Staff, Author at OCCA Opinions

C-2005-1

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 28, 2007
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-1, Victor Alfonso Duenas-Flores appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his appeal, vacate the judgment and sentence, and allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Victor Duenas-Flores, who is from Mexico, was involved in a car accident on August 9, 2003, where he crossed the centerline of a highway and hit another car head-on, resulting in the death of the other driver. Duenas-Flores had a high blood alcohol content of 0.21 at the time of the accident. Due to this event, he was charged with first-degree manslaughter. On August 12, 2004, Duenas-Flores pleaded guilty to the charge in court and was sentenced to 45 years in prison. After some time, he wanted to change his plea but the court denied his request. He then took his case to a higher court, claiming that he was not informed about his rights under a treaty that allows foreign nationals to contact their consulate when they are in legal trouble. This lack of information made him feel pressured to plead guilty because he thought he would not have enough resources to defend himself without expert testimony, which he hoped to get help for from the Mexican consulate. The higher court found that the trial court had made an error. Even though it was confirmed that Duenas-Flores was not informed about his consulate rights as required, the trial court ruled that he could not prove that this violation affected his understanding of his guilty plea. The higher court disagreed and said that it was likely that Duenas-Flores would have chosen to go to trial instead of pleading guilty if he had known about his rights, and thus he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. The ruling meant that Duenas-Flores had a chance to defend himself again, and the court did not assess whether his sentence was too long since they granted relief based on the violation of his rights.

C-2006-1079

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 26, 2007
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-06-1079, Brian Daron Harris appealed his conviction for four counts of First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided that Harris was denied his right to counsel during a critical stage of his case, which was the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court found that since Harris' attorney was not present at the hearing, he did not have proper legal representation. This decision led to a determination that Harris should be given another chance to have a hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea, this time with independent legal counsel. One judge dissented.

RE 2006-0808

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 26, 2007
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2006-0808, Covey appealed her conviction for revocation of her suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation order and send the case back for a new hearing with counsel present. One judge dissented. Covey had pled guilty to a crime and was given a suspended sentence, meaning she wouldn't serve time unless she broke the rules again. The State thought she had broken the rules and asked the court to take away her suspended sentence. At the hearing, Covey didn’t have a lawyer because she claimed she couldn’t pay for one. The judge said Covey had enough chances to get a lawyer but decided to go ahead without one. However, the court found that there was no clear proof that Covey was okay with not having a lawyer or that she understood the risks of representing herself. This is important because everyone has the right to have a lawyer help them during important hearings like this one. Because the court didn’t follow the proper rules for allowing Covey to go without a lawyer, they reversed the previous decision and said she should have another hearing with a lawyer or a clear agreement that she didn’t want one.

C-2006-649

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 21, 2007
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-649, Robert Earl Richardson appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Richardson's request to withdraw his guilty plea, which means he will get another chance for a trial. One judge disagreed with this decision. Richardson had originally pleaded guilty to a crime and was sentenced to twenty years in prison. After his sentencing, he wanted to change his mind about the guilty plea and asked to withdraw it. However, there were delays in hearing his request. Nearly four years after he first asked, a different judge finally listened to his case but did not allow him to withdraw his plea. Richardson argued that he didn’t fully understand what he was agreeing to when he pleaded guilty. Specifically, he claimed he was not informed that he would need to serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole, which is known as the 85% Rule. This is important because it means a person might spend a long time in prison before they could have a chance to be released early. During the hearing about his request, Richardson’s lawyer said he usually informs clients about this rule but could not remember if he did so with Richardson. Since there was no clear proof that Richardson was informed about it, the court ruled that he could withdraw his guilty plea. The decision was to reverse the lower court's ruling, allowing Richardson to try again and have a fair trial where he can present his side of the story.

RE-2006-246

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 19, 2007
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-246, the appellant appealed his conviction for several offenses involving credit cards and a weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the suspended sentences for the credit card offenses but affirmed the revocation of the suspended sentence for the weapons offense. One judge dissented. The appellant had pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including possession of a stolen credit card and using a weapon. He was sentenced to prison but his sentences were suspended, meaning he would not serve time if he followed the rules. Over time, the court decided to revoke some of this suspended time, claiming that he violated the conditions of his release. The main point of disagreement was whether the appellant had violated the terms of his suspended sentences and if the court was right to impose harsher penalties. The court found that for the first case, the timing meant the sentences had already lapsed before the state could take action, so that part was reversed. However, for the weapons offense, the court decided that enough evidence was presented to support revoking the suspended sentence, even considering the appellant’s claims about mental health issues. The judges had different views on the fairness and reasons behind the court's decisions on these matters, leading to the dissenting opinion.

