Robert D. Simms

This case involves the appeal of a second conviction for robbery with firearms in Oklahoma County District Court, where the defendant received a 50-year sentence after the first conviction was reversed on appeal. The defendant challenged the identification evidence from store employees and police officers, the trial court's refusal of additional jury instructions on his alibi defense and claim that another person committed the crime, and the prosecutor's closing arguments. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found the evidence sufficient to support the verdict, determined that the given instructions fully and accurately covered the defense theories under applicable law, and concluded that the prosecutor's statements were fair inferences from the testimony or responses to defense remarks. The court therefore affirmed the judgment and sentence in all respects.

criminal lawprocedure

In Callins v. State, the appellant was convicted in Oklahoma County District Court of first-degree rape after a prior felony conviction based on the victim's testimony identifying him as the assailant who abducted her at knifepoint, drove her to a remote area, sexually assaulted her, and stole her car, along with corroborating evidence including police testimony, the recovered vehicle with altered paint, a citation issued to the defendant while driving it, and personal items linking him to the car. The jury imposed a 1,500-year sentence, which the defendant appealed on grounds that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment, violated equal protection, encroached on executive authority, and resulted from improper prosecutorial argument. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the sentence did not violate constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment or equal protection and was not excessive, as parole rules would treat it effectively as a life term; a concurrence emphasized the jury's role and rejected claims of bias, while a dissent argued the sentence was patently excessive and should be modified to life imprisonment.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hill v. State, two appellants were separately tried and convicted by juries of second-degree burglary after a grocery store in Dacoma, Oklahoma, was forcibly entered and items including food, cigarettes, an adding machine, and a radio were stolen. The appeals, consolidated by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, centered on whether the testimony of a confessed accomplice who implicated both defendants was sufficiently corroborated under state law and on related claims of improper prosecution and closing-argument misconduct. The court held that independent evidence, including police sightings of the defendants' distinctive vehicle near the scene and identification of specific stolen property, provided the required corroboration connecting the appellants to the crime, allowing the jury to consider the accomplice's full account. Other asserted errors were deemed either unpreserved or without merit, leading the court to affirm the minimum two-year sentences for both appellants.

criminal lawprocedure

In Branch v. Mills, petitioner William Max Branch sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the District Court from trying him on a felony charge of unlawful possession of hashish with intent to distribute, arguing that the charge arose from the same transaction as two misdemeanors—unlawful possession of amphetamines and marijuana—to which he had already pleaded guilty and been sentenced, violating double jeopardy protections under the Oklahoma Constitution and statutes. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied the writ. The majority reasoned that the hashish discovered on Branch's person during arrest constituted a distinct offense from the marijuana found later in his home under a search warrant and from the amphetamines, so the prior convictions did not bar prosecution for the hashish felony. A dissent argued that the possessions were part of a single transaction and that 21 O.S. § 11 also precluded multiple punishments for the same act.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the joint trial and conviction of Herbert Claude Fields and Jimmy Louis Phillips for first-degree rape after former felony conviction in Oklahoma County District Court, based on the testimony of victim Karen Lee Kimbrough and her boyfriend describing an August 1970 encounter where the defendants offered assistance with a stalled car, then abducted and raped the victim after separating her from her companion. The jury imposed 1,000-year sentences in a two-stage proceeding. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding the evidence sufficient to support the verdict, no reversible errors in the trial proceedings, and the lengthy term consistent with statutory guidelines as it effectively functioned as a life sentence under the Pardon and Parole Board's policies for parole consideration after one-third of the maximum or fifteen years. The court rejected arguments that the sentence improperly encroached on executive parole authority or nullified the 'Forgotten Man' statute.

