Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
State of Oklahoma v. Micky Todd Washburne
Date: 04-11-2024
Case Number: CF-2021-261
Judge: Linda Thomas
Court: District Court, Washington County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: Washington County Oklahoma District Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney: Kristi Sanders
Description:
Bartlesville, Oklahoma criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant who was charged with:
LEWD OR INDECENT ACTS TO CHILD UNDER 16
Plain error review requires the defendant to prove: (1) the existence of an actual error; (2) that the error is plain or obvious; and (3) that the error affected his substantial rights, meaning the error affected the outcome of the proceeding. Washington v. State¸ 2023 OK CR 22, ¶ 7, 541 P.3d 852, 856 (citing Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19, ¶ 38, 139 P.3d 907, 923). Even where this showing is made, this Court will correct plain error only where the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings or represented a miscarriage of justice. Id.
We have previously held that "a jury's sentencing verdict is not merely a recommendation that informs the trial court's ultimate sentencing determination. . . . The trial court should follow the jury's sentencing verdict unless it is otherwise legally infirm." Metoyer, 2022 OK CR 27, ¶ 15, 526 P.3d at 1164-65 (footnote omitted) (citing 21 O.S.2021, § 64; 22 O.S.2021, § 926.1). In Metoyer, though, modification of the sentence was granted because the sentencing judge imposed a sentence different from that assessed by the jury.
LEWD OR INDECENT ACTS TO CHILD UNDER 16
Plain error review requires the defendant to prove: (1) the existence of an actual error; (2) that the error is plain or obvious; and (3) that the error affected his substantial rights, meaning the error affected the outcome of the proceeding. Washington v. State¸ 2023 OK CR 22, ¶ 7, 541 P.3d 852, 856 (citing Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19, ¶ 38, 139 P.3d 907, 923). Even where this showing is made, this Court will correct plain error only where the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings or represented a miscarriage of justice. Id.
We have previously held that "a jury's sentencing verdict is not merely a recommendation that informs the trial court's ultimate sentencing determination. . . . The trial court should follow the jury's sentencing verdict unless it is otherwise legally infirm." Metoyer, 2022 OK CR 27, ¶ 15, 526 P.3d at 1164-65 (footnote omitted) (citing 21 O.S.2021, § 64; 22 O.S.2021, § 926.1). In Metoyer, though, modification of the sentence was granted because the sentencing judge imposed a sentence different from that assessed by the jury.
Outcome:
The jury found Appellant guilty and assessed punishment of five (5) years imprisonment and a five thousand dollar ($5,000.00) fine.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of State of Oklahoma v. Micky Todd Washburne?
The outcome was: The jury found Appellant guilty and assessed punishment of five (5) years imprisonment and a five thousand dollar ($5,000.00) fine.
Which court heard State of Oklahoma v. Micky Todd Washburne?
This case was heard in District Court, Washington County, Oklahoma, OK. The presiding judge was Linda Thomas.
Who were the attorneys in State of Oklahoma v. Micky Todd Washburne?
Plaintiff's attorney: Washington County Oklahoma District Attorney's Office. Defendant's attorney: Kristi Sanders.
When was State of Oklahoma v. Micky Todd Washburne decided?
This case was decided on April 11, 2024.