In OCCA case No. C-2021-218, the petitioner appealed her conviction for outraging public decency and violation of a protective order. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the appeal. The court agreed that her due process rights were violated when the district court denied her motions to withdraw her pleas while she was absent from the hearing. No one dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2019-417, Henry Warren Kwe Kwe appealed his conviction for Conjoint Robbery, Shooting with Intent to Kill, Possession of a Sawed-Off Shotgun, and Leaving Scene of a Collision Involving Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Kwe Kwe's convictions on all counts except for the Victim Compensation Assessment for Count 4, which was vacated. Kwe Kwe dissented. Kwe Kwe was found guilty of several serious crimes stemming from an incident involving a robbery and a shooting. The trial revealed that he, along with accomplices, confronted the victim, demanding her money while one of them displayed a weapon. When the victim attempted to call for help, she was shot in the back with a shotgun. Following this, the robbers took her purse and fled. On appeal, Kwe Kwe raised numerous issues regarding his convictions. He argued that being convicted for both robbery and shooting violated laws against multiple punishments for a single act. However, the court found that the robbery and the shooting were distinct actions. The shooting was meant to prevent the victim from escaping and to eliminate her as a witness, rather than to take possession of her belongings. Kwe Kwe also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence against him, claiming he wasn't the shooter. However, the jury had enough circumstantial evidence to conclude he aided in the crime, as he orchestrated the robbery and knew one accomplice was armed. Also, he was found in possession of a sawed-off shotgun shortly after the incident. The court held that the evidence supported the conclusion he was culpable for aiding and abetting the shooter. Another argument from Kwe Kwe revolved around the legality of the sawed-off shotgun itself. He claimed the prosecution didn't prove the shotgun's barrel was less than 18 inches, which would classify it as sawn-off under the law. Nevertheless, the officer testified that the weapon was a modified sawed-off shotgun and that the jury could determine this after examining it. Moreover, Kwe Kwe claimed that the court’s language when discussing the victim's injuries went against the norms of a fair trial. However, the court found this testimony relevant, as it demonstrated the severity of the attack and the intent behind the actions taken by Kwe Kwe and his accomplices. Lastly, he argued that his legal counsel did not perform adequately by failing to raise certain legal defenses and objections during the trial. Yet, the court determined that any such failures did not adversely affect his rights or the outcome of the case. In summary, Kwe Kwe's convictions remained intact, and while some procedural missteps were noted, none were sufficient to reverse the verdict aside from the correction regarding the Victim Compensation Assessment linked to his charge. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision overall, while rectifying the single financial aspect.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** *Case No. C-2018-1040* **ROLLO ROY WERLINE, IV,** *Petitioner,* *vs.* **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** *Respondent.* **FILED** *IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS* *OCT 31 2019* *JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK* **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Rolla Roy Werline, IV, represented by counsel, entered pleas of guilty to First Degree Manslaughter (Count I), Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident (Count II), and Failure to Maintain Insurance (Count III) in the District Court of Ottawa County, Case No. CF-2017-164. The pleas were accepted by the Honorable Robert G. Haney on April 19, 2018. On June 12, 2018, Petitioner was sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment for Count I, five (5) years imprisonment in Count II (suspended), and a $250.00 fine for Count III. On June 15, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, which was denied at a hearing on June 26, 2018. Petitioner appeals this denial, raising two propositions of error: 1. Petitioner should be allowed to withdraw his plea as it was not entered knowingly and intelligently, given he did not understand the consequences of entering a blind plea. 2. The imposed fines and costs were excessive. **Proposition I:** Petitioner contends that his plea was not entered voluntarily and was the result of being misadvised regarding the plea process. The trial court reviewed this issue during the motion to withdraw hearing. Assessing whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently is key. The record indicates the plea was knowing and voluntary, highlighting that the petitioner understood the court would determine punishment and could impose a sentence within statutory limits. The trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw is upheld. **Proposition II:** Petitioner claims his sentence is excessive, particularly citing a victim impact statement that contained a sentence recommendation, which he argues improperly influenced the court's decision. While acknowledging that victim impact statements may be considered during sentencing, those statements should not contain sentence recommendations. Any potential error here was harmless, as the overall sentence is seen as reasonable and within statutory limits. It was also noted that the issue of a $250.00 Victim Compensation Assessment in Count III was not raised previously and is thus waived for appeal. **DECISION:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. **OPINION BY:** **LUMPKIN, J.** *LEWIS, P.J.: Concur* *KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur* *HUDSON, J.: Concur* *ROWLAND, J.: Concur* **Click Here To Download PDF** [Link to PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-1040_1734225145.pdf)
