Last summer, what was first reported as an "open line" phone call led to the discovery of five bodies and a critically injured child at a Broken Arrow home. A toddler was found unharmed, and two teenage boys were located hiding behind the home.
The dead were identified as five members of the Bever family, and the call formerly reported as an open line call was determined to be a call from a 12-year-old boy who was subsequently killed in the attack. That boy's phone call is credited for saving the life of two of his sisters, then aged 13 and 2.
The two boys hiding behind the family home, Robert Bever, then 18, and Michael Bever, then 16, were accused of attacking and killing their mother, father, and three siblings, aged 12, 7, and 5. A 13-year-old sister survived the attack, and police say the pair had planned to kill the toddler, but were interrupted by the arrival of police before they were able to injure her.
Reports say the teens admitted to killing their family and say the attack was just the beginning of what they had planned to be a killing spree that would have moved beyond the walls of the family home and into the community. Robert Bever reportedly told investigators that the pair planned to store their family members' bodies in the attic before stealing their father's car, driving to populated areas, and killing at least five people everywhere they stopped. An investigator says the eldest Bever brother said he had been planning the killings for nearly five years--since he was 13 years old.
Both Bever brothers are charged as adults with five counts of first degree murder and one count of assault and battery with intent to kill.
Now, jail records show that last month, Robert Bever, now 19, attempted to kill himself at the Tulsa County Jail. On June 17, during a routine check, jail staff found Robert hanging from a sheet tied to his "sleeping boat," a tray-type cot for inmates without a bed. Reports say Robert propped the boat up against a toilet and attempted to suspend himself by the neck from the top of the boat. Jail workers cut the teen down and determined his efforts left him uninjured. They placed the teen under suicide watch.
The Bever brothers are scheduled for arraignment in Tulsa County District Court on Monday, July 11.
For virtually every sentence except for life without parole, convicted men and women have the opportunity for early release from prison through parole or a suspended sentence. However, there are certain crimes which Oklahoma deems so egregious that the state mandates a minimum amount of time served before an inmate even becomes eligible for parole. These are typically violent crimes and sex crimes, and they are known as "85 Percent Crimes" after the percentage of the sentence a person must serve before obtaining parole eligibility.
The felonies that require a minimum of 85 percent of the sentence to be served are listed in 21 O.S. § 13.1:
As an example of how an 85 percent crime might work, let us use first degree robbery as an example. First degree robbery is punishable by a minimum of 10 years in prison, so let's assume a defendant is sentenced to 15 years for his or her conviction. The inmate would have to serve 85 percent--or nearly 13 years--of that 15-year sentence. For inmates sentenced to life in prison, the life sentence is calculated at 45 years for parole purposes. That means a person with a life sentence for an 85 percent crime would have to serve more than 38 years before accumulating credits toward parole.
Under existing state law, anyone convicted of one of these crimes must serve 85 percent of the sentence before achieving parole eligibility, and he or she is not allowed to accumulate "earned credits or any other type of credits which have the effect of reducing the length of the sentence to less than eighty-five percent (85%) of the sentence imposed." Because the person cannot even earn credit until 85 percent of the sentence is completed, most "85 Percenters" actually serve 90-93 percent of the sentence before qualifying for parole.
Last year, Governor Mary Fallin urged the state Board of Corrections to modify existing policies so that those serving sentences for 85 percent crimes could earn credits during their mandatory sentence, and actually obtain parole eligibility at the end of the 85 percent. However, while the Pardon and Parole Board considered the change and has begun researching their legal ability to change the policies, no such change has been made.
A Guthrie man who pleaded guilty to molesting a 7-year-old boy was sentenced this week in Oklahoma County District Court.
Scott Keith Jepson, 34, of Guthrie, is a former Edmond Public Schools bus driver who had worked for the district since 2006. He was fired from the district shortly after his arrest and charge in August 2014. The young boy Jepson admitted to touching inappropriately was not an Edmond Public Schools student; however, during the investigation, police discovered that Jepson did take an illicit video of a different 7-year-old boy in a public restroom. That child was a student who rode his bus.
