Trial Court

F-2017-602

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-602, Kenneth Donald Knox appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Knox’s conviction and twenty-five-year prison sentence, but they modified the period of post-imprisonment supervision from three years to one year. One justice dissented. Knox was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for causing injuries to a four-month-old baby. The jury decided that he should spend twenty-five years in prison for this crime. Knox thought his lawyer didn’t help him properly, said there wasn’t enough proof for the conviction, and argued that the extra year of supervision after prison was not allowed by law. The court looked closely at all the facts and evidence in his case. They explained that to prove a lawyer didn’t do a good job, Knox had to show that it hurt his chances of winning the case. The court found that Knox didn’t provide enough proof to support his argument about his lawyer’s effectiveness. When it came to the conviction, the court reviewed whether there was enough evidence against Knox. They decided that there was enough proof to show that Knox harmed the baby. Lastly, about the extra supervision time after prison, they agreed that Knox should only have to do one year instead of three, as the law supports a shorter period in his case. In summary, Knox's conviction was upheld, he was given a long prison sentence, and the court changed the rules about his supervision time after he’s released.

Continue ReadingF-2017-602

F-2017-1030

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1030, Polo Carrillo appealed his conviction for kidnapping, first-degree rape, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and domestic assault and battery in the presence of a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Polo Carrillo was found guilty on several serious charges and sentenced to life imprisonment on three charges, with an additional year on the domestic assault charge. He raised several arguments on appeal, including issues with the evidence presented during his trial and concerns about whether he received a fair trial. One point of contention was the trial court's decision to allow a nurse to read a report during the trial that included what the victim had stated about the incident. Carrillo argued that this was hearsay and unnecessary since there was other testimony about the same information. The court determined that the nurse's statements were allowed because they related to medical treatment, which is an exception to hearsay rules. Another argument Carrillo made was about the court's ruling regarding the disclosure of certain witnesses' information. The trial court had allowed the victim's address to be withheld for safety reasons. The court pointed out that Carrillo was able to communicate with the victim without knowing her home address. Thus, the court concluded that the ruling did not harm his defense. Carrillo also claimed that photographs shown to the jury were redundant and biased against him, but the court found that these images were important in showing the victim's injuries and supported the testimony, so they were allowed. Further, Carrillo argued that the jury was not given the correct instructions regarding post-imprisonment supervision. The court indicated that the instructions given were generally proper since the jury couldn't recommend a sentence lower than two years, ruling that errors were not affecting the trial's outcome. At sentencing, there was an error in how Carrillo's time served was recorded. However, this was later corrected by the District Attorney’s office, making this issue no longer relevant. Finally, Carrillo claimed that even if individual errors in the trial did not deserve a new trial, the cumulative effect of these errors should. The court disagreed, stating that since there were no errors that warranted reversal, the cumulative error claim also failed. In summary, the court affirmed Carrillo's convictions, indicating that he did not suffer an unfair trial despite the various arguments he raised on appeal. The decision was backed by careful consideration of the law and the facts presented during the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1030

