Trier of Fact

F-2018-350

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-350, Jonathan Brent Buccino appealed his conviction for three counts of embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Jonathan was found guilty in a trial where the judge decided the case without a jury. He was accused of taking money from an investment, which he was supposed to use for software development, but instead, he used the money for other purposes. The judge gave him five years in prison for each count, but these sentences were suspended, meaning he wouldn’t go to prison right away, if at all. During his appeal, Jonathan claimed that the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove he committed a crime. He argued that the only proof was what people said in their testimony, not any written documents. He believed that this meant the state did not meet its obligation to show he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court explained that when figuring out if there was enough evidence for a conviction, they look at it in a way that favors the state. This means they assume the evidence presented was correct and that the jury found the witnesses believable. Even if there were different opinions, the judge made the final call on what was credible. The court found that Jonathan was only allowed to use the invested money for software development, and the state showed he used it elsewhere, which was enough to prove he was guilty. In his second claim, Jonathan argued that the “Statute of Frauds” should have applied to his case. He thought that this statute meant any agreement needed to be in writing if it couldn’t be completed within a year, and since he didn’t have a written agreement, his case shouldn’t have been criminal. The court explained that embezzlement doesn’t need a contract, and whether or not there was a written agreement was not important. The crime was based on his actions, not on whether a written contract existed. The court also noted that the decision to bring a criminal case was the district attorney’s responsibility and that the evidence provided was enough to charge him with a crime, regardless of whether he might have been open to a civil case as well. In conclusion, the court affirmed Jonathan’s conviction, meaning they agreed with the original decision of the trial court.

Continue ReadingF-2018-350

F-2017-1146

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1146, Scott Milton Donley appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold his convictions. One judge dissented. Scott Milton Donley was found guilty of two crimes during a bench trial: Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery. He received a sentence that included twenty years for the first crime and one year for the second crime, with both sentences running at the same time. Donley argued that he should not be punished for both crimes based on double jeopardy rules, meaning he shouldn’t be charged twice for what he claimed was the same act. The court examined whether there was proof for each crime that did not overlap. They found that Donley committed separate acts of pushing and slapping the victim before threatening her with a knife, which were seen as different offenses that required different evidence. Therefore, the court decided there was no double punishment. Donley also claimed there wasn't enough evidence to show he committed Assault with a Dangerous Weapon because he argued that the knife he used wasn't sharp. However, the court reviewed the evidence, including testimonies from him, the victim, and officers. They concluded that any reasonable person could find he intended to cause harm with the knife and that it was indeed a dangerous weapon. Lastly, Donley argued that he didn’t willingly give up his right to a jury trial. However, the court found clear proof that he had done so. The process was completed in court, and both he and the prosecutor waived the jury trial properly. In conclusion, the court affirmed the judgments and sentences against Donley, stating that all his claims were without merit.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1146

F-2018-617

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of Douglas Edward Scott. Scott was convicted of Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation and Petit Larceny in a non-jury trial and was sentenced to eight years in prison for the first charge and six months in county jail for the second, with both sentences running concurrently. ### Key Points from the Opinion: 1. **Proposition I - Sufficiency of Evidence**: - Scott challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his domestic assault conviction. - The court reviewed the evidence favorably toward the prosecution and concluded that a rational trier of fact could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. - The trial court rejected Scott's claim of innocence, and the court affirmed that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. 2. **Proposition II - Sentence Excessiveness**: - Scott argued that his eight-year sentence was excessive. - The court noted that the sentence was within the statutory range and considered the facts of the case. - The court determined that the sentence did not shock its conscience and denied the proposition of excessive sentencing. ### Conclusion: - The court affirmed Scott's judgment and sentence, denying both of his propositions of error. - The mandate for the decision was ordered upon the delivery and filing of the opinion. ### Representations: - The trial representation included Charles Michael Thompson for the appellant and Richard Smothermon as the District Attorney for the State. - The opinion was written by Judge Lumpkin, with all other judges concurring. For more detailed information or legal context, you can download the full PDF of the opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-617_1735229379.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-617

M-2003-450

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2003-450, Edward Allen Rayls appealed his conviction for Attempting to Elude a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction with instructions to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. Rayls was found guilty after a jury trial and was sentenced to a fine and time in jail. He argued that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction. He also said the court made a mistake by not allowing a 911 tape that could have helped his case and that the prosecutor was unfair. The court looked at all the information and agreed with Rayls that there wasn’t enough evidence to say he was trying to get away from the police. The law says that for someone to be guilty of attempting to elude, they must be intentionally trying to escape. The facts showed that Rayls was driving normally and didn't break any traffic laws when a police officer tried to pull him over. He didn’t see the police car until just before he stopped his vehicle. Because of this, the court decided to reverse the judgment and instructed to dismiss the case. The dissenting judge felt differently. This judge thought the jury had enough evidence to make their decision and that the evidence should be respected. The dissenting opinion argued that there was a reasonable basis for the jury to find Rayls guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence they heard during the trial.

Continue ReadingM-2003-450