Unauthorized use of a motor vehicle Archives

C-2019-25

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 12, 2019
Post category:C

This decision from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals pertains to Conner E. Dover's petition for writ of certiorari, which was denied. Dover had pled guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and aggravated attempting to elude a police officer. His sentencing followed the completion of a regimented inmate discipline program, resulting in five years of imprisonment for each count, to be served consecutively. Dover sought to withdraw his plea based on an argument that the court did not sentence him according to his plea agreement. However, the court found that his plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently, and dissatisfaction with the sentence is not a valid reason for withdrawal. The court confirmed that the plea met the necessary legal standards and was not abusive, hence no relief was granted. The denial of the writ indicates the court's decision to affirm the original judgment and sentence. The legal principles applied include reviewing whether a plea was voluntarily and intelligently made, whether the sentence is excessive, the effectiveness of counsel, and the state's power to prosecute. Overall, the court held that there was no abuse of discretion in denying Dover's motion to withdraw the plea, supporting the conclusion that his plea agreement was validly applied.

RE-2018-858

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

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JEREMY LANCE LABBY,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-858** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AUG 15, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Jeremy Lance Labby appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Cherokee County District Court Case No. CF-2015-149. Labby was originally charged with Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, in violation of 47 O.S.2011, § 4-102. On December 15, 2016, Labby entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced to three years imprisonment, with all three years suspended. On June 20, 2018, the State filed a 2nd Amended Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence, alleging multiple violations of probation, including new crimes related to two counts of Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, Theft of Property in Benton County, Arkansas, and First Degree Burglary and Resisting Arrest in Cherokee County. Following a revocation hearing, Special Judge Gary Huggins revoked Labby's suspended sentence in full. In his sole proposition, Labby contends that the revocation of his suspended sentence was excessive and represents an abuse of discretion. He argues that despite his limited intellect and efforts to comply with probation requirements—such as being current on probation fees and meeting with probation officers—Judge Huggins’s decision to revoke his sentence in full was unwarranted. The Court finds Labby’s claims to be without merit. A suspended sentence is a matter of grace, and the State needs to establish only one violation of probation to revoke a suspended sentence in its entirety. The State successfully demonstrated that Labby committed multiple violations, including new felony offenses, while on probation. The determination to revoke a suspended sentence, either in whole or in part, rests within the trial court’s sound discretion, and such decisions are not to be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Although it is noted that Judge Huggins had the option to impose a lesser penalty, his discretion to choose full revocation is justified by the evidence presented, which established significant violations by Labby. **DECISION** The Court affirms the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Cherokee County District Court Case No. CF-2015-149. Pursuant to Rule 3.15 of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the Mandate is ordered issued upon the filing of this decision. **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHEROKEE COUNTY, THE HONORABLE GARY HUGGINS, SPECIAL JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT REVOCATION** **CRYSTAL JACKSON** Counsel for Defendant 239 W. Keetoowah Tahlequah, OK 74464 **MARK HOOVER** Counsel for Appellant P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 **CODY BOWLIN** Counsel for State ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 213 W. Delaware Tahlequah, OK 74464 **MIKE HUNTER** Counsel for Appellee OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur **RA/F** *Click Here To Download PDF*

F-2015-933

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 16, 2016
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-933, Thompson appealed his conviction for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment on Counts 1 and 2 but reversed the judgment on Count 3 with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Thompson was found guilty of three crimes related to stolen property after a jury trial. He was sentenced to six years in prison for unauthorized use of a vehicle and eight years for each count of concealing stolen property. The sentences were arranged so that the two eight-year sentences would run together, while the six-year sentence would be added afterward. He was also fined $100 for each offense. Thompson raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that he should not have been convicted twice for concealing stolen property. He believed that since he acted only once when hiding the stolen items, charging him with two counts was unfair. The court agreed with him on this point and found that it was a mistake to have separate charges for items taken from different people. Next, Thompson questioned whether there was enough proof to find him guilty of unauthorized vehicle use and concealing stolen property. The court looked at all the evidence and decided there was enough to support his guilty verdict for unauthorized use of a vehicle, so that part of his conviction was upheld. Thompson also claimed that the prosecution made mistakes during the trial that harmed his chance for a fair judgment. However, the court did not find these errors serious enough to change the outcome of the trial. On the fines imposed by the trial court, Thompson argued that judges can't add fines unless the jury decides to. The court determined that the fines were allowed since the law permitted judges to impose them, even if the jury did not. Thompson felt that the judge shouldn't have made him serve the sentences for Counts 2 and 3 back-to-back after the first sentence. However, the court found that the judge's decision was within his rights and not an abuse of discretion. Overall, the court decided that none of the claimed errors were significant enough to change Thompson’s convictions except for the second count of concealing stolen property, which was dismissed. They confirmed that the remaining counts were properly upheld, leading to affirmation of most of Thompson's convictions.