RE-2017-706

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **THOMAS LYNN SPANN,** Appellant, **-VS-** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. No. RE-2017-706 **FILED ** IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOV 8 2018 JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** In the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CF-2012-436A, Appellant, while represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty to the offense of Cruelty to Animals. On October 10, 2013, in accordance with a plea agreement, the Honorable Joe H. Enos, District Judge, sentenced Appellant to a $1,000.00 fine and to five (5) years imprisonment, with all but the first one (1) year of that term conditionally suspended under written rules of probation. On October 20, 2016, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence. The Motion alleged Appellant had violated his probation by: 1. Failing to provide verification of employment; 2. Being in $920.00 in arrears on supervision fees due to the Department of Corrections; 3. Failing to pay restitution of $152.44; 4. Failing to pay $75.00 per month beginning October 2015 towards costs, fines, and fees, resulting in arrears of $675.00. On November 10, 2016, the parties appeared before the Honorable Ken Graham, District Judge, regarding the Motion to Revoke. While represented by counsel, Appellant stipulated to the probation violations contained in that Motion. Further revocation proceedings regarding punishment were postponed for two months, allowing Appellant time to comply with his probation requirements. This period was later expanded twice, eventually leading to a hearing on June 22, 2017. At this June 22nd hearing, Appellant again appeared with counsel. The probation officer provided a Supplemental Report indicating that Appellant remained significantly delinquent in fulfilling payment obligations, although he had paid off the restitution. Additionally, the report noted that Appellant had not verified employment nor demonstrated compliance with job search requirements. There were also reports of unsigned traffic citations and evidence of an altered appointment slip presented by Appellant. After considering testimonies and evidence regarding Appellant's compliance, Judge Graham revoked Appellant's suspended sentence in full. Appellant now appeals that final order of revocation, asserting that the court denied due process and abused its discretion by revoking the remaining suspended sentence based on extra-application allegations. After careful review, we find no error warranting reversal. Appellant had stipulated to the probation violations, providing the State with the necessary grounds to prove the allegations. Consequently, the trial court had the authority to revoke the suspended sentence. Appellant failed to demonstrate significant compliance with probation requirements over an extended period, despite having opportunities to rectify the situation. The revocation order is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2018), MANDATE IS ORDERED ISSUED on the filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** **R. L. WILLIAMS** P.O. BOX 2095 LAWTON, OKLAHOMA 73502 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT **GREG STEWARD** ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY STEPHENS COUNTY COURTHOUSE 101 SOUTH 11TH STREET DUNCAN, OKLAHOMA 73533 ATTORNEY FOR STATE OF OKLA. --- **OPINION BY: HUDSON, J.** **LUMPKIN, P.J.: CONCUR** **LEWIS, V.P.J.: CONCUR** **KUEHN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** --- **KUEHN, JUDGE, CONCURRING IN RESULT:** I concur in the result. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in full. Appellant stipulated to the Application to Revoke, making only the issue before the trial court whether to revoke the suspended sentence in part or in full. While Appellant used this opportunity to pay restitution, he failed to comply with the rest of the conditions. The trial court reasonably considered Appellant's interim behavior, given the evidence of continued violations, leading to the conclusion to revoke. The failure to make a determination regarding Appellant’s ability to pay was error, but not dispositive as Appellant had already stipulated to the original allegations. The trial court properly considered the evidence presented in mitigation when deciding the final revocation of the sentence.

Continue ReadingRE-2017-706

F-2017-851

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-851, Anthony Harold Warnick appealed his conviction for Possession of Child Pornography, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified the fee for his indigent defense. The dissenting opinion was not specified. Warnick was tried without a jury and found guilty, receiving a 35-year prison sentence. He argued several points in his appeal, claiming errors and issues with how his previous convictions were used to enhance his sentence. He stated that his earlier convictions should not have been considered because they were misdemeanors at the time of the offenses or were too old to count against him. The court reviewed specific claims regarding the earlier convictions and determined there were no plain errors in how they were assessed. They found that Warnick's previous convictions were appropriately used to enhance his sentence, as he did not successfully challenge their validity in previous appeals or post-conviction actions. One error was found concerning the fee for his defense representation, which was set too high at $500 instead of the legal limit of $250. The court corrected this fee to the legal amount and directed the trial court to make this change. Overall, the court concluded that no significant errors impacted Warnick's trial or his sentence, except for the mentioned fee correction. His appeal was mostly denied, reinforcing his conviction but providing a slight adjustment in the costs associated with his defense. The dissenting opinion on this case was not detailed in the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2017-851

RE-2017-149

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2017-149, the appellant appealed his conviction for Escape from Arrest, Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, and Domestic Assault and Battery Against a Pregnant Woman. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking the appellant's suspended sentences but required the lower court to remove the post-imprisonment supervision from its orders. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, after entering guilty pleas to several charges, was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment, which was suspended under certain conditions including probation. However, he failed to follow the rules of his probation, leading to a motion by the State to revoke his suspended sentences. The hearing revealed that the appellant initially reported to his probation officer but stopped when he learned about potential violation reports. At the hearing, the appellant indicated he wanted help for his struggles with drugs and alcohol and had a job and place to live, which he thought should allow him another chance at probation. However, the judge found that the appellant had a history of not following rules in the past and thus decided to revoke his suspension entirely. The court determined that the judge had a valid reason based on the evidence to revoke the probation. However, the judge made an error by adding a provision for post-imprisonment supervision that was not part of the original sentence. The court ordered that this part be removed from the revocation orders but kept the decision to revoke the suspended sentences.

