Staff, Author at OCCA Opinions

F-2009-407

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 29, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-407, Thomas Ray Young appealed his conviction for four counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the sentences to be served concurrently. One judge dissented. Young was found guilty of sexually abusing his daughter and was sentenced to four life terms in prison, which the jury recommended to be served one after the other. Young raised several issues in his appeal, including claims that the trial court made errors by allowing certain evidence, giving confusing jury instructions, allowing expert testimony that supported the complainant's credibility, and examples of prosecutorial misconduct. Additionally, Young argued that the accumulated errors denied him a fair trial. The court carefully assessed the evidence admitted during the trial. Young contested evidence about past physical abuse towards his daughter and son, as well as a 1979 sexual assault against a teenager. The court found that references to the past abuse of the daughter were relevant to understand why she may have been hesitant to report the sexual abuse. The mention of his son was seen as proper because it challenged the credibility of a defense witness. However, evidence regarding the 1979 sexual assault had minimal relevance and could have been too prejudicial. Regarding jury instructions, the court found the trial judge's instructions were tailored to the evidence, even though they were not standard. The court decided that these instructions did not create errors. The expert witnesses presented by the state were seen as helpful rather than harmful to the case; they did not improperly support the credibility of the complainant. The court ruled that most of the prosecutor's comments during trial did not warrant a problem, except for some details about Young's criminal past, which could have unfairly influenced the jury. The court believed that the modification of Young's sentences to run concurrently addressed any potential unfairness. In summary, the court affirmed Young's conviction but changed his sentences to be served at the same time instead of one after another.

F-2009-528

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 23, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-528, Jimmy Lee Baker appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With A Dangerous Weapon After Two Or More Felony Convictions and Malicious Injury To Property. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Jimmy Lee Baker was found guilty by a jury of two charges. The first charge was about hurting someone with a dangerous weapon after having two or more previous felony convictions. The second charge was related to damaging someone else's property. The jury decided Baker should serve life in prison for the first charge and for the second charge, they gave him a fine but did not suggest a specific punishment. Baker argued several points during his appeal which he believed were unfair to him. Firstly, he claimed he did not get a fair trial because the state did not share important information about the main witness against him. This witness had a past with drugs and a criminal record, which could have shown that he had reasons to lie. Baker’s defense lawyer also did not use this information to help his case. Secondly, Baker felt that his lawyer did not do a good job during the sentencing part of the trial, which led to a harsher punishment than necessary. He thought the lawyer should have done more to defend him. Thirdly, Baker argued that the judge did not explain what counted as a dangerous weapon or give the jury the option of deciding on a lesser charge of simple assault and battery. He believed his lawyer should have asked the judge for these explanations. Lastly, Baker said it was wrong for the court to allow testimony about injuries to someone else that was not related to his charges. He believed this made the jury think badly of him for things he did not do. After reviewing the case, the court found that the state failed to provide Baker with evidence that could have helped his defense, specifically information about the witness that could show bias or dishonesty. Because this information was important and could have changed the outcome of the trial, the court decided to reverse Baker’s conviction and grant him a new trial. Since the court was reversing the conviction based on this issue, they did not need to look at the other arguments Baker made.

C-2009-900

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 9, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-900, Hooks appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his request for a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One member of the court dissented. Leon Lee Hooks was sentenced to thirty years in prison, but he could have ten years suspended. He decided to plead guilty, but later felt that he did not have the help he needed from his lawyer during the plea process. He filed a motion to change his plea and wanted to show that he was not given a fair defense. The main question was whether Hooks received good help from his attorney when asking to withdraw his guilty plea. The court found that there was a conflict because Hooks' complaints were about the quality of help from his lawyer. The lawyer could not fully defend Hooks and also prove that he did a bad job at the same time. Because of this, the court believed Hooks had a right to a new hearing where he could have a different lawyer who could help him without any conflicts. This was important to ensure he received a fair chance to prove his side of the story. In conclusion, the court decided to allow Hooks to have another chance to explain why he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea with the assistance of a lawyer who did not have a conflict of interest.

F-2009-398

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 1, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-398, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance (Phencyclidine) with Intent to Distribute and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance (Marijuana) with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for the first count and reverse the conviction for the second count, with instructions to dismiss it. One justice dissented.