F-2011-866

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 20, 2013
Post category:F

F-2011-866

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 20, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-866, Emanuel D. Mitchell appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony (Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Mitchell's case for a trial where he may be allowed to represent himself. One judge dissented. This case began when Mitchell was found guilty of murder and conspiracy after a jury trial. He was sentenced to life in prison for the murder and 35 years for conspiracy, along with an additional 10 years for unauthorized vehicle use. Mitchell appealed, stating four main reasons why he believed his conviction should be overturned. First, Mitchell claimed that he was not allowed to represent himself during his trial, which he argued violated his rights. He believed he could defend himself better than his attorney. However, the court denied his request for self-representation, stating that it was not in his best interest. The court should have ensured that he was fully aware of the potential risks associated with representing himself before denying his request. Second, Mitchell argued that the laws applied to him during his murder prosecution were not supported by the evidence presented. He believed his rights were violated, which would require the court to dismiss the murder charge. Third, Mitchell stated that he was not allowed to present a full defense in court, suggesting that this was an unfair violation of his rights. Finally, he claimed that his attorney did not provide effective assistance, which is a right guaranteed by law. After reviewing all the information in the case, the court found that Mitchell's first argument was valid. It concluded that the trial court had wrongly denied his request to represent himself and that this mistake warranted a reversal of his conviction. They remanded the case back to the lower court so Mitchell could exercise his right to defend himself. Although the court found that the felony-murder charge against Mitchell was valid, and that there was no error in the jury instructions about the defenses, they acknowledged that these points were not the main issue due to the ruling on self-representation. Consequently, the matter about ineffective counsel was deemed moot. The final decision was to reverse the current judgments against Mitchell and send the case back to start fresh, allowing Mitchell the opportunity to represent himself.

RE 2007-0484

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 1, 2008
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2007-0484, Shaun Lee Gessel appealed his conviction for multiple charges including unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and threatening a witness. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but ordered the cases to be sent back to the District Court for re-sentencing to fix the errors related to how the sentences were to run. One member of the court dissented.

F-2006-1168

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 6, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1168, Steven Allen Flynn, Jr. appealed his conviction for Second-Degree Felony Murder, Concealing Stolen Property, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine), Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana), and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for Concealing Stolen Property, Possession of Methamphetamine, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. However, they modified his conviction for Second-Degree Felony Murder to First Degree Manslaughter While Driving Under the Influence and reduced his sentence to twenty years. The court also reversed the conviction for Possession of Marijuana with instructions to dismiss the case. One judge dissented.

F-2006-1095

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 11, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1095, Terry Dewayne Wakefield appealed his conviction for kidnapping, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and assault and battery - domestic abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Wakefield's convictions for kidnapping and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. However, the sentence for assault and battery - domestic abuse was modified from ten years to one year in the county jail. One dissenting opinion was noted.

F 2004-1305

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 18, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1305, Anthony Joseph Frost appealed his conviction for Aggravated Attempting to Elude a Police Officer and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for the aggravated attempting to elude charge due to errors during the trial. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. Frost faced a jury trial where he was found guilty of two charges. The jury decided on a punishment of 40 years for the first charge and 1 year with a $1,000 fine for the second charge. The sentences were set to be served at the same time. Frost appealed the decision, claiming that the trial court did not give the jury enough information about parole eligibility and that the court made a mistake by not redacting previous sentence information from his prior convictions. The court found that the trial court did not do anything wrong with the first claim because Frost did not raise an objection during the trial. However, the court agreed that there was a mistake in how previous sentences were presented to the jury. This information could have influenced the jury's decision on the punishment. The court decided to change Frost’s sentence for aggravated attempting to elude from 40 years to 25 years, while keeping the sentence for the drug paraphernalia charge the same. The judges all agreed on some parts of the decision, but one judge disagreed with changing Frost's sentence, believing that the jury should be fully informed about the defendant's history to make a fair decision.

