilty to two counts of Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon. He was sentenced to twelve years on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently and suspended under specific probation conditions. The State filed a Motion to Revoke on March 23, 2017, based on allegations that Appellant committed Manslaughter in connection with the death of Brandon Martinez during an altercation on June 27, 2015. Evidence presented included DNA matching Appellant to items found at the crime scene and testimony from a neighbor, Donna Underwood, who claimed Appellant admitted to killing Martinez. **Revocation Hearing:** The revocation hearing took place on May 1, 2018. The court reviewed evidence including: - DNA analysis linking Appellant to the crime scene. - Testimony from Underwood about Appellant’s self-incriminating statements. Judge Fry found that Appellant violated his probation conditions, leading to a full revocation of his suspended sentences. **Appellant's Argument:** Keith appeals on the grounds that the evidence presented was insufficient to justify the revocation of his suspended sentences. He challenges the credibility of Underwood's testimony and suggests that another individual, Paul Anderson, may have committed the homicide. **Analysis:** Oklahoma law requires that alleged violations of probation conditions be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The appeals court found that Underwood's testimony and the DNA evidence were adequate for a rational trier of fact to conclude that Appellant had violated the terms of his probation. **Decision:** The court affirmed the trial court's decision to revoke Appellant's concurrent twelve-year suspended sentences, concluding there was no abuse of discretion in Judge Fry's ruling. **Order:** The order of the District Court of LeFlore County is **AFFIRMED**. **Opinion by**: HUDSON, J. **Concurrences by**: LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J. --- For further details, you can [**download the PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-484_1734542820.pdf).

F-2018-290

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 15, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-290, John Wesley Hart appealed his conviction for child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentences. One judge dissented. John Wesley Hart was found guilty by a jury on three counts of child sexual abuse that happened at different times. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, which means he will serve a total of sixty years. As part of the appeal, Hart argued that the jury did not receive proper instructions about what constitutes child sexual abuse, which he claimed violated his rights. Specifically, he believed the jury instructions on the definitions of lewd or indecent acts were confusing and could have led to non-unanimous verdicts. The court explained that the trial judge did instruct the jury correctly on the law and the acts that led to Hart's conviction. The judge pointed out that the acts Hart committed were clearly defined and separated by time, which meant they did not violate double jeopardy rights. The court also determined that it is not necessary for the jury to agree on every specific act as long as they are all considered part of the same crime of child sexual abuse. Hart also challenged the length of his sentence, claiming it was too harsh. However, the court noted that his sentences were justified based on the facts of the case and were within the limits of the law. The trial court had the discretion to make the sentences run one after another instead of at the same time, and the Court of Criminal Appeals found that there was no mistake in this decision. In conclusion, the court upheld Hart's conviction and the sentences given in the trial court.

F-2018-284

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 11, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-284, Carl Wayne Gundrum, Jr. appealed his conviction for first-degree rape and lewd acts with a child under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Gundrum was found guilty by a jury in Cleveland County and received a 30-year sentence for the rape and a 20-year sentence for the lewd acts. Both sentences are to be served consecutively, meaning he must serve them one after the other. Before the appeal, he argued several things regarding his trial. First, he claimed that his right to a speedy trial was violated because there was a delay of about 21 months from his arrest to the trial. The court looked at four things to decide if his right was violated: how long the delay was, why it happened, whether he asked for a speedy trial, and whether he was hurt by the delay. The court found that the delay was not enough to violate his speedy trial rights. Second, Gundrum argued that the court made a mistake by allowing evidence of another child molestation case to be shown in his trial. His lawyer objected to this evidence being used, and the court said that it was appropriately admitted, so they found no error here. Third, Gundrum claimed there was bad behavior from the prosecutors that made his trial unfair. Many of these actions were not objected to during the trial, so the court only looked at the ones that were considered plain errors. They decided that the prosecutor's actions did not change the outcome of the trial significantly enough to cause an unfair result. Fourth, he argued that his lawyer did not do a good job by not objecting to the prosecutor's misconduct. The court reviewed this situation and found that Gundrum could not prove that he was harmed by this lack of action, so his claim did not work out. Finally, Gundrum sought relief by stating that all these errors together made his trial unfair. However, since the court found no individual errors, they concluded that there could not be an accumulation of errors either. In the end, the court affirmed Gundrum's conviction and stated that he must serve a significant portion of his sentences before he could be considered for parole.

