Staff, Author at OCCA Opinions

F-2003-747

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 10, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-747, John Carl Marquez appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery Upon a Police Officer, Prisoner Placing Bodily Fluids on a Government Employee, and Domestic Abuse, Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Resisting a Police Officer and Domestic Abuse but modified the sentence for the charge of Prisoner Placing Bodily Fluids from life imprisonment to thirty years. One judge dissented regarding the length of the modified sentence. The case involved an incident where Marquez got into a fight with his wife after a night of drinking. His wife called her parents for help, which led to the police being called. When officers arrived at their trailer, Marquez was found in the bathtub and refused to cooperate. After struggling with the officers, he was handcuffed and later spat on one of them. The jury convicted him for several offenses based on this behavior, and the trial court initially sentenced him to one year for the first and third counts and life imprisonment for the second count. During the appeal, Marquez argued that the life sentence was too harsh and that his arrest was illegal. The court found the arrest was lawful, the prosecution’s conduct was acceptable, and the cumulative errors did not deny him a fair trial. However, the court agreed that the life sentence for a non-violent act, such as spitting, was excessive and changed it to thirty years, citing a need for more reasonable sentencing. While the majority of the court upheld most of the trial court's decisions, a dissenting judge expressed that even the thirty-year sentence was excessive compared to the gravity of the crime Marquez committed against his wife, suggesting a need for sentencing reform to ensure fair punishment across similar cases.

C-2003-983

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 9, 2004
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-983, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for Conspiracy to Possess Methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, allowing the Petitioner to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. The case started when the Petitioner was charged with a crime related to making methamphetamine, but he later changed his plea to guilty for a lesser charge. He was put into a special drug court program. However, when he did not follow the rules of the program, the state decided to terminate him. The Petitioner then agreed to the termination but wanted to go back on his guilty plea. During the hearings, the court looked carefully at whether the Petitioner had really made his guilty plea freely and with understanding. They found that the evidence provided to support the guilty plea was not strong enough. The Petitioner didn't have a preliminary hearing, and there was no testimony from his past lawyer to back up the plea. Because of these reasons, the court decided that the Petitioner should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and reversed the previous judgment.

F 2003-1401

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 7, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-1401, Toni Lisa Dixon appealed her conviction for Driving while Under the Influence of Alcohol, second offense; resisting an officer; and failure to stop at a stop sign. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify her DUI conviction to a first offense and ordered a resentencing on that charge. The conviction for resisting an officer was affirmed, but the fine was reduced to $500. The conviction for failure to stop at a stop sign was also affirmed. One judge dissented.

F-2003-673

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 1, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-673, Booker James Johnson, Jr., appealed his conviction for procuring a minor to participate in the preparation of obscene material and possession of child pornography. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences. One judge dissented. Johnson was found guilty of two serious crimes by a jury in Tulsa County. The jury decided he should go to prison for twenty years for the first conviction and pay a fine of $25,000 for the second. He didn't agree with this and appealed. Johnson claimed there were several problems during his trial. First, he said it was unfair to make him defend against both charges in the same trial. He believed that separate trials would have been better. He also argued that the instructions given to the jury about how to decide his punishment were wrong because they used the wrong law for his first charge. Johnson said he should only serve ten years for that charge instead of twenty based on this mistake. For the second charge, Johnson claimed he should have been charged under a different statute that better fit the crime. As a result, the fine for this charge should have been lower, at $5,000 instead of $25,000. Johnson also argued that his right to a fair trial was damaged by a statement made by the prosecutor during closing arguments, suggesting that both charges should be considered together. He felt that this was unfair and went against his rights. Additionally, Johnson said his lawyer did not help him enough, which made his trial unfair. Finally, he complained that he did not have access to important evidence needed for his defense. The court reviewed all of Johnson's claims. They decided that it was not a big mistake for the trial judge to keep both charges together. However, they did agree that the jury was instructed incorrectly about the first charge, and thus modified the punishment to ten years. For the second charge, they recognized that Johnson should have been charged under a more specific statute, so they also corrected the fine to $5,000. In the end, the court kept Johnson's conviction for both crimes but changed his sentence to ten years in prison for the first charge and a $5,000 fine for the second charge, with some paperwork corrections needed to officially note these changes.

C-2003-890

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 23, 2004
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-890, Saul Perez appealed his conviction for Child Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from eighteen years to ten years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Saul Perez pleaded guilty to the crime of Child Neglect, which means he was accused of not taking care of a child properly. He was sentenced to eighteen years in prison. Shortly after, Perez asked to take back his guilty plea, saying he shouldn’t have to accept the charge. He had several reasons why he believed the court should let him withdraw his guilty plea. First, he argued that there wasn’t enough evidence showing he was responsible for the child's neglect. Second, he thought he didn’t fully understand what he was pleading guilty to, so it wasn't a voluntary choice. Third, he said his punishment was too harsh, especially since he felt he hadn’t had a duty to care for the child, and the neglect wasn’t intentional. Lastly, he claimed he didn’t have a proper interpreter during an important meeting about his plea, which he believed violated his rights. The court reviewed all the facts and found that two of his reasons were valid enough to change his punishment. They determined that there was some confusion in the case about whether he truly understood the crime he was admitting to. They discussed what “neglect” meant and explained that the law is meant to hold responsible individuals accountable for a child's safety and care. Ultimately, while the court did not consider some of the reasons Perez gave for wanting to withdraw his plea, they agreed that his punishment was too severe based on the situation. Therefore, they reduced his sentence to ten years in prison instead of the original eighteen. One judge disagreed with the decision, arguing that without proving that Perez had a duty to care for the child, he should not be seen as guilty of a crime. This dissent meant that there was a difference of opinion among the judges regarding the case.

RE-2003-918

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 23, 2004
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2003-918, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that terminated him from the Drug Court program. One judge dissented. The case began on April 10, 2002, when the appellant pleaded no contest to a DUI charge. He was given a suspended sentence, meaning he would not serve time in prison if he followed the rules. He also had to pay a fine and do community service. Later, he faced another DUI charge. He pleaded guilty again with a promise that if he successfully completed the Drug Court program, he wouldn’t have to face further charges for the first DUI. However, on May 1, 2003, the State accused him of violating the terms of the Drug Court program. The State claimed he had been sanctioned multiple times for not following the rules. On August 5, 2003, the court decided to revoke his suspended sentence and ended his participation in the Drug Court program. The appellant believed the court made a mistake by terminating him from Drug Court based on violations he had already been punished for. He felt this was unfair and argued it amounted to double jeopardy, which means being punished twice for the same offense. The State argued that they were not punishing him again for those violations but believed that the sanctions had not helped him change his behavior. The court examined the situation and found that the appellant had already faced consequences for his earlier violations. It agreed with him that the reasons for his termination were flawed. The judges noted that if prior violations were allowed to be counted again for the same termination, it would be unfair and might discourage other participants in Drug Court. The court decided to remand the case back to the lower court, allowing the appellant to return to the Drug Court program with the original rules he had agreed upon. The judges highlighted that a new violation must occur in order for more severe actions, like termination, to be taken. In summary, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, indicating that the reasons for his termination from Drug Court were not valid, thus restoring his opportunity to complete the program.

RE-2003-902

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 18, 2004
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2003-902, Toni Jo Wallace appealed her conviction for obtaining merchandise by means of a bogus check. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentences but modified her sentence in Case No. CF-2000-225 from five years to one year. One judge dissented. Toni Jo Wallace faced multiple charges over several cases, including obtaining goods through a bogus check and various charges related to forgery and possession of drugs. Her sentences were initially suspended, meaning she wouldn't have to serve time if she stayed out of trouble. However, she committed new crimes and failed to pay fines, leading the state to seek the revocation of her suspended sentences. During the hearing, the judge found that Wallace did violate the terms of her probation and decided to revoke the suspended sentences in all her cases. Wallace argued that the judge made a mistake by revoking all her suspended sentences instead of giving her a chance to improve or face less severe punishment. She also felt that the punishment she received was too harsh and that the judge should not have made her new sentences serve longer than her original agreement. The court reviewed the judge's decision and felt that it was within his rights to revoke the sentences. They noted the importance of following through on punishments when someone breaks the rules again. However, they agreed that the initial five-year sentence for one of the charges was longer than allowed by law, so they shortened that sentence. In the end, while Wallace's appeal did not succeed in reversing her convictions, she did see a reduction in one of her sentences. The court emphasized that following the rules is essential, especially for someone on probation, while also ensuring sentences are fair and within legal limits.

M-2002-1195

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 10, 2004
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2002-1195, Anita Shank appealed her conviction for Driving Under the Influence, Transporting an Open Container of Beer, and Obstructing an Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm her convictions for Transporting an Open Container and Obstructing an Officer, but modified her Driving Under the Influence conviction to Driving While Impaired and remanded the case for sentence modification. One judge dissented. Anita Shank was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol, transporting open containers of beer, and obstructing an officer during her trial. She received a 90-day sentence for driving under the influence and fines for the other two charges. Shank contested her convictions on several grounds, claiming the evidence was insufficient and arguing errors regarding jury instructions and sentencing. During the trial, it was noted that Shank was stopped by a sheriff's deputy while she was driving and had an open container of beer in her car. The deputy observed signs of intoxication, like bloodshot eyes. Shank admitted to drinking two beers but refused to take a breathalyzer test. When questioned about the whereabouts of her child, she lied and was uncooperative. The court found that there was enough evidence to support her conviction for driving under the influence but acknowledged that the jury should have been instructed on the possibility of a lesser offense—Driving While Impaired. The state agreed that not instructing on this was an error, although they deemed it harmless. Additionally, Shank argued the trial court should have considered a suspended sentence for her. The record did not show that the court completely ignored this request, but the judge did express a need for proof of her willingness to enter treatment for alcohol issues. After the appeal, it was revealed that Shank completed the treatment program, prompting the court to order the lower court to consider this when evaluating her suspended sentence request. The court upheld the obstruction conviction, stating that her deliberate lies and refusal to cooperate with the deputy interfered with the execution of his duties, which constitutes sufficient grounds for the charge. In conclusion, while Shank's obstruction of an officer and open container convictions were affirmed, her DUI was modified to a lesser charge of DWI, and the court directed the district court to revisit her request for a suspended sentence.

F-2001-1224

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 29, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1224, the appellant appealed his conviction for two counts of Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentences. One judge dissented. The appellant, referred to as Donnie Joe Bacon, was found guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County. His jury trial was overseen by a judge, and the jury sentenced him to serve twenty-five years on one count of child abuse and forty-seven years on the other count. These sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. On appeal, the court looked at several arguments made by the appellant regarding his trial, including violations of his rights and errors made during the trial process. The court examined various points of error. One issue discussed was the testimony from a detective that did not follow a pretrial order, which the court said was a mistake but did not think it affected the guilt of the appellant; however, it did influence the length of the sentence. Another point was about the admission of evidence related to other crimes, which the appellant argued should not have been allowed in the trial. The court agreed that some of this evidence about other bad acts was not relevant and should not have been presented, yet again concluded it did not change the verdict of guilt but might have influenced the sentence. The court also looked into whether the prosecution failed to share important information with the defense and whether the appellant's lawyer did a good job representing him. They decided that the mistakes made by the defense lawyer mostly dealt with the other crimes evidence and didn't significantly impact the guilty verdict. In the end, the court affirmed the conviction of Donnie Joe Bacon but modified the punishment, reducing it to twenty years on each count, which would still be served consecutively. While most of the judges agreed with this decision, one judge wanted to reverse the conviction and order a new trial.

F 2003-442

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 24, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-442, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, First Degree Murder, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand two counts of Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, but affirmed the convictions on all remaining counts. One judge dissented, feeling that one conspiracy count and the robbery count should be upheld, while reversing the other counts.

RE-2003-933

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 24, 2004
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2003-933, the appellant appealed his conviction for abandonment. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case started when the appellant was found guilty of abandoning his child by not paying court-ordered child support. He owed nearly $10,000 in unpaid support for his ten-year-old daughter. After initially being sentenced to five years in prison, his sentence was later changed to a suspended sentence of about four years and eight months. This meant he would not go to prison immediately and could work on paying the support he owed. The appellant was required to get a job, do community service, and make monthly payments towards his child support. However, he fell behind on these payments, and the court eventually issued a warrant for his arrest because of this failure to pay. Over the next couple of years, the court continued to postpone his sentencing. The appellant managed to pay some of his arrears, but he still owed money. By 2003, the court revoked his suspended sentence, saying he had not met the payment requirements. After reviewing the case, the appellate court found that the appellant's suspended sentence actually ended before the revocation took place. The court explained that even though he had missed a payment, the revocation occurred after his sentence had technically expired, which was different from the usual rules. Because of this, the court decided to reverse the revocation and said the case must be dismissed.

F 2002-1540

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 23, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1540, Steven Edward Noble appealed his conviction for aggravated manufacturing of methamphetamine, possession of a precursor substance, and possession of a firearm while committing a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and modify his conviction for aggravated manufacturing to manufacturing less than fifty grams of methamphetamine, reducing the sentence to twenty-five years and a $50,000 fine. The sentence for possession of a firearm was modified to twenty years. However, the conviction for possession of a precursor substance was affirmed.

F 2003-1018

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 23, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-1018, Orcutt appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, Second and Subsequent Offense. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Orcutt was found guilty in a jury trial of several charges linked to driving while drunk. This happened in Creek County after a trial that lasted a few days in August 2001. The jury decided that he should spend ten years in prison and pay a big fine for his most serious crime, as well as some smaller fines for the other charges. Orcutt claimed that there were mistakes made during his trial. He said that the jury was not given the right instructions about how they should decide on the punishment. He also argued that the prosecution acted unfairly and that the jury should have been kept together without being allowed to leave during the trial. After looking at all the evidence from the trial and listening to the arguments made by both sides, the court said that Orcutt's convictions would stand. However, they agreed that the sentence needed to be changed. The jury had been instructed incorrectly about the possible punishments for Orcutt's offenses. The law said that they could not set his punishment to include both treatment and prison time at the same time. While his prison time of ten years and the fine were kept in place, the part of the punishment that required treatment and use of an ignition device was removed. The court found that some of Orcutt's other arguments about unfairness during the trial did not hold up, and no changes were made based on those claims. In conclusion, the court affirmed the main conviction but modified part of the punishment, removing some of the conditions, while agreeing on the primary penalties.

J-2004-149

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 23, 2004
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2004-149, a juvenile, referred to as #x, appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine) and possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the juvenile court's order certifying #x as an adult for possession of methamphetamine but vacated the certification regarding possession of drug paraphernalia. The opinion was agreed upon by all judges, with none dissenting. The case starts with #x being about seventeen years old when he was charged with having methamphetamine and paraphernalia related to drugs. The state wanted to treat #x as an adult, so they asked the court to certify him. After a hearing, the judge decided that #x should indeed be tried as an adult for both charges. #x then appealed the decision, claiming several things were wrong. First, he believed the court made a mistake when it didn't throw out the evidence found on him. #x argued that this evidence was obtained through an unreasonable search, which is not allowed. However, the court found that the police officer had a good reason to search him because of how #x was acting. Thus, the court allowed the evidence to be used. Next, #x argued that the judge shouldn't have decided that he couldn’t be helped or rehabilitated in the juvenile system. The court looked at #x's history and found that he had been in trouble before, had problems with drugs, and was close to turning eighteen. Given these facts, the court agreed with the judge's decision to certify #x as an adult because they felt that #x might not improve in the juvenile system. Finally, #x claimed his lawyer didn’t help him properly, saying the lawyer should have asked for more time to prepare for the hearing and should have provided more evidence on his behalf. However, the court decided that #x did not show how this would have changed the outcome and that these claims were not enough to prove the lawyer was ineffective. In the end, the court decided to allow the charge of possession of methamphetamine to be treated as an adult crime, but they said that the charge for possession of drug paraphernalia should not be. Thus, they upheld part of the decision but overturned part of it too.

J-2004-305

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 23, 2004
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2004-305, D.H.D. appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the denial of D.H.D.'s motion for certification as a juvenile but reversed the denial for certification as a youthful offender, meaning D.H.D. would be tried in a system that focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment. One judge dissented.

RE-2003-660

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 23, 2004
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2003-660, Fox appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the revocation order should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Fox was found guilty of Concealing Stolen Property and received a suspended sentence, which meant he wouldn't serve jail time right away but had to follow certain rules. He had to pay money as part of his sentence and stay employed. Over time, Fox struggled to meet these requirements due to health issues and other challenges, and the State said he violated the rules of his probation. Upon review, the Court looked at whether Fox’s actions were willful. This means they examined if he meant to break the rules or if there were reasons he couldn’t comply. Fox's attorney had agreed with the State's claims but there was confusion about whether Fox could argue that he had a good reason for not following the rules. In the end, the Court found that Fox had the right to argue that he did not willfully break the rules of probation. The previous order revoking his sentence was reversed, and more discussions were needed to figure out his situation properly.

F-2003-315

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 21, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-315, Shawn William Jacks appealed his conviction for Possession of a Firearm after felony conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Shawn Jacks was found guilty by a jury for having a firearm, which is not allowed because he had a previous felony conviction. The jury decided that Jacks should spend five years in prison. He did not agree with this decision and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to look at the case again. Jacks raised several reasons for his appeal. First, he argued that he did not know he was being tried for the specific crime he was accused of. He also claimed that his lawyer did not help him enough. In addition, he said that some evidence used in the trial was unfair and should not have been allowed. Lastly, he felt that the punishment he received was too harsh. After looking carefully at everything, the court agreed with Jacks and found that he was not properly defended during his trial. They said that his lawyer’s strategy implied that Jacks was guilty, which is not what a lawyer should do. Because of this, the court decided that Jacks should get a new trial where he has a chance to defend himself properly. In conclusion, the court’s decision meant that Shawn Jacks could fight the charges against him again in court.

F-2003-336

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 21, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-336, Joe Lynn Paddock appealed his conviction for several crimes, including conspiracy to manufacture drugs and possession of drugs with intent to distribute. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss one conviction due to lack of evidence but upheld the other convictions and modified some sentences. One judge dissented on the sentencing decision.

C-2003-845

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 26, 2004
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-845, Curtis Randall Foote appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including First Degree Burglary, Intimidation of a Witness, Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery, and Threatening an Act of Violence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for First Degree Burglary, Intimidation of a Witness, Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery, but to reverse the conviction for Threatening an Act of Violence with instructions to dismiss that charge. One judge dissented. Foote had entered a no contest plea in the District Court of Grady County, where the judge sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment. Foote later tried to withdraw his plea, but the court denied his request. He then appealed this denial. The court reviewed the entire case record and considered multiple reasons Foote presented for his appeal. The first issue was whether he truly entered his plea of no contest. The court found that he did intend to plead no contest, so the plea was accepted correctly by the trial court. Foote also argued that he should not have been treated as a habitual offender because his past convictions were not properly documented. While the court found that his maximum sentence was appropriate, they acknowledged an error in the judgment that needed correcting. Foote also claimed that being convicted of both Intimidation of a Witness and Threatening an Act of Violence was unfair, as they were linked. The court agreed and reversed the latter conviction. However, it determined that his other convictions were valid and based on separate actions. The court ruled that the evidence supporting his intimidation charge was sufficient, and his claim of not having proper legal representation was rejected. Ultimately, the court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari, which means they did not find enough reason to change the lower court's decisions aside from the reversal of the Threatening an Act of Violence charge. They ordered some corrections to the written judgment but upheld most of the other convictions.

F-2003-583

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 26, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-583, Ronald Lee King appealed his conviction for Unlawful Delivery of Cocaine Base, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Ronald King was found guilty of delivering a type of illegal drug. The jury decided that he should go to prison for twenty-five years and pay a fine of $30,000. King thought the trial was unfair for several reasons. First, he argued that the evidence, which was the illegal drug, should not have been used in court. He believed there was not enough proof to show that the drug was really connected to him. However, the court thought that the State had enough proof to say that the evidence was properly linked to King. Second, King said he should have been able to see notes from a police officer who helped in his case. The court found that there was no mistake here because King had everything he needed from the prosecutor's file. Third, King believed his punishment was too harsh and thought the prosecutor said some unfair things during the trial that might have influenced the jury. The court agreed that the sentence was too much in terms of the fine. They lowered the fine from $30,000 to $10,000 but kept the prison sentence the same. In the end, King's prison sentence stands, but the amount he has to pay was reduced.

M-2003-450

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 19, 2004
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2003-450, Edward Allen Rayls appealed his conviction for Attempting to Elude a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction with instructions to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. Rayls was found guilty after a jury trial and was sentenced to a fine and time in jail. He argued that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction. He also said the court made a mistake by not allowing a 911 tape that could have helped his case and that the prosecutor was unfair. The court looked at all the information and agreed with Rayls that there wasn’t enough evidence to say he was trying to get away from the police. The law says that for someone to be guilty of attempting to elude, they must be intentionally trying to escape. The facts showed that Rayls was driving normally and didn't break any traffic laws when a police officer tried to pull him over. He didn’t see the police car until just before he stopped his vehicle. Because of this, the court decided to reverse the judgment and instructed to dismiss the case. The dissenting judge felt differently. This judge thought the jury had enough evidence to make their decision and that the evidence should be respected. The dissenting opinion argued that there was a reasonable basis for the jury to find Rayls guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence they heard during the trial.

C-2003-136

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 18, 2004
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-136, Justin Lyle Thomas appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute, Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug, and Operating a Motor Vehicle Under Suspension. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the district court's decision regarding his ability to withdraw certain guilty pleas. One judge dissented. Thomas had pleaded guilty to several charges and was supposed to complete a drug court program to avoid sentencing. However, after not doing well in the program, the state wanted to sentence him. He asked to withdraw his guilty pleas for some of the counts, and the court agreed to let him withdraw his pleas for two of the charges but denied his request for the other two. Thomas argued that he had not been properly informed about the possible sentences for the charges. The court found that there was a mistake about the punishment ranges, specifically for the drug charges. They ruled that this mistake affected his decision to plead guilty, and because of this, he should have been allowed to withdraw his pleas for all counts. The court decided in favor of Thomas and said the lower court had made a mistake when it denied his request. However, one judge disagreed and believed that the incorrect information did not really influence Thomas’s decision to plead guilty to the other charges.

M-2003-784

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 12, 2004
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2003-784, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Stalking. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the Appellant's judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The Appellant, Bradley Allen Crawford, was initially convicted of Stalking in the District Court of Oklahoma County. He was sentenced to six months in county jail. During his appeal, he argued that he should have been allowed to show that the complaining witness might have had a reason to be biased against him. During the trial, the Appellant wanted to present evidence related to a child custody case that involved the complaining witness. However, the trial court did not permit this information. The Appellant also tried to question the complaining witness about her possible bias during her testimony, but the trial court stopped him, stating that it was related to other domestic issues. After the trial, the Appellant requested a new trial because the judge had not allowed him to present evidence about the witness’s potential bias, but this request was denied. The court noted that it’s important to allow evidence that could show a witness might be biased. It explained that this kind of evidence is usually admissible in court. The appellate court found that the Appellant was not given a chance to show that the complaining witness had motives that could affect her testimony. They pointed out that the witness's credibility was crucial to the trial since everything the police said was based on her accounts. The appellate court decided that the trial court's errors in not allowing the questioning about the witness's bias were significant enough that they could have changed the outcome of the trial. Because of this, the Appellant's original conviction was overturned, and the case was sent back to be tried again.

RE 2003-0106

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 12, 2004
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2003-0106, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of a suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation in one case and affirm it in another. One judge dissented. The appellant had a history of legal issues. In 1993, he pleaded guilty to burglary and received a five-year deferred sentence. This means he would not go to jail immediately but had to follow certain rules for those five years. In 1999, he pleaded guilty again, this time for having a firearm as a felon. After some time, a hearing took place to see if the appellant broke the rules of his suspended sentences. The court decided to take away part of his suspended sentence in both cases. However, the appellant argued that the court should not have been able to do that because his first sentence had already expired before the new hearing, making it unfair to revoke it. The court looked into this and agreed with the appellant on the first case, stating they had no right to take away the suspended sentence because it was no longer valid. However, for the second case, they found that the state had followed the proper steps and had the right to revoke his suspended sentence there. In the end, the court told the lower court to dismiss the revocation for the first case, but they maintained the revocation for the second case.

F 2003-364

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 11, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-364, El Alami El Mansouri appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, attempted robbery, first-degree burglary, and kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some convictions but reversed others. The court found that two of the infractions—kidnapping and pointing a firearm—should be dismissed due to double jeopardy. One judge dissented.