In OCCA case No. C 2015-473, Johnny Allen Ross appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) and Possession of a Controlled and Dangerous Substance (Marijuana). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the appeal because Ross was denied effective assistance of counsel during the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2015-514, Hanks appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse and Malicious Injury to Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but remanded the case to determine if Hanks was mentally ill, which would affect the costs he was assessed. One judge dissented. Hanks had pleaded guilty to two counts of Domestic Abuse and one count of Malicious Injury to Property in a state court. The judge sentenced him to three months in jail for one charge and one year suspended for the other two. He was also required to pay fines and fees. After entering his plea, Hanks tried to withdraw it, claiming he did not understand what he was doing and that he had poor legal help. The court looked at whether Hanks had made his plea knowingly and voluntarily. They found that he understood what he was doing and that his mental issues did not prevent him from understanding his plea. The court also considered Hanks' claim that his lawyer did not help him properly during the process and found no evidence to support this. One important point in the decision focused on the costs Hanks had to pay related to his time in jail. The court noted that because he had a mental illness diagnosis, he might not have to pay these costs according to state law, which says that mentally ill people should be exempt from such fees. Because of this, the court sent the case back for further evaluation of Hanks' mental health status to see if he qualified for the exemption. Overall, the court upheld the original decision while allowing for further examination of Hanks' mental health to understand his financial obligations better.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-854, Cory James Leon Whiteside appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery and Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition, allowing him to withdraw his pleas. One member of the court dissented. Whiteside pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges involving domestic violence. The court sentenced him to one year in jail for each charge, with the sentences to run one after the other. Shortly after pleading guilty, Whiteside asked to change his plea from guilty to not guilty, stating he had not understood the consequences of his plea. His request to withdraw his plea was denied by the court. Whiteside then appealed this decision, arguing two main points. First, he claimed he did not knowingly and voluntarily give up his right to have an attorney represent him during the case. Second, he argued that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because he didn't fully understand what he was agreeing to. The court reviewed the entire record of the case. It found that Whiteside's waiver of his right to counsel was not made in a knowing and voluntary way, meaning there was no clear record showing that he understood what self-representation involved or that he had been advised of the risks of not having a lawyer. The state even agreed with this point. Because this error was significant, the court decided to let Whiteside withdraw his guilty pleas. Following this decision, the other issue Whiteside raised became unnecessary to address. Therefore, the court ordered that Whiteside be allowed to withdraw his pleas.
In OCCA case No. C 2014-920, John Edward Oxford appealed his conviction for several serious crimes including robbery, burglary, and conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but also ordered a hearing to review the amount of restitution he was ordered to pay. Oxford was charged with multiple counts and, on July 10, 2014, he entered a blind plea, which means he pleaded guilty without negotiating a deal, to all the charges. The court sentenced him to a total of over 70 years in prison and ordered him to pay about $67,539 in restitution to the victims. After his sentencing, Oxford tried to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he did not understand the charges and was not fully informed about his rights. The trial court held a hearing on this and ultimately denied his request. Oxford then appealed this decision, arguing several points. First, he believed he should not have been sentenced for certain counts because it violated laws against double punishment. However, the court noted that his arguments about double jeopardy were not raised in the earlier stages and thus were not considered. Second, he argued there wasn't enough evidence to support the restitution amount, but again the court found this issue had not been raised before and rejected it. Oxford also claimed he did not receive effective legal help during his plea and the hearing to withdraw it. The court agreed that there were problems with how his attorney handled the restitution order, focusing mainly on the lack of detailed documentation justifying the restitution amount. This lack of evidence meant the restitution order was not valid. While the court found that Oxford's guilty plea was made voluntarily, it did acknowledge inadequate support for the restitution order. Therefore, it denied his appeal regarding the guilty plea but vacated the restitution order, sending the case back to the lower court for a proper review of how much compensation was truly owed to the victims. One judge dissented, noting that the case should have been looked at more closely regarding the earlier claims. So, in summary, the appeal was mainly denied except for the part about restitution, which was sent back to the lower court for further review.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-584, Gilbert Paz appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, Shooting with Intent to Kill, Conspiracy, Attempted Robbery with a Firearm, and Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the District Court's denial of Paz's Motion to Withdraw Plea and remanded the case for further proceedings. One member of the court dissented. Gilbert Paz was involved in a serious crime case where he initially pleaded guilty to multiple charges. After some time, he wanted to take back his guilty pleas, claiming that he didn’t fully understand what he was doing when he agreed to the plea deal. He felt confused and believed his lawyer wasn't helping him properly. The case started when a burglary went badly, resulting in one person being killed and another being hurt. After his guilty pleas were accepted in court, Paz tried to withdraw them, but the judge said no. The judge continued to give him time to get a new lawyer but did not allow him to take back his pleas. Paz argued five main points in his appeal. He claimed that the judge helped too much during his plea negotiations, that his guilty plea was not made knowingly or intelligently, that he was denied his right to have a lawyer present during important parts of the trial, and that his lawyer did not provide effective help. He also claimed that all these issues together made it unfair for him. The court reviewed everything and determined that the main issue was that Paz did not receive the help of a lawyer when trying to withdraw his guilty pleas. Both Paz and the State agreed that he should have had a lawyer to assist him in this situation. The court recognized that without proper counsel, Paz's claim that his pleas were not voluntary could not be dismissed as harmless. As a result, the court decided to vacate the previous decision and send the case back to the District Court so they could properly address Paz's request to withdraw his pleas.
