Staff, Author at OCCA Opinions

M 2005-0404

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 1, 2006
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2005-0404, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented from this decision. The case involved an appellant who was found guilty by a jury in a district court. He was sentenced to one year for each of the two counts and was fined $1,000. During the appeal, the appellant raised several issues regarding his right to counsel. He argued that he did not knowingly or voluntarily give up his right to have a lawyer during the trial. The appellate court found that while the appellant had filled out a waiver of counsel form, the trial record did not clearly show that he understood the risks of representing himself. The court mentioned that the trial judge should have made sure the appellant was fully aware of what he was giving up by not having a lawyer. As a result, the court believed that the appellant did not make an informed choice about waiving his right to counsel, which affected the fairness of his trial. Because of this main issue, the court did not need to consider the other problems raised by the appellant, such as comments made during the trial and actions taken by the prosecutor. Overall, the court decided that the appellant should have a new trial to ensure he gets a fair chance to defend himself properly.

F-2005-252

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 30, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-252, Charles Earl Lindsay appealed his conviction for robbery with an imitation firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his conviction. One judge dissented. Charles Earl Lindsay was tried in Cleveland County and found guilty of robbery with an imitation firearm. The jury decided he should be sentenced to 40 years in prison. Lindsay did not agree with this decision and argued several points in his appeal. First, he claimed that there was not enough evidence to prove he committed robbery using an imitation firearm. The court agreed that while the state proved most parts of the robbery, they did not prove that Lindsay threatened the victim with the imitation firearm since she never actually saw it during the crime. Because of this, the court thought it was fair to change his conviction to first-degree robbery, saying he unnecessarily hurt the victim and scared her. Lindsay also argued that the prosecution had made mistakes during the trial, including allowing a police officer to testify about the victim identifying him. Although the court noted this was not a good practice, they felt it did not change the outcome of the trial since Lindsay’s attorney had challenged the identification in other ways. Another point Lindsay raised was that his lawyer did not help him properly. The court decided that the lawyer’s actions did not break any laws protecting his rights, so this argument did not succeed. Lindsay further stated he had an unfair trial because he was brought into the courtroom in handcuffs in front of the jury. The court acknowledged this was an error but said that this alone did not warrant a different outcome. Lindsay’s attorney also did not ask for the jury to consider any lesser charges of robbery, but the court found this was appropriate since Lindsay claimed he was innocent. Regarding closing arguments by the prosecutor, the court found that a fair trial was still upheld. However, the court did recognize there were mistakes regarding Lindsay's sentencing, particularly not informing the jury about some rules related to sentencing. In the end, the court reversed Lindsay's original conviction and instead convicted him of first-degree robbery. They also decided to reduce his sentence to 20 years in prison, taking into account all the discussed errors. The case was sent back to the lower court to correct the judgment and sentence based on these decisions.

S-2006-117

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 29, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2006-117, the husband and wife, Larrie and Theresa Moyers, appealed their case concerning charges related to a scheme to defraud the State. They were originally indicted for multiple counts including conspiracy, bribery, and tax violations. Larrie had previously entered a guilty plea and received a sentence. Later, he sought to modify this sentence, which the court granted by reducing his time in prison and adding conditions like probation and treatment. After this modification, the State brought new charges against both Larrie and Theresa. They argued that these charges were unfair and retaliatory, claiming it was revenge for the sentence modification. The trial court agreed, finding that the new charges were indeed retaliatory and dismissed them, stating that this was against due process rights. The State then appealed this dismissal. The court reviewed whether it could hear the appeal and decided it could, as the dismissal was tied to constitutional issues. Ultimately, they affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that the State's action against the Moyers was inappropriate. The decision was published and affirmed the dismissal of all charges against them, maintaining the previous ruling of retaliation based on the lawful actions taken by Larrie Moyers to modify his sentence.

F-2005-1176

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 28, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1176, Rollie Mack Francis appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including eluding a police officer and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify one of his sentences but affirmed the other convictions. The court agreed with the state that there was an error in how a fine was considered in one of the counts, changing it to a $500 fine. One judge dissented.

S 2005-702

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 23, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S 2005-702, Roley appealed his conviction for Child Abuse/Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling. One judge dissented. Michael Ray Roley was charged with child abuse/neglect. This case started in Creek County District Court on November 9, 2004. After some hearings, the judge let Roley go free by granting a motion to quash, which means the charges against him were dismissed before a trial could happen. The State of Oklahoma, which was prosecuting Roley, didn't agree with this decision and decided to appeal it. They brought up three main points they believed were wrong with the judge's ruling. First, they argued that a previous case about a person’s right to confront witnesses didn’t apply to preliminary hearings. They said Roley was claiming a right to confront witnesses too early. Second, the State believed that Roley should not have been allowed to extend this right to preliminary hearings in such a broad way. Finally, they suggested that the court should consider the need to protect the child who was the victim in this case. After thoroughly examining the arguments and evidence, the court agreed with the trial judge’s decision. They highlighted that Oklahoma’s Constitution and laws give a person a right to confront witnesses during preliminary hearings, just like in a full trial. The court also noted that hearsay evidence, or what someone said out of court, could not be used unless the person who made the statement was unavailable. In this case, the children who were supposed to testify did not do so, making what the State presented unacceptable to prove that a crime had happened. The judges deliberated and concluded that the trial judge acted correctly when deciding not to allow the case to proceed based on the evidence presented. Therefore, the court supported the decision of the trial court to grant the motion to quash the charges against Roley, keeping him from being tried. In the end, the court affirmed the lower decision and stated that they would issue a mandate to finalize the ruling. One judge had a different opinion and disagreed, but the majority agreed that the earlier ruling should stand.

S-2005-1067

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 18, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-1067, one person appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, Kidnapping, and Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that denied the State's request to use the transcript of a witness's preliminary hearing testimony during the trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Deangelo Favors and another person who were charged with serious crimes. During the preliminary hearing, a key witness, Roberta Verner, testified, but another potential witness, Lesha Huggins, was not allowed to testify even though the defense wanted to present her testimony, claiming it would prove Verner lied about the crimes. The judge decided that Verner was unavailable for the trial, which meant her earlier statements could not be used unless the defense had a chance to fully question her and present their case. The judge believed that not allowing Huggins to testify took away the defense's opportunity to question Verner properly. The State wanted to appeal the decision, saying it was wrong to not allow them to use Verner’s testimony. However, after looking closely at the facts and arguments from both sides, the court found that the trial judge acted correctly in not letting the State use Verner's earlier testimony. The court noted that it is important for defendants to have the right to question witnesses against them, and that this right was not met in the preliminary hearing because the defense could not call Huggins to support their case. In the end, the decision to deny the State's appeal was upheld, and the case was sent back to the lower court for more proceedings based on the ruling.

F 2004-866

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 17, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-866, Ricky Dale Rawlins, Jr. appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial in two of the three related cases, while affirming the conviction in the third case. One judge dissented. Ricky Dale Rawlins, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for offenses related to shooting at people, which included Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Shooting with Intent to Kill. The jury gave him a total of twelve years for the two Assault and Battery charges and twenty-five years for the shooting charge, which were to be served one after the other. Ricky raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that the trial court made mistakes, like not following the law to instruct the jury correctly on the charges. He claimed there wasn’t enough evidence to support his convictions and that he didn’t get good help from his lawyer. He also stated the prosecutor did wrong things during the trial and that some evidence shouldn't have been allowed. Additionally, he felt the instructions given to the jury about sentencing were confusing and that all the mistakes made during the trial added up to make it unfair for him. After looking closely at what Ricky said and the court records, the court agreed that he deserved a new trial for the Assault and Battery charges because the jury was wrongly instructed about the law. But for the Shooting with Intent to Kill charge, the court thought the evidence was enough to support that conviction, so they upheld it. The court decided that many of Ricky's claims about mistakes during the trial did not change the outcome for the Shooting charge, so it stayed as is. However, since there was a legal mistake about the Assault and Battery charges, those were thrown out, and he was ordered to be tried again. In conclusion, the final decision was to keep the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and to conduct new trials for the other two charges.

F 2004-1198

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 15, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1198, David Lynn Nelson appealed his conviction for multiple counts of sexual crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one. One judge dissented on the matter of that specific count. Nelson was found guilty by a jury of serious charges, including two counts of Rape by Instrumentation, four counts of Forcible Oral Sodomy, two counts of First Degree Rape, and one count of Attempted Rape. He had previous felony convictions, which affected his sentencing. The jury sentenced him to 40 years in prison plus fines for some counts, while for the others, he received life imprisonment and higher fines. The sentences for all counts were set to run at the same time. During the appeal process, Nelson raised several issues. First, he claimed that he did not receive good help from his lawyer during the trial. However, the court found that his lawyer made decisions that were reasonable, so this claim was dismissed. Nelson also wanted the jury to be informed about new rules that would affect how long he would have to serve in prison before being eligible for parole, but the court did not grant this request. The court later decided it was important to adjust his life sentences to a total of 45 years instead. Moreover, Nelson argued that the evidence did not clearly show he committed one of the charges, specifically concerning the forcible oral sodomy. The court looked at the details of the evidence and found it lacking in proving that aspect, leading to the reversal of that particular count. In summary, the court upheld most of the convictions, but one was removed, and the sentences for the life terms were reduced, while the other penalties remained unchanged. The judge who disagreed with reversing the sodomy conviction felt that the evidence given during the trial was enough to support that finding.

F-2005-440

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 15, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-440, Zachary Michael Hudson appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Zachary Hudson was tried by a jury for First Degree Murder, but the jury found him guilty of the lesser offense of First Degree Manslaughter. They recommended a punishment of twenty years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The trial judge followed this recommendation when he sentenced Hudson. After the trial, Hudson raised several points of error in his appeal. He claimed he was not given a fair trial because he thought the court was too involved and was biased toward the State. However, the court found that the judge was simply ensuring that witnesses understood the questions and did not show any partiality. Hudson also argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support the conviction for manslaughter, and he believed the jury instructions were incorrect. The court found evidence that Hudson fought with the person who died, left, returned, and then ran over that person with his car. This evidence led the court to believe that the jury could find Hudson guilty, as they might think he acted out of anger or passion rather than by accident. Hudson’s last point was about not having the jury instructed on the 85% Rule, which explains how much of a sentence must be served before someone can be eligible for parole. The court agreed that the jury needed this information and decided to modify Hudson's sentence from twenty years to fifteen years in prison while keeping the $10,000 fine. In summary, the court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence because they wanted to ensure that the jury had clear information about parole eligibility, which would help them make informed decisions.

C-2005-1198

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 14, 2006
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-1198, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for burglary in the second degree and knowingly concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner's appeal. One member dissented. The case involved a man named Brad Daniel Richards who pleaded guilty to two charges: burglary and concealing stolen property. He received a sentence of seven years in prison for the burglary and a five-year suspended sentence for the other charge. After his conviction, he wanted to take back his guilty pleas because he felt that his lawyer did not represent him well during the hearing where he tried to withdraw his plea. Richards argued that his attorney had a conflict of interest. During the hearing to withdraw his plea, the attorney mentioned that there could be an issue with his previous representation but did not argue on Richards' behalf. The court noted that a lawyer should provide good help to their client, especially at this critical stage of the process. The court looked closely at whether Richards' lawyer's conflict of interest affected his case. They pointed out that Richards had not testified, and his lawyer did not really support his claims. Because of this, the court could not make a clear decision about whether Richards should be allowed to withdraw his plea. In the end, the court granted Richards' request to review the original decision and said he deserves a new hearing with a different lawyer who does not have a conflict of interest. Therefore, the lower court's judgment was reversed, and the case was sent back for a new hearing.

F-2005-855

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

In OCCA case No. F-2005-855, Fomby appealed his conviction for second-degree burglary, possession of a controlled substance, and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Fomby was found guilty of several crimes in Comanche County. He received a long sentence of sixty years for each burglary, two years for the possession of methamphetamine, and ten years for concealing stolen property. These sentences were to be served one after the other, making the total time very long. Fomby claimed that there were many mistakes during his trial. He said the court wrongly changed a standard instruction by adding details about his past sentences, which might have influenced the jury. He also mentioned that the prosecutor said he was no longer considered innocent before the trial even concluded, which he felt was unfair. Furthermore, he argued that the court allowed evidence of other crimes unfairly, and he did not get a fair hearing for new charges that were added. The appeal court looked at all these claims. They agreed that the change in jury instruction was a mistake and the prosecutor's comments on Fomby's innocence were improper. Because of these two main points, the court decided to change his sentences from sixty years each to thirty years to be served together instead of one after the other. They concluded that some of Fomby’s other arguments did not have enough merit to change the outcome of the case. For example, they found there was enough evidence to show he knowingly hid stolen items and had possession of methamphetamine. In the end, most of Fomby's convictions were upheld, but his sentences were significantly reduced to make them less severe. One judge did not agree with this modification, believing the original sentences were justified given Fomby’s serious crimes and history.

C-2005-1208

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 11, 2006
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-1208, Eric Evan Smith appealed his conviction for 30 counts of Possession of Obscene Material Involving the Participation of a Minor Under the Age of Eighteen. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his request to withdraw his plea and ordered a new hearing on the application to withdraw the plea. One judge dissented. Smith had pleaded guilty in a district court, where he was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, with the sentences to be served at the same time, but only serving the first fifteen years of each count. After some time, Smith wanted to change his plea and said it wasn't voluntary because he felt pressured by his attorney. His case was reviewed, and it was determined that there was a conflict between him and his lawyer. Smith argued that his lawyer made him plead guilty by suggesting he would get a lighter sentence if he did so. In the hearing, Smith asserted that his attorney had coerced him into the plea, while his attorney denied it. Because of the angry and conflicting testimonies, the judges believed there was a problem that affected Smith's rights to a fair trial and effective help from a lawyer. The court found that Smith's lawyer could not properly help him because of this conflict. This led them to decide that Smith deserved another chance to explain his case and why he wanted a different plea. The decision meant that Smith had the right to go back to court, where he could present his reasons for wanting to change his plea and have a new decision made on whether his original plea was fair and appropriate. The dissenting judge felt that the court should not have granted this new hearing, believing that Smith's plea was done properly and his lawyer's conflict did not significantly affect the case, arguing that there was no abuse of power in the original decision of the court.

F 2005-659

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 2, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-659, Sundeep Kishore appealed his conviction for Conspiracy to Commit Murder and Embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences but vacated the order of restitution, sending it back to the district court for further determination. One judge dissented.

F-2003-1421

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 1, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1421, Kenneth Ray James appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified the sentence. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. The case began when James was found guilty by a jury for assaulting a police officer. The jury decided that James should go to prison for ten years and pay a fine of $5,000. James then appealed this decision, questioning the evidence against him and whether the trial was fair. The court looked at how strong the evidence was, considering if it was good enough for a jury to decide guilt. They concluded that the evidence was strong enough for the jury to find James guilty. James argued that he did not have a fair trial because the jury was not given instructions on how to consider self-defense or lesser offenses. The court decided that the instructions were not needed because the evidence didn't support them, meaning the trial judge did not make a mistake in leaving them out. In the trial, the prosecutor made a statement during closing arguments that suggested jurors should find James guilty to serve and protect the officer involved. The court found this statement to be improper because it pressured jurors to believe they had a civic duty to side with the State. Although this was not objected to during the trial, the court recognized it as a serious mistake but didn’t think it affected the decision to find James guilty. However, the court felt the inappropriate comment might have influenced the jury's decision about the sentence. Therefore, they decided to change the punishment from ten years in prison and a fine to five years in prison without a fine. Overall, even though James's conviction was upheld, the court found a need to adjust the length of his sentence. One judge disagreed with the decision to reduce the sentence, believing there was no significant error in the original trial or sentencing.

F 2005-522

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 1, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-522, Eric Matthew Nimmo appealed his conviction for Robbery by Force. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Mr. Nimmo's conviction but modified his sentence from thirty-five years to twenty years. One judge dissented. Eric Nimmo was found guilty by a jury in the Tulsa County District Court. After a trial that lasted three days, the jury decided that he should serve a long prison sentence along with a fine. He felt that many things went wrong during his trial, and he brought eight issues to the appeals court. First, he claimed that the evidence against him was not strong enough to support his conviction. The court looked closely at the evidence and decided that it was enough for a reasonable juror to conclude he was guilty. Second, he raised concerns about how the prosecutors acted during the trial, suggesting that some of their comments could be seen as unfair and might have influenced the jury's decision. The court recognized that while some comments were not appropriate, they did not believe that these issues changed the outcome of the trial. In a third point, Nimmo felt that the judge showed bias when responding to a defense objection. The court mentioned that while the judge's comments were not ideal, they were not significant enough to impact the trial's result. Nimmo's fourth point of error was about certain past crimes being mentioned during the sentencing phase of his trial. The court agreed that these past crimes should not have been brought up in that way, and it likely influenced the long sentence he received. As a result, they modified his sentence to reflect this error. Fifth, Nimmo argued that his lawyer did a poor job by not calling witnesses who could help prove he didn’t commit the robbery. The court found his lawyer's choices were based on a reasonable strategy and did not harm his case significantly. In the sixth point, Nimmo said his lawyer's admission of his past crimes during sentencing was not a good decision. However, the court felt this was part of an overall strategy that lawyers sometimes use. For his seventh claim, he said that the instructions given to the jury regarding reasonable doubt were wrong. The court ruled that the instructions were appropriate and that they followed the law. Finally, for the eighth argument, Nimmo believed that all these errors added up to deny him a fair trial, but the court did not find this compelling enough for further action. In summary, while the court upheld Nimmo's conviction, it did find a significant error in how his past crimes were handled during sentencing, leading to a reduction in his prison term.

RE-2005-1032

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 26, 2006
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2005-1032, Natalie Blades appealed her conviction for revocation of her suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentences but remanded the case to ensure that the sentences would run concurrently instead of consecutively. One member of the court dissented.

F-2005-232

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 25, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-232, Timothy Mark Dunivan appealed his conviction for sexually abusing a minor and child abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions for child abuse but affirmed the convictions for sexually abusing a minor. One judge dissented. To explain a little more, Timothy was found guilty of hurting and abusing his minor daughter in serious ways over several years. The case involved very serious charges, and a jury in Tulsa County agreed with the accusations against him. As a result, he was sentenced to many years in prison and also had to pay fines. Timothy argued that he should not have been charged because too much time had passed since the crimes occurred. He believed that the law didn't apply in his case due to what is called the statute of limitations. However, the court found that for the sexual abuse charges, the time limit to charge him was still valid, so those charges stuck. On the other hand, for the child abuse charges, they decided that quite a bit of time had passed, and so those charges were dropped. Throughout this process, there was a lot of discussion about the laws and how they applied to the case. The court also looked at the evidence provided during the trial and found that it was indeed acceptable to use some evidence from before the time period in which he was charged to show a pattern of behavior. In the end, while Timothy's very serious sentence for abusing his daughter stayed, he ended up having fewer charges against him after the appeal.

RE-2005-536

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 19, 2006
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2005-536, a person appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana and other offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order of the lower court that had revoked his suspended sentences. One judge dissented.

F-2005-468

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

In OCCA case No. F-2005-468, Rebecca R. Pettit appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved the tragic death of Pettit's six-year-old son, Adam. The state accused Pettit of murdering her son by asphyxiation and attempting to take her life afterwards by cutting her wrists. When the trial began, Pettit had been appointed a lawyer to help her, but later the court decided that she was not poor enough to need a public defender and made her represent herself. During her appeal, Pettit argued two main points. First, she said the trial court wrongly decided that she did not need a lawyer. Second, she claimed there was no proof that she chose to represent herself willingly. It is important for accused people to have the option to either have a lawyer or represent themselves, but if they choose to go without a lawyer, the court must make sure they understand what that means. The appellate court noted that there was no record showing Pettit was aware of the risks of representing herself. With no evidence she truly wanted to do this, the court ruled that she should not have had to stand trial alone. So, the court reversed her conviction and sent the case back for a new trial. The appellate court did not look at other issues raised by Pettit because of this main point regarding her representation. Ultimately, the court ordered that Pettit's case be retried, ensuring she has the chance to have a lawyer represent her this time.

F 2005-651

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

In OCCA case No. F 2005-651, the appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from twelve years to ten years of imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. The case involved the appellant, who was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Tulsa County, and the jury decided on the punishment. The appellant challenged the trial by arguing that the court made several errors. He felt that the jury was not given the correct information about how long he would have to serve of his sentence. The jury even asked about this during their discussions. The court had previously ruled that information about the eighty-five percent rule wasn't given to the jury, which the appellant argued was unfair. The court agreed that the jury should have been informed about the rule stating how much time must be served, and so they changed his sentence to ten years instead of twelve. Additionally, the appellant argued that evidence from other crimes should not have been allowed during his trial, but the court felt that this evidence was important to show his motives and did not unfairly prejudice the jury. Finally, the appellant claimed he did not receive proper assistance from his lawyer, but the court found that the lawyer's actions were considered okay under the law. Overall, the decision affirmed the conviction but made the punishment a bit less severe.

F-2005-700

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

In OCCA case No. F-2005-700, Harry Oliver West appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Driving While License is Canceled/Suspended/Revoked. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and send the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented. West was found guilty by a jury, which decided that he should serve a total of 45 years in prison for the first offense and 1 year for the second offense, with some fines included as well. However, during the trial, the jury was not given proper instructions about what driving under the influence and driving while impaired mean. Even though West did not ask for these instructions, the court agreed that this was a significant mistake that affected the case. Due to this error, the court found that West deserved another chance to have his case heard, which means a new trial will take place. As a result, the decisions made in the trial are reversed, and the case gets remanded, which means it goes back to the lower court for a fresh start.

F-2005-320

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 11, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-320, Duncan appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Duncan was found guilty of First Degree Manslaughter in Pushmataha County, and he was sentenced to four years in prison, with the last year suspended. He argued that his trial had several problems that made it unfair, including issues with witness testimony and jury instructions. The main issue in Duncan's appeal was that a doctor’s assistant’s testimony from a preliminary hearing was used at the trial, even though the assistant did not appear in person to be questioned. Duncan claimed this was wrong because he did not get a chance to confront the assistant and ask him questions. The court agreed with Duncan, stating that it is important for a defendant to see and question witnesses in person to ensure a fair trial. The court pointed out that the rules used to allow the assistant's testimony did not apply to criminal trials, and therefore, the testimony should not have been part of the evidence. The absence of this testimony was significant enough that it could have affected the trial's outcome. Because of this error, Duncan's conviction was overturned, and the court ordered a new trial, meaning Duncan will have the chance to defend himself again in court. The court decided not to consider other arguments Duncan made since the first issue was enough to reverse the decision.

F-2004-1283

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 7, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1283, Marion Whitmore appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine) After Two or More Prior Convictions, and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified his sentence for possession of methamphetamine from sixty-five years to thirty-five years. One judge dissented, arguing that the original sentence should not have been modified as any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

F-2005-597

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 6, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-597, Keandre Lee Sanders appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, shooting with intent to kill, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modified the sentences for the robbery and shooting charges. One judge dissented. Here’s a simple summary of what happened: Keandre Lee Sanders was found guilty by a jury of three serious crimes. He was sentenced to a total of 60 years after the jury decided how long he should go to prison for each crime. He thought the trial went unfairly and wanted to change his sentence. He had three main reasons for his appeal: 1. He asked the judge to delay the trial because he found new evidence that might help him. His lawyer thought there was a witness who could help, but the judge said no to delaying. The court believed waiting wouldn’t help because the witness was not cooperating. The court looked at everything and decided the lawyer did their best, so they did not grant this appeal point. 2. He believed that the charge of having a gun should not count separately from the other two charges, arguing that they were connected. The court found that having the gun was a separate act from the robbery and the shooting, so they denied this appeal as well. 3. The last point he made was that the jury was not told he would have to serve a certain amount of time before he could be considered for parole. After some review, the court agreed that he should have been told this but decided it was not enough to change his convictions. They did, however, change his sentences, reducing them from fifteen years to twelve years for the robbery charge and from forty years to thirty years for the shooting charge. The sentence for the firearm possession remained the same. The final decision was that while the court agreed with the convictions, they made changes to the length of two sentences. The court issued its order to finalize the decision after they filed their ruling.

F 2005-603

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 5, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-603, Maurice Ladon Miller appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Maurice Ladon Miller was found guilty of serious crimes, including murder. The jury decided he should go to prison for life for the murder and for six years for conspiracy. The sentences were to be served at the same time and also added to a federal sentence he was already serving. After this, Miller appealed his case. Miller had two main arguments. First, he believed his confession to the police was not voluntary because he thought it was protected by an immunity agreement. Second, he felt he couldn’t present his defense because his lawyer was not allowed to show the jury a recording where a co-defendant said Miller was not involved in the murder. The court looked carefully at both of these arguments. They found that the confession was voluntary. Even though there was some confusion about the immunity agreement, the police had informed Miller that it did not protect him from state charges, and he waived his rights willingly. Therefore, they decided that there was no error in admitting his confession. For the second argument, the court examined the situation where Miller's lawyer recorded the co-defendant admitting to the crime but saying Miller was not involved. This recording was not allowed to be shown to the jury, which the court found to be a mistake. They explained that the recording could have been helpful for Miller's defense, as it contradicted the claim that he was involved in the murder. The absence of this evidence might have affected the trial. Ultimately, the court reversed Miller's convictions and ordered a new trial because they believed the exclusion of the co-defendant’s statement could have led to a different outcome. The dissenting judge felt the evidence against Miller was strong, and the trial court made the right choice in excluding the co-defendant's statement. Thus, the case will be retried to ensure that Miller has a chance to present all relevant evidence in his defense.