In OCCA case No. M-2017-137, Jerrad Sterling Nunamaker appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and speeding in excess of the lawful limit. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Nunamaker's fine for speeding to $20.00 and vacated the victim compensation assessment for that offense. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2016-813, Derlin Lara appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including Manslaughter in the First Degree and Driving Under the Influence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny in part and grant in part the appeal. One judge dissented. Derlin Lara was involved in a serious legal situation where he entered an Alford plea. This type of plea means that he did not admit guilt but agreed that there was enough evidence to convict him. His charges included killing someone while driving under the influence, injuring another person while DUI, driving without a license, and transporting alcohol in the car. After he pleaded guilty, he was sentenced by a judge. The judge gave him a long sentence that meant he’d serve a lot of time in prison. Lara later wanted to take back his plea because he felt it wasn’t fair and that he didn't fully understand what he was doing. He argued that he was confused during the process, and that he had received poor advice from his lawyer. The court looked carefully at Lara's case and found several key points: 1. The judges believed that Lara's plea was actually made with understanding, even though he insisted that he did not understand everything. They noted that he had an interpreter during his hearings. 2. The court decided that Lara was not unfairly punished multiple times for the same actions. They explained that each charge had different parts and involved different victims, so they did not violate any laws regarding multiple punishments. 3. Lara’s claims about his lawyer not helping him were also rejected. The court found that Lara did not show that having a different lawyer would have changed his decision to plead guilty. 4. The sentence he received for one of the charges was too harsh according to the law. He was given a year in jail for driving without a license, but that punishment was higher than allowed. The court changed that sentence to a shorter one of just thirty days. Lastly, the court found that the amounts assessed for victim compensation and restitution were not properly explained during sentencing. Therefore, they canceled those amounts and decided that a hearing should be held to determine fair compensation. In summary, while the court denied most of Lara's requests, they did change one of his sentences and agreed that some financial penalties needed to be rethought.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-1154, Charles D. North appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter, among other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to grant North's request to withdraw his guilty pleas due to the fact that he was denied his right to have a lawyer present during the hearing on this motion. North also challenged the legality of his sentences for two other counts. The court agreed that those sentences exceeded what was allowed by law. Therefore, they vacated the illegal sentences and sent the case back to the lower court for North to have new counsel and a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his pleas. No one dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-693, Michael Wayne Dorsey appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree and Shooting with Intent to Kill. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Dorsey's conviction and his sentences but vacated the $5,000 victim compensation assessment set by the trial court. One member of the court dissented. Dorsey was found guilty by a jury of manslaughter and shooting with intent to kill. The jury decided on a punishment of thirty years for manslaughter and five years for the shooting charge, which would be served one after the other. Dorsey argued that he should have been allowed to use self-defense as a reason for both charges, but the court found that the instructions given to the jury were correct. Dorsey also claimed that the trial judge made an error with jury instructions regarding self-defense and intoxication, but the court disagreed. He further asserted that his lawyer was not effective because there was no objection raised to those jury instructions, but the court ruled that there was nothing wrong with the instructions in the first place. Lastly, Dorsey objected to the judge imposing the victim compensation amount without considering several important factors. The court agreed that the judge did not properly assess the situation and sent the case back to the trial court for a new decision on the compensation amount. Thus, the main outcome was that while Dorsey's conviction was upheld, the court required a reconsideration of the victim compensation assessment based on certain statutory factors outlined in the law.
In OCCA case No. RE-2011-277, Johnson appealed his conviction for Feloniously Carrying a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated an additional Victim Compensation Assessment. Johnson dissented. The case began when Johnson entered a guilty plea on August 3, 2005, and was sentenced to ten years in prison, with six months of that sentence being served in jail and the rest suspended, meaning he wouldn't have to serve it unless he broke the law again. He was also fined and had to pay a fee for victim compensation to help those who had been hurt by crimes. Later, in November 2005, the State, which is like the government in this case, claimed Johnson broke his probation by getting into trouble again, which included resisting arrest and having drugs. Because of this, on March 10, 2006, the court decided to make him serve eighteen months of his suspended sentence. Johnson continued to have problems. He was charged with more crimes in 2008, including stealing from a house and having drugs. He went through a special program to help people with drug problems and successfully finished it. In June 2010, the court dismissed some applications to revoke his probation because of progress he made. However, on March 1, 2011, the State filed another application saying Johnson broke the rules again, claiming he tried to escape from the police, attacked a police officer, and had more drugs. A hearing was held on March 14, 2011, where the judge decided to revoke ninety months of Johnson's suspended sentence. Johnson argued in his appeal that the judge was wrong to make him pay another victim compensation fee during the revocation hearing. He believed this fee could only be applied when someone was first convicted, and since the revocation wasn't a new conviction, he shouldn’t have to pay it again. The State said it didn’t matter since the record only showed the original fee, but Johnson insisted the extra fee should be removed. The court agreed with Johnson, explaining that a victim compensation fee should only be applied at the time of the original sentencing, not at a revocation hearing. Therefore, the court decided to remove the $200 fee that was added during the revocation. In his final point, Johnson asked the court to lessen the time he had to serve because he had made improvements while on probation. However, the court found that the judge in charge did not abuse his discretion in deciding how long to revoke Johnson's suspended sentence. Overall, the court confirmed the revocation of Johnson’s sentence but dismissed the new Victim Compensation fee.