S-2009-1176

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 1, 2010
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-1176, Don Wayne Townsend Jr. appealed his conviction for Omission to Provide for Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's dismissal of the case. No one dissented. In this case, Townsend was initially charged with not providing for his child, which was a violation of the law. However, after the state presented its evidence, the trial judge decided that the evidence was not strong enough to continue the trial. The state then sought to appeal this decision, asking if the judge made a mistake in dismissing the case. The court looked carefully at the situation and found that the state's question was not really about the law, but rather about whether the evidence was enough to prove Townsend's guilt. The court explained that proving someone is guilty requires showing they willfully did not support their child for a long time. They also stated that it must be shown that the person had a legal obligation to pay child support. Ultimately, the court agreed with the trial judge's decision and found no error in dismissing the case against Townsend. This means that the matter was closed and he could not be tried again for this charge. The court's decision was recorded, and they indicated that the dismissal order would stand.

RE 2009-0510

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 14, 2010
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2009-0510, Edward Q. Jones appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation. One judge dissented. Edward Jones had previously pled guilty to domestic abuse and was sentenced to a few years in jail, with most of that time suspended, meaning he wouldn’t serve it if he followed the rules set by the court. However, he had problems following those rules, which led the State to ask the court to revoke his suspended sentence. There were two main hearings regarding this. In the first hearing, the judge found that Edward had broken the probation rules and took away three and a half years of his suspended time. Edward didn't appeal that decision. Later, the State filed another request to revoke his sentence, saying he had not followed the rules again. In the second hearing, the judge decided to take away all of his suspended time. Edward argued that he should have had a lawyer to help him at the hearing, which he really wanted. He felt that the short time between being told he could have a lawyer and the date of his hearing was not enough time for him to get one. He argued that he was unfairly treated without a lawyer and that he shouldn’t have to suffer because he missed a deadline due to a lack of money for the application fee to get a lawyer. The State countered by saying that since Edward didn't file for a court-appointed lawyer by the deadline set by the judge, he gave up his right to have one. They also argued that the right to have a lawyer at a revocation hearing is not a constitutional right but a statutory right. They said he didn't get the lawyer because he wasn't trying hard enough to get one and was just delaying things. The judges looked at earlier cases where people were found to have given up their right to a lawyer because they didn't act quickly enough to get one. They concluded that while there was a short delay for Edward, the reasons didn't clearly show he was deliberately trying to delay his hearing. They pointed out that Edward might not have known what he was doing in waiving his right to counsel, and the judge didn't look into whether he could have afforded a lawyer or not. After reviewing the evidence and the arguments, the court decided that Edward was not fairly represented when he attended his hearing without a lawyer. They noted that there was conflicting testimony from police officers about the events leading to his probation violations, which made it difficult for them to feel confident about the decision made at the hearing. Because of these issues, the court reversed the revocation of his suspended sentence. They sent it back to the district court to hold a new hearing where Edward could have a lawyer or show he knew he was giving up that right clearly. In doing so, they ordered that any confusion or problems found in the previous record should be clarified.

C-2010-77

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 13, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-77, Markeese Kreashawmn Ward appealed his conviction for Trafficking CDS and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his petition for a writ of certiorari and affirmed the trial court's order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Markeese Kreashawmn Ward was in court for committing serious crimes. On December 19, 2007, he said he was guilty to two charges: Trafficking in Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS) and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. Because he was a young adult, the judge decided he could join a special program called the Delayed Sentencing Program for Young Adults. This program was supposed to give him a second chance, and his sentencing was scheduled for a year later, on December 19, 2008. When that day came, the judge decided that Markeese had not done well in the program, so he was punished with five months in jail. After his jail time, he was supposed to go into another program designed to help him. Later, on November 13, 2009, the judge sentenced him to 45 years in prison for Trafficking and 5 years for unauthorized vehicle use, with both sentences running at the same time. Markeese didn't like the sentences he received and wanted to change his mind about pleading guilty. He filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, but the court held a hearing and decided not to allow him to withdraw his plea. Markeese believed there were two main reasons why he should be allowed to change his plea: 1. He claimed that some conditions added by the judge to his plea agreement were unfair because he didn’t agree to them. He thought this broke the rules about how judges and other branches of government should work separately. 2. He argued that the judge didn’t sentence him within the year required by law, making the sentence illegal. As the court reviewed these claims, they decided that the judge had done everything by the rules. First, they found that the judge's notes did not change the original agreement Markeese had made when he pleaded guilty, and he could have refused to accept the new conditions if he wanted. Therefore, his plea was still valid. For the second point, the court noted that even though Markeese thought the judge’s actions were a delay in sentencing, they were not. Instead, the judge was just giving him another chance to succeed in the program. The court pointed out that the judge was following the law properly by looking at Markeese's progress and determining if he deserved to have his sentence delayed further. Eventually, the court realized that the judge’s actions had led to a misunderstanding. To account for it properly, the court determined that Markeese had already been treated as if he had been given a part of his sentence when he was sanctioned to jail time and sent to the aftercare program. However, since Markeese had also been sentenced again later, it was like giving him two different sentences for the same crime, which is not allowed. In summary, the court decided to keep the original decision to deny Markeese's request to withdraw his plea but corrected what would happen next. They asked that his official record reflect that the sentence imposed during the sanction in December 2008 was what he needed to serve, and they mentioned that he should be released from custody. The result was that Markeese's case was somewhat settled, and his future would look different than it may have before, with the court noting a mistake that needed fixing without adding more time to his punishment.

