Trial Court Ruling Archives

F-2017-67

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

The document provided is an appellate court opinion regarding the case of Cedric Dwayne Poore, who was convicted in the District Court of Tulsa County for multiple counts of Murder in the First Degree and Robbery with a Firearm. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma ultimately affirmed the convictions and sentences. ### Key Points from the Opinion: 1. **Charges and Convictions**: - Cedric Dwayne Poore was convicted of four counts of Murder in the First Degree through felony murder and two counts of Robbery with a Firearm. - The underlying felony for the murder counts was robbery committed in the course of the murders of four victims. 2. **Evidence Against Appellant**: - Witnesses testified that Poore and his brother shot and killed four victims in a robbery at an apartment. - Testimony from Jamila Jones, who was in contact with both brothers before the murders, suggested that they were planning to rob the victims. - Forensic evidence included DNA found on a cigarette near the victims and .40 caliber shell casings linking both Poore and the weapon used in other crimes. 3. **Proposition of Errors Raised on Appeal**: - **Hearsay**: The trial court’s denial of an affidavit from a witness who invoked the Fifth Amendment was challenged, but the court found no plain error. - **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Poore challenged the sufficiency of evidence, claiming that he was not directly involved in the murders, but the court held that circumstantial evidence sufficiently supported the convictions. - **Other Crimes Evidence**: The admissibility of evidence from a separate robbery was upheld as relevant and probative to establish motive and identity. - **Identification Testimony**: The court found no error in the admission of identification testimony from witnesses. - **Accomplice Corroboration**: The testimony of accomplices was found to be sufficiently corroborated by other evidence. - **Cell Phone Records**: Although the use of cellphone records without a warrant raised Fourth Amendment concerns, the evidence was deemed admissible under the good faith exception. - **Search Warrant**: Poore's arguments regarding the invalidity of the search warrant and execution of the search were rejected by the court. - **Cumulative Error**: The cumulative effect of any errors did not warrant relief, as the court found no substantial errors during the trial. 4. **Final Ruling**: - The Court affirmed the District Court's judgments and sentences without finding any significant legal errors that would warrant reversal. ### Conclusion: The case demonstrates the complex interplay of various legal standards, evidentiary challenges, and the appeals process for criminal convictions. The appellate court's decision reflects a thorough examination of both the procedural and substantive issues raised by the appellant, ultimately leading to the affirmation of the convictions based on the evidence presented at trial.

RE-2018-342

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOSHUA ERIC ARMSTRONG,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. No. RE-2018-342 **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY - 9 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant Joshua Eric Armstrong appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence from the Woodward County District Court Case No. CF-2017-5, overseen by the Honorable David A. Work, Associate District Judge. ### Background On March 31, 2017, Appellant pled no contest to the charge of Possession/Concealing Stolen Property, leading to a five-year sentence, with all but the first two months suspended. On March 8, 2018, the State sought to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence on various grounds: failure to report, providing a false address, testing positive for methamphetamine, failing to pay court costs, prosecution reimbursement fees, restitution, and committing Grand Larceny (Case No. CF-2018-11). At the March 27, 2018, hearing, Judge Work revoked four years of Armstrong's suspended sentence. ### Appellant's Claims 1. **Proposition I**: Judge Work’s pronouncements were insufficient regarding the alleged probation violations. - **Finding**: No statutory requirement exists for detailed findings at revocation. The petition sufficiently informed Appellant of the grounds. 2. **Propositions II, III, and V**: The State did not prove certain alleged violations. - **Finding**: The State proved other violations; only one is necessary for revocation. 3. **Proposition IV**: Insufficient evidence to prove a false address. - **Finding**: Evidence indicated Appellant likely provided a false address. 4. **Proposition VI**: Improper revocation for unemployment not alleged in the petition. - **Finding**: Appellant failed to object during the hearing, waiving the issue for all but plain error review, which he did not establish. 5. **Proposition VII**: The trial court abused discretion in revoking part of the suspended sentence instead of requiring treatment. - **Finding**: Evidence supported the violations alleged in the petition, and there was no abuse of discretion. ### Decision The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Woodward County District Court Case No. CF-2017-5 is **AFFIRMED**. Mandate to be issued upon filing of this decision. **Appearances**: **Counsel for Defendant**: Ryan D. Recker **Counsel for Appellant**: Sarah MacNiven **Counsel for the State**: Kate Loughlin, Mike Hunter, Keeley L. Miller **OPINION BY**: HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.**: CONCUR **KUEHN, V.P.J.**: CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.**: CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.**: CONCUR [Download PDF of Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-342_1734697264.pdf)

S-2014-759

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 31, 2015
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2014-759, #x appealed his conviction for #y. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court’s dismissal of the case. #n dissented. In this case, the State of Oklahoma charged Chad Allan Lunsford with serious drug crimes. The police found a large amount of methamphetamine and other drug-related items in a car after they stopped the driver for a traffic violation. The driver, Gloria Caffey, was arrested, and Lunsford was also taken into custody after the police found the drugs. Lunsford said the case should be thrown out because the State didn’t prove that he owned or knew about the drugs. He argued that just being in the car wasn’t enough to show that he controlled the drugs. The judge in the district court agreed with Lunsford and dismissed the case, saying there wasn’t enough evidence to show that he had control over the drugs. The court explained that just being near drugs doesn’t mean someone is guilty. There has to be more proof, showing that the person really knew the drugs were there and had control over them. For example, in this case, the drugs were found in a bottle with Caffey's name on it, and she admitted they were hers. Also, there was no clear evidence that Lunsford was trying to hide anything, and he didn’t try to run away when he could. When the State appealed the judge’s decision, the higher court looked at the facts carefully. They reviewed whether the lower court made a mistake in its decision. The higher court found that the lower court was correct in dismissing the case because they didn’t have the right evidence to show Lunsford was guilty. Thus, they agreed to keep the lower court's dismissal. However, one judge did not agree with the decision. This dissenting judge thought that the trial court made a mistake by not considering some evidence that could connect Lunsford to the drugs. They felt that there were enough signs showing Lunsford might have had knowledge and control over the drugs, and the matters should have been decided by a jury. Ultimately, the court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the case against Lunsford, agreeing that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he was guilty of the drug charges.

S-2013-413

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 20, 2013
Post category:S

S-2013-415

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 20, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-413 & 415, Mark Anthony Herfurth appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Sex Offender Living within 2000 feet of a School. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling to dismiss the charges against him. One judge dissented. Mark Anthony Herfurth was taken to court because he was accused of not registering as a sex offender and for living too close to a school after he had been convicted of a crime related to indecent exposure. In his earlier conviction, he had agreed to register as a sex offender for a certain number of years. However, when laws changed in 2007, it meant that people in his situation could be assigned a risk level and have to register for longer. Herfurth argued that he shouldn't be held to the new law because he had already completed his requirements from his original plea. The judge agreed with him and dismissed the charges, saying that the laws could not be applied to him retroactively. The State of Oklahoma did not agree with this decision. They believed that the new law should apply to Herfurth since he was still required to register as a sex offender. They argued that laws are meant to protect the public, and because he was registering at the time of the new law's change, he should follow the new rules. However, upon review, the court decided that the lower court did not make a mistake. They concluded that the 2007 law was a significant change and should only apply going forward, not backward. The court also stated that applying the 2007 law to Herfurth after his original plea would have changed his obligations unfairly. Therefore, the appeals court agreed with the lower court's decision to dismiss the charges against Herfurth, stating that they have a duty to interpret laws as they were intended at the time of the original guilty plea. The dissenting judge felt differently, believing that the law should have applied to Herfurth based on the new requirements.

S-2012-1012

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 3, 2013
Post category:S

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

S-2012-194

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 30, 2012
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-194, Campbell appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling to suppress evidence and dismiss the case, meaning Campbell's charges were dropped. No one dissented. Here’s a summary of what happened: James Monroe Campbell was accused of driving under the influence of alcohol. Before the trial began, he asked the court to dismiss the case by filing a request called a Motion to Dismiss. During a hearing before the trial, the judge decided that the evidence against Campbell should not be used, and this meant the case was dismissed. The State of Oklahoma, unhappy with this decision, decided to appeal, which means they wanted another court to review what happened. They filed their appeal based on certain laws that say they have the right to challenge the dismissal of cases when it involves important evidence being excluded. The State argued two main points in its appeal. First, they claimed the judge made a mistake by dismissing Campbell's case because he believed Campbell broke the law by not staying entirely in one lane while driving. Second, they argued the judge was wrong because the police officer had a good reason to stop Campbell’s car in the first place. To decide if the original judge made a mistake, the court looked at whether the officer had a reasonable suspicion to pull Campbell over. A reasonable suspicion is a legal term meaning the officer had a good reason to believe a law was possibly being broken. The officer in this case stated that he stopped Campbell because he saw Campbell's car touch the line marking the lane. However, when the judge looked closely at the evidence, including a video of the incident, she thought that Campbell was driving pretty straight and did not see enough evidence to support the claim that he was breaking any laws. The judge also mentioned that the officer’s concerns did not seem strong enough to justify the stop. Therefore, she decided to dismiss the case because there was not enough evidence to support stopping Campbell's car. When reviewing the situation, the appeals court sided with the original judge's decision and agreed that there was no abuse of discretion, meaning they believed she made the correct choice based on the information available. The court also stated that since the issue of Campbell possibly driving under the influence wasn't raised during the earlier hearing, they could not consider that during the appeal. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to suppress evidence and dismissed the charges against Campbell, which was a win for him.

