In OCCA case No. C-2010-1060, Carlos David Oliver appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault while masked, and resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal in part and grant it in part. The court reversed and dismissed two of the charges: assault with a dangerous weapon and resisting arrest. The dissenting opinion was noted but did not specify details.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1179, Donnell Devon Smith appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including robbery, sexual battery, and others. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal. One judge dissented. Smith was charged with various offenses in multiple cases and pleaded guilty to all charges on October 19, 2010. He received several sentences, some of which were life sentences, and others ranged from ten to twenty years. After entering his pleas, Smith requested to withdraw them, saying he felt coerced and that he had not been properly informed about the punishments he faced for his crimes. The court looked at three main points raised in Smith's appeal: 1. Smith argued he should be allowed to withdraw his plea for one count of attempted robbery because the ten-year sentence he received was too long. The court found that his sentence was actually five years too long and modified it to the correct five-year maximum. 2. Smith claimed he did not understand the range of sentences for some charges and that this lack of understanding meant his pleas were not voluntary. The court decided that while he had been misadvised, the pleas still appeared to be valid overall because he benefitted from how the sentences were set up to run concurrently. 3. He asserted that he was punished twice for some of the same actions and that some of his pleas lacked enough factual support. The court concluded that the evidence supported the different charges, and there were no double jeopardy issues. The court ultimately affirmed his convictions for all cases besides modifying the sentence that was too long and correcting a minor paperwork mistake regarding how sentences should run together. The court ruled that his plea was knowingly and voluntarily made despite the confusion around sentencing ranges. The decision closed by affirming the ruling of the lower court regarding Smith's attempt to withdraw his pleas, confirming most of the sentences while adjusting the one that exceeded the maximum allowed by law.
In OCCA case No. J-2011-514, J.F. appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts With a Child Under Sixteen. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the motion for certification as a juvenile. One judge dissented. The case began when the State of Oklahoma charged J.F. on March 7, 2011, for actions that allegedly happened when he was 15 years old. J.F. filed a motion to be treated as a juvenile instead of facing adult charges. A hearing was held where evidence was presented. The court had a specialist provide testimony, and several documents were submitted to support J.F.'s request for juvenile status. The State argued that the court should not have allowed J.F. to be certified as a juvenile, stating that he had not shown enough proof. The court, however, did not find any mistakes in the decisions made by the trial judge and agreed that J.F. should be treated as a juvenile. In the end, the court upheld the earlier decision, allowing J.F. to proceed in the juvenile system.
In OCCA case No. S-2011-208, the State of Oklahoma appealed the decision made by a Special Judge regarding the suppression of evidence connected to Shea Brandon Seals. In an unpublished decision, the court upheld the Special Judge's ruling, agreeing that there was not enough reason to stop Seals' vehicle. The court found that the evidence supported the decision that Seals did not break any traffic laws, and thus, the law enforcement officer did not have a valid reason to stop him. The State also tried to argue that there was reasonable suspicion for the stop, but this argument was presented for the first time during the appeal, so the court did not consider it. The decision to deny the State's appeal was supported by competent evidence and adhered to legal standards. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1129, Julius Jerome Walker appealed his conviction for multiple charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but reversed one count with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Walker was charged in a District Court in Muskogee County with serious crimes including Assault and Battery and Child Abuse. He decided to plead guilty to all the charges. The judge sentenced him to life for each charge, but they would all be served at the same time. After some time, Walker wanted to change his mind and filed a request to withdraw his guilty plea. During the hearing on his request, Walker raised several reasons why he felt he deserved to withdraw his plea. He argued that his lawyer did not help him well enough during the whole legal process, which is known as ineffective assistance of counsel. He also said he was punished too many times for actions that were really just one event, and that his sentences were much too harsh. After looking closely at all of his claims and the case details, the court decided to deny his request to withdraw the plea. However, they agreed with Walker on one point: he had been punished too many times for one part of his actions, so they decided to dismiss one of the counts against him. The court found that Walker’s arguments about ineffective assistance of counsel were not strong enough to change the outcome of the case except for that one count. They explained that his lawyer’s performance did have a small mistake, but most of what his lawyer did was acceptable. Finally, regarding the severity of his sentences, the court did not think they were too extreme, as they were in line with what the law allowed. Thus, they ruled that his punishments were fair based on the circumstances of the case. In summary, Walker did not succeed in changing his guilty plea except for one part of the case. The court maintained most of the convictions and sentences while ensuring that he would not be unfairly punished for the same event more than once.
In OCCA case No. J-2011-462, K.T.L. appealed his conviction for robbery by force/fear and kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the lower court's order denying K.T.L.'s motion to be treated as a juvenile was incorrect and should be reversed. K.T.L. was found to have substantial evidence supporting his request for juvenile treatment, and thus, the court instructed to certify him as a juvenile. One justice dissented, believing that the original decision should be upheld.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1059, Karen Deborah Smith appealed her conviction for Enabling Sexual Abuse of a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her petition and remand the case to the district court for a proper hearing on her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. One judge dissented. Petitioner, Karen Deborah Smith, was charged with two counts of enabling sexual abuse of a minor child in Tulsa County. She entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced to five years in prison, with two years suspended on each count, serving the sentences at the same time. Later, she requested to withdraw her guilty plea, but her request was denied after a hearing. In her appeal, Smith raised several arguments. She claimed she should be allowed to withdraw her plea because there was no strong reason for her to accept it, especially since an 11-year-old was involved, and he was not actually responsible for the care and safety of the children. She argued that she did not have complete understanding of her situation when she entered her plea because she wasn't informed enough about the 85 percent requirement linked to her charges. She said her lawyer didn't properly explain everything to her and that there was a conflict of interests because the same lawyer represented her during both the plea and the withdrawal request. The court looked carefully at her claims and agreed that she might not have received fair legal help when she tried to withdraw her plea because the same lawyer represented her both when she made her plea and when she wanted to change it. The judge recognized that the lawyer might not have done his best job during the withdrawal hearing since he could not argue against his own previous actions. The court decided to grant Smith's request and ordered her case to be sent back to the district court for another hearing. This time, the court instructed that she should have a different lawyer who did not have previous connections to her case, ensuring she would have fair representation. In summary, the court took action to make sure that Smith's rights were protected, and it wanted to ensure she had a fair chance to address her situation properly. The dissenting opinion noted disagreement with the court’s decision, believing that Smith had been properly informed and had made a voluntary decision regarding her plea, and no actual conflict or prejudice had been shown.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1139, a petitioner appealed his conviction for False Personation of Another to Create Liability. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the appeal. The court concluded that the trial court made a mistake by not holding a hearing on the petitioner's request to withdraw her no-contest plea. The decision requires the case to go back to the lower court for this necessary hearing. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-51, Wilkes appealed his conviction for second-degree rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petition, allowing Wilkes to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. Darren Casey Wilkes had originally entered a no contest plea to second-degree rape but later sought to change that plea after not being accepted into a special program meant for young adults. This program was key to his decision to plead no contest. When he was denied entry into that program, he believed he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because the conditions he agreed to were not fulfilled. The court reviewed the case and found that Wilkes’s plea was based on an agreement that included eligibility for the Delayed Sentencing Program. The problem arose from incorrect paperwork that included charges that were supposed to be dropped. Since this error affected Wilkes's eligibility and the terms of his plea, the court determined that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea. Throughout the process, it was clear that Wilkes did not admit guilt but entered his plea with the expectation of receiving certain benefits. Instead of receiving those benefits, he was sentenced to ten years in prison without the opportunity to participate in the program. The court concluded that the right remedy was to allow Wilkes to withdraw his plea and return to where he was before his plea was entered.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1113, Rodney Gene Cullins appealed his conviction for several drug-related crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his fine but otherwise affirmed the trial court's judgment and denied his request to withdraw his guilty pleas. One judge dissented. Rodney Cullins was convicted of multiple felonies related to drugs, including manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine and marijuana. He entered a plea agreement that included participating in a Drug Court program, which he did not successfully complete, leading the state to seek his removal from the program. As a result, he was sentenced to life in prison and given various fines. Cullins later tried to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming double jeopardy (being punished for the same crime twice), receiving incorrect information about his sentencing, and arguing that his sentences were too harsh. However, the court found that he had not raised some of these issues during his trial, making it difficult for them to review his case fully. For one issue regarding a fine that was too high, the court agreed and lowered the fine on one of his charges from $50,000 to $10,000. The court maintained that all other aspects of his sentence would remain as originally imposed. In summary, while Cullins had some success in reducing his fines, the bulk of his appeal was not successful, and his prison terms remained intact.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-1123, Chance appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Chance was found guilty of breaking into a building with the intent to commit a crime and also had illegal drug items in his possession. The jury decided his punishment: thirty years in prison for the burglary and one year in jail for the drug paraphernalia. The court added that these sentences would be served at the same time. Chance raised a few complaints. He argued the prosecutor made improper statements about probation and parole during the trial, which made it unfair for him. He also believed the procedures and instructions during his drug paraphernalia case were wrong and that the court didn't follow the right steps when deciding how much money he should pay back to the victim for restitution. After looking closely at the case, the court agreed that there were mistakes made. The court recognized that the references to probation and parole might have affected the jury's decision on sentencing. Because of this, they lowered Chance's prison sentence from thirty years to twenty years. For the drug paraphernalia charge, the jury was told the wrong information regarding potential punishment, which the court found to be a serious error. They changed Chance's sentence for this from one year in jail to thirty days instead. Lastly, the court agreed with Chance's complaint about the restitution process. They decided the original amount couldn’t stand and ordered the lower court to re-evaluate how much he needed to pay the victim. In summary, the court kept the guilty verdict but changed the length of Chance's sentences and ordered a new hearing for restitution amounts. One judge felt that the original prison sentence should not have been changed since there was no clear evidence of unfairness affecting the jury.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-1181, Joe Reaner Strong appealed his conviction for Second Degree Felony Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction due to the district court's failure to give the jury an instruction requested by Strong on the lesser offense of second degree manslaughter. One member dissented. Joe Reaner Strong was convicted of Second Degree Felony Murder after his two-year-old grandson died in a fire that started when the child found matches at home. At the time, Strong had left his grandson asleep alone for about two hours while he went to pick up his wife. The child was later found unresponsive and died from smoke inhalation. During the trial, the prosecution argued that Strong was responsible for child neglect because he left the child unsupervised. Strong's defense claimed that he was negligent but did not intend for his actions to harm the child. Strong believed that he should have been allowed to present his defense, which included the possibility that he was guilty of a lesser crime - second degree manslaughter instead of murder. The court noted it is important for the jury to hear all aspects of a case, including possible lesser offenses if there is evidence to support them. In this situation, the court stated that there was enough evidence suggesting that Strong's negligence might not rise to the level of murder. Instead, it could have been just an unfortunate accident due to lack of care under the circumstances. The decision determined that the jury should have been instructed on second degree manslaughter because Strong's actions might not have been willful neglect, which is necessary for a murder charge. Because the jury could have reasonably believed that Strong did not intend to leave the child alone and that his actions were the result of carelessness, the court ruled that not allowing this instruction was a mistake that impacted the fairness of the trial. In summary, the appellate court reversed Strong's conviction and ordered a new trial due to the district court's error in handling the jury instructions related to the lesser charge.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-1142, the Appellant appealed his conviction for seven counts, including five counts of Knowingly Concealing/Receiving Stolen Property, First-Degree Arson, and Second-Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse all of the Appellant's convictions due to several errors during the trial. The court identified that the Appellant was denied access to his preliminary hearing transcripts, which affected his ability for a fair trial. The court also noted there was improper joinder of cases, leading to the admission of prejudicial evidence that may have influenced the jury's verdict. One judge dissented regarding the conclusion that the errors warranted a complete reversal of the convictions, arguing that the first error was harmless and could be remedied with a sentence modification.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-615, Lawrence Grant Stewart appealed his conviction for several crimes involving child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one count due to double punishment but affirmed the rest of the convictions. One judge dissented. Lawrence Grant Stewart was found guilty by a jury for multiple crimes, including lewd molestation, rape by instrumentation, and child sexual abuse. The jury recommended long prison sentences for each of the counts, leading to a total of several decades in prison. Stewart's appeal raised several issues regarding his trial and convictions. One point of appeal was that Stewart did not get effective help from his lawyer during the trial. He argued that his lawyer shared too much personal information with the jury, which he believed should not have been revealed. However, the court found that the lawyer's decisions were made to help Stewart and did not seriously harm his chances in the case. Stewart also claimed that he received multiple sentences for the same behavior, which he believed violated his rights. The court agreed in part, particularly regarding one count of child sexual abuse, and decided to reverse that count and dismiss it. However, they found that separate punishments for the other crimes were appropriate since they involved different actions. Lastly, Stewart argued that the sentences he received should not be served one after the other (consecutively), but the court decided the original judge made the right choice in this matter. In summary, while some of Stewart's appeal points were accepted and one count was reversed, most of his convictions remained upheld.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-648, the appellant appealed her conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the appellant should be given the opportunity to withdraw her guilty plea. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-466, William Michael DeMoss appealed his conviction for three Counts of Shooting with Intent to Kill and one Count of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but vacated the fines associated with each count. One judge dissented. William Michael DeMoss was found guilty of serious crimes, including trying to kill people and attacking someone with a weapon. The jury decided he should go to prison for a long time and also pay money as fines. DeMoss didn’t think the trial was fair and said there were many mistakes made. He argued that there wasn't enough proof to find him guilty, that he couldn’t hear well during the trial, and that he should have had help from experts to prove he had problems. The court looked closely at what DeMoss said and also reviewed all the evidence. They decided that there was enough proof to show that DeMoss did commit the crimes. The court didn’t think his defense attorney did anything wrong to hurt DeMoss's case and that the decisions made during the trial were fair. They also found out that even though there were some mistakes, such as telling the jury they had to give fines when they really didn’t have to, it didn’t change the outcome of the trial. In the end, they agreed with the jury’s decision but took away the fines because it wasn’t right for the jury to have to give them. This means he still has to serve a long prison sentence, but he won't have to pay those extra fines. The court decided that everything else about the trial was okay, and DeMoss's appeal was mostly denied.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-403, Eddie Ray Casey, Jr. appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property and Larceny of an Automobile. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Casey's suspended sentence but instructed the District Court to correct the record to reflect that nine total years were revoked. No one dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-765, Polk appealed his conviction for multiple counts including Child Sexual Abuse, First Degree Rape by Instrumentation, Kidnapping, and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his appeal in part by reversing and dismissing the conviction for Lewd Molestation but affirmed the other convictions. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-9, Steven B. Baker appealed his conviction for misdemeanor Resisting an Officer and felony Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Possession of a Controlled Drug (Cocaine Base). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences, but recognized that Appellant was entitled to credit for time he had already served. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1033, Shawn Leroy Harger appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Harger's petition for a writ of certiorari. The judgment and sentence of the district court were reversed, and the matter was remanded for a new hearing on Harger's application to withdraw his plea with separate, conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-2, Clinton Riley Potts appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. No one dissented. Clinton Riley Potts was found guilty by a jury of murdering Gregory Clark. This happened after Potts learned that Clark was dating his girlfriend. The court sentenced Potts to life in prison without the chance for parole. Potts believed he did not have a fair trial. He thought that the prosecutor did not tell his lawyer important information about a witness. This information could have helped show that the witness was not telling the truth and also could have helped Potts’s case. He also argued that his own lawyer did not do enough to prepare for the trial, did not look into the case properly, and did not bring in important witnesses. After Potts appealed, an evidentiary hearing was held. During this hearing, it was shown that Potts’s lawyer did not investigate the case as well as he should have. They found that the prosecutor had information about a key witness who had received special treatment for testifying at Potts's trial, but they did not share this information with Potts's lawyer. The judge who looked at the evidence agreed that Potts did not receive a fair trial. This finding was important because the judge had also been the one who oversaw Potts's original trial, making him well aware of how the mistakes may have affected the trial's outcome. The court decided that Potts's arguments about unfairness were valid. Since this was the case, they reversed the initial verdict and said that Potts should have a new trial. The decision meant that the earlier trial was not valid anymore, and the court ordered that Potts would get another chance to present his case in a new trial.