S-2009-567

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 11, 2010
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-567, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order suppressing certain evidence. One judge dissented. Charles Stephens was arrested after police searched his apartment and found illegal drugs. He asked the court to remove the evidence from the case, saying the police had not followed the law when they obtained it. Initially, a lower court agreed to suppress some of the evidence but allowed some to remain. The State, unhappy with this decision, did not properly challenge the ruling. Later, another judge looked at the case and agreed that since the State did not appeal the initial ruling, they had to follow it. The judge then decided that the evidence not suppressed was also obtained through illegal means and thus had to be removed from consideration in the trial. The State argued against this decision, claiming the suppression ruling was wrong and that the defendant did not have a right to claim ownership of some of the evidence. However, the higher court, after reviewing the case, found that the lower court was correct in its rulings. The final decision was to keep the evidence suppressed, meaning it could not be used against the appellant in court.

RE-2010-0510

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 7, 2010
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2009-0510, the appellant appealed his conviction for domestic abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence and ordered a new hearing. One judge dissented. In this case, the appellant, who had been previously convicted of domestic abuse, was sentenced to five years, with certain conditions. His sentence was largely suspended, meaning he wouldn’t have to serve most of it if he followed the rules set by the court. However, he faced trouble when the state accused him of violating those rules. There were two applications made by the state to revoke his suspended sentence. The first happened in 2007, where a judge found he broke the terms of his probation and took away three and a half years of his suspended sentence. He did not appeal this decision. The second application was filed in 2009, which led to a hearing in May of that year. During this hearing, the judge determined that the appellant had again violated the rules, resulting in a decision to revoke his entire suspended sentence. The appellant claimed he did not have a lawyer during the revocation hearing. He argued that he was not given enough time to find one and that this hurt his case. The state responded that the appellant missed the deadline to apply for a court-appointed lawyer and therefore gave up his right to have legal help. They believed he was trying to delay the hearing. The law states that individuals at revocation hearings should have the right to have a lawyer, but the court can proceed if a person knowingly waives that right. In earlier similar cases, if judges found an individual was just trying to delay things, they ruled that the person voluntarily gave up their right to have a lawyer. In this case, the court found that the appellant's delay of only six days did not show he was deliberately trying to postpone the proceedings. They also noted the lack of a proper review regarding whether he was unable to afford a lawyer. As a result, the appeal had merit, and his claim for lack of counsel was upheld. Since the court noted conflicts in the testimony presented during the hearing, they decided to reverse the revocation of the suspended sentence. They ordered that a new hearing take place, ensuring that the appellant has the chance to be represented by a lawyer or that his waiver of that right is properly recorded. In summary, the court ruled that the process leading to the revocation had issues that warranted a new hearing, ensuring fairness and proper legal representation for the appellant.

F-2009-466

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 2, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-466, Derrick Andre Fields appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Injure. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court imposed a sentence that was not authorized by law and remanded the case back to the trial court for resentencing. One judge dissented.

F-2009-236

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 25, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-236, James Lee Copeland, Jr. appealed his conviction for Attempted Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but ordered the district court to correct the official record to properly reflect the conviction and remove an incorrect statement about parole eligibility. One judge dissented.