Continue ReadingRE-2017-149

F-2017-724

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-724, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, burglary, domestic abuse, and violation of a protective order. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for most counts but dismissed one count due to double punishment concerns. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2017-724

F-2016-626

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-626, Christopher Shane Lee Fuentez appealed his conviction for Conjoint Robbery and Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case with instructions to dismiss the charges. One judge dissented. Summary: Christopher Shane Lee Fuentez was found guilty by a jury of two crimes: Conjoint Robbery and Possession of a Firearm. He was sentenced to 20 years for the robbery and 3 years for the firearm charge, both sentences to run at the same time. The case was appealed because Fuentez argued that he shouldn’t have been tried again after his first trial ended in a mistrial, which he believed happened without good reason. The court agreed with Fuentez, stating that the reasons for declaring a mistrial did not meet the standard of manifest necessity. This meant that the judge who ordered the mistrial didn’t have the right reasons to stop the trial. It was important for Fuentez to have his trial finished by the jury that was already picked, and the court found that the trial judge should have considered other less drastic options before calling for a mistrial. Therefore, the court reversed Fuentez's convictions and instructed to dismiss the charges because he had already been tried once. The decision also meant that the other reasons he gave for appeal didn’t need to be looked at anymore. One judge disagreed with the majority opinion, believing that the mistrial was warranted because of Fuentez's actions in trying to influence witnesses.

Continue ReadingF-2016-626

F-2017-189

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-189, William Todd Lewallen appealed his conviction for Child Neglect, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court. A dissenting opinion was not recorded. Lewallen was found guilty in a previous trial and sentenced to twenty-three years in prison. He appealed this sentence, and the court decided to change the sentence to fourteen years during a resentencing trial. Lewallen wanted to testify during this resentencing but was not allowed to do so by the trial court. This decision led to Lewallen's appeal. Lewallen claimed that not allowing him to testify was a serious mistake called structural error, which means it affected the fairness of the entire trial process. However, the court explained that most errors in trials can be harmless unless they are structural errors. The court ultimately found that Lewallen's case did not involve what would be classified as structural error. The court noted that while everyone has the right to present a defense and testify, this right has limits and must follow the rules of court. In Lewallen's case, his request to testify was denied because the court believed it didn't relate to the sentencing phase of his case. The court held that his testimony would not change the outcome of the sentencing because it was not relevant to the issues that the jury was deciding at that time. The decision emphasized that the resentencing was not a chance to revisit the guilt or innocence of Lewallen, as he was already found guilty. The new jury was only tasked with deciding how long his punishment should be based on what they learned from the original trial. In summary, the court affirmed Lewallen's new sentence and ruled that there were no errors that would affect the outcome of the case, including the denial of his request to testify.

Continue ReadingF-2017-189

RE-2017-57

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2017-57, Leslie Kay Mosby appealed her conviction for burglary and drug possession. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold her revocation from the mental health court program and the resulting sentences. One judge dissented. Leslie Kay Mosby was convicted for several crimes, including burglary and possession of a controlled substance. She was sentenced to seven years for two felony counts and one year for a lesser charge. She entered a plea agreement that allowed her to participate in a mental health court program, which meant that if she did well, her sentences would not need to be served in prison. However, if she failed in the program, her sentences would be enforced. During her time in the mental health court program, Mosby had many problems, including missing appointments and using drugs. The state noticed these issues and asked the court to take her out of the program. After a hearing, the court agreed that she had not followed the program rules and removed her from the program. This meant that she would now serve her sentences in prison. Mosby believed that the court was wrong to remove her from the mental health program without giving her proper chances to improve. She also argued that her sentences should run at the same time instead of one after the other. However, the court decided that the original agreement was not clear enough about the sentences running together and confirmed the judge’s decision to impose consecutive sentences. Lastly, Mosby pointed out that there was a mistake in the paperwork about the charge against her, but she did not follow the right steps to correct it. The court decided that the judge's rulings were mostly correct, but they would send the case back so the judge could ensure that the correct parts of the sentences were listed properly. Overall, the court affirmed the decision to revoke her from the mental health court program and ruled that her longer sentences would stand, with some corrections to the paperwork.