F-2018-391

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 20, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-391, Zachary Troy King appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Zachary Troy King was found guilty by a jury in a case where he was accused of injuring a child. The jury decided that he had caused harm to the child, and he was sentenced to twenty years in prison, with the first fifteen years needing to be served. King argued four main points in his appeal. First, King said that the evidence presented in his trial was not strong enough to prove he committed child abuse. He claimed that the injuries to the child were not clearly caused by him, and he thought the jury should not have convicted him. However, the court believed that there was enough evidence for any reasonable person to conclude that King did injure the child. Second, King claimed that the judge made a mistake by not allowing a mistrial after the prosecution introduced certain evidence. He argued that this evidence was not important or added to the case in a meaningful way. Yet, the court felt that the testimony included by the prosecution was relevant to proving injuries were intentionally inflicted rather than accidental. Third, King accused the prosecutor of acting unfairly during the trial, which made it hard for him to get a fair trial. The court reviewed the prosecutors' actions and felt there were no significant errors that would have impacted the trial's fairness. Lastly, King argued that the collection of mistakes in his trial added up to take away his right to a fair hearing. But, since the court did not find any errors that would require a reversal of the conviction, the claim was also denied. In conclusion, the court upheld the jury's decision and the trial judge's actions, stating that King received a fair trial and that there was enough evidence to support the conviction. The judgment from the trial court was confirmed, and King will continue to serve his sentence.

C-2018-685

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 6, 2019
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ORIE DANIEL HILL,** **Petitioner,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-685** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: **Background:** Orie Daniel Hill, Petitioner, entered a blind plea of nolo contendere to multiple charges including: first-degree rape (victim under age fourteen), rape by instrumentation, lewd or indecent acts to a child under sixteen, and child sexual abuse. The trial court sentenced him to thirty years imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently and mandated three years of post-imprisonment supervision. Hill later filed a motion to withdraw his plea, claiming it was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. **Issues Raised:** 1. The trial court abused its discretion in denying Hill's motion to withdraw his plea; 2. Hill was denied effective assistance of counsel. **Facts:** The case involved allegations against Hill related to inappropriate sexual behavior towards an 8-year-old girl, A.H. The investigation included statements from the victim and forensic evidence, including DNA linking Hill to the offenses. **Analysis:** The court's review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently, whether the sentence was excessive, and whether counsel was effective. The burden is on Hill to demonstrate that his counsel was ineffective or that he did not fully understand the plea agreement. 1. **Proposition One:** The court concluded that Hill knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his plea. He was informed of his rights and the potential consequences. Despite Hill's claim of feeling pressure and receiving poor legal advice, the court found no evidence supporting these assertions. 2. **Proposition Two:** Hill’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel did not meet the standard established in Strickland v. Washington, which requires showing both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. The court ruled that counsel’s advice was sound and appropriately reflected the realities of the situation, including the potential for harsher sentences if the case went to trial. **Conclusion:** The petition for a writ of certiorari is DENIED, and the judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. **MANDATE:** Ordered issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES:** - **For Appellant:** David R. Slane; Nicollette Brandt - **For the State:** Chris Anderson, Assistant District Attorney **OPINION BY:** Lewis, P.J. **Concur:** Kuehn, V.P.J.; Lumpkin, J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-685_1734175737.pdf)