RE-2010-304

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 24, 2010
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-304, Jason Dean Vansickle appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the order related to his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Here’s a summary of the case: Jason was found guilty of two counts of Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. The judge initially decided to wait five years before making a final decision about Jason's punishment, allowing him to follow some rules during that time. But later, the state said Jason broke those rules by using drugs and not paying fees. After a hearing, the judge decided that Jason did break the rules and ordered that he serve a year in jail. The judge added that if Jason could finish rehab during that year, he could avoid additional punishment. Jason disagreed with the judge's decision, especially the part about needing to serve a calendar year in jail, believing it meant he had to stay there every day without earning any time off. The court agreed with Jason that the judge didn't have the authority to set his punishment this way. It clarified that any time taken off his punishment should be based on the original sentence without this added calendar requirement. The court decided that the year part of the sentence, as described by the judge, should be changed. They kept the other parts of the judge's decision the same but removed the requirement for serving a calendar year in jail. Overall, the case highlighted that judges must follow specific rules when deciding on punishments and that adding extra conditions could go beyond what they are allowed to do.

S-2009-719

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 22, 2010
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-719, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol, Second and Subsequent Offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's decision, which had quashed the felony charge. One member of the court dissented. Leslie Doyle was charged with multiple offenses, including a second DUI, after a traffic incident on April 1, 2001. Initially, the state claimed Doyle had a prior DUI conviction from June 17, 1998, which would elevate his charge from a misdemeanor to a felony. However, Doyle's attorney argued that since more than ten years had passed since the 1998 conviction, this should not be treated as a felony charge under Oklahoma law. After entertaining arguments from both sides, the special judge ruled in favor of Doyle, stating that because of the ten-year rule, the state could not pursue a felony charge against him. The state then appealed the decision. The core of the argument revolved around the interpretation of statutes related to DUI offenses. The state believed that the existing law allowed them to enhance the charge based on the earlier conviction if the DUI was committed within ten years, regardless of the conviction date. Meanwhile, Doyle maintained that his prior conviction had to occur within ten years of the new charge in order for it to be considered a felony. The reviewing district court confirmed the special judge's ruling, concluding that the law explicitly states convicted and not merely committed, meaning that for enhancement to apply, Doyle's prior conviction must have occurred within the ten-year timeframe, which was not the case here. Ultimately, the court found in favor of Doyle, maintaining that the specific statutes dealing with DUI enhancement supported his case. The court's opinion affirmed the lower court's decision to quash the supplemental information that would have allowed for the felony charge to proceed. A member of the court disagreed with this conclusion and expressed dissent.

F-2009-1

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 15, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-1, Hoffman appealed his conviction for three counts of Unlawful Distribution of a Controlled Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to ten years in each count but affirmed the conviction. One judge dissented, suggesting the sentences should be served at the same time rather than one after the other.

S-2009-667

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 15, 2010
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-667, the State of Oklahoma appealed its conviction concerning Christy Anne Selders. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the decision of the District Court of Tulsa County, which dismissed one of the charges against Selders. One judge dissented. The case began when Selders was charged with trying to make illegal drugs and also for defrauding a hotel. During the preliminary hearing, the judge had to decide if the police had a good reason to search Selders' hotel room and if they could use the evidence found there. After the State presented its case, Selders argued that the police search was not legal because they didn't have the right to enter the hotel room without proper permission. The judge agreed with Selders and decided to dismiss the charge related to manufacturing drugs, saying that the evidence was not strong enough to link Selders to the crime. The State didn't agree with this decision and decided to appeal, saying the judge made mistakes. They believed that Selders had given permission for the search and that there was enough evidence to try her. Another judge reviewed the case and eventually decided to uphold the original judge's decision. This judge agreed that the police may have thought they had permission to search, but still, they couldn’t prove that Selders was connected to any illegal activity in the hotel room. After reviewing everything, the court decided not to change the first ruling. They said that the dismissal of the charge was correct and that there was no abuse of discretion by the judges involved in the case. In the end, the court confirmed that the order to dismiss the charge against Selders was valid, meaning she would not face trial for that particular accusation.

F-2008-1066

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 11, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1066, Rodney Dennis Evans appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirteen years to eight years imprisonment. One judge dissented.