criminal law

This case arose when a district attorney sought mandamus or prohibition after a special district judge in Tulsa County suppressed evidence from a search warrant on grounds that the supporting affidavit was insufficient, dismissed the charges, and denied reinstatement of the prosecutions. The court determined that neither mandamus nor prohibition was available because the magistrate had jurisdiction and was exercising judicial discretion, and the state had not followed the steps for an appeal on a reserved question of law. Recognizing an imbalance with defendants' rights to seek review, the court modified its prior decisions in Nicodemus, Jones, and Harper by adopting new Rule 6, which creates a specific appellate procedure allowing the state to challenge adverse magistrate rulings on motions to suppress, quash informations, or discharge defendants at preliminary examination.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Kenneth Schorr's conviction for marijuana possession after police stopped him for a traffic violation, took him to the station for lacking a driver's license, and obtained his signed consent to search his vehicle without first providing Miranda warnings during custodial interrogation; officers found marijuana and letters in the vehicle. Schorr challenged the admission of the search evidence and related hearsay letters as violations of his constitutional rights. The court held that consent to search given while in custody requires prior Miranda warnings to be valid under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, which were not provided here, rendering the search invalid. It reversed the conviction and remanded with directions to dismiss, distinguishing this from non-custodial consents or cases with proper warnings.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved an appeal by Fred McFay from his jury conviction in Caddo County District Court for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, for which he received a six-month jail sentence. The central issues on appeal were whether the trial court properly admitted the preliminary hearing testimony of the absent victim after finding the state had exercised due diligence in attempting to secure his presence at trial, and whether the prosecutor's closing argument was improper. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the transcript was admissible despite not being filed by the court reporter or magistrate as required by statute, that the state's efforts to locate the witness satisfied the due diligence standard, and that any potential errors were harmless because the remaining eyewitness testimony independently established the defendant's guilt. The court also ruled that the argument claim was not preserved for review because defense counsel failed to move to strike the remarks after objecting.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is an appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief in Lincoln County, Oklahoma, involving a defendant who in 1967 pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree manslaughter and received concurrent four-year sentences with the first two years to be served in prison and the balance suspended for good behavior. After completing the prison portion and being released, the defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1970, leading the state to seek and obtain revocation of the suspended sentences in 1971 following a hearing. The defendant did not appeal the revocation but instead pursued post-conviction relief, arguing that the trial court lacked authority to suspend part of the original sentence under then-existing law, that this rendered his guilty plea involuntary, and that the suspension conditions were not properly specified. The court affirmed the denial of relief, holding that trial judges have inherent power to suspend portions of sentences (overruling prior contrary precedent) and that a subsequent criminal conviction constitutes a violation of the good-behavior condition sufficient to support revocation.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a husband and wife convicted by a jury of grand larceny for shoplifting clothing and other items valued over $20 from an Oklahoma department store, with their 12-year-old daughter assisting by placing merchandise in their purses. An off-duty officer observed the family select items, hide them while in a drapery section, and exit without paying, leading to their arrest and recovery of most items. The defendants appealed, arguing insufficient evidence (particularly against the husband), trial errors, improper prosecutorial argument, denial of a suspended sentence for the wife, and newly discovered evidence of kleptomania. The court affirmed both convictions and sentences, holding that circumstantial evidence supported the husband's aiding and abetting, the trial record showed no prejudicial errors warranting reversal, sentencing discretion was properly exercised, and post-conviction claims did not affect the original case.

criminal law

The case concerned a defendant's appeal from an order revoking his suspended one-year sentence for the offense of omitting to provide for a minor child. The trial court had imposed conditions requiring payment of back and current child support, and the revocation followed a hearing finding that the defendant had failed to make those payments. The court held that the revocation was timely because the original judgment date controlled over any conflicting date in the revocation order. It further ruled that the trial court had authority to condition the suspended sentence on child support payments even though the underlying divorce decree was from another county, and that revoking the sentence for nonpayment did not violate the prohibition against imprisonment for debt because it enforced a criminal obligation.