In OCCA case No. C 2014-693, a person appealed his conviction for child neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to allow him to withdraw his no contest plea due to receiving bad advice from his attorney, which made his plea not knowing and voluntary. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-270, Gabriel Brian Solis appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for resentencing before a different trial court. Solis had entered a plea where he maintained his innocence but accepted the plea for reasons other than guilt. He was sentenced to eighty years in prison and a fine, needing to serve 85% of the time before being eligible for parole. After feeling he was unfairly treated, he tried to withdraw his guilty plea, but the trial judge did not allow it. Solis then sought a higher court's intervention, which granted him a new hearing with a different lawyer. During the new hearing, it was found that the judge had shown bias against Solis and that his attorney had not done enough to protect his rights. This bias and the lack of effective legal representation were key reasons for the court’s ruling that Solis had been denied a fair trial. The court ultimately agreed that there were serious issues with how the plea was handled and the sentencing process. In summary, the court ruled in favor of Solis due to the unfairness he experienced in his initial trial, which led to the decision to have the case heard again, ensuring a fair process moving forward.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-139, Clifford Eugene Teel appealed his conviction for lewd molestation, forcible sodomy, and indecent exposure. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his request to withdraw his guilty pleas and allowed him to enter new pleas for the charges. The dissenting opinion was not specified. Teel had entered a plea of nolo contendere, which means he did not admit guilt but accepted the punishment. The judge sentenced him to a total of twenty years for some charges and ten years for another, all to be served together. Later, Teel wanted to change his plea because he believed he had been given wrong information about the length of his possible prison time. He thought he could get life in prison, but it turned out that the maximum punishment for his charges was actually much less. Teel's claims were that he did not get proper advice from his lawyer and that the judge did not explain the correct punishments before he accepted the plea. During a review, it was found that the trial court had indeed not informed him right about the maximum punishments he faced. The Attorney General even admitted there was a mistake in how Teel was advised. The court decided that since Teel's plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily due to the wrong advice, he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and enter new ones concerning his charges. The original judgment and sentence from the District Court were reversed, and the case was sent back for further actions.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-254, the petitioner appealed his conviction for embezzling over $25,000. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling regarding the petitioner's motions, but vacated the restitution order and remanded the case for a new determination of the victim's loss. One judge dissented. The petitioner, who is William Reeves Cathey, was accused of embezzlement by the state. He pleaded guilty to the charge in 2012, and his sentencing was delayed multiple times so he could repay the money he took. When his sentencing finally took place in January 2014, he decided to represent himself after dismissing his lawyer due to their illness. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison, but allowed him to suspend six years of that sentence and ordered him to pay $96,500 in restitution to the victim. Before he was sentenced, the petitioner made several requests to withdraw his guilty plea and to disqualify the District Attorney's office, claiming it was unfair. The court denied these requests. He also claimed that he did not understand the plea agreement because he thought the maximum fine would be much lower than what it was. He felt that the judge had not properly explained the charges to him when he entered his plea and claimed this made his plea involuntary. During the appeal process, the court looked at the petitioner's points. They decided that his concerns about the restitution order were valid. The court found that the lower court had not made it clear how the restitution amount was determined, and they thought that a new hearing was needed to sort this out. The court also rejected all of the petitioner's other arguments. They believed that he had entered his plea knowingly and that his sentence, while long, was not excessively severe. In conclusion, the court confirmed the denial of his motions to withdraw his plea but returned the issue of the restitution amount back to the trial court for further evaluation.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-124, Roach appealed her conviction for three counts of Child Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her petition to withdraw her guilty plea and remanded the case for a new evidentiary hearing with conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-373, Jack Eugene Metzger appealed his conviction for multiple charges including First Degree Burglary, Larceny of an Automobile, Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (second offense), Eluding a Police Officer, Violation of Protective Order, and Driving Without a Driver's License. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Metzger could withdraw his guilty plea for certain counts but denied the request for others. One judge dissented. Metzger entered a guilty plea for several crimes and was sentenced to serve time in prison along with fines. After his plea, he asked to take it back, saying he hadn’t been fully informed. He raised several issues in his appeal, claiming his pleas were not voluntary, the sentences for some charges were illegal, and he didn’t get help from his lawyers when he needed it. The court looked at whether Metzger's pleas were made knowingly and voluntarily. It noted that mistakes were made when explaining the possible punishments for some of the charges. The court decided that while Metzger did understand a lot, there were significant errors in how he was informed about some counts. Since he didn’t receive the correct information on charges related to driving under the influence, eluding police, and violations of protective orders, his plea for those counts was not properly made. Therefore, he was allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas for those specific counts but not for the burglary or larceny charges. In summary, the court allowed Metzger to take back his guilty plea on the counts where he was not informed correctly about the punishment, but it did not agree with his claims regarding other counts.
In OCCA case No. C-2013-973, Nick Rodriguez appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence with Great Bodily Injury, Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (Subsequent Felony), and Driving with License Revoked. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences for Driving Under the Influence with Great Bodily Injury and Driving with License Revoked but to reverse and dismiss the conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (Subsequent Felony). One justice dissented. Rodriguez was charged in Garfield County after entering a plea of nolo contendre, which means he did not contest the charges. He was sentenced to 10 years for each of the first two counts, which were to be served one after the other, while he received a one-year sentence for the last count, to be served at the same time as one of the other sentences. Rodriguez later asked to withdraw his pleas, but the court denied his application. He claimed his appeals were based on four main points: 1) that he should not have been punished for both charges of DUI because it was against the rules, 2) that he did not understand what he was doing when he pleaded guilty, 3) that he did not get good help from his lawyer, and 4) that his sentence was too harsh. The court reviewed his arguments. For the first point, they noted that Rodriguez didn't mention this issue when he first asked to withdraw his pleas, so they couldn't consider it now. The court also found that Rodriguez's pleas were made voluntarily, meaning he understood what he had done. His argument about not having a good lawyer was accepted partly because the lawyer had not raised the double punishment issue. In the end, the court decided to keep the first and third convictions but agreed to toss out the second conviction because it was unfair to punish him twice for the same action. However, they determined that the remaining sentences were suitable based on the situation, meaning they found no reason to change them. Through this decision, the court tried to ensure fairness and that justice was served correctly in the case against Rodriguez.
In OCCA case No. C-2013-730, Mon'tre Brown appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, First Degree Burglary, and Attempted Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and remand the case to the District Court. The dissenting opinion argued against the majority's decision. Mon'tre Brown was given several charges, including serious ones like murder and burglary. He pleaded guilty to all counts in April 2013 but later wanted to change his plea, claiming he didn’t understand what he was doing due to his mental condition. The trial court denied his request, leading to this appeal. During the initial plea hearing, there were concerns about Mon'tre's mental competency because of his low IQ, which was reported as around 65. His attorney was aware of his learning disabilities, but they appeared not to conduct a thorough investigation into his mental health before allowing him to plead guilty. Mon'tre claimed he felt pressured to plead guilty because his counsel had said he couldn’t win the case. At a later hearing, Mon'tre's family and mental health professionals testified that he struggle to understand the legal concepts involved in his case, which raised questions about his ability to make informed decisions. Some of the professionals stated he didn’t have a clear understanding of what his guilty plea meant or the consequences of waiving his right to trial. The court found that the attorney had not adequately assessed Mon'tre's competence or sought further evaluations that could have supported his claim of mental retardation. It decided that his attorney's failure to investigate his mental condition and present sufficient evidence during the plea process was ineffective assistance of counsel. Ultimately, the court believed that there’s a reasonable chance that had adequate evidence of Mon'tre's mental condition been presented early, it may have changed the outcome of his guilty plea. Thus, they ruled in favor of allowing Mon'tre to withdraw his guilty plea and directed for conflict-free counsel to represent him in further proceedings.
