Staff, Author at OCCA Opinions

F-2005-1094

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 28, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1094, #x appealed his conviction for #y. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. #n dissented. Charles Arnold Fields was found guilty of delivering a controlled drug after having been convicted of felonies before. The jury gave him a sentence of 15 years to life in prison and a big fine. Fields did not like his representation during the trial, and he wanted to fire his lawyers. But the judge told him he could either continue with his lawyers or represent himself with them helping him. The case had three main issues. The first one was about whether Fields gave up his right to have a lawyer in a way that was clear and fair. The second issue questioned whether his long sentence was okay. The last issue looked at whether the judge made a mistake by not allowing Fields to challenge some evidence. The court found that Fields did not really ask to represent himself, and the judge did not explain to him the problems that could arise from not having a lawyer. Because of this, the court said he deserved a new trial. Since they decided on the first issue, they did not need to look into the other two issues. The court's final decision was to cancel the previous judgment and send the case back for a new trial.

F-2006-113

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 28, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-06-113, Brown appealed his conviction for drug trafficking and other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions related to drug trafficking and possession with intent to distribute but reversed the conviction for possession of MDMA with intent to distribute, ordering it dismissed. One judge dissented regarding the dismissal of the MDMA possession charge. Brown was on trial for three main charges: trafficking in illegal drugs (crack cocaine), possession of MDMA with intent to distribute, and eluding a police officer. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole for trafficking, along with fines for the other charges. The case started when Brown led police on a car chase. During the chase, he threw out a bag that was later found to contain crack cocaine and MDMA pills. Brown argued that the trial court made mistakes, including not allowing him a continuance to prepare for trial after he decided to represent himself. The court noted that Brown had a long time to prepare since the case had been ongoing for two years and had already received several continuances. When he asked for a delay on the morning of the trial, it was denied since Brown had indicated he wanted to proceed. He also argued that he should have been given a lesser charge of possession with intent to distribute instead of trafficking. However, since he had over 16 grams of crack cocaine, which met the requirements for trafficking, the court did not agree with this. In another point, Brown claimed that having charges related to two different drugs was unfair and violated laws against double punishment for the same act. The court agreed that both drugs were in one bag and thus counted as a single act, leading them to reverse the MDMA conviction. Brown complained about the removal of a juror who was an intern for the public defender's office, claiming it was unjust. The court found that the trial judge acted properly to ensure an unbiased jury since the intern had worked with Brown's attorney. Lastly, Brown argued that his life sentence was harsh and that he was not allowed to present evidence in his favor during sentencing. However, the court pointed out that presenting such evidence is not a right in non-capital cases. Overall, the court upheld most of the trial's decisions while acknowledging a legal distinction that warranted the dismissal of the MDMA charge. One judge disagreed, feeling the convictions were justified and should stand.

F-2005-1193

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 27, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1193, Tamara Marine Davis appealed her conviction for Accessory to Felony Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence to twenty-five years of imprisonment. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Davis was found guilty of helping her husband after a murder had occurred. She assisted him in hiding evidence and lying to the police. At her trial, Davis presented several arguments for why her conviction and sentence should be overturned. First, she claimed that there was not enough evidence to prove she was guilty of being an accessory after the fact. The court disagreed, ruling that her actions showed she knew the victim was dead when she assisted her husband in getting rid of the victim's belongings and fleeing the state. Second, she argued that the jury heard improper information concerning her probation and parole history, which made them biased against her. However, the court noted that this information was raised by Davis herself to show the witness's bias, so it did not warrant reversal of the conviction. Third, she contended that misconduct by the prosecutor deprived her of a fair trial. The court found that while there were some issues with the prosecutor's questions, they did not significantly affect the outcome of the trial. Davis also claimed she received ineffective assistance from her attorney. The court found that the lawyer's performance was acceptable and that Davis could not show any harm resulting from their actions. Furthermore, she believed the introduction of some irrelevant evidence was unfair. However, the court determined that the evidence did not unduly sway the jury's decision. Davis argued the length of her sentence was too harsh compared to her involvement in the crime, and the court agreed, reducing her sentence from forty years to twenty-five. Lastly, the court found no cumulative errors that would necessitate a different result in the trial. Thus, while the court affirmed the conviction, it took action to lessen the punishment given to Davis.

F-2005-1058

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 26, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1058, Shaynathian Rashaud Hicks appealed his conviction for multiple charges including indecent exposure, attempted rape, injury to a minor child, and others. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for indecent exposure and remand it with instructions to dismiss. The remaining convictions were affirmed. One judge dissented regarding certain aspects of the opinion. To explain further, Hicks was tried and found guilty of several serious offenses. These included lewd acts like indecent exposure and attempted rape. The jury gave him a total of different sentences, with the most time for his attempted rape and injury to a minor child. Hicks felt that the evidence against him was not strong enough and presented several reasons why he thought he should win his appeal. He argued that there wasn't enough proof to show that his actions qualified as indecent exposure. The court agreed and reversed that conviction, saying the evidence didn’t show he acted in a lewd way. However, for the other charges like attempted rape and injury to a minor, the court found the evidence sufficient, so his convictions for those remained in place. Hicks also had a problem with the way the trial was conducted. He claimed that he wasn’t able to confront all the witnesses against him because some of their testimonies were taken without them being present at the trial. But the court decided the trial was fair and followed the rules. Hicks felt that mistakes were made in how the jury was instructed about the law and that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial. The court looked into these claims, but most were either waived or didn’t have a significant impact on the trial's outcome. In summary, while the court reversed his conviction for indecent exposure due to a lack of evidence, it upheld the other convictions because they found there was enough evidence for those offenses. Hicks’s overall arguments did not lead to a change in the other convictions, which means he must serve his sentences as determined by the jury.

F-2005-911

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 21, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-911, Timothy Griffith appealed his conviction for two counts of Attempted First Degree Rape and eight counts of sexual abuse of a child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences except for one count of attempted first degree rape, which was reversed and dismissed. One judge dissented. Griffith was found guilty of two attempted rapes and eight counts of sexually abusing a child, and he was given a total of 61 years in prison. He argued that both his rights against double jeopardy and his right to a fair trial had been violated, among other claims. The court reviewed each of Griffith's arguments. For the first point, the court found there was enough evidence to support the charges and no violation of double jeopardy. For the second and third points, the court ruled that the prosecutor had the discretion to charge Griffith with attempted rape instead of just intent to commit rape, so the trial was fair. Regarding the case's fourth and fifth points, the court decided that the additional testimonies from adult witnesses and the child's prior statements were allowable and did not greatly harm Griffith's case. The sixth allegation about a medical opinion from a physician assistant was also found not to be a problem since it did not influence the jury's decision directly. On point seven, the court agreed that the judge made a mistake by not letting Griffith fully present his defense. This part was significant because it led to the reversal of one of the counts against him. Finally, the court found that the sentences imposed were not excessive despite the overall situation, and there were no errors that would justify further action. In summary, most of Griffith's arguments were not persuasive to the court, and while some parts of the conviction remained, one count was removed due to the identified error.

RE-2006-262

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 21, 2007
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-262, Gessel appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Gessel’s revocation was not valid due to a lack of adequate notice about the reasons for his revocation. One judge dissented.

F-2005-1161

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 15, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1161, Isaac Gardner appealed his conviction for Forcible Oral Sodomy and Attempted Sexual Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Gardner's conviction but modified his sentence from twenty years to fifteen years imprisonment. One judge dissented. During the trial, Gardner was found guilty of Forcible Oral Sodomy and the jury recommended a lengthy prison sentence based on evidence presented, including Gardner's past admissions about similar actions. Although the judge allowed some evidence regarding Gardner's past, they did not believe it overly impacted the trial since the jury ultimately acquitted him of the Attempted Sexual Battery charge. Gardner argued that he did not receive a fair trial due to this evidence, but the court disagreed, noting that he had been warned about what evidence would be used against him. They also highlighted that his conviction was upheld because the jury was able to examine the evidence properly. Additionally, Gardner claimed that he should have been informed about parole eligibility under the 85% Rule, which says he would need to serve most of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The court acknowledged this misstep and reduced his sentence accordingly. In summary, the court confirmed that while Gardner’s initial trial and conviction stood, his sentence was adjusted to reflect what he had rightfully requested before the trial began.

C 2005-608

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

In OCCA case No. C 2005-608, Ricky Allen Rinker appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child and Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Rinker's request to withdraw his pleas. One judge dissented. Ricky Allen Rinker made pleas of guilty and nolo contendere for several counts of crimes against children. He was sentenced to a total of over forty years in prison. After some time, Rinker wanted to take back his pleas, saying they were not made knowingly or voluntarily. He believed he was not properly informed about the possible sentences and his eligibility for parole. The court agreed that he had not been properly informed about important rules related to his sentence, particularly that he would need to serve 85% of his time before being eligible for parole. Since this was a serious issue, the court allowed him to withdraw his pleas and overturned his sentence. Some judges thought that Rinker should have to provide more proof that he did not understand the rules concerning his pleas. They believed he had not shown enough evidence that he should be allowed to take back his pleas simply because no official record of his plea was made. However, in the end, the majority ruled in favor of Rinker, allowing him a chance to re-do his plea with all the proper information.