criminal lawfamily law

This case involves an indigent defendant charged with robbery with a dangerous weapon who filed for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to provide a free transcript of his preliminary hearing for use in preparing for trial. The court granted the writ in part and denied it in part, remanding for an evidentiary hearing to evaluate the transcript's value and whether lower-cost alternatives like dictabelts could serve the same purpose. The reasoning relied on precedents such as Griffin v. Illinois and Draper v. Washington, which establish that states cannot impose financial barriers denying indigents equal access to records needed for their defense but do not require a full transcript in every case if other methods ensure a sufficient record. The opinion noted that defendants need not prove particularized need but that courts may consider practical substitutes to avoid unnecessary expense.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved Leonard Joe Baker's appeal from his conviction in Kay County District Court for second-degree burglary, for which a jury assessed a two-year prison sentence. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the record contained no formal judgment and sentence. The court explained that statutes and its rules require the filing of a formal judgment and sentence to perfect an appeal, that the designation of record did not request it, and that no supplementation of the record had been attempted despite the appeal pending since 1971.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was an appeal from a conviction in Oklahoma County District Court for robbery with firearms, where the defendant was found guilty by jury and sentenced to 35 years in prison. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the record for prejudicial error only, as no appellate brief was filed, and affirmed the judgment and sentence. The court held that witness testimony, identification of the defendant and shotgun, recovery of stolen money, and the defendant's voluntary statements provided sufficient evidence for the jury's verdict. It found no errors in the arrest and search, denial of continuance, prosecutor's closing argument, refusal of mental examination, jury instructions, or admission of the confession.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether 17-year-old Linda Freshour could be prosecuted as an adult in district court for an alleged offense committed on March 28, 1972, without a prior certification hearing in juvenile court. Earlier federal and state rulings had invalidated Oklahoma statutes that set different age thresholds for boys and girls to be treated as juveniles, leaving the Children's Code without a valid definition of "child" or "delinquent child." The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to proceed against her as an adult, reasoning that the remaining non-discriminatory statute, 21 O.S. § 152, established a presumption of criminal responsibility for those over age 14, and that a new 1972 law defining a child as anyone under 18 was not retroactive. The opinion emphasized that the test for adult proceedings under the existing code was whether the individual knew the wrongfulness of the act.

criminal lawcivil rightsfamily law

The case involved the conviction of Myer Aaron Ruhm for possession of marijuana following a traffic stop in Oklahoma City. Officers pursued and stopped the defendant's vehicle for observed violations including improper turn and driving left of center; when the defendant reached under the seat upon being asked for his license, an officer observed a marijuana cigarette on the floorboard, leading to a further search that uncovered additional evidence. The trial court denied the motion to suppress the evidence as the product of an illegal search, and the jury convicted the defendant, imposing seven years imprisonment and a $2,500 fine. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the officers acted reasonably and that competent evidence supported the trial court's findings on the motion to suppress, but modified the sentence to four years and $500 on grounds that the reduction better served justice.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a defendant seeking a writ of prohibition to stop a hearing on revoking his five-year suspended sentence for first-degree robbery, which was imposed in 1966. The state filed an application to revoke in 1970 based on a new felony conviction, but hearings were continued and delayed due to the defendant's motions and absence until after the sentence term expired in late 1971. The defendant argued the trial court lost jurisdiction once the term ended. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals denied the writ, ruling that timely filing of the revocation application vested the court with continuing authority to hold a hearing, which could not be defeated by the defendant's requested continuances or voluntary absence as long as the state acted with due diligence.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Charles Dale Coslow and Jo Ann Coslow were convicted of knowingly concealing stolen property after police executed a search warrant at their residence and seized a deerskin rug. The defendants argued that the search warrant affidavit was insufficient. The court held that the affidavit failed to provide adequate details regarding the informant's reliability and observations as required by Oklahoma law, and that the seized item was not described in the warrant nor supported by probable cause. As a result, the evidence was deemed inadmissible, leading the court to reverse the convictions and remand with instructions to dismiss due to insufficient remaining evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

In Noland v. State, the defendant appealed his sentences following guilty pleas to second-degree burglary and larceny of an automobile, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him without his regular counsel present and without allowing him to review the pre-sentence investigation report. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found no denial of effective counsel but determined that the sentencing violated 22 O.S. § 982, which requires that a copy of the pre-sentence report be given to the defendant, as well as related case law. The court vacated the judgments and sentences, remanding the case for resentencing before a different judge, with the defendant represented by counsel of his choice and provided an opportunity to examine and rebut the report. This ensures compliance with statutory procedures for felony sentencing after a guilty plea.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Donnie Wayne Owens appealing his four-year sentence after pleading guilty to first-degree manslaughter in Oklahoma state court. The court determined that the sentencing proceedings violated statutory requirements because Owens was not provided a copy of the pre-sentence investigation report under 22 O.S. § 982 and was not afforded an opportunity to correct errors or present mitigating evidence. Although the court rejected claims of ineffective counsel due to the regular attorney's absence, it vacated the judgment and sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different judge with proper notice, representation, and access to the report. The court also addressed but dismissed an argument that the underlying manslaughter statute had been repealed.

criminal lawprocedure