F-2010-288

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 7, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-288, Gary Don Thompson II appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana, After Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence, meaning Thompson's conviction was thrown out. One judge dissented. Thompson was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Okmulgee County. The jury recommended that Thompson get ten years in prison and pay a $5,000 fine. Thompson's lawyers argued that the evidence used to convict him was obtained in a way that was not allowed by law. Before the trial, they asked the court to suppress, or not allow, the evidence. The court denied this request based on what the police officer said at an earlier hearing. However, during the trial, the officer explained what happened in detail, and his story was different from what he said before. The officer admitted that he did not have any reason to think Thompson was doing anything wrong. He only saw Thompson walking at night in an area he thought had a lot of crime. At trial, the officer said that Thompson threw away a bag of marijuana after the officer told him to stop. The court looked at this new information and believed that Thompson was stopped by the police without enough reason to do so. Because of this, the court said that Thompson's actions of throwing away the marijuana were the result of being detained improperly, and they found that the previous court had made a mistake in not allowing the evidence to be suppressed. The final decision was to reverse Thompson's conviction and send the case back with instructions to dismiss it.

S-2010-540

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 20, 2011
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2010-540, Cavner appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the district court's decision to suppress the evidence. One judge dissented. The case began when the State of Oklahoma charged Cavner with Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol. He argued that the traffic stop was not justified because there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop. The district court agreed to suppress the evidence but did not dismiss the case entirely. On appeal, the State argued that the district court made an error by suppressing the evidence. When reviewing these kinds of cases, the court looks at the facts presented and defers to the trial court's findings unless something is clearly wrong. It was nighttime when Deputy Yarber observed a vehicle in the parking lot of an abandoned grocery store. He noted that the car left the parking lot in a lawful manner as he and another officer approached. The deputy did not mention any specific criminal activity and had no reason to believe something illegal was happening. Another officer had previously looked into possible drug activity in the area, but that had not been reported recently. In such situations, officers are allowed to check on people they find in unusual circumstances. However, since the vehicle drove away from the parking lot before Yarber could approach, he needed to stop it on a highway, which changes the situation from a simple question into a detention, known as a traffic stop. The law requires that a traffic stop must be supported by something more than just a hunch or general suspicion. The court explained that deputies must have reasonable suspicion to make a legal traffic stop. They look for specific facts suggesting that a crime may be occurring, which was not the case here. The deputy did not have enough evidence or reasons to suspect that Cavner was committing a crime simply because he was in the parking lot of an abandoned store late at night. The court referenced a prior case to support its decision, comparing the circumstances to those in a previous ruling where a stop was also deemed unlawful due to lack of reasonable suspicion. In Cavner's case, the court ruled that the officers did not have enough evidence to justify the traffic stop. Ultimately, the court affirmed the district court's order to suppress the evidence gathered during the stop, meaning the evidence could not be used against Cavner. The decision highlighted the importance of having proper legal grounds for police actions, ensuring that citizens' rights are protected under the law.

J-2008-800

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 16, 2009
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2008-800, M.H. appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the District Court's ruling that M.H. should be certified to stand trial as a Youthful Offender. The State of Oklahoma dissented. M.H. was charged with a serious crime when he was just shy of 15 years old. He wanted to be treated as a juvenile instead of as an adult. M.H.'s request was initially denied, but later, a judge decided that he could be treated as a Youthful Offender. The State disagreed and appealed the decision, arguing several points. The State thought the trial court should have given more importance to certain laws about how young people are treated in court. They also believed that M.H. didn't prove he could be helped in a juvenile system, and they claimed it was a mistake to put the burden of proof on them. In court, the judges looked at different kinds of evidence, including expert opinions that suggested M.H. could benefit from treatment that the Youthful Offender System offered. After reviewing everything, the judges decided that the trial court did not make a mistake, and they agreed that M.H. could be certified as a Youthful Offender. The final outcome was that M.H. would not automatically be treated as an adult for the serious crime he was accused of, and he was given a chance for treatment instead. This decision was seen as correct by the judges who agreed, while the dissenting opinion did not support this view.