Continue ReadingRE-2017-57

C-2017-458

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. MAC-2017-458, Harris appealed her conviction for possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand for further proceedings, agreeing that Harris was denied her right to a proper evidentiary hearing to withdraw her guilty plea. One judge dissented, expressing concerns about the approach taken by the majority in requiring a hearing despite the lack of detailed reasoning in the motions to withdraw.

Continue ReadingC-2017-458

RE-2018-357

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CASE NO. RE-2018-357** **JAMES MONROE JONES, Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** James Monroe Jones (Appellant) appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290, and CF-2013-6519, adjudicated by the Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge, in the District Court of Oklahoma County. On June 16, 2010, Appellant pled guilty in Cases CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, and CF-2010-290, receiving concurrent sentences with significant portions suspended. Specifically, in CF-2008-7440, he was convicted of two counts of Concealing Stolen Property and sentenced to fifteen years on each count, with the first five years served. Similar sentences were imposed for offenses stemming from the other cases. On May 1, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated nolo contendere plea in CF-2013-6519 for an amended count of Concealing Stolen Property, resulting in a ten-year sentence with the first year served. On August 26, 2016, the State filed applications to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences due to reported violations, including failure to report, change of address, and new criminal activity related to Domestic Assault and Battery. Enhanced allegations were added on March 7, 2018, encompassing additional crimes attributed to Appellant. A hearing was conducted on April 2, 2018. Appellant's counsel objected to the State's evidence, citing inadequate discovery. The trial court, however, noted Appellant had received relevant documents previously, and dismissed the objections after reviewing the evidence. Judge Henderson ultimately found Appellant had violated his probation through specific new criminal conduct and revoked his suspended sentences in full. Appellant presents two propositions of error on appeal: **PROPOSITION I:** The trial court violated Jones's right to due process and a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II § 7 of the Oklahoma State Constitution. **PROPOSITION II:** Defense counsel failed to prepare adequately for trial, resulting in ineffective assistance of counsel. **ANALYSIS** In addressing Proposition I, Appellant contends that the overruling of his objections regarding discovery violations deprived him of due process. It is established that defendants have minimal due process rights in revocation hearings, including evidence disclosure. However, since Appellant’s counsel did not request discovery prior to the hearing, the burden falls on them for preparation. The trial court did not deny Appellant the opportunity to defend—therefore, Proposition I is denied. Regarding Proposition II, Appellant asserts his counsel's ineffectiveness based on a lack of preparedness stemming from unrequested discovery. The Strickland standard evaluates ineffective assistance claims through performance deficiency and resultant prejudice. Appellant has not substantiated claims that better-prepared counsel would have altered the outcome, as evidence showed several violations were confirmed. Thus, Proposition II is also denied. **DECISION** The order from the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290, and CF-2013-6519 is **AFFIRMED**. --- **APPEARANCES:** **AT TRIAL** Katie Samples, Assistant Public Defender Marva A. Banks, Assistant Public Defender **ON APPEAL** David Nichols, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Attorney General Keeley L. Miller, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. **[Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-357_1734695459.pdf)**

Continue ReadingRE-2018-357

S-2016-1126

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-1126, David James Miller appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to dismiss the appeal. No one dissented. In this case, the State charged the defendant with a serious crime after an incident where he allegedly shot someone. The defendant argued that he acted in self-defense. He wanted the court to believe that he should not be punished for what he did because he was protecting himself. During a hearing, the defendant provided his explanation, while the State presented evidence to counter his claims. The court listened to both sides and eventually agreed with the defendant, deciding that he was immune from prosecution based on self-defense laws. This ruling meant that the case against him could not continue. The State did not agree with the court's decision and decided to appeal. They believed that the judge did not consider their evidence properly and that the ruling was unfair. However, when the appeal was reviewed, the court found that the State did not show clear legal reasons for their complaint. The judges noted that the lower court had allowed the State to present their evidence and arguments. In the end, the court concluded that this was not a matter they could reconsider as it had to do with factual evidence rather than legal issues. Because of this, the court dismissed the State's appeal.

Continue ReadingS-2016-1126

F-2017-241

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-241, Joseph Tunley, Jr. appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and send the case back for a new trial. The court found that Tunley's original waiver of his right to a jury trial was not shown to be knowing, intelligent, or competent, which is required by law. The dissenting opinion was not specified, but it indicates that there may have been differing views on the matter.

Continue ReadingF-2017-241

C-2017-271

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JUSTON DEAN COX,** *Petitioner,* **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** *Respondent.* **FILED** *DEC 14 2017* **SUMMARY OPINION GRANTING CERTIORARI IN PART AND REMANDING THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL** **LUMPKIN, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Petitioner Juston Dean Cox was charged in the District Court of McIntosh County on August 23, 2005, with Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies (Case No. CF-2005-152A). An Amended Information filed on November 28, 2005, added ten additional counts of Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. Petitioner was bound over for trial on five counts after the Preliminary Hearing on November 30, 2005, and trial was set for April 17, 2006. Subsequently, charges were filed against Petitioner for Escape from a County Jail and Destruction of a Public Building (Case No. CF-2005-172A) on September 19, 2005, followed by additional charges for Escape from a Penal Institution on January 5, 2006 (Case No. CF-2006-04) and January 26, 2006 (Case No. CF-2006-14). On January 26, 2006, Petitioner entered into negotiated guilty pleas for all four cases, resulting in concurrent sentences of thirty years. On February 6, 2006, Petitioner filed a request to withdraw his plea. A hearing was held on March 23, 2006, where the trial court denied his request. Petitioner filed Applications for Post-Conviction Relief on August 13, 2014, and June 9, 2016, leading to a hearing on December 1, 2016, where the trial court recommended allowing Petitioner an appeal out of time. This Court granted that request on January 6, 2017, and appointed counsel to represent the Petitioner. At the March 9, 2017, hearing to discuss the motion to withdraw, it was established that counsel had not prepared a formal motion for withdrawal. Petitioner was not actively represented during this critical hearing, as his plea counsel took no part in the proceedings despite being present. The court did not adequately address the lack of representation or question Petitioner regarding his rights to counsel. A criminal defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel at a motion to withdraw hearing (Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55). The court's failure to appoint conflict-free counsel and its allowance for Petitioner to proceed without adequate representation constituted a violation of his constitutional rights. Given that Petitioner raised claims regarding the voluntariness of his plea, the harmless error doctrine does not apply. Accordingly, we find marginal grounds to question the diligence of prior representations and affirm that this situation merits careful reconsideration. **DECISION** Certiorari is granted in part. The order of the district court denying Petitioner's motion to withdraw his guilty plea is *REVERSED* and the case is remanded to the District Court for *APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL* to evaluate whether to further pursue the withdrawal of the guilty pleas. *MANDATE to be issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.* **APPEARANCES IN DISTRICT COURT** **COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER:** Ariel Parry **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE:** Thomas C. Giulioni, Mike Hunter (Attorney General), O.R. Barris III, Gregory Stidham (Assistant District Attorneys), Jay Schniederjan (Assistant Attorney General) *OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, P.J. LEWIS, V.P.J.: Concur in Results HUDSON, J.: Concur KUEHN, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur* [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2017-271_1733992184.pdf)

Continue ReadingC-2017-271

F-2016-997

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the case of Jimmie Lee Lovell, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed his convictions for First Degree Manslaughter and Driving Under the Influence. Lovell challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress blood test results, arguing he was not given an opportunity for independent testing as required by statute. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion, since Lovell did not request a sample for independent testing during the proper timeframe. Additionally, Lovell argued that the jury’s verdicts—guilty of First Degree Manslaughter and not guilty of Negligent Homicide—were inconsistent. The appeals court found that no objection had been raised regarding the verdict at trial, and therefore reviewed for plain error, concluding there was no actual error affecting his rights, as the jury’s intent was clear. The court noted a variance between the jury’s recommended punishment in Count II (Ten days and a $1,000 fine) and the subsequent sentence (one year in jail). The case was remanded for correction of this discrepancy. Overall, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence in Count I, affirmed the judgment in Count II, and ordered the trial court to correct the Judgment and Sentence in Count II in accordance with the jury's recommendation.

Continue ReadingF-2016-997

F-2016-229

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-229, Marcus Stephon Miller appealed his conviction for murder and possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for possession of a firearm but vacated and remanded his convictions for second-degree murder for resentencing. One judge dissented from the decision to remand for resentencing. Miller was charged with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of possession of a firearm while under supervision. A jury convicted him of lesser charges of second-degree murder for the first two counts and of possession of a firearm for the third count. Miller received sentences of 25 years for each murder count and 5 years for the firearm count, with the sentences scheduled to run one after the other. Miller argued that errors were made during his trial. He claimed that the trial court did not follow the right procedures for splitting his trial into stages, which affected his right to a fair trial. He pointed out that the jury was not properly instructed and that misconduct happened from the prosecution's side. He also believed his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial and that the judge wrongly refused to give him credit for time served in jail before sentencing. After looking over the case, the court found that while the trial had some mistakes, they didn’t actually hurt Miller's case enough to impact the verdict for the possession charge. However, they agreed that the trial court made a significant mistake in how it handled sentencing for the murder counts, mainly because it allowed the jury to consider his previous convictions when they should not have. The court decided that the sentencing for the second-degree murders had to be thrown out and that Miller would need to be resentenced, but his conviction for possession would stay. In dissent, one judge noted that the errors made during trial did not affect Miller's rights since he received a relatively lenient sentence given the seriousness of the crimes he was convicted for. The judge believed that the mistakes did not warrant a new sentencing for the murder counts because the nature of the charges and the consequences indicated that the overall outcome would not change. In conclusion, while Miller's appeal was partly successful, with the court affirming his conviction on one count and ordering a new sentencing for the other two, the dissenting opinion felt that the original sentencing should stand.

Continue ReadingF-2016-229

F-2016-562

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-562, Kadrian Daniels appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court, except that the fine imposed on the Possession count was vacated. One judge dissented. Daniels was found guilty by a jury and received a thirty-year sentence for the robbery and an additional eight years and a $10,000 fine for the illegal firearm possession. Daniels raised several concerns on appeal. He argued that the trial court made mistakes that affected his right to a fair trial. First, Daniels objected to a question asked by the prosecutor to a detective about the number of robberies that happened in Tulsa during the past year. He felt that this question could alarm the jury. However, the court decided that the question was allowed because it was relevant to the case and didn’t unfairly sway the jury. Next, Daniels claimed that the prosecutor behaved improperly during the closing arguments, which made his trial unfair. Some of the comments made by the prosecutor were challenged, but the court ruled that those comments were acceptable and did not harm the fairness of the trial. Additionally, Daniels complained about the jury being instructed that a $10,000 fine was mandatory if they convicted him of the firearm charge. Since Daniels’ lawyer did not object to this instruction during the trial, the court reviewed this issue only for plain error. The court found that the instruction was incorrect because the law does not require such a fine. This error was significant enough that the court decided to remove the fine. Moreover, Daniels argued that his attorney did not provide effective help during the trial, especially for not calling out the errors made by the prosecution or the judge. The court considered this but concluded that the issues raised by Daniels were not serious enough to have changed the outcome of the trial. The final decision affirmed the conviction but removed the unnecessary fine, ensuring that the legal process remained fair despite the mistakes noted during the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2016-562