In April, the man entered a blind guilty plea to eight felony counts:
In a pre-sentencing letter the defendant wrote to the judge, he says he rationalized his actions by telling himself, "God made me this way," and comparing his pedophilia to homosexuality:
“Put two and two together, if being gay ... was normal, God-done, out of my control, then why is my attraction to young boys any different?”
At sentencing, however, Jepson apologized to the victims and their families and thanked them for reporting him to police so that he could get help. He says it makes him sick when he thinks about what he has done.
Oklahoma County District Judge Donald Deason appeared unimpressed with Jepson's request for treatment, saying he had never heard of a "predatory pedophile" being "cured" with treatment.
Under 21 O.S. § 1123, the penalty for lewd or indecent acts with a child under 16 is three to 20 years in prison if the child is age 12-15. If, however, the child is under the age of 12, as in this case, the act is punishable by 25 years to life in prison.
Judge Deason sentenced the man to 35 years in prison. Upon release, he will be required to register as a sex offender for life.
It has been a while since we have looked at Oklahoma expungement laws, but the question of how to clear a criminal record is one that frequently arises. For many people, an arrest record or conviction can complicate things for years following the incident. It may be difficult to find a job, to get a loan, or even to find housing when a background check comes back less than spotless.
So can you clear your criminal record in Oklahoma? In many cases, yes; however, the process of doing so differs depending on the circumstances of your case.
First, let's look at how to seal the record of a deferred sentence, since this is one of the most common types of expungement in the state.
A deferred sentence typically allows a defendant to avoid jail and conviction, serving probation instead. This is often used for first offenders and minor offenses. In this case, the defendant would plead guilty to the charge, but the judge delays--or defers--judgement and sentencing. Instead, the judge will order probation. If the defendant fails to comply with the terms of probation, the judge accelerates sentencing, the defendant is convicted, and he or she goes to jail. If the defendant successfully completes probation, though, the plea is changed to "not guilty," and the judge dismisses the charge. The defendant's name may then be sealed from court records according to the procedure found in 22 O.S. 991c. Expungement of a deferred sentence is sometimes known as a 991c expungement.
Although the 991c expungement can give some relief, it is not as thorough as a "full expungement" described in 22 O.S. 18/19. This type of expungement not only affects the court record, but also the OSBI arrest record related to the incident. Although a Section 18/19 expungement is typically more preferable, the eligibility requirements are more difficult. In order to qualify for full expungement, one or more of the following criteria must be met:
1. The person has been acquitted;
2. The conviction was reversed with instructions to dismiss by an appellate court of competent jurisdiction, or an appellate court of competent jurisdiction reversed the conviction and the prosecuting agency subsequently dismissed the charge;
3. The factual innocence of the person was established by the use of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence subsequent to conviction, including a person who has been released from prison at the time innocence was established;
4. The person has received a full pardon on the basis of a written finding by the Governor of actual innocence for the crime for which the claimant was sentenced;
5. The person was arrested and no charges of any type, including charges for an offense different than that for which the person was originally arrested, are filed and the statute of limitations has expired or the prosecuting agency has declined to file charges;
6. The person was under eighteen (18) years of age at the time the offense was committed and the person has received a full pardon for the offense;
7. The person was charged with one or more misdemeanor or felony crimes, all charges have been dismissed, the person has never been convicted of a felony, no misdemeanor or felony charges are pending against the person, and the statute of limitations for refiling the charge or charges has expired or the prosecuting agency confirms that the charge or charges will not be refiled; provided, however, this category shall not apply to charges that have been dismissed following the completion of a deferred judgment or delayed sentence;
8. The person was charged with a misdemeanor, the charge was dismissed following the successful completion of a deferred judgment or delayed sentence, the person has never been convicted of a felony, no misdemeanor or felony charges are pending against the person, and at least one (1) year has passed since the charge was dismissed;
9. The person was charged with a nonviolent felony offense, not listed in Section 571 of Title 57 of the Oklahoma Statutes, the charge was dismissed following the successful completion of a deferred judgment or delayed sentence, the person has never been convicted of a felony, no misdemeanor or felony charges are pending against the person, and at least five (5) years have passed since the charge was dismissed;