C-2008-1155

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 2, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2008-1155, Sean Phillip Gillen appealed his conviction for Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance to a Minor, Rape in the Second Degree, Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Obstructing an Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the appeal for three of the counts but allowed Gillen to withdraw his plea for the fourth count. One judge dissented. Gillen had entered guilty pleas to all counts in a previous court. He was given ten years in prison for the first two counts and one year for the last two counts, all to be served at the same time. After some time, Gillen wanted to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming various issues, including that he was not competent to make the plea, and that he did not have good legal help. The court looked at several issues. It found that Gillen was competent to enter his guilty plea because he had previously been deemed competent only a few months before. The judge in the initial court talked with Gillen, and Gillen understood what he was pleading guilty to. Also, since his lawyer did not question Gillen’s competence during the plea hearing, the court believed it was acceptable to keep the plea. However, when considering the plea for the count of Obstructing an Officer, the court found that there was not enough evidence to support this charge. The record showed that when asked if a runaway was inside the house, Gillen first said no but then admitted that the runaway was there. The court couldn’t see this as a clear act of obstruction. On the other issues, the court found that Gillen's pleas to the other counts were made knowingly and willingly. It rejected Gillen's claims that he did not have good legal help and that his sentence was too harsh. The court ruled that the ten-year sentence for his serious charges was not shocking and was appropriate. In summary, the court decided that Gillen could not take back his pleas for the first three counts but could withdraw his guilty plea for the fourth count, which was about obstructing an officer. The dissenting judge believed that Gillen should have a hearing to discuss whether he really understood what it meant to plead guilty without a deal, considering his past mental health issues.

F-2009-47

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 25, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-47, Kenneth Simmons appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the sentence and remand for re-sentencing. One judge dissented. Mark Kenneth Simmons was found guilty of Manslaughter after his trial for Murder in the First Degree. The jury gave him a fifteen-year prison sentence. He appealed, saying the trial court made an error by not informing the jury that he had to serve at least 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The law in Oklahoma states that people convicted of specific crimes, like First Degree Murder or Manslaughter in the First Degree, must serve at least 85% of their sentence before they can be considered for parole. In a previous case, the court decided that jurors should know about these rules when they are deciding on a sentence. During the trial, when the jury asked if they needed to consider the 85% rule, the court told them to continue deliberating without giving any additional information. This was seen as a mistake. The State argued that this mistake did not affect the outcome significantly, but the court disagreed and said it was clear this lack of instruction was a big error. Because of this error, the court couldn’t be confident that the jury fully understood the implications of the sentence they handed down. The court decided that a new sentence should be determined, either by a properly instructed jury or by the District Court if the jury was waived by Simmons. The court affirmed the judgment but vacated the sentence, meaning they believed he should be tried again for sentencing.

C-2009-865

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 22, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-865, Floyd Reid appealed his conviction for Robbery With a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling, meaning they agreed with the trial court's decision not to let Reid withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented.

F-2008-824

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 22, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-824, Allen James Taylor appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including conspiracy and burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his termination from Drug Court but ordered that his sentences should be served concurrently rather than consecutively. One judge dissented. In this case, the appellant had agreed to plead guilty and was initially sentenced with his sentences suspended, meaning he would not serve time in prison right away but had to follow conditions of probation. Later, the appellant breached the terms of his probation, leading to the state applying to revoke his suspended sentences. He then participated in a Drug Court program, which was intended to help him with substance abuse issues. However, after a while, he was terminated from this program due to more violations. When he was removed from Drug Court, the court ended up ordering him to serve his sentences one after the other instead of at the same time, which was against what was originally agreed upon. The court felt that this was not right and decided that the sentences should indeed run at the same time, completing the original terms set forth at the beginning. The appellant argued that he was not correctly represented by his lawyer when he entered Drug Court and that his original guilty plea should not be valid. However, the court noted these concerns were not the focus of this specific appeal regarding the Drug Court termination. In the end, the court confirmed the appellant’s Drug Court termination but corrected how his sentences were to be served, stating they should be concurrent rather than consecutive. This concluded the key aspects of the case.

F-2008-1041

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 22, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1041, David Roland Boschee appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one related to possession of a firearm after a felony. One judge dissented from the decision. Boschee was found guilty after a jury trial for several offenses, including robbery with a firearm. The court sentenced him to a total of 25 years in prison for his serious crimes. Boschee raised several arguments in his appeal regarding the fairness of his trial and the legitimacy of the multiple charges against him. Firstly, he argued that it was unfair to force him to defend against two robbery charges in one trial. The court found no abuse of discretion in joining these cases, meaning they decided it was reasonable to have them heard together. Secondly, Boschee contended that his convictions for both robbery and possessing a firearm with a defaced serial number were against the law because they represented double punishment for the same act. However, the court disagreed, stating these were separate offenses and did not violate any statutes. Thirdly, Boschee argued that he was wrongfully convicted of two counts of possessing a firearm after a felony. The court agreed that there was not enough evidence to support two convictions and decided to dismiss one of these counts. The court also found that his argument about receiving ineffective assistance from his lawyer was without merit, concluding that his rights were not violated in this regard. In summary, the court upheld most of Boschee's convictions but agreed that one count of possession should be dismissed. The judges had different opinions, with one judge dissenting, stating that the joining of the robbery charges may have harmed Boschee’s case.