F-2016-179

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-179, John Stanton Lewis appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and other related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Lewis's convictions for three counts and modify his conviction for one count from a felony to a misdemeanor, resulting in a shorter sentence. One judge dissented. Lewis was convicted in a district court for several counts involving drugs and a firearm. The jury sentenced him to different terms, including 15 years for possession of methamphetamine after previous felonies, 2 years for firearm possession, 4 years for marijuana possession, and 90 days for drug paraphernalia. The court made these sentences consecutive and gave him credit for time served. Lewis raised four main arguments on appeal: 1. **Illegal Search**: He argued that evidence against him should not have been used because it was obtained through an illegal search. The court found that the initial entry into his mobile home by law enforcement was legal since it was during a fire incident and they were investigating. Therefore, this argument was denied. 2. **Jury Instructions**: Lewis contended that the jury was not properly instructed on the possible punishments for his offenses, particularly about the enhancement of his charges due to prior convictions. The court agreed that there was a plain error concerning the instruction for the marijuana possession charge, modifying it to reflect a misdemeanor instead of a felony. His sentence for that charge was reduced from four years to one year. 3. **Evidence for Firearm Charge**: He claimed the evidence was insufficient to convict him for possession of a firearm because the state did not prove the firearm he had was capable of firing. The court found that it is not necessary to prove whether the gun could fire for a conviction under the law, so this argument was denied. 4. **Ineffective Counsel**: Lewis argued that his lawyer did not do a good job representing him. The court noted that proving ineffective counsel requires showing that the lawyer's mistakes affected the outcome of the trial. Lewis couldn't prove his lawyer was ineffective in this case because the range of punishment given was correct, and therefore, this claim was denied. Ultimately, the court affirmed the convictions for several charges, but modified the marijuana possession conviction to reflect a misdemeanor resulting in a shorter sentence. The judgments overall were mostly upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2016-179

F-2016-461

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-461, Roy Dale Doshier appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacated a $250 attorney fee that had been assessed. One judge dissented. Doshier was found guilty after a jury trial and received a 30-year sentence, with the requirement to serve 85% of the term before being eligible for parole. He raised six points of error in his appeal, focusing on issues such as the admissibility of his statements, jury instructions regarding lesser offenses, the attorney fee, and the fairness of the proceedings. The court reviewed each issue. It found no error in admitting Doshier's statements, reasoning that the trial court had not abused its discretion in allowing them into evidence. On the question of jury instructions, the court concluded that the judge had not erred in not including instructions for lesser offenses, as no prejudice had been shown against Doshier. However, the court agreed to vacate the $250 fee for indigent defense because the attorney assigned to him did not actually represent him in court, which meant the fee was not valid. They also determined that Doshier's sentence was not excessive and did not require the jury to be informed about sex offender registration as part of the instructions. In the end, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence while vacating the fee, upholding the conviction due to a lack of legal errors. Overall, there was no indication that Doshier did not receive a fair trial, and the judges were satisfied with the outcome except for the singular point about the attorney fee.

Continue ReadingF-2016-461

F-2015-1007

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-1007, Johnny Lee Ingram appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case began when Ingram was tried for two crimes: one for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and the other for Possession of a Firearm after prior convictions. The jury found him guilty of the first charge and not guilty of the second. He was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison based on the jury's recommendation. Ingram raised several points during his appeal. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes, such as not properly answering the jury's questions about the law, which led to confusion. The court agreed that the trial court's responses to the jury were not clear and this could have impacted the jury's decision. During the jury's deliberation, they asked about the meaning of certain instructions related to the case. The trial judge referred them to another instruction without clearly addressing their concerns. This left the jury confused about what constituted criminal intent and whether Ingram could be guilty based on his presence at the scene but not guilty of the other charge. The court emphasized that when jurors express confusion, it is crucial for judges to clearly resolve that confusion. Since the jury found Ingram guilty despite being confused, and considering that the instructions did not help clarify the legal standards, the appellate court concluded that Ingram was not given a fair trial. Thus, they overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial to ensure that the jury could properly consider the evidence laid out, without the confusion created by the previous instructions.