F 2003-364

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 11, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-364, El Alami El Mansouri appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, attempted robbery, first-degree burglary, and kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some convictions but reversed others. The court found that two of the infractions—kidnapping and pointing a firearm—should be dismissed due to double jeopardy. One judge dissented.

F-2001-651

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 7, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-651, Vadell Lamont Wright appealed his conviction for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Intentional Discharge of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions. One judge dissented. Wright was found guilty by a jury and received a sentence of twenty years for the unauthorized use of a vehicle and twenty-five years for using a vehicle in connection with the discharge of a firearm, with both sentences to be served one after the other. He decided to appeal his convictions. The court reviewed several claims raised by Wright regarding his trial. The main issues included: 1. Seeing the defendant in handcuffs could have influenced the jury. 2. There was not enough evidence to say that Wright used the vehicle to make the shooting easier. 3. The court did not allow the defendant to explain his belief that he was allowed to use the car, known as a defense of mistake. 4. Evidence about other crimes affected Wright's right to a fair trial. 5. Communication between the jury and the trial judge was improper. 6. The trial court made mistakes regarding immunity for a co-defendant. 7. The jury was not given the option of lesser charges. 8. Overall, multiple errors deprived Wright of a fair trial. Focusing on the second issue, the court noted that Wright used a stolen vehicle to flee from police. He was in the vehicle with another person who fired a gun at an officer during the chase. However, the court found that simply using the car did not meet the legal requirement that it had to help make the shooting occur. There wasn’t enough evidence to show that the act of using the car was linked to the shooting directly. Additionally, in regards to possible mistakes about using the vehicle, the trial court's instructions did not help the jury understand what was being asked about having permission to use the car. Wright believed he had permission from the person who was with him and thought he could use the vehicle, but the trial court did not clearly explain this possibility to the jury. As a result, the court decided to reverse Wright's conviction for shooting from a vehicle and dismissed that charge. They also decided to send the Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle charge back for a new trial, stating that the earlier jury did not get all the right information to make a fair decision. In conclusion, the court found that Wright should not have been convicted based on the evidence presented and that he deserved a chance to argue his case again in a new trial.

RE 2001-0663

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 11, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0663, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In a published decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. In this case, the Appellant had previously pled guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, possession of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. As a result, the Appellant was given a suspended sentence of five years for the first two counts and a one-year suspended sentence for the third count. A suspended sentence means that the person does not have to serve time in jail unless they break the rules. Later, the State wanted to take back the suspended sentences because they believed the Appellant broke the rules. They filed an application for revocation, and a hearing was held. The judge decided to revoke the five-year suspended sentences for the first two counts but found that the one-year sentence for the third count had already expired. The judge also ordered that the new sentences would run consecutively with any new cases the Appellant might have. This means that the Appellant would serve time for the revocation and also for any new offenses afterward without merging those sentences. However, the Appellant appealed this decision, arguing that the judge did not have the authority to order the five-year sentences to run consecutively with new cases. The higher court agreed with the Appellant's argument and said the judge made a mistake in this part of the decision. The court affirmed the revocation of the Appellant's suspended sentences but modified the sentence to remove the part about running consecutively. This means the Appellant would still be punished for breaking the rules, but they wouldn't have to serve their new sentences one after the other in this case. The court instructed the lower court to update the judgment to reflect this change. In summary, while the Appellant's suspended sentences were revoked, the way the new sentences were to be served was changed. The final decision supported the revocation, but clarified the terms of the punishment.

F-2000-1262

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 13, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1262, Robert Anthony Lamar appealed his conviction for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Robert Anthony Lamar was found guilty by a jury of taking a U-Haul truck without permission. He claimed he only wanted to drive the truck to see what it felt like and intended to return it right after. The jury believed that he did not intend to keep the truck permanently, but the trial court did not let the jury consider a possible lesser charge of joyriding. Lamar raised several points in his appeal. He argued that it was unfair for the court to give the instructions it did without his request and that there wasn’t enough proof to show he meant to keep the truck. But the main issue was that he should have been able to have a chance to be judged on the lesser offense of joyriding, since his actions matched that claim too. The court found that joyriding was indeed a valid option for the jury to consider, and since the jury’s decision did not support the idea of him wanting to permanently take the truck, he deserved a fair chance to contest the lesser charge. Because of this, the court ruled that the prior judgment was reversed, and a new trial was ordered.

RE-2000-841

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 8, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-841, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided that the appellant's revoked sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented.