Staff, Author at OCCA Opinions

F-2001-55

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 5, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-55, Lawrence Ray Washington appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana and unlawful possession of money within a penal institute. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana but reversed the conviction for unlawful possession of money and instructed to dismiss that count. One judge dissented. Washington was charged with three counts: possession of marijuana and money while in prison, and assaulting a correction officer. He was found not guilty of assault but guilty on the other two counts. He received a twenty-year sentence for each count, which would be served at the same time. Washington argued that being punished for both possessions was unfair because they were closely related. The court examined the details and decided that having both items at the same time was part of one action, rather than two separate actions. As a result, they thought punishing him for both possessions was against the law. Therefore, they took away the conviction for possession of money but kept the conviction for possession of marijuana. The dissenting judges believed Washington should have been punished for both counts because the law allows for separate punishments for different kinds of contraband items, even if they are found together.

F-2000-618

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 31, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-618, Keith Avey appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence, After Former Conviction of Driving Under the Influence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Avey's judgment and sentence of eight years imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. However, the court requested a remand for a hearing on restitution. One judge dissented. Avey was found guilty by a jury which heard evidence that he was driving under the influence of alcohol. This included observations of his strong smell of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and unstable walking after a collision. The jury decided to give him a punishment of eight years in prison and a fine, along with restitution payment. During the appeal, Avey argued that the trial court made mistakes. He believed the court should have informed the jury about a lesser charge called Driving While Impaired. However, the appellate court ruled that the evidence against him was strong enough that not giving this instruction was acceptable. Avey also contended that the trial court should have examined the specific losses experienced by the victims before setting the restitution amount. The appellate court agreed that the trial court failed to provide this hearing, stating that the law requires the court to establish the actual losses suffered by the victims. This is why they sent the case back for a restitution hearing. Avey argued that he did not get a fair defense because his attorney didn’t challenge the order of restitution effectively. However, the court disagreed, saying that the attorney did raise objections about the amount of loss and therefore did not provide ineffective assistance. Furthermore, Avey claimed that the evidence presented was not enough to prove he was guilty. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Finally, Avey said that the eight-year sentence was too harsh. The appellate court stated that the sentence was appropriate and in line with the law. In summary, while the appellate court upheld Avey's imprisonment and fine, it required a new examination of the restitution amount due to the trial court's failure to provide proper hearings.

F-2000-1138

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 31, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1138, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case involved David Land Ashlock, who was found guilty of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon after a jury trial in Creek County. The jury sentenced him to forty years in prison and a fine of ten thousand dollars. Mr. Ashlock raised three issues on appeal about his trial. First, he argued that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing a defense instruction about defending another person. Second, he claimed that he was denied a fair trial because the jury convicted him of a crime that was not in the original charges against him. Finally, he said the prosecutor made an error by trying to explain the term reasonable doubt during the trial. The court looked closely at these issues and agreed with Mr. Ashlock on the second point. They found that he was wrongfully convicted of a crime that was not explicitly charged against him. The original charges were about first-degree manslaughter, but during the trial, the jury was instructed on Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon without Mr. Ashlock’s consent. The court said that when a defendant objects to a lesser crime being included in the instructions, they should have the right to decide to stick with the main charge only. Mr. Ashlock’s lawyer had clearly objected, and the trial court should have respected his choice not to include the lesser charge of Assault and Battery. Because of this error, the court decided that Mr. Ashlock did not receive a fair trial. They concluded that the trial court had made a mistake, which warranted reversing his conviction. As a result, the court instructed to dismiss the case entirely.

F-2000-1313

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 31, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1313, Robert Guy Wisner appealed his conviction for attempting to manufacture a controlled dangerous substance, unlawful possession of a controlled drug, and unlawful possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence for the conviction of attempting to manufacture a controlled dangerous substance and unlawful possession of marijuana, but reversed the conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug, instructing to dismiss that count. One judge dissented.

F-2000-1531

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 30, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1531, Thomas Paul Richardson appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but modified the sentence for the drug possession charge to ten years. One judge dissented. Richardson was tried by a jury, found guilty of both crimes, and received a life sentence for manslaughter, twenty years for drug possession, and a ten-day jail term for speeding. The sentences were to be served one after the other. He raised several arguments about his trial and sentencing, including claims that his rights were violated and that he was given an unfair sentence. The court reviewed his claims and agreed that he was incorrectly sentenced for the drug possession charge, as the maximum penalty should have been ten years, not twenty. However, the court found no significant problems with other aspects of the trial, including the admission of certain testimonies and the conduct of the prosecutor. They believed the errors did not change the outcome or harm Richardson's chances for a fair trial. Overall, the court decided to lessen Richardson’s drug sentence while keeping the other convictions intact.