C-2018-927

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2019
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SAHIB QUIETMAN HENDERSON,** **Petitioner,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-927** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 30, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Sahib Quietman Henderson entered a blind plea of guilty to Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance within 2,000 feet of a School in the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CF-2016-393. The plea was accepted by the Honorable Ken J. Graham, District Judge, on April 30, 2018, with sentencing delayed until July 25, 2018. On that date, Petitioner was sentenced to thirty (30) years in prison, with the first fifteen (15) years to be served and the remaining fifteen (15) years suspended, alongside a fine of $2,500.00. On August 2, 2018, represented by counsel, Petitioner filed an Application to Withdraw Plea of Guilty. At hearings on August 20 and 22, 2018, Judge Graham denied the motion to withdraw. Petitioner appeals the denial and raises the following propositions of error: 1. Failure of the State and District Court to honor the promised consideration for Appellant's plea requires modification of his inflated sentence, or an opportunity to withdraw his plea. 2. The sentence is shockingly excessive given the circumstances of the case. 3. Ineffective assistance of counsel in identifying, presenting, and preserving issues for review. After thorough review of these propositions and the entirety of the record, including original record, transcripts, and briefs, we find that neither reversal nor modification is required. Our primary concern in evaluating the validity of a guilty plea is whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently. Petitioner carries the burden of proving his plea was entered unadvisedly, through influence, or without deliberation. Voluntariness is assessed through the entire record. In **Proposition I**, Petitioner claims that the plea lacked a knowing and voluntary nature due to non-fulfillment of a promise that he would be sentenced as a first-time offender and because of purported drug buys by his wife reducing his sentence. Contrary to this argument, the record shows Petitioner was treated as a first-time offender, with the court considering the mitigating factors at sentencing. His dissatisfaction with the resulting sentence does not provide grounds for withdrawal of the plea. In **Proposition II**, Petitioner contends the sentence is excessive. However, as he did not raise this claim in his Application to Withdraw Guilty Plea to the trial court, it is waived on appeal. In **Proposition III**, Petitioner argues ineffective assistance of counsel during both the plea and withdrawal hearings. A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is only established by showing that counsel's performance was deficient and that it resulted in prejudice to the defendant. The record does not support that withdrawal counsel's performance was deficient or that it affected the outcome—Petitioner maintained he did not wish to withdraw his plea but rather sought a sentence modification. **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, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon this decision. --- **APPEARANCES IN DISTRICT COURT:** Grant D. Shepherd 601 S.W. C Ave., Ste. 201 Lawton, OK 73501 Counsel for the Defense **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** Kimberly D. Heinze P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 Counsel for Petitioner at the Plea Hearing Ronald L. Williams P.O. Box 2095 Lawton, OK 73502 Counsel for the Defense at the Withdrawal Hearing Jason M. Hicks District Attorney Cortnie Siess & Greg Steward Assistant District Attorneys Stephens Co. Courthouse 101 S. 11th St., Duncan, OK 73533 Counsel for the State **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur --- [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-927_1734182885.pdf)

F-2018-56

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-56, Garry Wayne Wilson appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Possession of a Firearm While Under Supervision of the Department of Corrections. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. No one dissented. Garry Wayne Wilson was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County. He faced two charges: killing someone and having a gun when he wasn’t supposed to. The jury decided he should spend his life in prison for the murder and ten years for the gun charge, with both sentences running one after the other. Wilson raised several problems about his trial that he believed made it unfair. He thought the court made mistakes, such as changing the charges against him in a way that hurt his defense, not telling the jury the right instructions, allowing too many pictures of the victim that were too much to see, and that the prosecutor did things wrong during the trial. He also believed his lawyer didn’t help him enough. The court looked closely at Wilson’s complaints. First, they found that the change in the charges was allowed because it didn’t really change what he was being accused of. It was fair to change it based on the evidence that came out during the trial. Next, regarding jury instructions, the judges said they were given correctly. Even though Wilson claimed he should have received specific instructions about being angry, the judges said that because Wilson denied shooting the victim, he didn’t qualify for those instructions. Also, the jury did get to hear about similar lesser charges, which gave them options. About the photos shown in court, the judges found they were important for showing what happened to the victim. Even if there were many pictures, they all served a purpose and were not too repetitive. Regarding the claims of the prosecutor acting inappropriately, the court said that, despite Wilson's worries, the issues did not make the trial unfair. The judges assessed all the prosecutor's actions as a whole to decide if they were serious problems. They concluded that they were not. Wilson also said his lawyer didn’t do a good job. However, the judges commented that legal representatives have a wide range of actions they can take, and it’s not easy to prove they didn’t do their job well. They didn’t find any significant mistakes made by the lawyer that harmed Wilson’s case. Lastly, Wilson argued that all these issues combined made his trial unfair. The judges disagreed and said that since they found none of his claims were valid, there were no combined errors that would change the outcome either. In summary, the court affirmed Wilson's conviction and sentence. They found no significant errors that would merit a new trial or a change in his punishment. The case concluded with the jury's decision being upheld.

F-2018-119

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-119, Arthur Tequon Hill, Jr. appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm, Kidnapping, and Gang Association. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. No one dissented. Arthur Tequon Hill, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for several serious crimes. The jury decided he should go to prison for 25 years for robbery, 20 years for kidnapping, and 5 years for gang association. The court said he must serve these sentences one after the other. Hill made several arguments in his appeal. First, he suggested that there wasn’t enough evidence to support his conviction and that the case should be dismissed. However, the court found that there was enough evidence for a reasonable person to believe he was guilty, so this argument was rejected. Second, Hill argued that the court should not have allowed the jury to hear about other robberies he was involved in just days before this crime. The court ruled that this evidence was permissible because it showed similarities between the robberies and helped prove his identity in this case. Third, he claimed the court made a mistake by letting the jury separate after they finished hearing the case, which he said could lead to unfair influence. The State agreed this was an error but said it wasn't harmful. The court concluded the jurors followed instructions not to talk about the case while they were apart, so this did not harm Hill’s case. Lastly, Hill argued that evidence about his gang membership was presented in a way that was too unfair and made his trial less fair. The court disagreed and stated that the evidence was important to the case. They believed it helped confirm his involvement in the robbery. In the end, the court found no reasons to change Hill's conviction or punishment. The decision to affirm his sentencing was based on thorough review of all the points made in his appeal and the evidence presented during the trial.