In OCCA case No. F 2010-422, Kelsey Danielle Dodson appealed her conviction for child neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the imposed fine and assessments. One judge dissented. Kelsey was tried by a jury for two crimes: child abuse by injury and child neglect. The jury found her not guilty of child abuse but guilty of child neglect. They decided she should go to prison for twenty years. Kelsey thought this punishment was too harsh and believed that the court made mistakes by adding fines not decided by the jury. Kelsey argued four main points in her appeal. First, she felt that twenty years in prison was excessive. Second, she thought that the court wrongly imposed a fine without the jury saying it should. Third, she claimed that the court didn't follow the rules when it decided she needed to pay for victim compensation. Fourth, she said the trial court should not have made her pay into a court fund since it was not within its authority. The appellate court looked closely at what Kelsey brought up. They agreed that the twenty-year prison sentence was appropriate for this kind of crime. They found no reason to change that part of the judgment. However, they sided with Kelsey concerning the fines and assessments. The court ruled that the fine imposed by the trial court should be removed because it didn’t match the jury's decision. The court also pointed out that the trial court failed to properly consider the factors required for assessing victim compensation, so that assessment was canceled too. Overall, the court decided that Kelsey would keep her sentence of twenty years in prison, but any additional fines or assessments imposed upon her were removed. The decision was modified to reflect these changes. One judge on the court disagreed with the decision to vacate the victim compensation assessment, arguing that since Kelsey did not object during the trial, she should not have been able to appeal it. This dissenting opinion highlighted that the trial court had sufficient evidence related to the assessment, given that they received a pre-sentence investigation report. In summary, Kelsey’s prison sentence was upheld, but the extra financial penalties were dropped, leading to a mix of agreement and disagreement among the judges involved in the case.
In OCCA case No. C-2005-207, William Allen Pelican, Jr. appealed his conviction for multiple counts of rape. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition for certiorari and remand the case for a new hearing. One judge dissented. Pelican was sentenced after entering a plea deal where he accepted nolo contendere pleas to three counts of serious crimes. These included rape by instrumentation and first-degree rape. He was given a total sentence of 22.5 years, with part of it suspended, and was also fined. Later, Pelican sought to withdraw his pleas, but the trial judge forced his lawyer to talk about the case despite the attorney having a conflict of interest. The lawyer felt he could not fully support Pelican because he also represented someone else. Because the trial judge didn’t let the lawyer withdraw before discussing the case, Pelican was not effectively helped by his attorney. This was seen as unfair to Pelican since he deserved a lawyer who could fully support his case without conflicts. The court recognized this problem, stating that everyone has the right to have a lawyer who can represent them fully and without conflicts. Because of these issues, the court decided to give Pelican another chance to have a hearing with new legal help so he could properly address his request to withdraw his pleas. The decision was made to correct the case records and ensure that Pelican would be fairly represented in the future.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-1247, Robert Hershal Perkis appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, and burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, reverse the kidnapping conviction, and modify the burglary conviction to second-degree burglary. One judge dissented on the kidnapping aspect. Robert Hershal Perkis was charged with three serious crimes: robbery using a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, and first-degree burglary. He pleaded nolo contendere, which means he did not contest the charges. The court sentenced him to a total of 60 years in prison for these crimes, with the sentences running one after the other, and ordered him to pay fines and restitution. Later, Perkis filed an application to withdraw his guilty pleas, stating that his pleas were not supported by enough evidence, that the sentences were too harsh, and that he did not receive good help from his lawyer. The court looked into these claims and first examined if the pleas were based on sufficient evidence. For the robbery charge, the court found that the victim was threatened with a dangerous weapon and had property taken from him, which satisfied the elements of robbery. Thus, the court upheld Perkis' conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In looking at the kidnapping charge, the court considered the facts surrounding the incident. The victim was taken to a field and held there by Perkis and others. The central issue was whether the confinement of the victim could be considered “secret.” The court decided that because the victim was in a public area, it did not meet the legal definition of secret confinement, which led to the reversal of the kidnapping conviction. Regarding the burglary charge, the court found that while there were issues concerning the evidence for first-degree burglary, it chose to modify the conviction to second-degree burglary instead, giving Perkis a shorter sentence for that conviction. Overall, the court's opinion granted some relief to Perkis by reversing one conviction and modifying another, but kept the robbery conviction intact. The dissenting judge felt that the kidnapping conviction should stand, arguing that the facts should be considered as a case of secret confinement.
In OCCA case No. M 2001-0393, Albino Rosendo Soto appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reduced the victim's compensation assessment from $25.00 to $20.00. One judge dissented.