Continue ReadingF-2015-1007

F-2016-82

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-82, Angel Marie Proctor appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder, Kidnapping, and Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the kidnapping conviction with instructions to dismiss, while affirming the other convictions. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2016-82

M-2016-268

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2016-268, the appellant appealed his conviction for threatening to perform an act of violence and resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court made an error by not properly informing the appellant about the risks of representing himself without a lawyer. The court found that there was not enough evidence to show that the appellant understood what he was doing when he waived his right to a lawyer. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and ordered a new trial. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingM-2016-268

F-2016-30

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-30, Ladarius Burnell Kelly appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the fines associated with the charges. One judge dissented regarding the change in fines. Ladarius Burnell Kelly was charged and found guilty by a jury for committing robbery with a firearm and assault with a dangerous weapon. He received a punishment of 18 years in prison along with a $2,500 fine for the robbery and 2 years in prison with a $2,500 fine for the assault. The sentences were to be served one after the other. Kelly appealed, raising several issues. First, he argued that the witnesses who identified him were not reliable, which he believed violated his rights. However, the court found that the methods used for identification were not overly suggestive and did not mislead the jury. Therefore, his claim was denied. Next, Kelly challenged the evidence presented against him for the assault charge. The court looked at the evidence favorably for the prosecution and determined there was enough proof to support the conviction. The testimony showed that Kelly had threatened to shoot a victim, which the jury could reasonably interpret as an intent to harm, so this argument was also denied. He also argued that he had not received a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct. However, the court found that any alleged missteps by the prosecutor didn't significantly impact the fairness of the trial. Because of this, this claim was denied as well. Importantly, Kelly had a point regarding the fines. The court found that the jury was wrongly instructed about the mandatory fines for the charges. They decided to correct this by changing the fine for the assault count to $0 and reducing the fine for the robbery charge to $2,000. Kelly also believed that his lawyer did not do their job effectively, but the court ruled that his claims did not show that the outcome of the trial would have changed if his lawyer had acted differently. In summary, the court upheld Kelly's convictions and changed the financial penalties, showing that while he did not win the major points of his appeal, he was granted some relief on the fines imposed.

Continue ReadingF-2016-30

F-2016-55

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-55, James Curtis Cox appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Here's a summary of what happened: Cox was tried by a jury and found guilty of two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child. The judge sentenced him to a long time in prison: twenty-five years for the first count and life imprisonment for the second count, along with fines. He had to serve eighty-five percent of his sentences before he could be considered for parole. Cox appealed because he thought several things went wrong during his trial. First, he complained that his lawyer did not do a good job. He also said the trial court made mistakes by not instructing the jury properly about certain evidence and that they considered witness statements that shouldn’t have been allowed. The court reviewed everything his lawyer did and decided that Cox was not able to show that he had suffered because of his lawyer's performance. They ruled that even if his lawyer didn’t object to some evidence or didn’t ask for certain instructions, it did not ruin his chance for a fair trial. The judges also looked at whether the trial court made mistakes about some evidence being used during the trial. They found that while some evidence shouldn’t have been used, it didn’t change the outcome of the trial. However, when it came to sentencing, the judges found a significant problem. The trial court should not have considered certain statements from victims who were not part of the case. They concluded that the judge was influenced by these statements, which were not allowed, while deciding how long Cox should stay in prison. In the end, the judges decided that Cox’s sentences should be changed to run concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time instead of one after the other. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences so Cox would have a slightly lighter sentence to serve compared to what they initially decided. The appeal allowed Cox to get a better outcome in terms of his sentences, even though he still faced serious charges.

Continue ReadingF-2016-55

RE-2015-767

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-767, the appellant appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence but ordered the lower court to give her credit for time served in jail. The court also agreed that imposing nine months of supervision after her imprisonment was not appropriate. No judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2015-767