10. The person was convicted of a misdemeanor offense, the person was sentenced to a fine of less than Five Hundred One Dollars ($501.00) without a term of imprisonment or a suspended sentence, the fine has been paid or satisfied by time served in lieu of the fine, the person has not been convicted of a felony, and no felony or misdemeanor charges are pending against the person;
11. The person was convicted of a misdemeanor offense, the person was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, a suspended sentence or a fine in an amount greater than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), the person has not been convicted of a felony, no felony or misdemeanor charges are pending against the person, and at least five (5) years have passed since the end of the last misdemeanor sentence;
12. The person was convicted of a nonviolent felony offense, not listed in Section 571 of Title 57 of the Oklahoma Statutes, the person has received a full pardon for the offense, the person has not been convicted of any other felony, the person has not been convicted of a separate misdemeanor in the last fifteen (15) years, no felony or misdemeanor charges are pending against the person, and at least ten (10) years have passed since the felony conviction;
13. The person was convicted of not more than two nonviolent felony offenses, not listed in Section 571 of Title 57 of the Oklahoma Statutes, the person has received a full pardon for both of the nonviolent felony offenses, no felony or misdemeanor charges are pending against the person, and at least twenty (20) years have passed since the last misdemeanor or felony conviction; or
14. The person has been charged or arrested or is the subject of an arrest warrant for a crime that was committed by another person who has appropriated or used the person's name or other identification without the person's consent or authorization.
Violent felonies, defined in 57 O.S. 571, are not eligible for expungement. These remain on a person's criminal record.
If you believe you may qualify for expungement of your criminal record, contact attorney Ryan Coventon to learn how to clear your criminal record.
Last year, the Oklahoma legislature passed a bill that Governor Mary Fallin signed into the law as the Justice Safety Valve Act. The law was intended to put common sense into sentencing by allowing Oklahoma judges discretion in deviating from mandatory minimum sentences under certain circumstances. This year, Gov. Fallin has signed another criminal justice reform bill into law that would allow similar discretion for prosecutors. HB 2472 lets prosecutors, under certain specific circumstances, file non-violent felonies as misdemeanors.
According to the new law, which will take effect November 1, 2016, allows a prosecutor to consider the following factors in filing crimes classified as felonies as misdemeanors instead:
Being charged with a misdemeanor rather than a felony could help a defendant in several ways. If convicted, a misdemeanor is punishable by a maximum of one year in county jail rather than a year or more in prison. Furthermore, misdemeanor convictions are often more quickly eligible for expungement than felonies, and they do not carry many of the collateral consequences of felony conviction, such as loss of gun rights.
But the new law will not just help those charged with crimes that would otherwise be felonies. It could also help alleviate prison overcrowding in Oklahoma, as non-violent "felons" will rather be convicted of misdemeanors and released from jail much more quickly.
HB 2472 is one of four criminal justice reform bills Gov. Fallin signed into law this year.
A medical assistant with a company that contracts to provide health care for the McClain County Jail has been arrested amid allegations of smuggling contraband into the facility.
Reports say that McClain County Sheriff Don Hewett launched an internal investigation after receiving information from inmates that the health care worker might have been bringing cell phones and controlled substances into the jail for inmates.
About a month after deputies began investigating, jail officials found a cell phone among the inmates, and brought in a forensic expert to trace the phone's origins. Sheriff Hewett said they traced the phone to Turnkey Health Clinics medical assistant Kristi Stricklen, finding "her personal cell phone number" on it.
Investigators say they executed a search warrant for Stricklen's vehicle and found a crack pipe with meth residue in her car. Hewett says when deputies questioned Stricklen about the cell phone, she "readily admitted" that she bought the phone for a jail inmate and that she has been bringing controlled substances into the jail.
Stricklen was arrested and soon released on bail.
Oklahoma law prohibits bringing or possessing contraband in a jail or penal institution in 57 O.S. § 21. The penalties of conviction depend upon the contraband item the person possesses or brings into the jail or prison, and whether or not that person has been convicted of two or more prior felony offenses.
It is a felony punishable by one to five years in prison and a fine of $100 to $1,000 to bring any of the following items into a penal institution:
Bringing a cell phone or any "electronic device capable of sending or receiving any electronic communication" is also a felony. The punishment for bringing a cell phone into a secure area of a jail or prison is a maximum sentence of two years in prison and a $2,500 fine.
