David B. Lewis

Eric Jose Barnett was convicted by jury of second-degree felony murder for fatally shooting Vernon Sutton nearly a month after Sutton, a convicted rapist of Barnett's mother, had threatened the family during a confrontation. Barnett appealed, arguing among other claims that the trial court erred by refusing jury instructions on self-defense and defense of another, excluding evidence of Sutton's violent character, and that the merger doctrine barred using the underlying felony as the predicate for the murder charge. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected these arguments, holding that the evidence did not support a self-defense instruction because Barnett lacked a reasonable belief of imminent danger when he sought out and shot Sutton, and that the merger doctrine did not apply as the predicate felony was independent of the homicide. The court affirmed the conviction and twenty-three-year sentence.

criminal law

In Jones v. State, Gregory Eugene Jones was convicted by a jury in Creek County District Court of two counts of child sexual abuse against his stepdaughters and sentenced to consecutive twelve-year prison terms after prior felony convictions. On appeal, Jones raised claims of prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, excessive sentences, cumulative error, and the need to correct the judgment and sentence. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found no reversible error in the trial proceedings or counsel's performance but identified an error in the sentencing instructions, which had incorrectly set the minimum term at four years instead of twenty years under the applicable enhancement statute for repeat offenders committing enumerated violent offenses like child abuse. The court therefore affirmed the convictions but remanded the case for resentencing consistent with the proper range of twenty years to life imprisonment.

criminal law

The case involved the conviction of Wendell Arden Grissom on charges of first-degree murder, shooting with intent to kill, grand larceny, and felonious firearm possession arising from a 2005 home invasion in rural Blaine County, Oklahoma, in which Grissom shot two women, killing one, while attempting a burglary. A jury found three aggravating circumstances and imposed a death sentence for the murder along with terms of imprisonment on the other counts. On direct appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed claims concerning jury instructions on intoxication and lesser-included offenses, the sufficiency of the evidence, and procedural stipulations, ultimately affirming the convictions and sentences.

criminal law

The case involved Lawrence Jamere Taylor's appeal from his jury convictions in Tulsa County for first-degree murder and shooting with intent to kill, arising from a 2008 shooting incident at an apartment complex where Taylor allegedly shot two men over a debt related to a stereo purchase, killing one and wounding the other. The trial court sentenced Taylor to life imprisonment without parole on the murder count and life imprisonment on the shooting count, to be served consecutively. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed claims concerning the admission of statements made by Taylor to acquaintances and issues under the Confrontation Clause, citing Crawford v. Washington and related precedents on testimonial hearsay and non-hearsay uses of statements. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, reasoning that the challenged statements were either non-testimonial, admissible for purposes other than proving the truth of the matter asserted, or did not violate confrontation rights.

criminal law

This case involved Richard Zobon Baxter, who was convicted by a jury in Tulsa County of multiple counts including drug trafficking, possession offenses, and traffic violations, all after a prior felony conviction. Baxter appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting evidence obtained from a warrantless search of his vehicle after he had been arrested for traffic violations, handcuffed, and secured in a patrol car. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that the search violated the Fourth Amendment under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Gant, which limits vehicle searches incident to arrest to situations where the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment. The court reversed the convictions on the drug-related counts (I, II, IV, V, VI) due to the lack of any other justification for the search and remanded those for further proceedings, while affirming the traffic-related convictions (VII, VIII, IX).

criminal law

The case concerned Clarence Rozell Goode, Jr., who was tried and convicted in Tulsa County District Court on three counts of first-degree murder and one count of first-degree burglary after he and two accomplices entered the home of Mitch Thompson and Tara Burchett-Thompson and fatally shot the three victims, including the ten-year-old daughter of one victim. The jury found both alleged aggravating circumstances—that Goode knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person and that he posed a continuing threat to society—applied to each murder and imposed death sentences on those counts along with a twenty-year prison term and fine on the burglary count. On direct appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals examined claims regarding the admission of evidence such as 911 recordings, the sufficiency of proof for the aggravating circumstances, and various procedural and instructional issues. The court concluded that any errors were harmless and that the evidence supported the jury's findings, leading to affirmance of the convictions and sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

Michael David Randolph appealed his jury convictions in Tulsa County for trafficking in illegal drugs, second-offense marijuana possession, and failure to obtain a drug tax stamp, which resulted in sentences including life without parole. The case arose from a police investigation at an apartment where officers obtained consent to enter, observed and seized drugs from Randolph, and later recovered additional cocaine during transport. Randolph claimed former jeopardy barred retrial after a mistrial was declared over his objection in a prior proceeding, and the opinion examined whether the jury discharge amounted to an acquittal under state and federal double jeopardy protections, along with related evidentiary issues such as confrontation rights for laboratory reports. The court reviewed precedents on mistrials, the requirements for a valid waiver of search consent, and the application of the confrontation clause to testimonial evidence like forensic analyses.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Anthony Castillo Sanchez, who was convicted by a jury in Cleveland County District Court of first-degree murder, first-degree rape, and forcible sodomy in the 1996 death of Juli Busken. The jury found three aggravating circumstances and imposed a death sentence for the murder along with prison terms and fines for the other offenses. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed claims of trial error, including the use of restraints on the defendant, and found that any errors did not prejudice the outcome or render the trial unfair. The court further determined that the evidence supported the aggravating circumstances, that mitigating evidence did not outweigh them, and that the death sentence was not influenced by passion, prejudice, or other arbitrary factors. The judgment and sentence were affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Clifford Dale Darity was convicted by a jury of trafficking methamphetamine, possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute within 2,000 feet of a school, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, based on evidence seized during a search of his mobile home and shop building pursuant to a warrant. The trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence, imposed sentences of 40 years and a $100,000 fine on the trafficking count, life imprisonment and a $200,000 fine on the possession count, and one year in jail plus a $1,000 fine on the paraphernalia count, and Darity appealed. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the appellant failed to meet his burden of producing evidence that the search warrant was not personally served as required by 22 O.S.2001 § 1227, since the return indicated service, and that the officers' use of a diversionary tactic to execute the warrant while Darity was away from the residence did not violate the statute or require suppression of the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

In Verduzco v. State, the petitioner pled guilty to drug trafficking and transporting drug proceeds, receiving sentences of 15 and 10 years respectively, with the latter suspended. He sought to withdraw the plea via certiorari, arguing it was involuntary because neither counsel nor the court advised him of his statutory ineligibility for most earned credits on the trafficking conviction, as required by the Plea of Guilty Summary of Facts form and extensions of prior cases like Ferguson and Pickens on the 85% rule. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief and affirmed the judgment, holding that earned-credit ineligibility is not a mandatory minimum sentence or calculable consequence like parole restrictions under the 85% rule, but rather a speculative factor too uncertain to render a plea involuntary under existing precedent such as Robinson. The court clarified that Form 13.10's Item 14 applies only to offenses imposing a specific percentage of the sentence that must be served before parole or credit eligibility. The decision was unanimous on the result, with a special concurrence emphasizing the speculative nature of such credits.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the State of Oklahoma's appeal from a district court order suppressing evidence and dismissing an aggravated DUI charge against the defendant in Pottawatomie County. The district court had ruled that the arresting officer, a tribal police officer also commissioned as a deputy sheriff, lacked authority because the sheriff failed to maintain a public list of deputy appointments as required by statute, making the arrest outside the officer's jurisdiction. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the suppression, holding that the officer's arrest was valid under the citizen's arrest statute, 22 O.S. § 202, because he observed the defendant's traffic violations in his presence. The court explained that any noncompliance with the deputy appointment list requirement did not invalidate the arrest or require suppression of the resulting intoxication evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Pope, Lindsay Lynn Pope was charged with first-degree murder of a child in Custer County District Court. She moved to suppress her statements to police and derivative evidence, claiming they were obtained in violation of her Fifth Amendment right to counsel after she invoked her Miranda rights during interrogation. The trial court granted the motion, and the State appealed under 22 O.S.Supp. 2008, § 1053(5). The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the suppression, holding that the police improperly continued questioning and isolated Pope after her unequivocal request for counsel, failed to remind her of her rights before she reinitiated contact, and did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her waiver was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Courtney Dewayne Watts's appeal of his convictions on seven counts, including multiple charges of distributing and trafficking methamphetamine, conspiracy, unlawful firearm possession while on supervised probation, and maintaining a dwelling for controlled substances, arising from four controlled sales to undercover operatives in 2004. The jury convicted him after a prior deferred sentence for a drug offense and imposed lengthy consecutive prison terms and fines, which the trial court largely upheld. On appeal, the court addressed whether the prior deferred sentence and guilty plea could be treated as a conviction to enhance punishment under Oklahoma drug statutes, concluding that the relevant provisions of 63 O.S. § 2-410 expressly allow such use because the prior plea constitutes a conviction when a prior offense is relevant at sentencing. The opinion also touched on evidentiary sufficiency for the maintaining-a-dwelling count and other procedural claims but rejected the core challenge to the enhancement. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences.

criminal lawguns

The case involved Louis R. Young, who was tried by jury in Osage County District Court and convicted of first-degree murder under Oklahoma law for the 2005 killing of Jerry Doyle, a drug user whom Young and an accomplice allegedly lured to a remote location, robbed, and shot after suspecting him of being an informant. The jury imposed a sentence of life imprisonment without parole, which the trial judge entered as judgment. On appeal, Young raised claims including ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to secure defense witnesses, prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments, and other trial errors. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the record and found that while counsel's performance was deficient in one respect, there was no resulting prejudice, and the other alleged errors did not constitute plain error or warrant reversal. The court therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence in full.

criminal lawprocedure

Jeremy Alan Williams was charged in Tulsa County with first-degree murder (under alternative theories of malice or felony murder), robbery with firearms, and two counts of shooting with intent to kill after an armed bank robbery in which one teller was killed and a customer and manager were wounded. A jury convicted him on all counts, found two aggravating circumstances (great risk of death to more than one person and continuing threat to society), and recommended the death penalty for the murder plus prison terms for the other offenses; the trial court imposed those sentences consecutively. On direct appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and death sentence, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts, that the defendant was a major participant who exhibited reckless indifference, and that claims of instructional error and ineffective assistance lacked merit under applicable standards.

criminal law

The case involved Jerry David Spence, Jr., who was tried and convicted of first-degree murder in Cleveland County District Court after a jury trial. At the close of evidence, the trial court was prepared to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of first-degree manslaughter, but Spence, after consulting counsel, objected and sought to submit the case to the jury on an all-or-nothing basis limited to the murder charge. Relying on prior precedent in Shrum v. State, the trial court honored the waiver despite evidence supporting the lesser offense; a later decision in McHam v. State had clarified that trial courts could instruct on lesser offenses even over a defendant's objection. Spence moved for a new trial, arguing the court had erred in light of McHam, but the motion was denied. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because Spence had made a knowing strategic choice and there was no showing of prejudice from counsel's unawareness of McHam.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Carlis Anthony Ball, convicted by jury in Tulsa County District Court of first-degree murder (child abuse) and child neglect after his nearly three-year-old son Keenan died from severe scald burns covering more than half his body. Ball was sentenced to life without parole on the murder count and life imprisonment on the neglect count, to be served consecutively, and he appealed. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions, finding the evidence sufficient to support the jury's determination that the burns resulted from deliberate pouring of scalding water rather than accident and that Ball's failure to seek immediate medical care constituted criminal neglect. The court rejected challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions, and other trial rulings, holding that the verdicts were supported by forensic findings, witness testimony, and the defendant's inconsistent statements.

criminal law

In Blanton v. State, the defendant was convicted of first-degree rape and sentenced to 50 years in prison. On appeal, he raised claims including improper vouching testimony, admission of his statements to a DHS worker without Miranda warnings while in custody, failure to instruct the jury on Oklahoma's 85% sentencing rule, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence, finding that the DHS worker acted as an agent of law enforcement during custodial interrogation, making the unwarned statements inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment and requiring relief to cure the constitutional violation. Other claims were rejected for lack of preserved error or merit.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case concerned Brenda Evers Andrew's convictions for first-degree malice murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder of her estranged husband, along with a death sentence based on findings that the murder was committed for remuneration and was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. The court reviewed trial errors including the handling of certain evidence and, primarily, the prosecutor's closing arguments. It determined that the arguments improperly went outside the record, inflamed the jury by repeatedly emphasizing themes of the defendant as a bad mother and person, and appealed to passions and prejudices rather than the evidence of aggravating circumstances. The core reasoning emphasized that such conduct violates long-standing limits on closing argument, which must be confined to the evidence and reasonable inferences, and that repeated instances of this misconduct by the same prosecutor's office required correction to ensure a fair trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Richard Eugene Glossip's appeal from his conviction for first-degree malice murder and death sentence in Oklahoma County District Court. Glossip, the manager of a motel, was accused of hiring maintenance worker Justin Sneed to kill the motel owner, Barry Van Treese, in January 1997, in exchange for $10,000, after Van Treese discovered financial shortages at the property. The jury found Glossip guilty based on Sneed's testimony and other evidence, determined that the murder was committed for remuneration, and imposed the death penalty. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence such as financial records, witness statements about shortages and threats of firing, and Glossip's possession of cash consistent with the alleged payment, and that the evidence as a whole supported the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawprocedure