Gary Leonard Lumpkin

In Faulkner v. State, the appellant was convicted by a jury in Okfuskee County of Child Sexual Abuse and sentenced to 35 years imprisonment. On appeal, he raised multiple claims of error, including that his former attorney improperly investigated and prosecuted him in a substantially related matter, violating due process due to a conflict of interest under the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found plain error because the former counsel had access to confidential information from prior guardianship proceedings involving the appellant and the complaining witness, creating an impermissible risk under Rule 1.9 that this information would be used adversely. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, requiring disqualification of any prosecutors with protected information from the case, and rendered the remaining propositions moot.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Brian Hayden Harney's appeal from his convictions in Nowata County for felony driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a revoked license, stemming from a single-vehicle rollover accident where he was found to have consumed alcohol and refused a blood test. Harney raised multiple claims of error, including improper jury instructions on lesser offenses and punishment range, admission of his full driving record, and prosecutorial misconduct. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions, finding that while errors occurred in the admission of the driving record and the punishment instruction, they did not deprive him of a fair trial on guilt, but required remand for resentencing due to the cumulative effect of those errors.

criminal lawprocedure

In Anderson v. State, the appellant appealed his jury conviction in Stephens County District Court for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs after two or more prior felony convictions, for which he received a ten-year prison sentence and $5,000 fine to run consecutively to another sentence. He raised twelve propositions of error on appeal, including challenges to the chain of custody for blood evidence, sufficiency of the evidence, use of an expired test kit, admissibility of horizontal gaze nystagmus test results without scientific foundation, jury instructions on burden of proof, other crimes evidence, statutory vagueness, timing of the blood draw, ineffective assistance of counsel, and excessiveness of sentence. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the claims under standards such as plain error for unpreserved issues, sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, abuse of discretion for evidentiary rulings, and statutory compliance, finding no reversible errors in any proposition and affirming the judgment and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Michael G. Burgess, the elected Sheriff of Custer County and a member of a drug court team, who was convicted by a jury in Major County of multiple offenses including engaging in a pattern of criminal offenses, sexual battery, bribery by a public official, kidnapping, forcible oral sodomy, and second-degree rape. These charges arose from Burgess's sexual exploitation of two female drug court participants by threatening their program termination or offering favorable treatment in exchange for sexual acts, along with related misconduct in urinalysis testing and transport. The trial court imposed the jury's recommended sentences, which included terms of imprisonment and fines running largely consecutively. On appeal, Burgess raised claims of insufficient evidence at preliminary hearing and trial, improper jury instructions that allegedly relieved the State's burden of proof, and excessive sentences, but the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the record and determined that the evidence was sufficient, the instructions accurately stated the law without plain error, and the sentences were within statutory ranges and not excessive, leading to affirmance of the judgment and sentences.

criminal law

In State v. Sittingdown, the defendant was charged with two counts of unlawful possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute near a school, based on evidence obtained when deputies serving a civil writ of execution asked him to empty his pockets, revealing drugs, followed by a drug dog alert, vehicle search, and a search warrant for a nearby bar. The magistrate suppressed the evidence and dismissed the charges, finding the deputies exceeded their authority under the writ, and the district court affirmed. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to suppress evidence from a seizure pursuant to a civil writ if officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on the writ and abided by its terms, even if the writ is later deemed invalid or the scope questionable, as the purpose of the rule is to deter police misconduct which was absent here.

criminal lawprocedure

In Mitchell v. State, Alfred Brian Mitchell appealed his death sentence for first-degree malice murder and related convictions including robbery and rape, imposed after a 2007 resentencing trial in Oklahoma County. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the case's extensive procedural history, which included prior convictions affirmed on direct appeal, federal habeas relief vacating some counts, multiple resentencings, and claims of error such as improper jury selection and issues with evidence like confessions. The court examined eighteen propositions of error under state statutes and constitutional standards, incorporating facts from earlier opinions and addressing aggravating circumstances like the heinous nature of the crime.

criminal lawprocedure

In 1978, Michael Leon Williams pleaded guilty in Oklahoma state court to injuring a minor child under a plea agreement for a five-year sentence, but he failed to appear for sentencing and remained a fugitive until his recapture in 2008. Upon return, the State withdrew the original sentencing offer, Williams moved to withdraw his plea, and the trial court denied the motion after finding the plea valid. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the case, holding that Williams's thirty-year absence constituted abandonment of the plea agreement and forfeiture of appellate remedies. The court relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedent allowing dismissal when a defendant's prolonged flight prejudices the state's ability to retry the case and disrupts the appellate process, supported by the parties' stipulation of prejudice. The decision affirms that a conviction on a guilty plea is finalized only upon judgment and sentence, which occurred here in 2009.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Crystal Lea Watson, who was convicted in a non-jury trial of trafficking in illegal drugs, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, acquiring proceeds from drug activity, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. The trial court proceeded with the trial in Watson's absence after she failed to appear on the first day, despite defense counsel's objection and request for a continuance; Watson later turned herself in and was sentenced. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that under state law a felony defendant has a right to be personally present at trial that can be waived only by voluntary absence after the trial has begun, and that conducting the entire trial without her was not harmless error because it prevented her from challenging the State's evidence. The court noted that her absence from the outset distinguished the case from precedents allowing trials to continue after a defendant absents themselves mid-trial.

criminal lawprocedure

In Marshall v. State, appellant Billy Gene Marshall was convicted by jury of first-degree murder and first-degree robbery after former conviction of two or more felonies for the 2006 beating death and robbery of 71-year-old Alonzo Tibbs, Jr., and was sentenced to consecutive terms of life without parole and life imprisonment. On direct appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Marshall challenged the admission of expert testimony concerning DNA and other forensic evidence, arguing violations of the confrontation clause under Crawford and Melendez-Diaz, as well as certain hearsay rulings. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the expert testimony was properly admitted because the testifying witness formed an independent opinion based on data reasonably relied upon in the field, that any non-testifying analysts' statements were not offered for their truth, and that the overall evidence supported the verdicts without reversible error.

criminal law

In Hall v. State, the defendant was convicted after a nonjury trial of possessing cocaine base and marijuana following a traffic stop for violating an Oklahoma City ordinance by failing to signal continuously for the last 100 feet before turning. The court affirmed the convictions and concurrent sentences, rejecting the claim that the stop was invalid due to a conflict between the city ordinance and state law. The core reasoning was that the ordinance, while more restrictive, is consistent with the state statute because it enhances public safety without contradicting the state's minimum requirements, and municipalities have delegated authority to enact traffic rules that are reasonably related to safety and not inconsistent with state law.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' adoption of amendments to its procedural rules governing in forma pauperis filings by indigent parties in criminal appeals. The court revised Rule 1.11 to require submission of a verified affidavit attesting to inability to pay fees, with provisions for perjury penalties and substitution of certified indigency determinations, and updated Form 13.2 to reflect the new affidavit language and include a prison account statement section. These amendments were promulgated pursuant to statutory authority and took effect on the date of the order. A separate opinion by one judge concurred in part and dissented in part regarding the handling of verification alternatives.

criminal lawprocedure

In Johnson v. State, the appellant was convicted by jury of multiple felonies including robbery with a firearm, pointing a firearm, assault and battery with a deadly weapon, first-degree burglary, felonious possession of a firearm, and kidnapping, all after former convictions of two or more felonies, and received lengthy prison sentences. On appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the court reversed the convictions and remanded the case for a new trial. The core reasoning was that the trial court abused its discretion during voir dire by incorporating improper remarks on the costs of proceedings, potential consequences of failing to follow instructions, and premature comments on deliberations that resembled a coercive Allen charge, which could have unduly influenced jurors and violated the requirement for objective, non-argumentative instructions under state law. The court found these comments had a potentially coercive effect and necessitated reversal without addressing the appellant's other claims of error.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hunt v. State, appellant Randal Ray Hunt was convicted by jury of first-degree malice murder of his girlfriend Wynona Reames and sentenced to death after evidence showed he stabbed her multiple times. On appeal, Hunt argued that admission of a 911 call recording made by the victim weeks earlier, describing a prior assault by him, violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights because the statements were testimonial hearsay under Crawford v. Washington. The court analyzed the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine from Giles v. California, found the statements testimonial under Davis v. Washington, noted that Oklahoma has not adopted the doctrine, and concluded the State's circular application of it did not overcome the confrontation violation, leading the court to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial without addressing other claims.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Alton A. Horn, III, who was tried and convicted by jury on multiple counts of first-degree rape and forcible oral sodomy committed against his stepdaughter J.E. from the time she was 12 until she was 16 years old. The trial court dismissed some counts, the jury acquitted on others, and Horn received concurrent sentences of 50 years on the rape counts and 10 years on the sodomy counts, to run consecutively to an unrelated sentence. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions, ruling that the evidence was sufficient and that other-acts evidence was properly admitted under the statute governing propensity evidence in sexual offense prosecutions. The core reasoning centered on the statutory framework for admitting such evidence and the absence of reversible error in its application or in the jury instructions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Katherine Rutan Pollard, who was convicted by a jury in Woods County, Oklahoma, of the first-degree murder of her six-year-old son Logan Tucker and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. On appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the defendant raised claims including improper disqualification of her trial counsel, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, erroneous admission of prior bad acts evidence, and flawed jury instructions. The court reviewed the record and rejected each claim, holding that the trial court's rulings were proper, no prejudice resulted from counsel's actions, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

criminal law

The case concerned Jared William Jones's appeal from his convictions in Oklahoma state court for three counts of first-degree malice murder and two counts of shooting with intent to kill, for which he received death sentences on the murder counts and life sentences on the shooting counts. The shootings occurred after Jones, armed with two guns, went to a residence to confront his girlfriend and became involved in an altercation with several adults present, during which he fired at multiple people, killing three and wounding two. The court reviewed the evidence supporting the jury's findings of aggravating circumstances, including that the defendant created a great risk of death to more than one person and that some murders were especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, and addressed issues related to jury selection and trial procedures in upholding the convictions and sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Kendall DeJuan Wiley's appeal from his jury convictions in Tulsa County District Court on charges of robbery with a firearm, second degree burglary, first degree rape, and rape by instrumentation, for which he received consecutive sentences including life imprisonment. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the convictions and remanded the case for a new trial. The court determined that Wiley's retained counsel rendered ineffective assistance under the Strickland standard by failing to prepare adequately, including not complying with discovery, not interviewing alibi witnesses or testing DNA evidence independently, not knowing witness names or sentencing ranges, and abruptly ending voir dire, which prevented meaningful adversarial testing of the prosecution's case. The court addressed several other claims but found the ineffective assistance dispositive, while upholding the trial court's decision to try Wiley as an adult on the burglary charge.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of Samuel Clifton Folks, II for sexually abusing a five-year-old child in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, based on testimony from family members, investigators, and a videotaped forensic interview of the victim. Folks appealed on multiple grounds, including the admission of the DVD interview, restrictions on his testimony about a polygraph, potential jury confusion from an unanswered question, collateral estoppel, impeachment of a witness, limits on cross-examination, and the use of hearsay evidence. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the record and all propositions of error, concluding that the evidence was properly admitted, any issues were not prejudicial, and the jury instructions were sufficient. The court therefore affirmed the eight-year prison sentence without reversal or modification.

criminal lawprocedure

In Wortham v. State, the appellant appealed the revocation of his suspended sentence for robbery with a firearm after the state alleged he committed new crimes of rape and child sexual abuse. The trial court revoked the sentence based on a preliminary hearing transcript from the new charges and a DNA paternity report, over the appellant's objections that this violated his confrontation rights. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the revocation, holding that the appellant's prior opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses at the preliminary hearing satisfied due process requirements for confrontation in the revocation proceeding, and no separate showing of witness unavailability was needed. The court distinguished this from cases where no such opportunity existed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned indictments issued by Oklahoma's Tenth Multicounty Grand Jury charging several defendants with conspiracy against the state and embezzlement by public officers, based on activities involving the Hinton Economic Development Authority. The defendants sought to quash the indictments and suppress evidence, arguing that the presence of two alternate grand jurors during testimony violated Article II, Section 18 of the Oklahoma Constitution and related statutes. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the plain language of the constitution mandates a grand jury of exactly twelve members, with no provision for alternates, rendering the indictments invalid due to the procedural irregularity. The court reasoned that any deviation from the specified number and unanimity requirements presumes prejudice and requires quashing the charges.

criminal lawprocedure