Staff, Author at OCCA Opinions

M-2003-513

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 26, 2004
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2003-513, the appellant appealed her conviction for resisting an officer and possession of marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the fine for possession of marijuana. One judge dissented. The appellant was found guilty by a jury for two charges: resisting an officer and possession of marijuana. The incident happened when a truck driver reported a car driving erratically on a highway. When officers arrived, they found the appellant behind the wheel, showing signs of intoxication with the smell of alcohol and marijuana. Initially, the appellant was compliant, but she soon became aggressive and refused to cooperate with the officers. When they tried to arrest her, a struggle ensued, and the appellant physically fought with the officers. After getting her under control, the officers conducted a search of her vehicle and found marijuana. Later, while being booked at the jail, they discovered she had a marijuana cigarette in her pocket. The appellant believed her sentence of twenty months for the crimes was too harsh. She requested that they serve her sentences at the same time instead of one after the other. However, the court found that the sentences were reasonable and did not shock their conscience, so they decided to keep them consecutive. However, they agreed with the appellant that a fine of $1,000 imposed by the trial court was too high, as it exceeded what the law allowed. The maximum fine for the possession charge was actually $500 according to the law, so they reduced her fine to this amount. In summary, while the court upheld the appellant's conviction and the overall punishment, they made a small change to the fine amount.

C-2003-403

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

In OCCA case No. C-2003-403, David Lee Maywald appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Registered Sex Offender Working with or Providing Services to Children. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the sentence in Count II to a fine only, while affirming the denial of the motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. David Lee Maywald, also known as David Lee Graham, was charged with two crimes related to being a registered sex offender. He entered a guilty plea to both charges and was sentenced to prison time and fines. After he changed his mind, he asked to withdraw his guilty plea, feeling he was misinformed about the potential sentences he might face. The court looked closely at Maywald's reasons for wanting to change his plea. First, he argued that he misunderstood the sentencing range for Count II, believing he faced more than just a fine. The court agreed that he shouldn't have received jail time for that count, as the law only allowed for a fine. So, they decided to change his sentence for Count II to just the fine amount. In his second argument, he felt he was misinformed about the maximum fine for Count I. However, the court found that the fine he received was less than what could have been, and since it matched what was agreed upon in the plea deal, it wasn’t a reason to withdraw his plea. For his third point, Maywald argued that he didn’t fully understand the implications of his guilty plea. The court said he didn’t provide enough evidence to show that he entered the plea without understanding its consequences. The court noted that he had been clearly informed multiple times about how he wouldn’t get credit for time served leading up to his sentencing. Overall, while Maywald's request to withdraw his plea was denied, the court acknowledged the error regarding the jail sentence for Count II and modified that sentence to comply with the law. The rest of the decisions from the lower court were kept the same. The judges agreed on most points, but one had a differing opinion on the case.

F-2002-1546

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 9, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1546, David Jewel Newton appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. David Jewel Newton was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County and was given a very long sentence of 458 years in prison. He said he did not get a fair trial because there were some biased jurors. Mr. Newton’s lawyer did not properly challenge a juror who was a police officer and should not have served on the jury. The court agreed that this was a mistake and that Mr. Newton's lawyer did not do his job well in defending him. Since the jury should have been fair, the court decided that Mr. Newton deserves a new trial where he can be tried by a new set of jurors who are fair and not biased. The dissenting opinion said that the jurors who were chosen in the trial were impartial and that there was no reason to order a new trial because the rules about jurors were being misunderstood.

F-2002-1428

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 8, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1428, Henry C. Flowers, Jr. appealed his conviction for False Declaration of Ownership to a Pawnbroker, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Flowers' conviction but remand the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Flowers was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to twenty years in prison. His appeal included two main points of error. The first point was that he believed there wasn't enough proof that he made a false declaration to a licensed pawnbroker. He argued that since the employee who helped him at the pawnshop was not a licensed pawnbroker, his actions should not count as a crime. However, the court explained that the law only requires the pawnshop owner to be licensed, not every employee. Therefore, the court felt there was enough evidence for the jury to decide that Flowers committed the crime. The second point raised by Flowers was about how the judge handled his sentence. The judge seemed unsure whether he could make Flowers' twenty-year sentence run at the same time as another sentence he already had. The court explained that judges do have the authority to run sentences concurrently and that not knowing this could be an abuse of discretion. Because of this, the case was sent back to the lower court for the judge to review the sentencing again. Overall, the court upheld Flowers' conviction but said the judge needs to reassess how to handle the sentences.

F 2002-1265

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

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1265, Rian Wayne Ockerman appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter and Leaving the Scene of an Accident Involving Death. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for First Degree Manslaughter and remand with instructions to dismiss that charge, while affirming the conviction for Leaving the Scene of an Accident. One judge dissented.

F-2003-44

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 3, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-44, Johnny L. Perry appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for possession of cocaine and modify the conviction for possession of a firearm to reflect a different charge and a lighter sentence. One judge dissented.

F-2002-1370

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 2, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1370, Oscar Lee Lamb appealed his conviction for two counts of Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Oscar Lee Lamb was found guilty by a jury and received a sentence of five years in prison for each count, with the sentences running consecutively. Lamb challenged the trial court's decision on two main points. First, he argued that there was a mistake when some evidence that was not allowed in the trial was taken to the jury room during their discussions. This was seen as a problem, but the court believed it did not cause any harm to Lamb's case since the content of those pieces of evidence had already been discussed during the trial. The second point brought up by Lamb was more serious. He said that a witness who was an expert gave an opinion on whether or not the victim was telling the truth. The court agreed that this was a mistake because experts should not tell the jury what to believe about who is honest or dishonest. This kind of testimony can really affect the jury's decision, particularly when both sides disagree strongly about what happened. Since the court thought the expert's testimony could have made a difference in how the jury viewed the case, they decided that Lamb should have a new trial. Therefore, the previous court's decision was overturned, and the case was sent back for another trial.

F-2002-1470

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 25, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1470, Wafford appealed his conviction for several crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm part of the convictions and reverse one of them. One judge dissented. Michael Orlando Wafford was found guilty by a jury of trafficking in illegal drugs, possession of a firearm while committing a felony, possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, and concealing stolen property. The jury gave him a total of fifty-five years in prison for these crimes. There were several issues that Wafford raised in his appeal. First, he argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to support his conviction for possessing a gun while committing a felony and that the evidence for trafficking was also weak. The court, however, found that the evidence was enough to show that Wafford had control over the drugs found and that there was a connection between the gun and the drug crimes. Next, Wafford pointed out that it was unfair to charge him with two different crimes because of the same gun. The court agreed, sending back instructions to dismiss the conviction for concealing stolen property since it stemmed from the same act of having the gun. Wafford also claimed that some evidence during the trial was unfair to him and that he did not get a fair trial because of it. The court found that the objections raised did not significantly affect the outcome of the trial. Overall, the court upheld the conviction for trafficking and the possession of a firearm while committing a felony, concluding that the evidence supported those charges. However, they also ruled that Wafford's conviction for concealing stolen property was not valid and ordered it to be dismissed.

F-2002-87

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 12, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-87, Claude Thomas Gifford appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for robbery but affirmed the conviction for assault and battery. One judge dissented. Gifford was found guilty of several crimes after a jury trial in Cleveland County. He received a lengthy sentence of 38 years for robbery and 48 years for assault, among other sentences. Gifford believed he was unfairly punished twice for the same incident, as the robbery and the assault were committed against the same victim at the same time. The court agreed that convicting him for both crimes was unfair, as they were not separate acts and violated the law against double punishment. They also found that the other claims made by Gifford did not warrant changes to his convictions or sentences. As a result of the court's review, they reversed the conviction and sentence for robbery and kept the conviction for assault, but adjusted the sentences accordingly.

C-2003-31

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 7, 2003
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-31, Nemol Joe Fox appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, Second or Subsequent Offense, and misdemeanor Driving Under Revocation. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. One judge dissented. Mr. Fox entered a plea of nolo contendere, which means he did not admit guilt but accepted the punishment. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment, with five years suspended, plus fines for both charges. He later asked to withdraw his plea, saying he didn’t fully understand what he was agreeing to. The court found that Mr. Fox was not properly advised about the option of treatment for his drinking problem, which is allowed under the law for such cases. Because of this, the court decided that his plea should be allowed to be withdrawn. The original sentence was reversed, and Mr. Fox was granted another chance to address these issues. One judge disagreed, stating that the trial court likely considered all options, including treatment, when deciding on the sentence. The dissenting judge felt that Mr. Fox should not get to change his plea because he and his lawyer had not raised this issue earlier in court. Overall, the main decision was that Mr. Fox did not get the fair chance he should have had to understand his options, specifically regarding treatment for his alcohol issues.

F 2002-1259

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 7, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1259, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree, robbery with imitation firearm, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively. One judge dissented, stating that eleven life sentences shocked the court's conscience but eight did not.

C-2003-1342

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 14, 2003
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-1342, Clifford Feaster appealed his conviction for robbery and other crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Feaster could not withdraw his guilty pleas, but they modified the judgment in one case. One judge dissented. Feaster had pleaded guilty in 1998 to several serious crimes, including robbery. After being sentenced to 45 years in prison, he tried to change his mind about the plea. The trial court initially did not allow him to withdraw it. The appeals court looked at Feaster's reasons for wanting to change his plea and held a hearing to examine the situation. Feaster argued that the trial judge did not provide enough information (a factual basis) for the guilty pleas and that he had not entered the pleas knowingly and voluntarily. However, the appeals court found that there was enough justification for his pleas and that he understood what he was doing when he agreed to plead guilty. In the final decision, the appeals court allowed a small change to the original judgment to make sure it correctly reflected what happened in the case, specifically concerning counts that were dropped. Overall, the appeals court did not find enough reason to let Feaster withdraw his guilty pleas.

S-2003-445

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 3, 2003
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2003-445, the State appealed the decision regarding Joey Dean Taylor's conviction for possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and unlawful possession of paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling. One judge dissented. The case began when Joey Dean Taylor was a passenger in a pickup truck that was stopped by a deputy for speeding. During the stop, the deputy asked both the driver and Taylor if he could search them. The driver consented, but Taylor said yes to a pat-down search. After the search, the deputy found knives and a syringe in Taylor's pocket. Taylor was later arrested when methamphetamine was discovered in his hand at the jail. The lower court found that Taylor did not truly consent to the search, and the higher court agreed that the State did not provide enough evidence to show the consent was voluntary. They ruled that the earlier decisions were correct, and thus, they affirmed the lower court's ruling.

F-2002-1561

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 25, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1561, Joe Edward Stratmoen appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Dangerous Drug and Possession of a Weapon While Committing a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the life sentence for the drug charge but modified the sentence for the weapons charge to two years. One judge dissented. Stratmoen was found guilty of having methamphetamine and a weapon during a crime. He was originally sentenced to a long prison term. However, he argued that he did not agree to a key part of his sentencing, which led to a re-sentencing trial being ordered. At this new trial, the jury decided he should have a life sentence for the drug charge and a ten-year sentence for the weapon charge. Stratmoen’s appeal brought up several points. He said the court shouldn’t have let a jury re-sentence him just for this non-death penalty case. He also argued that he never truly agreed to his earlier convictions being used against him before. Stratmoen claimed that testimony from police officers during his trial was unfair and that the way the prosecutor spoke about parole led to a wrong verdict. Lastly, he felt that a life sentence for having drugs was too harsh for his situation. After looking at everything, the court thought that Stratmoen's sentence for possessing a weapon should be reduced to two years since it couldn’t be increased further. They agreed that the trial court was right in letting a jury examine whether he had prior convictions but pointed out that they had to correct some details about his life sentence, making sure it indicated he could be eligible for parole. In conclusion, while his life sentence was upheld, it was important to ensure that the legal documents accurately reflected the possibility of parole, providing him with a fair opportunity for the future.

F 2002-1009

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 12, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1009, Rodney Jerome Burton appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (cocaine base) and possession of a controlled dangerous substance within 1000 feet of a public park. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs, but it dismissed the conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance within 1000 feet of a public park. One judge dissented. Burton was found guilty of trafficking in cocaine and possession of drugs near a public park. The jury recommended sentences of twenty years for trafficking and ten years for possession, which were to be served at the same time. Burton raised several reasons for his appeal, claiming that the evidence was not strong enough to support the verdicts, and that there were other problems in the trial. The court examined each of his claims, finding that there was enough evidence to support the trafficking conviction. They also decided that the jury was not pushed to come to a verdict and that the trial court followed the rules correctly regarding other pieces of evidence. It was determined that the remarks and actions of the prosecutor did not unfairly affect Burton's trial. The court concluded that there was no error regarding the prior photograph and that Burton's trial lawyer did a good job. Even though Burton wanted to benefit from a change in the law that might have helped him, the court said he was not entitled to that benefit because it didn’t apply to his case. Overall, the court upheld the sentence for trafficking but overturned the possession sentence, telling lower courts to dismiss that charge.

F 2002-1035

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 12, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1035, Russell DeWayne Dykes appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine), and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance without a Tax Stamp Affixed. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify some of the sentences. One judge dissented. Dykes was found guilty after a bench trial. The trial was held before a judge who decided his fate. Dykes received six years of imprisonment for each of the three counts. These sentences were supposed to run at the same time. Dykes argued several issues in his appeal. First, he said that the evidence against him wasn't handled properly, which made it less reliable, and that he did not get a fair trial because of that. Second, he claimed that the evidence presented by the State did not clearly show that he had the controlled substance, meaning he shouldn’t have been convicted for that crime. Third, Dykes believed that the judge gave him sentences that were longer than the law allowed. He asked for the sentences to be changed or at least reduced. He also thought the judge should have lowered his sentence based on what was said during an earlier part of the trial. Lastly, he argued that the combined effect of all these issues led to an unfair trial. After looking closely at all of Dykes' claims and the court documents, the judges decided that Dykes did not have a strong enough argument about the chain of evidence. They believed that even though Dykes raised questions about how the evidence was handled, there was still enough proof for a reasonable person to believe he was guilty. The court also agreed that although the sentences were initially longer than what was allowed, the errors could be fixed. They decided to lower the sentences: for the assault charge, Dykes would serve five years instead of six, and for the possession charge without a tax stamp, the court changed it to two years. In conclusion, the court affirmed that Dykes was guilty and solidified the evidence used, but they modified two of his sentences to fit what the law allowed.

RE-2002-580

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 12, 2003
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2002-580, Garcia appealed his conviction for obtaining money by means of a false check. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the acceleration of Garcia’s deferred sentencing and sent the matter back for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Here is what happened in simpler terms: Garcia was found guilty of a crime and got a chance to avoid a harsh punishment by being put on probation for five years. But a short time after starting probation, the state said he broke the rules, so they wanted to give him a tougher punishment. The judge first made sure Garcia was mentally okay to understand what was happening and to help in his defense. After deciding he was competent, the judge allowed the hearing to continue without first ensuring that Garcia had a lawyer present. During a later hearing, it was found that Garcia indeed had violated probation, and he was sentenced to a year in jail and a fine. Garcia argued that the judge should not have moved ahead with the case without following the proper steps, especially regarding his right to have a lawyer. The court agreed with Garcia’s point. They decided that the earlier decision to make his sentence tougher was not done correctly. So, the court reversed the punishment and sent the case back to make sure Garcia had a lawyer and that all the necessary rules were followed in the next steps.

C-2002-1525

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 3, 2003
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2002-1525, Campbell appealed her conviction for Enabling Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction but modified her sentence. One judge dissented. Campbell was charged in Hughes County and entered a guilty plea while maintaining her innocence, known as an Alford plea. She was originally sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. Campbell later appealed, asking to withdraw her guilty plea or reduce her sentence. The court found that although she could not withdraw her plea because she had been properly informed about the rights she was waiving and the maximum penalty for her conviction, her sentence was too harsh. The court decided to change her sentence from twenty-five years to ten years, although it did not reverse her conviction. The dissenting judge believed the trial judge's original decision on the sentence should stand.

J-2003-504

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 2, 2003
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2003-504, K.D.E. appealed his conviction for a transfer of custody. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the earlier order that transferred him from being a Youthful Offender to the Department of Corrections. The court concluded that he should stay in custody as a Youthful Offender instead. No one dissented.

F-2002-690

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 27, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-690, Lonny Boyd Jones appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including assaulting a police officer and aggravated trafficking in methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one count against him, affirm the others, and reduce his sentence for aggravated trafficking. One judge dissented. Lonny Boyd Jones was tried in Grady County District Court and found guilty of several charges. He received sentences of five years for assaulting a police officer, two years for possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony, one year with a fine for resisting an officer, and 35 years plus a fine for trafficking methamphetamine. After his conviction, Lonny appealed the decision, arguing many points, including issues with the arrest warrant, double jeopardy, hearsay evidence, and the effectiveness of his counsel. The court reviewed his claims. They found that the arrest warrant was valid despite not being signed properly. Therefore, Lonny's claim regarding the warrant did not hold. They also decided that his conviction for resisting a police officer was too similar to the assault charge, so that conviction was reversed. Regarding the hearsay evidence and jury instructions, the court found that they did not significantly affect the trial's outcome, and his request for instructions on lesser offenses or defenses was denied because the evidence supported his guilt for the charges he faced. Additionally, the court upheld the introduction of a letter he wrote, agreeing that it was authentic. They dismissed claims of prosecutorial misconduct as the comments made during the trial were fair and justified by the evidence. The court acknowledged that the sentencing instructions were mistaken and modified his sentence for trafficking methamphetamine, reducing it from 35 years to 30 years without a fine. In the end, the court's decision affirmed most of Lonny's convictions, changed one, and modified his sentence.

RE-2002-1077

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 25, 2003
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2002-1077, Tracy Allen Mitchon appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation and send the case back to the District Court to correct the written order regarding the time Mitchon had already served. One judge dissented.

F-2002-718

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 22, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-718, Veronica Coronado appealed her conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction. One judge dissented. Veronica was found guilty of trafficking illegal drugs and was sentenced to ten years in prison with a fine of $25,000. After reviewing the case closely, the court found an important problem with how the police searched Veronica. The judges stated that her rights were violated because the search did not follow the rules laid out in the U.S. Constitution. According to the Constitution, people should not be subjected to unreasonable searches. The judges referred to an important case, Terry v. Ohio, which explains that police can only search someone if they have good reasons to believe that the person is dangerous. In Veronica's case, the officer who searched her did not have specific reasons to believe she was armed or dangerous. The search was done just as a normal procedure. Also, after the officer looked and determined she was not carrying a weapon, the officer had no right to take anything from her without a warrant, which is a legal document allowing police to search. Therefore, since the search was not done the right way, any evidence found during that search should not have been used against her in court. Because of these issues, the judges decided that Veronica should not have been convicted and ordered that her case be dismissed.

RE 2002-1124

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 22, 2003
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2002-1124, Earnest Williams appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences in three cases but vacated the revocation of one case because it was found that the court did not have the authority to revoke that particular sentence. One judge dissented on part of the decision.

F-2002-537

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 21, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-537, Andre Lasuan Marshall appealed his conviction for several offenses including shooting with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of the charges and affirm the others. One judge dissented. The case began when Marshall was charged with multiple counts, including three counts of shooting with intent to kill, one count of entering a building with unlawful intent, and one count of possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony. A jury found him guilty on most counts after the trial. He received sentences that the jury recommended, which were to be served at the same time, except for one count. Marshall raised several points for appeal. He argued that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he shot someone with the intent to kill. He also said that the jury should not have been instructed on a lesser charge, that his convictions for possessing a firearm and shooting someone should not count separately, and that some police testimony about gang colors was unfair to him. Marshall believed that the evidence didn’t support one of the building charges and that the jury wasn't given all the necessary instructions. He mentioned that there were problems with what the prosecutor said during the trial and that all of these issues together should lead to his convictions being reversed or his sentences being changed. After reviewing everything, the court agreed some points raised were valid. They decided that Marshall did run from the scene after the shooting and that the evidence showed he was likely the shooter. They did find, however, that it was a mistake to instruct the jury about the lesser charge without a request from the state. Therefore, they reversed that particular conviction related to the shooting but upheld the others. The court concluded that while they were reversing one conviction, the remaining charges were upheld, and Marshall would continue serving his other sentences. One judge disagreed with how the reversal was handled, believing that if a new trial was warranted, it shouldn’t just overturn the charge outright but should instead allow for reconsideration by a jury. So, that’s a summary of the case and what the court decided.

F-2002-613

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 20, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-613, Muhajir A. Sango appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute, after Former Conviction of Two or More Drug Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reversed the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Sango was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to thirty years in prison and a fine of $10,000. He raised several arguments on appeal. He claimed that evidence showing his gang affiliation was irrelevant and unfairly influenced the jury. He also argued that his lawyer did not properly object to this evidence, which made his legal representation ineffective. Lastly, he believed the jury was given incorrect information about his possible sentence. Upon reviewing the case, the court agreed that there was an error in the jury instructions concerning the punishment range for habitual drug offenders. The court concluded that the jury was mistakenly told that the minimum sentence was twenty years instead of the correct ten years. Despite agreeing with some of Sango's concerns, the court found that the introduction of gang-related evidence did not significantly impact the jury's decision, and the arguments about ineffective assistance did not hold up. As a result, his conviction was upheld, but the court mandated that the sentencing should be redone to correct the earlier mistake.