F-2000-1156

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 28, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1156, Randy Scott Bucsok appealed his conviction for lewd molestation and rape by instrumentation. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the lower court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Bucsok was found guilty of multiple charges, including lewd molestation and rape by instrumentation. The jury sentenced him to a total of 60 years in prison, with some sentences running consecutively while others were partially suspended. Following his conviction, Bucsok raised several arguments in his appeal regarding mistakes made during the trial. First, he argued that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing two witnesses, Shell and Kemble, to testify. The court found this was a serious error because their testimony could have been important to Bucsok's defense. The judges believed that excluding this evidence hurt Bucsok's chance for a fair trial. Bucsok also claimed that the trial court wrongly allowed hearsay testimony from other witnesses. However, the court decided that this part of the trial was handled correctly and that the testimony was admissible. Additionally, Bucsok expressed concern about unfair evidence being presented to the jury regarding uncharged crimes, but the court determined that there was no plain error in how this evidence was managed. Finally, he disagreed with the trial court’s decision to bar testimony about the victim's behavior that could explain injuries. In conclusion, the court found that the trial court had made critical mistakes, particularly in not allowing key witnesses to testify, which warranted a new trial for Bucsok.

F-2000-484

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 23, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-484, Sam Henry Watkins appealed his conviction for Endeavoring to Manufacture Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Watkins was tried in a court without a jury and found guilty of trying to make methamphetamine. He was given a 20-year prison sentence. Watkins claimed that there were several mistakes made during his trial that should change the decision. He argued that: 1. He did not properly give up his right to have a jury trial. 2. The police illegally took evidence from him and questioned him. 3. Inappropriate evidence was used against him, which made his trial unfair. 4. He did not have good help from his lawyer. The court looked carefully at all these points and the entire situation. They concluded that Watkins did not show that he willingly gave up his right to a jury trial, which was important. The court noted that there was no proof that he understood what giving up that right meant. Therefore, this was a mistake. As for the evidence collected from Watkins, the court decided that it did not need to change the decision. The court found no error in the way the police handled the evidence during his detention. In the end, the court reversed Watkins's conviction and sent the case back for a new trial. This meant that he would get another chance to defend himself against the charges.

RE 2000-1170

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 10, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-1170, the appellant appealed his conviction for revocation of suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence in one case and to reverse and dismiss the revocation in another case. One judge dissented. In this case, the appellant had previously pleaded guilty to two crimes and received suspended sentences, which means he would not have to serve time in prison if he followed the law and met certain conditions. However, the State (the lawyers representing the government) wanted to revoke these sentences, claiming the appellant did not follow the rules. At a hearing, the judge revoked the appellant’s suspended sentences. Later, the appellant appealed the decision, arguing that the State was too late to revoke one of his suspended sentences because the time to do so had expired. The State agreed with the appellant that they did not have the right to revoke the sentence for one of the cases. After considering the arguments, the court decided to keep the revocation for one case but to reverse the revocation for the other case, meaning the appellant would not have to serve time for the second case. The court also canceled a scheduled oral argument, stating it was not needed.

F-2000-771

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 6, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-771, Jeffrey Allen Brown appealed his conviction for Attempted Escape from the Department of Corrections. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. The case began when Brown was tried in the District Court of Comanche County and found guilty of Attempted Escape, which is against the law. His punishment was a twenty-year prison sentence, the minimum allowed. Brown did not agree with his conviction and appealed it. Brown had three main reasons for his appeal. First, he believed that he did not get a fair trial because a witness for the state shared something that Brown had not been told about before his trial. This made him feel like he was surprised or ambushed during the trial. Second, Brown thought that the evidence presented against him was not strong enough to prove he tried to escape. Third, he argued that the judge was unfair by giving him a longer sentence because he chose to have a jury trial instead of accepting a plea deal. After looking closely at the evidence and listening to all arguments, the court found that although the state did not share everything with Brown's lawyer in time, it did not change the outcome of the trial. The judges said that even with the surprise testimony, there was enough evidence to show that Brown attempted to escape. Regarding the sentencing, the judges agreed that the trial judge had made a mistake by giving Brown a harsher sentence just because he decided to have a jury trial. However, since Brown had a serious criminal history with six previous felony convictions, the judges felt the mistake did not require a new sentencing. In conclusion, the judges decided that Brown's conviction and sentence would remain as they were.

F-2000-939

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 20, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-939, Tony Guinn appealed his conviction for Workers' Compensation Fraud. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented, arguing that one of the counts should be reversed due to a violation of double jeopardy, stating that there was only one claim for benefits which led to two misrepresentations.

F-2000-912

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 10, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-912, Jerry Leon McManus, Jr. appealed his conviction for several serious crimes, including Kidnapping, Assault, Rape by Instrumentation, and Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his convictions on two counts to a lesser charge and change the sentences but upheld his other convictions. One judge dissented. The case started in a court in Muskogee County where McManus was accused of multiple crimes against a victim. A trial jury found him guilty of most counts after being directed that he was not guilty of a few charges. Each of the remaining charges led to a life sentence that would run at the same time. On appeal, McManus presented several arguments about why he should not have been convicted. He said the trial court did not explain the rules correctly regarding one type of crime, leading to confusion. He also argued that the court allowed some evidence about past actions of his that were not relevant to the case, and he believed this affected the fairness of the trial. Furthermore, he claimed the prosecutor made improper comments during the trial and said there wasn’t enough evidence to support his convictions for certain crimes. The court reviewed these arguments carefully. It agreed with McManus on one point: the jury should have been instructed properly about the crime of Rape by Instrumentation. Since the jury was incorrectly steered towards a greater charge, the court decided to change McManus's convictions for this specific crime to a lesser offense of Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation and adjusted his sentence to fifteen years for those two counts instead of life imprisonment. However, the court found that even though some evidence from old crimes should not have been shared, it did not change the outcome of the trial. The jury's decision was seen as just because there was enough solid evidence presented against McManus. The court also thought that despite various issues raised during the trial, those did not combine to make the trial unfair or warrant a full reversal of all convictions. In summary, while the court changed some aspects regarding the Rape by Instrumentation, they affirmed the rest of the convictions and sentences for McManus, deciding he would serve a reduced time for the lesser charges but still maintain his convictions for the other serious crimes.

F 2000-740

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 6, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-740, the appellant appealed his conviction for Attempted Escape. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence from three and a half years to two years imprisonment. Two judges dissented regarding the sentence modification. The case involved the appellant trying to escape from a private prison that was not officially recognized as a penitentiary. The court determined that the appellant should have been charged under a specific law concerning attempted escapes from non-penitentiary facilities. After reviewing the case, the judges concluded that while the conviction was valid, the original sentence was excessive since the appropriate law related to his actions was different than what was originally applied.

MA-2001-117

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 3, 2001
Post category:MA

In OCCA case No. MA-2001-117, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for two counts of Murder in the First Degree and two counts of Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for an extraordinary writ, which means the court decided to stop the prosecution from seeking the death penalty in the retrial. The dissenting opinion noted concerns regarding the outcome of the case based on previous legal interpretations and precedents. The case began with the Petitioner charged in two separate cases, related to tragic events that resulted in the loss of life and armed robbery. Initially, the jury found him guilty of all charges and recommended life sentences without parole for the murders and life imprisonment for the robbery offenses. However, this verdict was reversed, and the case was sent back for separate trials, which created a new legal situation. The Petitioner argued that he should not face the death penalty again because the first jury had already decided on a life sentence, indicating that they did not believe the death penalty should apply. This idea connects to the legal protection known as the Double Jeopardy Clause, which prevents someone from being tried multiple times for the same offense. The court looked closely at the issue of double jeopardy, discussing how it applies not just to being tried for the same crime, but also regarding the severity of punishment. They acknowledged that once a jury has had a chance to decide on a punishment like the death penalty, the state should not get a second opportunity to change that if the first jury chose not to impose it. As a result, the court found that the Petitioner should not have to go through the additional stress and public scrutiny of another capital sentencing trial when they had already made a clear decision against it previously. Thus, the petition to prohibit the state from seeking the death penalty was granted.

F-2000-617

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 2, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-617, Bernard Eugene Laster, Jr. appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the order of acceleration of Laster's sentences for the first two offenses but vacated the judgment for the third offense related to a tax stamp. There was no dissent.

F-2000-821

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 1, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-821, Mitchell Lawrence Rose appealed his conviction for Solicitation of First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but vacate the sentence and remand the case for resentencing. One judge dissented.

F-2000-861

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 27, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-00-861, Anthony Tyrone Raymond appealed his conviction for trafficking illegal drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the conviction but modified the fine imposed. One judge dissented. Raymond was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to ten years in prison and a fine of $25,000. He raised several errors on appeal, including that the trial court wrongly excluded a witness's testimony, improperly instructed the jury about evidence, and made mistakes regarding the imposed fine and the legality of the search that found drugs on him. The court agreed that it was wrong to deny the defense witness the chance to testify, but believed this did not affect the outcome of the trial. About the jury instructions, the court found that there was no error because the instructions followed the defense's request. They also said the fine was incorrectly high based on the law, so they changed it to $10,000. Regarding the search that uncovered drugs, the court ruled that the officers acted properly since they had reasonable suspicion about Raymond’s involvement in crime. They also noted that Raymond had the right to contest the evidence against him, but there was no issue about him not being able to present his case during the hearing about this. Finally, they stated that the amount of drugs relevant to the conviction was clearly outlined. The final decision was to maintain the conviction but adjust the fine to reflect the correct amount.

F-2000-796

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 20, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-796, Ronald Phipps appealed his conviction for attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine (as a subsequent offense), possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the $1,000 fine for the possession of marijuana but affirmed all other convictions and sentences. One judge dissented on the issue of the fine.

F-2000-335

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 9, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-335, Alfred Lee Horn appealed his conviction for three counts of Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, and Cultivation of Marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented, suggesting the sentences should be modified to twenty years each.

F-2000-451

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 8, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-451, Christopher B. Andrews appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Andrews' conviction and send the case back for a new trial. One justice dissented. Andrews was found guilty of robbing someone and sentenced to thirty-five years in prison. After the jury finished their discussions about the case but before they made their final decision, the judge let the jury go home for the night. This happened even though both Andrews' defense team and the state's lawyers did not want this to happen. According to the law, after the jury starts talking about the case, they should stay together and not be allowed to go home or talk to others about the case. If they are allowed to separate, it can hurt the fairness of the trial, and courts believe that this is automatically a problem for the defendant. The court carefully examined the situation in Andrews' case and found that since the jury was allowed to leave, they could have been influenced by others, which is not fair. The state did not show enough evidence that the jury would not be prejudiced by being separated. As a result, the court reversed the original decision, meaning that Andrews' conviction was not valid, and the case was sent back for a new trial.

F-2000-386

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 7, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-386, Rodney Eugene Cheadle appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and several other charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his conviction from First Degree Murder to Solicitation for Murder in the First Degree and changed his sentence from life without parole to life imprisonment. One judge dissented. Rodney Eugene Cheadle was charged with many serious crimes, including selling drugs and murder. The case started when a woman named Donna Phillips was working with the police while she was arrested. She bought drugs from Cheadle, and police later got a search warrant for his house. When they searched it, they found drugs and guns. Cheadle was in jail when he told other inmates that he wanted to prevent Phillips from testifying against him. He even tried to get someone to kill her. Eventually, another inmate, Vance Foust, did kill Phillips. After the murder, a jail inmate told the police about Cheadle's plans. During the trial, the jury found Cheadle guilty on multiple counts, and he received heavy sentences. However, Cheadle appealed, claiming there wasn't enough evidence for some of the charges against him, especially for First Degree Murder. The court agreed with him, stating that while he did solicit someone to kill Phillips, the evidence did not show that it was in furtherance of his drug activities as required by law. Ultimately, the court agreed to change his First Degree Murder conviction to a lesser charge of Solicitation for Murder and reduced his sentence. It also reversed some of his other convictions due to double jeopardy issues. Therefore, while he was found guilty of many crimes, the court decided to modify his most serious conviction and sentence.

F-2000-671

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 7, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-671, Robert F. Barnes appealed his conviction for Maiming and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Maiming but reversed the conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, instructing the lower court to dismiss that charge. One justice dissented. The case began when Barnes was accused of injuring someone during a single event. The jury found him guilty of Maiming but decided on a lesser charge for the second count. Barnes received a punishment, which included jail time and fines, along with an order for restitution to the victim. When Barnes appealed, he raised several arguments. He claimed that he should not have been punished for both charges since they came from the same event. The court agreed, stating that it was against the law to punish someone multiple times for one crime, so they reversed the second charge. Barnes also argued that the jury should have been given instructions on lesser charges during the trial, but the court found that the evidence did not support this. Thus, the judge's decision was not seen as a mistake. Additionally, Barnes said that there was misconduct during the trial, but the court did not find this to be serious enough to change the original decision. Lastly, the court noted that there was not enough information in the records about the restitution order, so they couldn't decide if it should be adjusted. In summary, the court confirmed the guilt of Barnes for Maiming (Count I) but decided that he should not be punished for the second charge (Count II), which was reversed.

RE-2001-318

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 6, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2001-318, the appellant appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence but found that he should be allowed to earn good-time credits. One judge dissented regarding the way the case was handled concerning incarceration costs. The case started when the appellant entered a plea and had his sentence deferred for three years. Later, his sentence was accelerated, and he was sentenced to seven years with two years suspended. After a while, the State requested to revoke his sentence, which led to a court hearing. The judge revoked the suspended sentence and ordered the appellant to serve 120 days in jail without earning good-time credits and to pay for his incarceration. During the appeal, the appellant argued two main points. He claimed that the court did not have the authority to deny him the ability to earn good-time credits and that it violated his rights by not reviewing the actual costs of his incarceration. The appellate court agreed that the lower court had exceeded its authority by not allowing the appellant to earn credits and ruled that the case needed further review regarding the incarceration costs. In summary, the appellate court confirmed the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence but changed the decision about good-time credits and required a new review of incarceration costs to ensure fairness.

J-2001-80

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 14, 2001
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2001-80, B. D. S. appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the District Court’s order denying his motion for certification as a youthful offender and remand the case for certification. One judge dissented. The case began when B. D. S. was charged as an adult with a serious crime. He wanted to be recognized as a youthful offender instead of being treated like an adult in the legal system. The court had to decide whether he should be classified as a youthful offender, which could mean a different kind of punishment and possible help for rehabilitation. B. D. S. argued that the trial court made mistakes. He said the court did not follow the rules about notifying his family of his rights regarding the case, and he claimed his lawyer did not do enough to defend him by speaking up about this issue. After listening to the arguments, the court found that the trial court did not provide proper notice to B. D. S.’s parents or guardian. This lack of communication meant that he might not have received a fair chance in court. The judges agreed that this was important and decided that B. D. S. should be given another chance to be classified as a youthful offender. The dissenting judge felt differently. This judge believed that the trial court's decision not to classify B. D. S. as a youthful offender was the right choice. This judge thought that the evidence showed B. D. S. had committed a serious crime in a cold and calculated way, and that he had a history of violent behavior, which warranted treating him as an adult. The dissenting opinion emphasized the importance of public safety and questioned whether B. D. S. could be rehabilitated. In summary, the court’s majority agreed that B. D. S. should be treated as a youthful offender for a fresh evaluation, while the dissenting judge maintained that the evidence showed he should remain classified as an adult.

F-2000-692

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 10, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-692, Donald Gean Miller appealed his conviction for escape from the county jail and injury to a public building. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for escape but modified the sentence for injury to a public building to run concurrently with the escape sentence. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentence for the escape conviction be reduced from 200 years to 45 years and believed that the injury to a public building conviction violated legal statutes.

F 2000-446

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 4, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-446, Christopher Edward VanAnden appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Christopher VanAnden was found guilty by a jury of serious charges, including First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. After the trial, he was sentenced to five years for the first charge and three years for the second, with both sentences to be served at the same time. After his conviction, VanAnden argued several points in his appeal. He believed he was unfairly denied the chance to present important witness testimony, that his rights were violated by obtaining an involuntary written statement, that there was not enough evidence to convict him, and that admitting evidence of his other crimes influenced the jury unfairly. The court looked closely at these issues and agreed with VanAnden, deciding that the evidence of other crimes he allegedly committed was particularly problematic. The court pointed out that this evidence was not shown to be connected to the current case in a clear and convincing way, meaning it should not have been allowed at trial. Ultimately, since the court felt that the admission of this other crime evidence was very unfair to VanAnden and could have changed the jury's decision on his guilt, they ordered a new trial. This means that he will have another chance to defend himself against the charges in a new court session, where the jury will hear the case from the beginning without the prejudicial evidence that affected the first trial.