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-260, the petitioner appealed his conviction for ten counts of child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner’s request for a remand for a new hearing with conflict-free counsel. The case focused on whether the petitioner’s guilty plea was entered knowingly and intelligently, particularly regarding the requirement that he be a person responsible for the child's health, safety, or welfare. One judge dissented, arguing that the majority's discussion on the plea's validity was unnecessary and constituted advisory dicta.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-267, James Lyman Mahaffey appealed his conviction for Assault & Battery with a Deadly Weapon, Kidnapping, and Possession of Firearm After Conviction. In a published decision, the court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences to be served concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Mahaffey was accused and found guilty of serious crimes against his wife, including assault and kidnapping. The trial took place in the District Court of Grady County. After the jury convicted him, the judge sentenced him to life in prison for the assault, 10 years for the kidnapping, and 6 years for possession of a firearm, all lined up to be served one after the other, or consecutively. Mahaffey asked to represent himself during the trial, which means he wanted to defend himself without a lawyer. He argued that the court should not have allowed him to do this because he didn't clearly understand the risks involved in self-representation. However, the court decided that he was competent to represent himself and had made an informed decision. They had warned him that representing himself could be risky and could lead to mistakes that might change the outcome of the trial. During the trial, Mahaffey raised some claims against the prosecutor's behavior. He argued that the prosecutor acted unfairly by making comments that may have influenced the jury. For instance, Mahaffey claimed the prosecutor misrepresented the meaning of a life sentence and made other comments that distracted from the trial's fairness. However, the court concluded that while there were some mistakes made by the prosecutor, they were not serious enough to change the outcome of the case concerning his guilt. Despite this, the court found that the conduct during sentencing raised concerns about the fairness of the sentencing itself. The jury specifically asked about how the sentences would be served, indicating they were worried about the total time Mahaffey would spend in prison. Because of this, although Mahaffey’s convictions were upheld, the court changed the sentences to allow them to be served concurrently, meaning all the prison time would be served at the same time rather than one after the other. Ultimately, the court's decision meant Mahaffey would still have to serve his time, but the way his sentences were structured was altered to be less severe. The case was sent back to the lower court to fix the official documents to reflect that change in sentencing.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-293, Downs appealed his conviction for a probation violation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Downs had entered guilty pleas for several crimes in 2004, which included assault and possessing controlled substances. After completing part of his sentence in 2006, some of his time was suspended, meaning he would not have to serve it if he followed the rules of probation. However, in 2008, the State accused him of violating his probation because he was arrested for a new crime. A hearing took place in 2010 where evidence was presented, and the judge found that the State proved Downs had violated his probation. As a result, all of his suspended sentence was revoked. Downs raised several arguments in his appeal, saying the trial judge made mistakes that affected his case. He claimed he was not given enough time to prepare his defense, that the evidence against him was not strong enough, and that he was not allowed to confront witnesses. He also argued that the revocation was for too long and that the judge didn't have the right to revoke his sentence. The court examined each of Downs' claims. They found that it was reasonable for the judge to deny a continuance for more time to prepare, and that the evidence at the hearing was enough to support the revocation of his probation. They also stated that Downs had waived his right to a quick hearing, meaning the 20-day rule that he mentioned did not apply. In the end, the court did agree that there was a small mistake in the length of time noted for the revoked sentence, which needed to be corrected. However, they affirmed the decision to revoke all of Downs' suspended sentences. Thus, the court ordered that a corrected record be made to show the right amount of time for his sentences. The judges all generally agreed on the decision, but one judge had a different opinion.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-512, Christopher Lee Anthony appealed his conviction for violating his probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of Anthony's suspended sentences and ordered a new hearing. One judge dissented. The case started when Anthony pled guilty to several charges and was given suspended sentences, meaning he wouldn’t serve time if he followed the rules of his probation. However, the State accused him of breaking those rules by not following a court report and not showing up for court. After the State filed to revoke his sentences, Anthony was given an attorney but later posted bail. The judge then told him he needed to either find his own lawyer or represent himself. During the hearing, Anthony didn't have a lawyer and argued his case on his own. The judge found that he had violated probation and took away his suspended sentences. Anthony then appealed, claiming the judge made a mistake by not allowing him a court-appointed attorney just because he posted bail. The court agreed that the judge should have checked to see if Anthony could afford a lawyer and had not properly addressed Anthony's right to counsel. They ruled that the revocation of Anthony's sentences must be undone, and there should be a new hearing with a proper inquiry about his finances and legal representation.