Victim Impact Statements Archives

F-2019-417

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 30, 2020
Post category:F

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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Kwe Kwe's convictions on all counts except for the Victim Compensation Assessment for Count 4, which was vacated.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.

F-2018-975

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 30, 2020
Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MICKEY JOE EDWARD RICHARDSON,** **Appellant,** **VS.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-975** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA JAN 30 2020** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Mickey Joe Edward Richardson, was convicted by a jury in Haskell County District Court, Case No. CF-2016-91, of several crimes, receiving the following sentences: - **Assault and Battery on a Police Officer**, After Conviction of a Felony (Count 1) - **5 years** - **Larceny of an Automobile**, After Conviction of a Felony (Count 2) - **20 years** - **Feloniously Pointing a Firearm**, After Conviction of a Felony (Count 4) - **30 years** - **Felon in Possession of a Firearm**, After Conviction of a Felony (Count 5) - **Life** - **Escape from Detention** (Count 8) - **1 year** On September 11, 2018, the trial court, presided by the Honorable Brian C. Henderson, Associate District Judge, imposed the jury-recommended sentences to be served consecutively. This appeal followed. Appellant raises six propositions of error: 1. **Misinstruction on Sentencing Range** for Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony. 2. **Violation of Fourteenth Amendment Due Process** regarding jury instructions. 3. **Improper Victim Impact Statements** affecting the fairness of the sentencing hearing. 4. **Abuse of Discretion** with respect to the policy of consecutive sentencing. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel** violating constitutional rights. 6. **Cumulative Errors** affecting the fairness of the proceedings. After thorough consideration of the propositions, briefs, and the entire record, we affirm. Appellant was convicted after attacking a sheriff’s deputy, stealing a patrol car, and attempting to evade other officers. ### Analysis of Propositions: **Proposition I: Misinstruction on Sentencing Range** Appellant claims misinstruction regarding the sentencing range for Count 5, asserting it should be one to ten years under 21 O.S. 2011, § 1284. However, the jury was properly instructed on the sentencing range pursuant to 21 O.S.2011, §§ 51.1(A)(2) and 1284. **Proposition II: Jury Instruction on Statement Voluntariness** Appellant argues the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the voluntariness of his statement to police. As Appellant testified and did not claim the statements were involuntary, this contention lacks merit. **Proposition III: Victim Impact Statements** Appellant objected to victim impact statements, claiming they were inadmissible since the crimes were not violent. However, one conviction (Pointing a Firearm) was classified as a violent crime, making the inclusion of the statements appropriate. **Proposition IV: Consecutive Sentencing Policy** Appellant alleges the trial court enforced a policy of consecutive sentencing for defendants who exercise their right to a jury trial. The record indicates the trial court exercised discretion properly, adhering to the statutory default for consecutive sentences. **Proposition V: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel** Appellant contends his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to previous claims. As we found those claims meritless, trial counsel cannot be faulted for failing to raise meritless objections. **Proposition VI: Cumulative Errors** No errors were identified in prior propositions, thus, there are no cumulative errors to evaluate. ### Decision The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Haskell County is **AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ordered issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **Appeal from the District Court of Haskell County** **The Honorable BRIAN C. HENDERSON, Associate District Judge** **Attorneys for Appellant: ROGER HILFIGER, SARAH MACNIVEN** **Attorneys for Appellee: CHRISTINA BURNS, MIKE HUNTER, ASHLEY L. WILLIS** **OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.** **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** --- [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-975_1734872271.pdf)

C-2018-834

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 27, 2019
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** FILED JUN 27 2019 **Case No. C-2018-834** **TAMMERA RACHELLE BAKER,** Petitioner, vs. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Respondent. --- **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Tammera Rachelle Baker, Petitioner, entered a blind plea of guilty to first degree manslaughter, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 711, in the District Court of Delaware County, Case No. CF-2017-157. The Honorable Robert G. Haney, District Judge, found Petitioner guilty. The Honorable Barry V. Denny, Associate District Judge, later sentenced Appellant to thirty (30) years imprisonment, with ten (10) years suspended, and a $1,000.00 fine. Petitioner filed an application to withdraw the plea, which was denied. She now seeks a writ of certiorari in the following propositions of error: 1. The plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered into as Petitioner believed the court would not impose more than ten years and relied on misinformation from her attorney regarding witness testimony. 2. Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel during her plea proceedings. 3. The sentence imposed post-plea is shockingly excessive due to improper victim impact statements. Certiorari review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently before a competent jurisdiction, whether the sentence is excessive, whether counsel was constitutionally effective, and whether the State has the power to prosecute. The Court will not review issues not raised in the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. The trial court's ruling on a motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed for an abuse of discretion unless it involves statutory or constitutional interpretation, which is reviewed de novo. **Proposition One**: Petitioner argues her plea was involuntary due to reliance on her attorney's misinformation regarding sentencing expectations. The record refutes this argument, indicating that the plea was voluntary; therefore, no relief is warranted. **Proposition Two**: Petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel and requests an evidentiary hearing. Claims are assessed under the Strickland v. Washington test. Petitioner has not shown clear evidence to support a finding of ineffective assistance, thus this proposition and the request for a hearing are denied. **Proposition Three**: Petitioner claims her sentence is excessive. The Court will only disturb a sentence within statutory limits if it shocks the conscience. The facts of this case do not meet that threshold, so no relief is warranted. **DECISION**: The petition for the writ of certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES:** **TRIAL** Lee Griffin, Attorney for Appellant Kathy Baker, Attorney for Withdrawal **APPEAL** Katrina Conrad-Legler, Attorney for Appellant Nicholas P. Lelecas, Assistant District Attorney for the State **OPINION BY**: LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur --- For full ruling, [click here to download the PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-834_1734180202.pdf).

F-2016-55

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 1, 2017
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.

F-2010-203

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 9, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-203, Travis Lee Danley appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his conviction for Larceny from a House to Petit Larceny but affirmed the other convictions. One judge dissented. Danley was found guilty of two counts of First Degree Murder, Second Degree Arson, Larceny from a House, and Larceny of an Automobile, and sentenced to life in prison without parole on the murder counts, among other sentences. The events occurred on August 31, 2008, when Danley shot two victims in a home after an argument, attempted to cover up the crime, and fled the scene with stolen items. During his trial, Danley raised several issues on appeal, including that the district court should have declared a mistrial after the jury heard testimony about his probation, whether there was enough evidence for the larceny conviction, prosecutorial misconduct, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative error from the trial. The court found that the mention of Danley being on probation did not prejudice the trial significantly and upheld the district court's ruling. However, it agreed with Danley that the evidence did not support a conviction for Larceny from a House, as he was a guest in the home and did not unlawfully enter. Therefore, his charge was modified to Petit Larceny due to insufficient evidence regarding the value of the stolen items. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct were also considered, with the court noting that the prosecutor's questions and comments did not render the trial unfair. Danley’s argument regarding ineffective assistance of counsel was rejected, as the jury instructions were deemed adequate at the time of the trial. Lastly, the court ruled that even if there were errors during the trial, they did not cumulatively harm Danley's right to a fair trial. In summary, the court affirmed most of the trial's decisions but modified one conviction due to insufficient evidence, affirming the principle that defendants deserve fair treatment under the law.