Trial Outcome

F-2018-626

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the case of Carl Douglas Crick, Jr. v. The State of Oklahoma, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma reviewed Crick's appeal following a jury trial that found him guilty of multiple counts of sexual offenses, including first degree rape and lewd acts with a child. Crick received life sentences for certain counts, while others received lesser prison terms. The trial court ordered some sentences to run concurrently and others consecutively. Crick's main contention on appeal was that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically citing his attorney's failure to present certain witnesses and to object to improper testimony from a prosecution witness that allegedly vouched for the credibility of the victim. The court applied the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, which requires the appellant to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that this deficiency prejudiced the outcome of the trial. The court determined that the evidence presented by Crick did not clearly demonstrate a strong possibility that counsel’s performance fell below constitutional standards. As such, Crick's request for an evidentiary hearing to further explore these claims was denied. The court also assessed the claim concerning the prosecution witness's testimony. It concluded that the alleged vouching was not comparable to previous cases that warranted reversal, thus affirming that counsel's choice not to object did not amount to deficiency. Ultimately, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence of the trial court, indicating that Crick had not established a violation of his right to effective counsel. The decision was issued with a note for the mandate to be ordered upon delivery and filing of the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2018-626

F-2016-519

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-519, Kevin Bernell Warrior appealed his conviction for first degree murder and possession of a firearm after a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to grant him a new trial due to newly discovered evidence that could change the outcome of the original trial. One judge dissented. Kevin Warrior was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. The evidence used to convict him was mostly circumstantial, meaning it did not come from direct witnesses at the crime scene. At trial, it was believed that the weapon used in the murder was not found, and the state suggested that Warrior had a motive and opportunity to commit the crime, alongside some statements he made that seemed incriminating. After his conviction, Warrior learned while in jail that another man, Mikel Ball, had confessed to committing the murder during a robbery. This information came to Warrior from a fellow inmate, Marquez Goff, who had talked to Ball. Goff also found out that police had taken a gun from Ball shortly after his arrest, and that this gun matched the bullet from the murder victim. Warrior's lawyers filed a request for a new trial, arguing that this evidence was important and could not have been found before the trial. The court agreed that the evidence was new, could change the outcome of the first trial, and was not something that Warrior could have discovered in time for his original case. Thus, the court decided that Warrior should get a new trial because this new information showed a reasonable chance that he might not have been guilty of the crime he was convicted of.

Continue ReadingF-2016-519

F-2010-267

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-267, James Lyman Mahaffey appealed his conviction for Assault & Battery with a Deadly Weapon, Kidnapping, and Possession of Firearm After Conviction. In a published decision, the court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences to be served concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Mahaffey was accused and found guilty of serious crimes against his wife, including assault and kidnapping. The trial took place in the District Court of Grady County. After the jury convicted him, the judge sentenced him to life in prison for the assault, 10 years for the kidnapping, and 6 years for possession of a firearm, all lined up to be served one after the other, or consecutively. Mahaffey asked to represent himself during the trial, which means he wanted to defend himself without a lawyer. He argued that the court should not have allowed him to do this because he didn't clearly understand the risks involved in self-representation. However, the court decided that he was competent to represent himself and had made an informed decision. They had warned him that representing himself could be risky and could lead to mistakes that might change the outcome of the trial. During the trial, Mahaffey raised some claims against the prosecutor's behavior. He argued that the prosecutor acted unfairly by making comments that may have influenced the jury. For instance, Mahaffey claimed the prosecutor misrepresented the meaning of a life sentence and made other comments that distracted from the trial's fairness. However, the court concluded that while there were some mistakes made by the prosecutor, they were not serious enough to change the outcome of the case concerning his guilt. Despite this, the court found that the conduct during sentencing raised concerns about the fairness of the sentencing itself. The jury specifically asked about how the sentences would be served, indicating they were worried about the total time Mahaffey would spend in prison. Because of this, although Mahaffey’s convictions were upheld, the court changed the sentences to allow them to be served concurrently, meaning all the prison time would be served at the same time rather than one after the other. Ultimately, the court's decision meant Mahaffey would still have to serve his time, but the way his sentences were structured was altered to be less severe. The case was sent back to the lower court to fix the official documents to reflect that change in sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2010-267

F-2004-146

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-146, Luke Sinclair appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that his conviction would be upheld, but he would be resentenced. One judge dissented. Luke Sinclair was found guilty of murdering James Robbins by shooting him four times in the chest. The incident happened in the early hours after Sinclair and his friends had been drinking at a bar. Robbins, a retired Army veteran, approached Sinclair and his friends in the parking lot, trying to engage them in conversation. Sinclair and his friends found Robbins to be strange and made dismissive comments. Sinclair even jokingly suggested that Robbins should be shot. Believing they were joking, Sinclair's friends egged him on when he drove after Robbins, blocked his van, and then shot him. After the shooting, Sinclair instructed his friends to keep quiet about the incident. Sinclair admitted on appeal that the evidence against him was strong and that he was guilty. Sinclair raised several issues in his appeal, particularly concerning the sentencing process. He argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence about his character during sentencing and that his lawyer did not provide effective representation. The court found these claims unpersuasive, noting that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and suggesting that presenting this character evidence could have hurt Sinclair's case more than helped it. One of the significant points in Sinclair’s appeal related to whether the jury was instructed about the state law that required defendants convicted of murder to serve 85% of their sentences before being eligible for parole. Sinclair argued that jurors mistakenly believed a life sentence meant he could be released after a few years. The court agreed with Sinclair regarding the instructions on the 85% rule, so they decided to reverse the sentence and remand the case for resentencing. Additionally, Sinclair complained about the prosecutor's arguments in closing that he was a dangerous man lacking conscience, which were not supported by the evidence. The court found that the prosecutor's statements were problematic and influenced the jury in reaching their sentencing decision. In conclusion, while Sinclair's conviction remained intact, the court ruled that he should be resentenced due to the errors in the jury instructions and the inappropriate comments made during his trial.

Continue ReadingF-2004-146