C-2006-1110

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 12, 2007
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-1110, Andrew Deon Bowie appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for certiorari and remand the case for the appointment of new counsel. One member of the court dissented. Andrew Deon Bowie was charged with robbery with a firearm, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and burglary. After a preliminary hearing, he agreed to a plea deal and pleaded guilty to robbery and burglary. He was sentenced to thirty years in prison for the robbery and twenty years for burglary, with the sentences running at the same time. Bowie later wanted to challenge his guilty pleas. He argued that he did not have good legal help when he tried to withdraw his guilty pleas because his lawyer had a conflict of interest, which made it hard for Bowie to get proper representation. The law says that people in criminal cases should have effective lawyers who don’t have conflicts that could hurt their case. The court looked at Bowie’s request and agreed that he did not have proper legal help. They found that the trial court should have given him a new lawyer to help with his request to withdraw his pleas, as he was left without anyone to represent him. Because of this, the court said they would let his petition go forward. The decision found that Bowie’s lawyer had acted against his interests by suggesting that Bowie shouldn’t be allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas. This created a conflict which made Bowie unable to defend himself properly. As a result of their findings, the court granted Bowie’s request and sent the case back to the lower court. They instructed the lower court to appoint a new lawyer to help Bowie with his effort to withdraw his guilty pleas. One judge disagreed with this decision, saying that Bowie did not bring up the issue of bad legal help earlier in the process, so it should not be considered now. The dissenting judge felt there was not enough evidence to support Bowie’s claims about needing to withdraw his pleas. Overall, the case was about making sure that Bowie had the right legal support, and the court decided that he didn’t have that, which affected his ability to have a fair process in court.

F-2006-63

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 11, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-63, Beverly Michelle Moore appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Moore's sentence to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Two judges dissented. To explain, Beverly Moore was found guilty of killing two-year-old Avery Snyder. Avery had severe head injuries that doctors said were caused by violent shaking, known as shaken baby syndrome. The trial focused on whether Moore or Todd Snyder, Avery's father, caused the injuries. Moore admitted to giving a confession to the police but later recanted, claiming she did not harm the child. During the trial, the jury determined that Moore was responsible for Avery's injuries, leading to her conviction. The jury decided on life imprisonment without parole. However, the decision included a mistake regarding jury instructions about the 85% Rule, which means that for certain crimes, a person must serve 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole. The court found it was necessary for the jury to understand this rule to make an informed sentencing decision. Moore's trial did not provide the jury with clear information about the 85% Rule, which was important after the jury inquired about it during their discussions. This omission was deemed a significant error that likely influenced the jury's decision to impose a harsher sentence. The court ultimately affirmed Moore's conviction for First Degree Murder but ordered that her sentence be modified to allow for the possibility of parole, reflecting the guidelines that should have been communicated to the jury during the sentencing phase. The dissenting judges believed the original sentence should not have been modified, arguing that the trial followed the laws that were in place at that time and no objections had been made during the trial.

F-2005-963

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 25, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-963, the appellant appealed his conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court modified the conviction to felony malicious injury to property instead. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, Larry Roger Watts, was found guilty by a jury of a crime involving firing a weapon from a vehicle. The jury decided he should serve three years in prison and pay an $8,000 fine. Watts disagreed with the decision and argued several points in his appeal. First, he believed there was not enough evidence to support the charge against him. He claimed that since nobody was near where he fired the weapon, it wasn't a real drive-by shooting, which is meant to endanger people, not property. He also pointed out that the law was changed, and air guns were no longer considered weapons that could be fired from a vehicle under this specific law. Secondly, the appellant argued that the way he was arrested was not legal, meaning the evidence against him should not have been allowed in court. He also mentioned that important recordings from the police that could have helped his case were erased, which he felt was unfair. While looking at all these claims, the court decided that the original conviction for a drive-by shooting could not stand since no one was harmed during the incident. However, the court recognized that damages to property did happen, which led them to change the conviction to felony malicious injury to property. This new conviction came with a lesser punishment: two years in prison and a fine of $1,000 instead of the earlier sentence. The judges concluded that allowing the state to proceed under different theories of the law was appropriate. They determined that Watts was not surprised or prejudiced by this change. In the end, the court ruled in favor of modifying the conviction and sentence, agreeing that it was the right way to handle the case based on the evidence available. They also stated that there was no plain error regarding the prosecutor's comments or about the contention of the erased tapes. Overall, the case showed how legal decisions can evolve based on the circumstances and the interpretations of the law.