Bringing any form of tobacco into a jail or prison is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of one year in jail and a fine of up to $500.
The Oklahoma legislature has passed a new bill that will add a law defining "sexual consent" to the state statutes and will broaden the statute pertaining to forcible sodomy.
House Bill 2398 was amended and strengthened following an Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmation of a lower court's ruling that the state's forcible sodomy law did not apply in instances where the victim is unconscious or too heavily intoxicated to provide or withhold consent.
The bill passed both the House and Senate by a landslide before being sent to Governor Mary Fallin for approval. Fallin signed the bill, which is to become effective immediately.
Known as the Justice for J.W. Act of 2016, the law contains several major provisions:
The new law defines sexual consent as an "affirmative, unambiguous and voluntary agreement to engage in a specific sexual activity during a sexual encounter which can be revoked at any time." In other words, consent must be clearly given and cannot be coerced. By law, a person can change his or her mind to withdraw consent at any time--whether the consent was given weeks or days prior to the present incident or even during the present incident.
Furthermore, the state's new definition provides specific circumstances in which consent cannot be given or inferred:
Consent cannot be:
1. Given by an individual who:
a. is asleep or is mentally or physically incapacitated either through the effect of drugs or alcohol or for any other reason, or
b. is under duress, threat, coercion or force; or
2. Inferred under circumstances in which consent is not clear including, but not limited to:
a. the absence of an individual saying "no" or "stop", or
b. the existence of a prior or current relationship or sexual activity.
As for the changes to Oklahoma's forcible sodomy laws, the state legislature added the following two circumstances to the pre-existing five circumstances for forcible sodomy:
6. Sodomy committed upon a person who is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this fact should be known to the accused; or
7. Sodomy committed upon a person where the person is intoxicated by a narcotic or anesthetic agent administered by or with the privity of the accused as a means of forcing the person to submit.
If you or someone you love has been accused of alcohol-involved sexual assault, call (405) 417-3842 to schedule a free, confidential case review.
The chairman of a southwest Oklahoma district of the Boy Scouts of America has been arrested on child pornography charges. Reports say retired Air Force Airman Steven Foreman, 52, was arrested at his Altus home after an Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) investigator received images of child pornography allegedly coming from a computer at Foreman's home.
Investigators seized computers they say contained files and images of child pornography.
Foreman is the district chairman of the Kicking Bird District (Beckham, Greer, Harmon and Jackson counties) of the Boy Scouts of America. Upon learning of his child pornography arrest, the Boy Scouts released the following statement:
“This behavior is unacceptable and runs counter to everything for which the Boy Scouts of America stands. Upon learning of these allegations we took immediate action to remove this individual from Scouting and precluded him from any further participation in our programs. The safety of our youth members is of paramount importance and we seek to prevent child abuse through a comprehensive program of education on the subject, the chartered organization leader selection process, criminal background and other checks, policies and procedures to serve as barriers to abuse and the prompt mandatory reporting of any allegation or suspicion of abuse.”
Foreman is charged with aggravated possession of child pornography. He is held in the Jackson County jail on $500,000 bond. A preliminary hearing conference is scheduled for July 11.
Oklahoma law defines child pornography as sexually explicit images of minors under the age of 18. State law in 21 O.S. § 1021.2 prohibits the possession, production or manufacture, or distribution of child pornography, making such act a felony punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $25,000 fine.
Section 1040.12a of the Oklahoma Criminal Code defines and prescribes penalties for aggravated possession of child pornography:
A. Any person who, with knowledge of its contents, possesses one hundred (100) or more separate materials depicting child pornography shall be, upon conviction, guilty of aggravated possession of child pornography. The violator shall be punished by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term not exceeding life imprisonment and by a fine in an amount not more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). The violator, upon conviction, shall be required to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offenders Registration Act.
B. For purposes of this section:
1. Multiple copies of the same identical material shall each be counted as a separate item;
2. The term "material" means the same definition provided by Section 1040.75 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes and, in addition, includes all digital and computerized images and depictions; and
3. The term "child pornography" means the same definition provided by Section 1040.80 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes and, in addition, includes sexual conduct, sexual excitement, sadomasochistic abuse, and performance of material harmful to minors where a minor is present or depicted as such terms are defined in Section 1040.75 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes.