RE 2009-0080

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 19, 2010
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2009-0080, Zachary Glenn Hayes appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the order requiring him to pay jail costs. One member of the court dissented.

F-2007-1133

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 10, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-1133, Jona Ann Montgomery appealed her conviction for Second Degree Murder and Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Second Degree Murder and affirmed the conviction for Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. One judge dissented. Jona Ann Montgomery was tried in Pittsburg County for her involvement in a tragic incident where she hit two children with her car while speeding near a crowded football game. The younger child, a ten-year-old girl, unfortunately died, while her brother survived. After the accident, Montgomery left the scene but left behind her belongings in the car. The main issue in Montgomery's appeal was the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the possibility of a lesser charge known as Misdemeanor Manslaughter. Initially, the law at the time of Montgomery's trial did not permit this instruction, and her attorney argued against it. However, shortly after the trial, a higher court changed its stance on this law, ruling that driving while impaired could indeed be used for a Misdemeanor Manslaughter charge. Montgomery argued that she should receive a new trial based on this new rule. The court reviewed the situation and agreed that the trial court had made a mistake by not allowing the jury to consider this lesser charge. They believed that a fair jury could have potentially found Montgomery guilty of Misdemeanor Manslaughter instead of Second Degree Murder, given the circumstances of the case. Montgomery also raised concerns about other evidence that was presented during her trial. This included items found in her vehicle that were linked to drug use and remarks made during the trial suggesting she showed no remorse for her actions. The court found that much of this evidence was not necessary and could unfairly bias the jury against Montgomery. The decision ultimately led to the reversal of her conviction for Second Degree Murder because of the instructional error on Misdemeanor Manslaughter, while they upheld the conviction for Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. The judges aimed to ensure that future trials would avoid the errors found in Montgomery's case.

C-2009-617

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 8, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-617, Christopher Overby appealed his conviction for Possession of a Firearm While Under Supervision of the Department of Corrections. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his request for a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. The case started when Overby pleaded guilty to having a firearm while he was supposed to be under supervision. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison, with some of that time being suspended. After some time, Overby wanted to change his plea, so he filed a motion to withdraw it. He felt that he did not get proper help from his lawyer during this process. The court looked at Overby's case and determined that there was a conflict of interest between him and his lawyer. Because of this conflict, the court found that Overby did not get the effective help he was entitled to, especially when it came to his request to withdraw his plea. This situation meant he deserved a new hearing with a different lawyer who could fully represent his interests without a conflict. In conclusion, the court decided that Overby should have another chance to present his case for changing his plea. Thus, the decision was made to give him a new hearing to ensure that he had the right kind of support during this important process.

F-2008-786

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 8, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA Case No. F-2008-786, James Dion Smith appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that had accelerated his Judgment and Sentence and ordered the District Court to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. Smith had originally entered a plea of no contest for possession of a controlled substance, and his sentence was delayed for two years. This means he didn't have to go to jail right away as long as he followed the rules during that time. However, later on, the State of Oklahoma asked the court to speed up Smith's sentence because they believed he had broken the rules. When the court had a hearing to look into the State’s request, they decided to impose Smith's sentence. But Smith argued that the court shouldn’t have done this based on something that happened after his period of supervision had ended. After examining the details, the court agreed with Smith. They found that the reason for speeding up his sentence was tied to a new case that occurred after the time Smith was supposed to be on probation. They decided the lower court was wrong to speed up his sentence and told them to cancel the action against Smith. In the dissenting opinion, the judge felt the court overlooked how the situation happened. This judge pointed out that Smith admitted to not following the rules during his probation. When Smith did not show up for a later hearing, the judge believed the court could still take action against him based on his failure to appear, even if new charges could not be considered. In the end, the main ruling was to reverse the earlier decision and to dismiss the case against Smith.