F-2005-718

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 24, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-718, Sylvia Coronado Frias appealed her conviction for Trafficking Methamphetamine and Maintaining a Vehicle Used for a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction on both counts but instructed the district court to correct her sentence to match the jury's recommendation. One judge dissented. Frias was found guilty by a jury and received a 20-year prison sentence and a $50,000 fine for Trafficking Methamphetamine, along with a five-year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine for the other charge. However, the judge sentenced her to 25 years without fully explaining why he deviated from the jury's recommendation. The court examined several issues from Frias's appeal, including whether the trial court made mistakes by allowing certain evidence, if juror misconduct occurred, whether Frias had effective legal help, and if the jury was properly instructed regarding her sentence. 1. The court found that admitting the videotape of Frias and another person was done correctly since it was relevant evidence and didn't unfairly hurt her case. 2. The court could not consider claims related to juror misconduct because Frias didn't properly submit evidence to support her statements about it. 3. Frias's claim that her counsel was ineffective also failed because she didn't follow the rules to request further hearings to develop evidence for that claim. 4. The court stated that the trial court was not required to tell the jury about specific sentence limitations concerning trafficking cases. Finally, the court decided that while they agreed with much of the trial court’s findings, the sentence for trafficking had to be corrected to align with the jury's earlier decision of 20 years. The fine would also need to be reviewed.

F-2006-780

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-780, Roy Carl Bales, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Bales's conviction for robbery but modified his sentence for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle to three years in prison. One judge dissented. Bales was found guilty by a jury of committing robbery with a firearm and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The jury decided that he should serve twenty years for robbery and six years for unauthorized vehicle use, with both sentences running one after the other. Bales raised two main points in his appeal. The first point was about how the trial court instructed the jury on the minimum sentence for unauthorized use of a vehicle. Bales argued that the court made a mistake by not giving the jury the correct information on the punishment range. The second point was that the trial court should have made Bales's sentences run at the same time instead of back-to-back, which he thought was too harsh. After looking carefully at the details of the case, the court found a mistake in how the jury was instructed about the sentence. They decided that the minimum sentence for unauthorized use should be three years instead of six years. However, the court thought that the long sentence for robbery was appropriate given Bales's past criminal record, so they kept that sentence as it was. Ultimately, the court affirmed the robbery conviction and changed the unauthorized vehicle use sentence to three years in prison, making one judge disagree with the decision.

F-2006-68

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 22, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-68, Gregory Scott Thompson appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence from life without the possibility of parole to life imprisonment. One judge dissented. ### Summary of the Case Gregory Scott Thompson was found guilty of First Degree Felony Murder after being involved in an attempted robbery that led to the death of Jerry McQuin. The events occurred on November 18, 2003, when Randy Davis and Clifford Hamilton went to Laquita Stevenson’s house. Tensions rose between Davis and McQuin, who was living with Stevenson at the time. Thompson, along with Gatewood, arrived after Davis called him over. When McQuin returned home, Thompson and Gatewood armed with guns demanded McQuin's car keys. McQuin was forced outside where he was shot after a brief confrontation about the keys. Stevenson, still inside, heard the commotion and eventually the gunshots that killed McQuin. Although no one directly saw Thompson shoot McQuin, evidence showed he was actively involved in the robbery attempt that resulted in McQuin's death. ### Court Opinions The court addressed several key legal arguments presented by Thompson: 1. **Exclusion of Evidence**: Thompson argued that the trial court should have allowed evidence that McQuin had drugs and money, which could suggest a drug deal gone wrong. The court ruled that this evidence didn’t sufficiently connect another person to the crime and would risk confusing the jury. 2. **Cross-Examination Limitations**: Thompson claimed his rights were violated when the court limited his lawyer's ability to cross-examine witnesses. The court found that the trial judge exercised discretion within reasonable limits. 3. **Custodial Statements**: Thompson contended that his rights were violated when his statements made after invoking his right to counsel were allowed into evidence. The court found that he did not clearly assert his right to counsel at the time and therefore the statements were admissible. 4. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Thompson maintained that there was not enough evidence to convict him since no one saw him shoot McQuin. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to show he was an active participant in the attempted robbery, thus affirming the conviction. 5. **Sentencing Issues**: Thompson challenged various sentencing procedures, including that the trial was improperly bifurcated and that he was not correctly informed about his eligibility for parole. The court acknowledged these errors and modified the sentence accordingly. 6. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Thompson argued that his attorney failed to effectively represent him in several respects. The court ruled that these claims did not demonstrate a significant chance that the outcome would have been different. Both the prosecution's case and Thompson's defense contributed to the complex nature of the trial. Ultimately, while his conviction was upheld, the errors in sentencing led to a modification of his sentence to life with the possibility of parole.