F-2006-114

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 8, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-114, Tuydale Eugene LeFlore appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder, Leaving the Scene of an Accident Involving Damage, and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment for Leaving the Scene and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, but modified his sentence for Second Degree Murder from sixty years to thirty years. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence for the murder charge, arguing that there was no evidence that the jury considered parole during their decision.

F-2005-649

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

In OCCA case No. F-2005-649, Alfred Gene Ryan appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented in part. Ryan was found guilty in the District Court of Kay County, where a jury sentenced him to 20 years in prison for the rape charge and 10 years for the molestation charge, along with fines for both counts. The key points of his appeal focused on several alleged errors during his trial, including issues related to custody status during police questioning, hearsay testimony, the trial court’s handling of jury instructions, the admission of other crimes evidence, and claims of ineffective counsel. The court reviewed all the claims made by Ryan, including whether the trial court made mistakes by allowing certain evidence or testimony, and whether he received a fair trial. After considering the arguments and the entire record, the court did not find any major errors that would require a reversal of his conviction. The court stated that Ryan was not in custody when he spoke to law enforcement, which meant that his statements to them were properly admitted. They also ruled that the hearsay testimony from child victims was allowable and did not violate Ryan’s rights. The court acknowledged that there were instances of improper evidence admitted concerning other crimes but determined that these did not significantly impact the verdict concerning his guilt. Regarding jury instructions, the court agreed that Ryan should have been informed about the 85% rule, which might have affected the length of time he would serve. Therefore, they modified his sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively, leading to a total time served being lessened. Overall, while the court affirmed the convictions, it recognized certain shortcomings in how the trial was conducted which justified modifying how the sentences were structured.

F-2004-914

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 2, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-914, Mark Wayne Johnson appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Mark Wayne Johnson was found guilty of Child Sexual Abuse and sentenced to twenty years in prison along with a fine. He believed that his lawyer did not do a good job during the trial. Johnson pointed out that his lawyer failed to bring in expert witnesses who could have helped his case and also did not challenge important evidence properly. Johnson raised several issues in his appeal. He claimed that the trial judge acted unfairly by scolding his lawyer in front of the jury. This made Johnson feel that he did not get a fair trial. He also argued that important evidence and witness credibility were not handled properly by the trial court, and that numerous mistakes made by his lawyer affected the outcome of the trial. The court reviewed these claims and found that there were many significant errors in how Johnson was represented. The judges said that Johnson's lawyer did not cross-examine witnesses properly or address inconsistencies in the testimonies. They concluded that all these mistakes could have changed the trial's outcome, meaning Johnson did not receive the fair trial he deserved. As a result of these findings, the court reversed Johnson's conviction and ordered a new trial.

PC 2006-0638

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 28, 2007
Post category:PC

In OCCA case No. PC 2006-0638, the petitioner appealed his conviction for manufacturing a controlled dangerous substance, possession of counterfeit bills, and larceny by fraud. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the lower court's denial of post-conviction relief and ordered a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel. One judge dissented. The petitioner had previously been convicted by a jury and sentenced to prison along with fines. After the conviction, the petitioner argued that his trial and appellate lawyers did not perform effectively. He contended that many mistakes were made during his trial, impacting the fairness of his case. The trial court found that the petitioner's attorney did not challenge the way his statement to the police was obtained, which was a significant part of the evidence used against him. The lawyer also failed to ask for important jury instructions and did not properly raise issues on appeal. The trial court agreed that the lawyer made many mistakes, but initially decided that these mistakes did not change the outcome of the case. However, upon review, the appellate court determined that the mistakes made by the lawyer were so serious that they undermined confidence in the trial's outcome. This meant that the petitioner did not get a fair trial, violating his rights. The decision was reversed, and the case was sent back to the lower court for a new trial. This case highlights the importance of having effective legal representation, as mistakes made by lawyers can lead to wrongful convictions or unfair trials.

C 2006-497

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

In OCCA case No. C 2006-497, Tommy Lee Williams appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to modify Williams' sentence. One judge dissented. Tommy Williams pleaded guilty to Child Abuse, which is a serious crime involving harm to children. He was initially given a very long sentence of life in prison, but with 30 years of it suspended, meaning he wouldn't have to serve that part if he followed certain rules while on probation. The court also said he would need to follow rules as a violent offender for his whole life. Williams didn't agree with the sentence. He thought it was way too harsh. He also mentioned that the judge might have taken unproven bad behavior into account when deciding the punishment. Williams' lawyers believed that the judge had made some mistakes, so they filed a motion asking the court to let him change his guilty plea. They pointed out four main issues they thought were problems with the judge's decisions. First, they argued that the length of the sentence was surprising and excessive. Second, they felt the judge didn't check if Tommy was mentally ready to go through with the plea. Third, they claimed it wasn’t fair for the judge to make Williams be on supervision for life, as that's a long time. Fourth, they said Tommy wasn't clearly told about the potential length of his sentence and a special rule that could mean he'd have to serve 85% of his time before getting out. The court looked through all the information presented in the case. They decided that Williams' sentence was too harsh when they compared it with similar cases. They agreed that some of the reasons the trial judge gave for his decision weren't valid. Child abuse is serious, but the punishment given to Williams felt wrong to the appeals court. About the lifetime supervision, the court believed that was also not right. They then concluded that they needed to change the sentence to make it fairer. In the end, the court lowered Williams' sentence to 20 years instead of life. They said he would still need to follow rules during his time in prison, but that the earlier sentence was just too much for the crime he committed. They sent the case back to the lower court to make sure their decision was put into action.

C-2006-571

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

In OCCA case No. C-2006-571, Robert Carl Sharp appealed his conviction for three counts of First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant certiorari and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Robert Carl Sharp was convicted on January 5, 2006, after he entered guilty pleas to three counts of First Degree Manslaughter in the Pottawatomie County District Court. His sentencing was postponed until a Presentence Report could be made. When he was finally sentenced on February 15, 2006, he received ten years in prison for each count, with the sentences to be served one after the other. After the sentencing, Sharp wanted to withdraw his guilty pleas. He filed an application to do this on February 23, 2006, but during the hearing for this application on March 15, 2006, he was not present. The court denied his application to withdraw his pleas. This led Sharp to appeal the decision, raising several points he believed were errors in the process. Sharp argued that: 1. He was denied his right to be present at the hearing about withdrawing his pleas. 2. His sentences were too harsh and should be changed. 3. He did not get enough time to present evidence that could have helped lessen his sentence. The court looked carefully at Sharp's claims. They found that he did not get to be present at the hearing about his application to withdraw his guilty pleas, and there was no record showing he agreed to not be there. The court stated that a person has the right to be present in any situation that could affect the fairness of the process. Because the hearing where he wanted to withdraw his plea was an important part of the legal process, Sharp's absence was considered a violation of his rights. Thus, the court decided to send the case back to the district court so that Sharp could have a new hearing. This new hearing would allow him to be present and give his side of the story regarding his application to withdraw his guilty pleas. Since they granted his appeal on this matter, the other arguments he made were no longer needed to be considered. In conclusion, the court granted Sharp's request and sent the case back to the lower court for a new hearing. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing that even though he was absent from the hearing, it did not change the fact that his original guilty plea was valid and made willingly.

F-2005-785

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 14, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and in case No. F-2005-786, Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse their convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Charles Milton Smith, Sr. was charged with manufacturing a controlled substance (methamphetamine), child endangerment, and possession of a controlled substance. Bonnie Smith faced similar charges for manufacturing a controlled substance and child endangerment. During the trial, both were found guilty of the charges against them. The jury recommended sentences that included lengthy prison time and substantial fines. However, they claimed that their rights were violated because they did not have court-appointed lawyers. Initially, they were considered unable to afford an attorney, but after someone paid their bond, the trial court ruled that they were no longer indigent and had to represent themselves, which they argued was not fair. The court looked closely at whether the trial court properly assessed their financial situation before denying them their right to legal representation. They pointed out that just because bond was posted, it does not automatically mean someone can afford a lawyer. The court found that there was no record showing that the trial court had properly checked their financial status or informed them that they might still qualify for a lawyer. Since having a lawyer is essential for a fair trial, the court reversed the Smiths' convictions and ordered a new trial where they would have a chance to properly have legal representation.

F-2005-786

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 14, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided that the trial court had made a mistake by ruling that the Smiths were not entitled to a court-appointed attorney, which violated their right to legal representation. Consequently, the court reversed their sentences and ordered a new trial. One judge disagreed with the decision.

F-2005-1282

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 6, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1282, Earl Andrew Dahl, Jr., appealed his conviction for multiple sexual offenses including Rape by Instrumentation, Forcible Oral Sodomy, and Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments of the trial court but remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Dahl was found guilty on fifty counts related to these serious crimes, and the jury recommended various sentences for these counts, which were to be served one after another (consecutively). Dahl argued several points in his appeal, including that the evidence was not strong enough to support his convictions and that the sentences were excessive. He also claimed that the prosecutor asked unfair questions during the trial and that the trial court made errors by not giving certain instructions related to the law. After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that there was enough proof to uphold Dahl's convictions, as the victim's testimony was clear and trustworthy. They also noted that there were certain errors in how the trial was conducted, particularly the failure to provide an important instruction known as the 85% Rule, which affected how the jury decided on the sentencing. Because of this, the court ordered a new sentencing hearing to correct this mistake. Overall, while the convictions were upheld, the court acknowledged that the trial process had flaws, which led to their decision to allow for resentencing for Dahl.

F-2004-427

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 26, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-427, Emily Michelle Dowdy appealed her conviction for First-Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction but modified her sentence to twenty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented from the decision to modify the sentence. Emily was charged after a fatal car accident that resulted in the death of another driver, Ryan Brewer. Emily's blood test later showed a high blood alcohol concentration, indicating she was driving under the influence. In her defense, she claimed she was involuntarily intoxicated, suggesting that she may have been given a drug without her knowledge, such as GHB or rohypnol, often associated with date-rape cases. Emily argued that she could not remember what happened after she took a friend to her car at a bar. The trial included a significant amount of expert testimony regarding the effects of GHB, but the state argued that Emily was likely just drunk from alcohol. Various witnesses testified about her drinking at the bar that night and her generally good driving record. On appeal, Emily raised several arguments regarding the fairness of her trial, alleging ineffective assistance of her counsel, improper admission of certain evidence regarding her character, and comments made by the prosecutor. The court reviewed testimony regarding whether Emily had been properly advised about her rights during police questioning and whether any misconduct had affected the jurors' views. After thorough review, the court concluded that the trial was fair overall, although it noted that one witness's hearsay testimony, which was not properly admissible, could have potentially influenced the jury's view of Emily. Ultimately, this led to a modification of her sentence, although the conviction itself remained intact. The dissenting judge felt that the original forty-year sentence was appropriate and did not believe that the limited hearsay testimony had a significant impact on the final outcome.

F-2004-1279

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 26, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1279, Daniel Hawkes Fears appealed his conviction for multiple counts including Murder in the First Degree and Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions due to prosecutorial misconduct and insufficient evidence of sanity at the time of the crimes, ordering a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. One judge dissented, arguing that the jury should have had the proper instructions for a retrial instead of this decision.

RE-2005-1195

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 4, 2007
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2005-1195, #x appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (cocaine base). In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation order of the suspended sentence. #n dissented. In this case, the appellant was found guilty of trafficking in illegal drugs back in 1997. He was given a ten-year sentence but was allowed to serve only five years after some of it was suspended. Over the years, he was on probation. However, in September 2005, the state claimed that he had violated his probation by doing something called domestic abuse and by not following a protective order. A hearing took place to investigate these claims. The judge decided that the appellant did break the rules by having some contact that could be considered domestic abuse, but it was a small violation. The contact happened when he was trying to see his baby son, which was allowed by a court order. It seemed that the meeting was short and not planned, and he ended it when it became clear that the other person wouldn't follow the rules. The court thought these special circumstances made the punishment too harsh. They decided to lessen the punishment and only took away one year from the suspended sentence instead of a larger amount. The appellant would still have to follow the rules of his probation after this one year was served. In summary, the court agreed that the appellant had a minor violation worth a one-year revocation, but otherwise, he would return to probation for the rest of his sentence.