F-2017-863

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-863, Joe Zacharias Harp appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Harp was found guilty of Child Sexual Abuse in a trial that did not involve a jury. The judge sentenced him to thirty years in prison and three years of post-imprisonment supervision. He raised five main points in his appeal. First, he argued that he should not have been tried after entering a no contest plea because jeopardy should have attached at that moment. However, the court found that he did not show that an error occurred in this area. Since he went ahead with the trial without raising the issue, the court ruled he had waived this point. Second, Harp claimed that the court wrongly allowed certain statements made by the victim to be used as evidence without first holding a reliability hearing. The court acknowledged that he had not disagreed with this at trial but concluded that the statements were reliable enough and that the error did not affect Harp's rights in any significant way. For the third point, Harp said that the victim's testimony was too vague and unbelievable and that it needed support from other evidence to count as valid. The court disagreed, stating that the victim's testimony was consistent and made sense, thus supporting a conviction without needing corroboration. The fourth point was about his lawyer not properly supporting his plea and rights during the trial. The court stated Harp did not meet the requirements to prove that his lawyer had failed in their duty. Lastly, Harp mentioned that the errors in his trial added up to unfair treatment, but the court ruled against this claim as well, finding no significant cumulative error. In conclusion, the court affirmed the original judgment and Harp's sentence.

F-2018-384

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-384, Jimmy Dean Coke, Jr. appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property and Obstructing an Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Jimmy Dean Coke, Jr. was convicted of two crimes. The first was knowing concealment of stolen property, and the second was obstructing an officer. The court sentenced him to twenty-five years for the first charge and one year for the second, and he also had to pay fines. Coke argued that the proof against him was not strong enough. He believed there was not enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt for either charge. However, the court reviewed the evidence in a way that favored the state. This meant they looked for any reasonable way a jury could have found him guilty. They decided there was enough evidence to support both convictions. Coke also claimed the trial court didn’t tell the jury about the value of the stolen property, which he thought was a mistake. For a charge of concealing stolen property to be a felony, the property must be worth $1,000 or more. Although the judge did not instruct the jury about this value, they still found that the property was worth $1,500 based on testimony, so the court determined that the omission was harmless. Coke left the courthouse during the jury's deliberation. The jury reached a verdict, and he was not there. Coke argued that he had the right to be present during this critical time. The court decided that because Coke chose to leave, he waived his right to be there, and the judge acted correctly by continuing without him. Coke believed that the prosecutor’s arguments were unfair and made it hard for him to have a fair trial. They reviewed the claims of misconduct and found that some were not objected to during the trial; therefore, they could only check for obvious errors. The court found minimal misconduct and did not feel it affected his trial's fairness. He also felt that he was not treated fairly by the judge. However, the court believed the evidence did not show that the judge was biased against him. The decisions made during the trial were consistent with legal practices. Coke said the judge gave him fines even though the jury did not decide on fines. The court agreed that the judge could impose fines even if the jury did not because the law allows it. Coke claimed that his lawyer did not do a good job and that this hurt his chance for a fair trial. The court found that since there were no significant mistakes made, the claims for ineffective counsel did not hold. Coke lastly argued that even if no single mistake was significant enough to reverse the decision, the total of all mistakes could warrant a new trial. The court decided that since they did not find any errors, this claim was also denied. In conclusion, the court affirmed the original decision, meaning Coke would remain convicted and serve his sentences as decided by the original trial.

F-2018-243

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-243, Ivan Luna-Gonzales appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. The case involved a serious incident where Luna-Gonzales attacked the mother of his child with a two-by-four, causing her significant injuries that required medical treatment. After the attack, he attempted to escape but was later found by the police. At the trial, Luna-Gonzales denied the assault and tried to claim that the victim had hurt herself. However, the evidence presented showed otherwise. A central issue in the appeal was whether Luna-Gonzales should receive credit for the time he spent in jail while awaiting his trial. He argued that the trial court made a mistake by not giving him this credit. The relevant law states that certain credits for time served apply but focus on time after sentencing—not while someone is waiting for their trial. The court explained that the statute referenced by Luna-Gonzales did not apply to the time he spent in jail before his judgment and sentence. Instead, it was meant to address the time inmates spend in jail after sentencing. The court emphasized that the trial judge has the discretion to decide on jail credit, which is not automatically given. In Luna-Gonzales’s case, the court found no fault with the trial court's decision. His longer time in jail was largely due to an immigration hold, which prevented his release. The court also noted that he did not cooperate with a required investigation before sentencing. Therefore, the court concluded that the trial court acted within its rights, and the appeal was denied. Ultimately, the judgment from the Payne County District Court was upheld, meaning Luna-Gonzales would serve his sentence without the additional jail credits he sought.

S-2018-229

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:S

**Summary of Case: State of Oklahoma v. Brittney Jo Wallace, 2019 OK CR 10** **Court**: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma **Case No.**: S-2018-229 **Date Filed**: May 23, 2019 ### Background: Brittney Jo Wallace was charged in the District Court of Rogers County with two counts of Enabling Child Abuse and one count of Child Neglect. A pretrial hearing was held regarding her motion to suppress evidence obtained from her cell phone, which was granted by the trial court. ### Key Points: 1. **Appeal by State**: The State of Oklahoma appealed the trial court's decision to suppress evidence obtained from Wallace's cell phone, arguing that the seizure was supported by probable cause. 2. **Legal Standards**: - The appeal is evaluated under 22 O.S.2011, § 1053, which allows the State to appeal a pretrial order suppressing evidence in cases involving certain offenses. - The appellate court applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a motion to suppress. 3. **Probable Cause & Exigent Circumstances**: - The court recognized that warrantless searches are presumed unreasonable but can be justified under certain conditions, such as probable cause and exigent circumstances. - The detective believed that Wallace's phone contained evidence of child abuse and had sufficient reasons to act quickly to preserve that evidence. 4. **Actions Taken with the Phone**: - The detective accessed the phone with Wallace's assistance to forward calls and put the device in airplane mode, actions viewed as reasonable to prevent potential evidence loss. 5. **Trial Court's Findings**: - The trial court suppressed the evidence, stating the seizure and accessing of the phone were illegal. The appellate court found this decision to be an abuse of discretion, as the actions taken by law enforcement were justified. 6. **Search Warrant**: - The State also challenged the trial court's ruling regarding a subsequent search warrant for the cellphone, which the trial court deemed overly broad and not supported by probable cause. - The appellate court highlighted the need for the defendant to provide evidence showing the invalidity of the warrant and noted the lack of factual development in the record. ### Conclusion: The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision to suppress the evidence. It determined that the initial seizure and accessing of Wallace’s phone were reasonable and consistent with legal standards. The matter was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The decision was unanimously concurred by all judges. **Document Link**: [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2018-229_1734331323.pdf) --- This summary encapsulates the critical elements of the case, focusing on the legal principles involved and the court's reasoning without delving into detailed citations or procedural minutiae.

F-2018-103

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-103, the appellant appealed his conviction for manslaughter in the first degree, heat of passion. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. David Wayne Ellis was charged with first degree murder, but the jury found him guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter in the first degree. This happened after a trial in which the jury decided on a sentence of life imprisonment. The judge took into account the time Ellis had already served in jail. Ellis raised several issues in his appeal: 1. He argued that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self-defense when he stabbed the victim. The court looked at the evidence and decided that the jury had enough information to find that Ellis was not acting in self-defense. The court noted that Ellis had confronted the victim with a knife and had made threats, showing he was the aggressor. 2. Ellis claimed that the prosecutor made a mistake by calling the decedent's death a murder during the trial. He believed this was wrong because it was up to the jury to decide on the nature of the death. However, the court found that since the jury had been instructed correctly and had not convicted him of murder but rather manslaughter, this was not a mistake that would affect the trial's fairness. 3. Ellis argued that he did not receive effective legal help during the trial. The court considered this argument but found that his lawyer’s performance did not fall below what is acceptable. Moreover, since there was no error established in the previous points of appeal, this claim also failed. 4. Finally, he objected to the admission of a photograph of the decedent that he felt was unfairly prejudicial. The court determined that the photo was allowed under the law because it provided context about the victim and was relevant to the trial. They did not find any error in allowing it. Overall, the court affirmed the conviction and determined that there were no significant mistakes made during the trial that would change the outcome.