F-2005-1146

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 18, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1146, Pamela Dee Colley appealed her conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (methamphetamine) and several other drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her convictions for counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, but reversed her conviction for count 3, possession of marijuana. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of count 3. Pamela Colley was found guilty by a jury for a serious crime related to illegal drugs after a traffic stop conducted by a police officer. The case began when the officer noticed her car making a traffic violation early in the morning. When he pulled her over, he found out that Colley did not have a driver's license and provided some confusing information. The police officer thought that drug dealers were operating in the area, so he called for a K9 unit to further check for drugs. When the dog alerted, the police searched her car and found illegal drugs, scales, and items used for drug use in her purse. Colley was very upset and later gave permission for police to search her, leading to more illegal items being discovered on her. Colley argued in court that her sentence of life without parole was unfair and that she didn’t know about the drugs. She claimed that her attorney didn’t defend her well and that the way the trial was handled had problems. However, the court found that there was enough evidence to support her conviction. They also decided the police did everything by the book during the traffic stop. While the court agreed that one of her charges resulted in a double punishment, it found that her other convictions were valid given the serious nature of the drug trafficking involved. Thus, she will remain convicted on those charges, which involved large amounts of methamphetamine, while they reversed the possession of marijuana charge due to it being a part of the same incident.

C-2006-863

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 17, 2007
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-863, the petitioner appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the petitioner's request for further review. One member of the court dissented. To explain further, the case began when the petitioner, Wilkerson, entered a blind plea, meaning he agreed to plead guilty without any deal from the prosecutor, to a serious charge of First Degree Manslaughter. This happened in the Tulsa County District Court. In June 2006, the court accepted his plea and decided that he would spend life in prison, but he would only have to serve 20 years of that sentence right away. The court also ordered him to pay $10,000 as restitution. A little later, in July 2006, Wilkerson wanted to take back his plea and filed a motion to withdraw it, but the court said no after a hearing in August. Following this, Wilkerson decided to appeal and asked for a special review from the OCCA. During the appeal, Wilkerson pointed out three main areas he felt were wrong: 1. He believed his sentence was affected by bias and improper evidence presented in court, leading to a sentence that was too harsh. 2. He argued that he should not have to pay the $10,000 fine since it was not mentioned correctly in the sentence. 3. He wanted the official records to show the date his sentence was first pronounced, which was June 23, 2006. After looking at all the records, it was determined that Wilkerson's plea was made willingly and his sentence was not excessive. The court agreed that the $10,000 fine was wrongly imposed and should be removed, but they also acknowledged that the trial court had done the right thing by dismissing the restitution order since no evidence supported it. The decision concluded with the court denying Wilkerson’s request for a special review but correcting the record to eliminate the fine and officially reflecting the correct date of sentencing.

F-2005-110

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 11, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-110, Marvin Royston White appealed his conviction for three counts of first degree manslaughter due to driving under the influence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Marvin Royston White was found guilty by a jury for causing the deaths of three people while driving after consuming alcohol. The jury set him to serve twenty years for each count, making a total of sixty years in prison. White argued that he did not intentionally drink alcohol that day because he took cold medicine which he didn't know contained alcohol. White claimed that his attorney did not help him properly at trial by not asserting certain defenses, including involuntary intoxication. He mentioned that his attorney didn’t ask for a jury instruction on this defense, simply arguing that he was not guilty due to sleep apnea causing him to fall asleep while driving. The court considered whether the trial court should have instructed the jury on involuntary intoxication since White's defense was that he unknowingly consumed alcohol. The court felt this was important as it could have changed the jury's decision if they understood that his intoxication was not voluntary. Since the lower court did not give that instruction, the OCCA found it to be a major mistake that could have impacted the verdict significantly. Therefore, they decided to reverse White's conviction and ordered a new trial to give him a fair chance to present his defense properly. The dissenting judge believed that the evidence did not support the need for that jury instruction on involuntary intoxication, arguing that White was responsible for his actions and knowingly drove under the influence. Ultimately, White’s appeal was granted, allowing him a chance for a new trial to properly address his defense.

F-2006-301

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 10, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-301, Peggy L. Caves appealed her conviction for Neglect by Caretaker. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Caves' conviction but modify her sentence. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. The case involved Peggy L. Caves, who was found guilty of neglecting an adult in her care. The jury suggested a $10,000 fine, and the judge agreed to this sentence. Caves argued that there were several mistakes during her trial, including that there wasn't enough evidence to prove her guilt, and that she didn't get a fair trial because of various reasons, such as improper juror conduct and irrelevant testimony. The court looked closely at the arguments Caves made. They found that there was enough evidence showing that Caves neglected the adult in question. They also determined that she was aware of the charges against her, so the fact that the evidence presented matched the charges was not a problem. One key argument was about whether Caves did everything she could to help the adult in her care. While Caves said she did not think the person needed help, the court noted that unless a doctor declares a person dead, help must be given. The court concluded that the rules related to Do Not Resuscitate orders did not apply in this case. The court agreed that certain evidence, like the mention of a civil suit against Caves' employer, was not necessary and could have influenced the jury unfairly. Because of this, they decided to lower Caves' fine from $10,000 to $7,500. In the end, the court kept the conviction but changed the amount of the fine due to the identified errors and the impact they might have had on the jury's decision. One judge disagreed with lowering the fine, believing that Caves was already fortunate to only receive a fine without jail time.

C-2006-1192

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 8, 2007
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-1192, Chad Fourkiller appealed his conviction for attempting to elude a police officer, possession of a sawed-off shotgun, and feloniously possessing a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for writ of certiorari and remand the case for a new hearing on the application to withdraw his guilty plea. One member of the court dissented. Fourkiller had pleaded guilty to three charges, which included trying to escape from a police officer and having illegal weapons. He was sentenced to a total of time in prison, depending on whether he completed a program called Drug Court. After his participation in Drug Court ended, he was formally sentenced. Later, Fourkiller wanted to change his guilty plea and claimed his lawyer did not explain things properly to him. The court did not allow him to withdraw his plea at first. However, during a follow-up hearing, Fourkiller’s lawyer ended up testifying against him. This created a problem since a lawyer should not represent a client and then testify against them in the same case. The court found that Fourkiller did not receive proper legal help, and because of this, they agreed to his request for a new hearing to discuss his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The other arguments Fourkiller made in his appeal about double jeopardy and errors in his sentencing were found to not need a decision since the first issue was enough to allow for a new hearing.

F-2006-352

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 7, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-352, Jerome Monroe appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but reversed the sentence and sent the case back for resentencing. One judge dissented. Jerome Monroe was found guilty of killing his girlfriend, Ronda Doyle, on December 24, 2004. He shot her in the face while they were at home. Monroe claimed that the gun went off by accident while he was trying to unload it. After the shooting, he tried to hide the body and lied to family members about Doyle's whereabouts. The jury had the option to sentence Monroe to life in prison or life without the possibility of parole. He argued that the court should have instructed the jury about the rules regarding parole eligibility. The court later decided that such instructions should be given in these cases, making Monroe eligible for this benefit. Monroe also believed he should have received instructions on a lesser charge of second-degree manslaughter. The court found that while the evidence might support some form of manslaughter, Monroe had admitted to trying to handle the gun while intoxicated, which did not warrant a lesser charge. Regarding Monroe's actions after the shooting, the court explained that his attempts to cover up the crime could be seen as evidence of guilt. Although he wanted his lawyer to object to certain evidence, the court concluded there was no harm since the jury could rightly consider such actions. Monroe argued that his lawyer was not effective, claiming that the lawyer didn't use important information about a witness’s statement. However, the court found that even without the alleged mistakes, Monroe could not show that he was harmed by any of the lawyer's actions. Overall, the court concluded that the main issue in the case was the jury's instructions about the possibility of parole. They determined that the absence of instructions about the 85% rule could have affected the outcome and thus decided the case should be sent back for resentencing.

