¶1 Appellant, Nicholaus Mark Oliver, was tried by jury and convicted in the District Court of Canadian County, Case No. CF-2018-698, of Domestic Abuse by Strangulation, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 644(J). The jury returned a guilty verdict with a sentence of two years imprisonment and the trial court sentenced Appellant to two years imprisonment.
¶2 From this judgment and sentence, Appellant appeals and raises the following propositions of error:
I. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED WHEN IT ALLOWED EXPERT WITNESSS TESTIMONY THAT IMPERMISSIBLY VOUCHED FOR THE VICTIM.
II. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO HOLD A DAUBERT HEARING ON THE EXPERT WITNESS EVIDENCE OF KERI THOMPSON, RN, AND DETECTIVE EDWARD MOSIER.
III. DETECTIVE [MOSIER] TESTIFIED BEYOND HIS EXPERTISE AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT DETECTIVE.
IV. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED WHEN IT PERMITTED THE PROSECUTOR TO IMPROPERLY SHIFT THE BURDEN TO THE DEFENDANT DURING CLOSING ARGUMENT.
V. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED WHEN IT IMPROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY AS TO THE DEFINITION OF GREAT BODILY HARM.
VI. THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE II, §§ 7 AND 20 OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION.
VII. THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED AT TRIAL WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION FOR DOMESTIC ABUSE BY STRANGULATION.
VIII. EVEN IF INDIVIDUAL ERRORS DO NOT MERIT REVERSAL OF THE APPELLANT’S CONVICTION, THE CUMULATIVE ERROR [SIC] OF THESE ERRORS DEPRIVED HIM 0F A FAIR TRIAL REQUIRING THE REVERSAL OF THE APPELLANT’S CONVICTION.
¶3 After thorough consideration of these propositions and the entire record before us on appeal including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we have determined that under the law and the evidence, Appellant is not entitled to relief.
¶1 Appellant Frank Reynolds appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2018-1845, for Murder in the First Degree, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 701.7. The Honorable Natalie Mai, District Judge, presided over Reynolds’s jury trial and sentenced him, in accordance with the jury’s verdict, to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Reynolds raises six issues on appeal:
(1) whether the compelled disclosure of his home surveillance system password violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination;
(2) whether the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss based upon Oklahoma’s Stand Your Ground law;
(3) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying his request for an instruction on the Stand Your Ground defense;
(4) whether he was denied the right to present a defense by the denial of a jury instruction on the Stand Your Ground defense;
(5) whether the evidence was sufficient for conviction; and
(6) whether an accumulation of error deprived him of a fair trial.
¶2 We find relief is not required and affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court.
¶11 The order denying motion for post-conviction DNA testing is REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2022), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
¶1 Aaron Lamar Fort was tried by jury in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2019-1278, and convicted of Trafficking in Illegal Drugs in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-415. The jury assessed punishment at twenty-three years imprisonment and the trial court sentenced Fort accordingly.
¶2 Fort appeals his Judgment and Sentence raising the following issues:
(1) whether the trial court committed structural error when the trial judge sexually assaulted and/or had an illicit affair with the prosecuting attorney on this case which resulted in judicial bias;
(2) whether the State failed to prove the chain of custody of the drugs which should have resulted in suppression of the evidence;
(3) whether the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser related offense of misdemeanor possession in violation of his right to a fair trial under the state and federal constitutions; and
(4) whether trial errors, when considered cumulatively, warrant a new trial.
¶3 We find relief in the form of a new trial is required on Fort’s claim of judicial bias in Proposition One, so his other claims are moot. The State concedes that relief is required.1
¶1 On May 11, 2021, Appellee, Clay A. Ballenger, was charged with misdemeanor Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, in violation of 47 O.S.Supp.2018, § 11-902, in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CM-2021-1695. On June 27, 2021, Ballenger filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence and Brief in Support challenging, inter alia, the legality of his warrantless arrest. A hearing on Ballenger’s motion was held on July 23, 2021. After hearing testimony from multiple witnesses and argument from both parties, the Honorable J. Anthony Miller, Special Judge, took the matter under advisement. On August 2, 2021, Judge Miller sustained Ballenger’s motion finding that Ballenger’s warrantless arrest violated 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 and suppressed all evidence flowing from the arrest.
¶2 Appellant, the State of Oklahoma, now appeals. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 22 O.S.2021, § 1053(5). For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the district court’s ruling and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶33 The revocation of Appellant’s suspended sentence in Tulsa County District Court Case No. CF-2018-5780 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2022), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.
¶1 On April 28, 2022, an opinion was handed down in the above-styled proceeding. Zamarripa v. State, No. RE-2021-13 (Okl. Cr. April 28, 2022) (unpublished). The opinion, among other things, clarified the standard of review for claims of excessive punishment in a revocation appeal, the scope of this Court’s Rule 3.11(B)(3)(b), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2022), allowing for supplementation of the record, and the proper procedure for appealing from an order of revocation in cases where revocation was based upon the defendant’s stipulation, confession, or plea of guilty to the probation violations alleged in the motion to revoke.
¶2 On May 9, 2022, the State of Oklahoma, by and through the Attorney General of Oklahoma, John M. O’Connor, filed a Motion for Publication in the above-referenced matter.1 For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the State’s request for publication.
¶3 IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the Summary Opinion filed on April 28, 2022, is hereby AUTHORIZED FOR PUBLICATION. The unpublished opinion is withdrawn and substituted with 2022 OK CR 10, Zamarripa v. State.
¶4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
¶5 WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 16th day of June, 2022.
2022 OK CR 8, S-2021-472
¶1 The State of Oklahoma appeals to this Court from an order of the reviewing judge affirming an adverse ruling of the preliminary hearing magistrate in Custer County District Court Case No. CF-2020-248.
2022 OK CR 7, S-2021-472
¶1 On February 17, 2022, an opinion was handed down in the above-styled proceeding. State v. Rutledge , S-2021-472 (February 17, 2022)(unpublished). The opinion construed portions of 21 O.S.Supp.2019, § 644(I). On February 28, 2022, the State of Oklahoma, by and through Angela Marsee, Custer County District Attorney, filed a motion for publication in the above-referenced matter. The Court GRANTS the State’s request for publication.
2022 OK CR 6, F-2020-945
¶1 Appellant Brian Eugene Beecher was tried by jury and convicted of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon ( 21 O.S.2011, § 652 ), in the District Court of Kingfisher County, Case No. CF-2018-84. The jury recommended as punishment imprisonment for twenty (20) years. The trial court sentenced accordingly, and ordered Appellant to pay $250.00 Victim’s Compensation Fund Assessment, a $150.00 DNA fee, a $250.00 presentence investigation fee and $24,005.43 in restitution. 1 It is from this judgment and sentence that Appellant appeals.