S-2005-890

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 19, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-890, Ryan Layne Short and Victor Suarez Ortuno appealed their conviction for drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the District Court's dismissal of the case against both defendants. One judge dissented. Ryan Layne Short and Victor Suarez Ortuno were charged with several crimes, including trafficking illegal drugs and other drug-related offenses. On September 1, 2005, the District Court decided to dismiss the charges after finding that the traffic stop that led to the arrests was illegal. This decision went through different hearings, with judges initially disagreeing before ultimately siding with the defendants. The main reason for upholding the dismissal was that the officer lacked sufficient evidence to justify the traffic stop. The court reviewed whether the District Court had made any mistakes in handling the case. They concluded that the court had acted correctly by recognizing that there was no valid reason to stop the vehicle. In summary, the court supported the District Court’s decision to dismiss the case against Short and Ortuno because the initial traffic stop was not lawful. This meant that evidence gathered during that stop could not be used against them. One judge disagreed with this outcome, believing that the case should have been handled differently.

F-2005-529

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 18, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-529, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter and Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for First Degree Manslaughter from fifty years to thirty years. One judge dissented.

F-2005-58

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 14, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-58, Alishia Faith Mackey appealed her conviction for permitting child abuse and failure to report child abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction for permitting child abuse but vacated her conviction for failure to report child abuse. One judge dissented regarding the double punishment issue. Mackey was found guilty by a jury of allowing child abuse to happen and not reporting it. The jury said she should go to prison for twenty years for permitting the abuse and fined her $500 for failing to report it. Mackey argued that the trial had many mistakes, including that a child testified behind a screen without enough evidence to justify it, the jury wasn't properly instructed on possible defenses, and her lawyer didn't do a good job. She believed the sentences were too harsh and that all the errors added up to make her trial unfair. The court looked at each claim. It found that not allowing the child to confront Mackey face-to-face was a mistake, but it was not serious enough to change the outcome since there was a lot of other evidence against her. The court also said that there was no need to instruct the jury on a defense of duress because there was no proof that she was forced to allow the abuse. Additionally, they decided that while the jury didn't get instructions on another defense, it didn't matter because Mackey wasn't charged under that law. For the claims about not being allowed to cross-examine certain witnesses, the court said those decisions were fair and didn't break any rules. They determined that having both convictions didn’t go against laws against double punishment; however, since the two charges came from the same event, she should only receive one punishment. Overall, the court found that while some things in the trial were wrong, they did not change the fact that Mackey was guilty of permitting child abuse. They decided that the punishment for failing to report the abuse should be taken away since it was unfair to punish her twice for the same act. The final decision left her conviction for permitting child abuse in place but removed her conviction for failure to report. The judges had differing opinions on some points, particularly on whether both charges should stand, but the main ruling agreed that her punishment for the failure to report should not continue.

F-2005-471

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 14, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-471, Desiray Jaibai Allen appealed his conviction for Distribution of Controlled Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Allen's sentence but upheld the conviction. The judges agreed on most points, but one judge dissented. Desiray Jaibai Allen was found guilty by a jury for distributing controlled substances and was sentenced to two consecutive 20-year prison terms. During the appeal, Allen raised several arguments claiming errors during the trial. He felt that improper evidence and misconduct affected his right to a fair trial. The court reviewed all aspects of the case, including trial records and arguments. Although they found some issues with the evidence presented, they decided that these did not require a complete reversal of the conviction. However, they agreed with Allen on one point: certain irrelevant and improper documents should not have been shown to the jury. Because of this, the court reduced his sentences to 15 years for each count instead of 20. The judges discussed other claims made by Allen, such as prosecutorial misconduct and hearsay evidence, but determined that these did not seriously impact the fairness of the trial. The accumulation of errors didn't lead to a requirement for further action beyond reducing the sentences. Ultimately, while the judgment of conviction remained intact, the sentences were modified to less time in prison. Thus, the court affirmed the guilty verdict but adjusted how long Allen would need to serve for the charges.

C-2006-693

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 8, 2006
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-693, Willeford appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Willeford's sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Willeford had pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and was sentenced to twenty years for each count, served one after the other, meaning he would spend a total of forty years in prison. He later wanted to take back his guilty plea and argued that he had not been properly informed about the 85% Rule. This rule states that a person must serve 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole. The court examined the record and found that Willeford was indeed not advised about this rule. This was a key issue because, based on a previous case, if a defendant isn’t informed about important rules affecting their freedom, it can make their plea involuntary and unfair. Instead of completely overturning Willeford's guilty plea and sending the case back for trial, the court decided to change the sentences so they would be served at the same time, reducing the total prison time he would face. In the dissent, one judge expressed disagreement, arguing that the plea should be overturned altogether if it was found to be involuntary. This judge believed that just changing the sentences wasn’t enough and that the entire process needed to be reviewed, suggesting that the original ruling should simply be kept as it was.