F-2005-1145

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 3, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1145, Robert Lee Peace appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence to twenty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented.

F-2006-429

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 23, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-429, David Michael Graham appealed his conviction for three counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences to be served concurrently and dismissed the restitution order. One judge dissented. Graham was found guilty by a jury of three counts of Lewd Molestation. The jury recommended that he serve 20 years in prison for each count, with the last 10 years suspended under probation conditions. The judge also ordered him to pay $10,000 to each victim. In his appeal, Graham argued several things. First, he claimed that the way the prosecutors behaved during the trial made it unfair. He also said the judge didn’t properly inform the jury about how much of his sentence he would have to serve before getting paroled. Lastly, he felt the restitution amount was too high and lacked support from facts. After reviewing the case, the court agreed there was some misconduct but concluded it did not affect the conviction. The appeal also highlighted that the jury should have been told that he needed to serve 85% of his sentence, which led to changing the sentences to concurrent rather than consecutive. The judges found the order for restitution of $10,000 per count was not backed by evidence, so that part was dismissed. The overall opinion was that while the convictions were upheld, the sentences needed to be modified, and the restitution removed. One judge disagreed with modifying the sentences to run concurrently, believing the original sentencing was appropriate.

RE-2006-180

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 23, 2007
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-180, the appellant appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided in part to grant the appeal, allowing credit for thirty days previously served, but denied the rest of the appeal concerning time served in county jail during the revocation proceedings. One judge dissented. The case involved Raynard Emory Dinkins, who had received a suspended sentence after pleading guilty to Unlawful Possession of Marijuana. Over time, Dinkins faced various legal issues, including an application to revoke his suspended sentence due to numerous probation violations. A judge found that he had violated several rules during his probation, leading to a revocation of his suspended sentence. The court noted that Dinkins had been in jail before his revocation hearing but did not grant him credit for that time, arguing that it was because he had trouble working with his attorneys. Dinkins contested this, claiming he should receive credit for the time he served while awaiting the hearing. The court agreed that he should receive credit for an earlier thirty-day jail term related to his probation. In the end, the court found that while Dinkins was entitled to some credit for time served, it was within the judge's discretion not to grant him credit for the later time spent in jail. Therefore, the appeal was partially granted to correct the credit issue, while other claims were denied.

F-2006-598

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 13, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-598, Timmy Eugene Owen appealed his conviction for escaping from Grady County Jail and assaulting a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Owen's convictions but reverse his sentences, leading to a remand for resentencing. One judge dissented from the opinion. Timmy Eugene Owen was convicted for two crimes: escaping from jail and assaulting a police officer. The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to life in prison for the escape and ten years for the assault. Owen appealed this decision, claiming that he did not get a fair trial because of several reasons. First, he argued that the trial judge should have given him a mistrial due to improper questions from the prosecutor during the trial. However, the court said the judge did not make a mistake because the questions asked did not unfairly influence the jury's decision. Owen also claimed that the prosecutor acted unethically during the trial, which made it hard for him to get a fair trial. The court agreed that some of the prosecutor's comments were inappropriate but believed they did not change the outcome of the trial. They said that despite these comments, the evidence against Owen was very strong. Additionally, Owen believed that his sentences were too harsh. He felt it was unfair to receive a life sentence for escaping from jail and ten years for the assault. The court did not change the life sentence for the escape but suggested that all sentences might need reconsideration because they found that the prosecutor's words affected the sentencing. Owen also raised an issue about being punished twice for the two different crimes. However, the court stated that the two crimes were separate and required different evidence, so they did not violate any laws about double punishment. In the end, while the court affirmed Owen's guilty verdicts, saying he was rightly found guilty for both charges, they reversed the sentences and sent the case back to lower court for a new sentencing. A judge disagreed, believing the trial was fair despite the errors.