Aggravated possession of child pornography is a Level 1 sex offense. Conviction of this crime requires a person to register as a sex offender for 15 years following the completion of the sentence.
Christian Costello, the man accused of fatally stabbing his father, Oklahoma Labor Commissioner Mark Costello, has attempted to plead guilty to his father's slaying. However, at the request of the younger Costello's attorney, Oklahoma County District Judge Ray Elliott has ordered a mental competency exam to determine whether or not the defendant understands the nature and consequences of the plea.
When Costello pleaded guilty to first degree murder in his father's death, he told Judge Elliott that he would prefer to be sent to a prison facility near the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. Costello, who has a documented history of mental illness, says that a doctor who treated him at the Clinic when he was a teenager made him a 32nd degree Mason (referring to the "secret society" of freemasons) and promised to help him out whenever he needed it.
Judge Elliott informed the defendant that he did not have jurisdiction to send him to a Minnesota prison or to choose the prison to which Costello would be sent if he accepted the defendant's guilty plea, and that the prison is selected by the Department of Corrections.
Costello's public defender said he was taken aback by his client's request, noting that while the doctor mentioned does exist, he has no idea whether or not the physician would even remember Costello. Citing the defendant's request, the defense lawyer said, "That just kind of compounds my concern that these delusions prevent him from making a rational determination to enter a plea of guilty."
Judge Elliott granted the defense request and ordered a mental competency exam for Christian Costello.
The public defender insists that his client is mentally incompetent, severely mentally ill, and was legally insane at the time of the attack on his father at a Northwest Oklahoma City Braum's. However, his client refuses to authorize the insanity plea in his defense.
A hearing regarding the status of the mental competency exam is scheduled for August 10.
The insanity defense is seldom used in criminal defense because it is often unsuccessful. However, if the defense can prove that a person did not know right from wrong at the time of the murder, then the person would not be convicted, but found not guilty by reason of insanity. The person would then be housed at the Oklahoma Forensic Center in Vinita. The Forensic Center is also where defendants are sent who are mentally incompetent to stand trial.
Gene Autry, Oklahoma, is a tiny town of 160 residents near Ardmore, in Carter County. Last year, the town's one and only public official--its mayor--was accused of embezzling from the town coffers. Katherine McQuistion, who resigned amid the allegations, is accused of making unauthorized withdrawals from the town's accounts to the tune of nearly $133,000 between January 2014 and January 2015.
When Kyle Lawson stepped in as mayor last May after McQuistion's resignation, he said the town was left with only $24,000 in it general fund and only $3,000 in the emergency fund. The town has an annual operating budget of $124,000.
At a preliminary hearing, Carter County District Attorney Craig Ladd said investigators determined that the defendant had made approximately $132,800 in unauthorized cash withdrawals unsupported by receipts.
Special District Judge Carson Brooks found sufficient evidence to order trial for the ex-mayor, and he scheduled a formal arraignment on the embezzlement charge for June 22.
This is not the first time the defendant has been in legal trouble while serving as mayor of Gene Autry. In 2010, she was arrested on a domestic violence charge after an altercation with her cousin at a Gene Autry home. She was given a deferred sentence and the case was dismissed in 2012 following completion of her probation.
Oklahoma law, in 21 O.S. § 1451 prescribes the penalties for embezzlement based upon the value of the property or money involved:
However, the statute has a specific section related to embezzlement by a public official:
C. Any county or state officer, deputy or employee of such officer, who shall divert any money appropriated by law from the purpose and object of the appropriation, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term not less than one (1) year nor more than ten (10) years, and a fine equal to triple the amount of money so embezzled and ordered to pay restitution to the victim as provided in Section 991f of Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes. The fine shall operate as a judgment lien at law on all estate of the party so convicted and sentenced, and shall be enforced by execution or other process for the use of the person whose money or other funds or property were embezzled. In all cases the fine, so operating as a judgment lien, shall be released or entered as satisfied only by the person in interest.
If the former mayor is ultimately convicted of embezzlement, she faces up to 10 years in prison.