S-2008-176

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 9, 2008
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2008-176, the State of Oklahoma appealed its case against a person charged with multiple crimes, including trafficking in cocaine and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The trial court had ruled that some evidence obtained from a locked safe in the motel room during the arrest should be suppressed, meaning it couldn't be used in court. The State argued two main points in its appeal. First, they believed the trial court made an error by not allowing a detective to share specific statements from a witness who gave permission to search the hotel room. Second, they thought the officers had the right to search the locked safe without needing a warrant. After looking closely at the case and the reasons for the trial court's decisions, the court concluded that the trial judge had done the right thing. It found that the trial court's rulings about hearsay, which refers to using second-hand information as evidence, were not wrong. The judges decided the officers should have obtained a warrant before searching that locked safe. The court affirmed, meaning they agreed with the trial court's decision to suppress the evidence from the safe. A judge dissented but the main ruling stood.

F-2006-1086

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 25, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1086, Anthony Paul Free appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Free was found guilty of Lewd Molestation after an incident on December 10, 2005, involving a seven-year-old girl. The girl's aunt saw Free touching her inappropriately. During the trial, the State introduced evidence of Free's prior sexual offenses from twenty years earlier, which Free objected to. He argued that this evidence was unfair and did not relate to the current case. The court ultimately found that the past offenses had no clear connection to the current charges. They determined that using this older evidence was likely to prejudice the jury against Free, which isn't allowed. As a result, the trial court's decision to admit this evidence was seen as a substantial violation of Free's rights, leading the court to reverse the previous conviction and call for a new trial.

SR-2003-276

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 30, 2004
Post category:SR

In OCCA case No. SR-2003-276, Stephen Lee Terry appealed his conviction for indecent or lewd acts with a child under sixteen. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that dismissed the charges against him. One judge dissented. The case started when Terry was caught secretly videotaping young girls, aged eight to twelve, at a public place. He admitted that he watched these videos for sexual gratification. The court had to decide if his actions were considered a crime under the law. For the law to apply, it needed to be proven that he looked at the body or private parts of the girls, which is one of the elements that must be shown in such cases. The trial court ruled in Terry's favor, stating that simply filming clothed girls in a public space did not meet the legal definition required for the charge against him. While Terry's actions might be seen as inappropriate or offensive, the court concluded that what he did did not violate the law according to the specific requirements set out. Thus, they confirmed the trial court's decision.

C-2002-946

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 1, 2003
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2002-946, Christopher Dwayne McGee appealed his conviction for distributing controlled substances and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that McGee should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. McGee was originally charged with several counts related to drug distribution in Stephens County. He pleaded guilty to all the charges and received a 30-year prison sentence with fines. After his plea, McGee argued that he did not receive good legal help and that he did not understand what he was agreeing to when he pleaded guilty. He also claimed that he should not be punished twice for the same crime. The main issue was about an agreement he had with the State regarding his plea. McGee believed that the charges would not be enhanced because the State agreed to drop certain parts of his case. However, he was later sentenced with enhancements due to prior felony convictions, which he felt was unfair. The State admitted that McGee's plea was based on a misunderstanding about the charges and enhancements. They suggested that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea, and the court agreed. As a result, the court decided that McGee could go back to the District Court to change his guilty plea.

C-1999-766

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 12, 2001
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-1999-766, Larnell Baucom, Jr. appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's ruling and allow Baucom to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Baucom had pleaded guilty to the crime of Trafficking in Illegal Drugs and received a ten-year prison sentence along with a suspended fine. Later, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that his attorney had given him incorrect advice regarding his potential sentence. The court looked at the case thoroughly, reviewing all records, transcripts, and Baucom's arguments. The main issue was whether the trial court was right to deny Baucom's request to withdraw his plea. The court found that Baucom’s attorney did not provide effective legal support, which led to Baucom entering his plea based on wrong information. Therefore, the court ruled that he should get the chance to withdraw his plea if he wants to. The dissenting opinion said that Baucom did not prove his plea was not knowingly made and that there was no strong evidence of improper advice from his lawyer. The dissenting judge argued that it was not the court's responsibility to act as Baucom's lawyer or raise issues that were not directly claimed by him.