M-2006-555

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 12, 2007
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2006-555, the appellant appealed his conviction for recklessly conducting himself with a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence and ordered a new trial. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was charged with a crime called Feloniously Pointing a Firearm. However, after a jury trial, he was found guilty of a lesser crime, which was Reckless Conduct With a Firearm. The punishment for this was six months in jail and a fine of $500. The appellant raised several arguments for why he believed the jury should have decided differently. First, he claimed that he was not properly told about his right to defend himself when he was faced with danger. Second, he argued that he could not access evidence that would show that a witness was not telling the truth. Third, he felt that the jury's decision was based on guesses rather than solid proof. Lastly, he believed he did not have good help from his lawyer during the trial. The court found that the instructions given to the jury were not clear about the appellant's right to self-defense. The jury had even sent a note to the trial court saying they did not feel they understood this important piece of information. The law says that a person must have the chance to explain their side of the story, especially when it comes to self-defense, and in this case, the jury did not get the right instructions about that. Since this was a big mistake that could have affected the jury’s decision, the court decided to reverse the original judgment. It means the appellant will have another chance to prove himself in a new trial. The court did not explore all the details of the self-defense claim but decided that the jury needed the proper guidance on this important matter. The case is now remanded back to the District Court for a new trial where the jury can hear the complete story, including the self-defense argument. This verdict was supported by the judges, but one judge had a different opinion about the case.

RE 2006-0260

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 12, 2007
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2006-0260, Rudy Leon Brockelsby appealed his conviction for Burglary II. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but remanded the matter to the District Court for modification of the sentence to give credit for all time served during the period of the suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Brockelsby originally pled guilty to Burglary II in 2002 and was given a five-year suspended sentence, which meant he would not go to prison if he followed the rules of probation. He had to spend the first ten days in jail and was also ordered to pay some fines and restitution. Over the years, there were several attempts to revoke his suspended sentence. Two applications from the State to revoke his sentence were dismissed after he faced sanctions and served jail time. However, in 2005, the State filed a third application, leading to a hearing in March 2006. After this hearing, the judge decided to revoke Brockelsby's suspended sentence entirely, sending him to prison for five years. On appeal, Brockelsby argued that the judge wrongly made him serve a longer sentence than originally given because he believed that he should get credit for the days he already spent in jail. He claimed he had served 190 days in jail during his suspended sentence. The State agreed that he should receive credit for those days but argued that he was still responsible for other parts of his probation. Brockelsby also said that there was not enough evidence to prove that he willfully failed to pay the restitution that was ordered. However, the court found that Brockelsby had violated other rules of his probation, not just the restitution ruling. The court ruled that the judge had the right to revoke Brockelsby's sentence based on the evidence presented and found no abuse of discretion. Therefore, while they upheld the decision to revoke the suspended sentence, they ordered that Brockelsby receive credit for the time he served while on probation.

RE-2007-378

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 6, 2007
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2007-378, Kevin Davis appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm part of the revocation while reversing another part. One judge dissented. Kevin Davis had previously been sentenced for possession of marijuana and for driving under the influence. These sentences included portions that were suspended, meaning he could avoid serving time if he followed the rules of his probation. However, when Davis was convicted of attempted robbery, the state sought to revoke his suspended sentences. The decision in the case centered around two main issues. First, Davis argued that the court unfairly required him to serve his revoked sentences one after the other, instead of allowing him to serve them at the same time as his new sentence. The court found that the judge had the right to make that decision and did not see it as wrongful. Second, Davis claimed that the court had no power to revoke his earlier marijuana charge since the time to do so had already passed. The court agreed with him on this point and decided that the application to revoke was filed too late. As a result, the court kept the revocation of one sentence in place but instructed the lower court to dismiss the application concerning the other sentence because it was no longer valid.

F-2005-228

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 5, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-228, Gordon Fife Franklin appealed his conviction for Kidnapping, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Cruelty to Animals. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Cruelty to Animals and to modify the sentences for the remaining convictions to 55 years each instead of 250 years. One judge dissented. Franklin was found guilty by a jury and received a very long sentence for his crimes. The jury thought that his actions were very bad and wanted him to spend a lot of time in prison. However, the court later said the sentences were too long. They decided that the evidence for one of the charges, Cruelty to Animals, was not strong enough to keep that conviction. During the trial, the court let different pieces of evidence be shown to the jury. Some of this evidence was questioned later, but the court said that it didn't really change the outcome of the trial. They said that even though there were mistakes made in the trial, the serious charges of Kidnapping and Assault were still valid. Overall, the court agreed that while Franklin did do some wrong things, the punishments should be reduced to a more reasonable amount of time. In conclusion, Franklin's punishment was lightened, and the charge for hurting the animal was removed completely.