In OCCA case No. C-2013-1046, Ronald Franz appealed his conviction for Accessory After the Fact to Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for writ of certiorari and remanded the case to the district court for a proper hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-79, Walker appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, Resisting an Officer, and Trespassing. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to dismiss Walker's appeal because her application to withdraw her guilty plea was not properly heard by the trial court. One judge dissented, arguing that a hearing had indeed taken place.
In OCCA case No. C-2013-1030, the petitioner appealed his conviction for grand larceny, false declaration of ownership in pawn, and bail jumping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the petitioner's request for certiorari. One judge dissented. Kevin Anthony Eifert pleaded guilty to several charges in the District Court of Ottawa County. These included two counts of grand larceny, one count of false declaration of ownership in pawn, and one count of bail jumping. The court placed him in Drug Court but later removed him from that program. Following this, he was sentenced to serve prison time and pay fines. After his sentencing, Eifert tried to withdraw his guilty pleas. He argued that the court did not have proper records to support the pleas, that he was not competent to enter them, and that some of the fines were too high according to the law. He also claimed he did not receive effective help from his lawyers during his hearings. The court looked at his claims and decided that he had not made a proper challenge to some of his arguments when he initially tried to withdraw his pleas. Because of this, some of his complaints were not reviewed. While reviewing the case, the court found that one of the fines imposed was indeed higher than what the law allowed. They modified that fine to the correct amount. In the end, the court denied Eifert's request to change his sentence but changed one fine to align with the legal limits. Most of the judgments from the Ottawa County District Court were confirmed. Overall, while Eifert's appeal was mostly unsuccessful, one part of his sentence was modified due to an error, showing that the court takes care to ensure fairness in sentencing.
In OCCA case No. C-2013-309, the petitioner appealed his conviction for possession of controlled substances and possession of contraband. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his request to withdraw his guilty plea and affirmed the lower court's judgment and sentence. One justice dissented. The case involved Joseph Leonard Cox, Jr., who entered a guilty plea to charges related to drug possession. This plea was part of a deal to resolve two separate cases. The court sentenced him to ten years in prison for one charge and five years for another, with some fines. The sentences would run at the same time, which means he would serve them together. Later, Cox wrote a letter that seemed to ask to take back his guilty plea. The court had a hearing about this but decided not to let him withdraw the plea. Cox's main arguments were that he was pressured into his plea, his lawyer did not help him enough, and he wanted a new hearing to challenge his plea. However, the court found that there wasn’t enough evidence to show he was coerced into pleading guilty. They also determined that his legal representation during the hearing was sufficient. The court noted that the rules allowed for his past time in jail to be counted toward his sentence, and they directed the lower court to correct its records to reflect this. In summary, they denied his request but agreed on the correction of his time served in the sentencing documents. Thus, the earlier decision of the district court was largely upheld.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-1165, the petitioner appealed his conviction for Child Abuse or, in the alternative, Enabling Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for an evidentiary hearing with conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented. Gabriel Brian Solis entered a type of guilty plea called an Alford plea, where he did not admit guilt but accepted a sentence possibility. He was sentenced to 80 years in prison and a $100 fine. Solis later wanted to take back his plea and filed a request to withdraw it, but this request was denied after two hearings where no real evidence was presented. The court noted that Solis did not get a fair chance to prove why he wanted to withdraw his plea, as he did not have a proper evidentiary hearing where witnesses could provide testimony or be questioned. It was also noted that during the hearing, Solis's attorney might have had a conflict of interest, which meant he could not represent Solis effectively. The court found that the trial judge did not allow enough evidence or witness testimonies at the hearings. Because of these issues, the case was sent back to the lower court so that Solis could have a proper evidentiary hearing with a new, conflict-free attorney. The remaining claims in Solis's appeal were no longer considered necessary since the hearing was to be redone.
In OCCA case No. C-2013-150, a person appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance in the presence of a child and child neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to deny some requests but modified the sentence. One judge dissented. The case involved Jennifer Michelle Stumpe, who pled guilty to two crimes. The first was possessing marijuana in front of a child, and the second was child neglect. She entered a program to help people with drug problems. Unfortunately, her participation in the program did not go well, leading the state to seek to terminate her involvement in the program. After agreeing to terminate her program participation, Stumpe was sentenced to five years in prison for each crime, but the sentences would run together. She later asked the court to let her take back her guilty plea, claiming she did not get a fair chance because of her lawyer and that she didn't understand the consequences of her plea. The court looked closely at her claims. Stumpe argued she did not get good help from her lawyer and that she was confused about the law and the possible punishments. However, the court found that these claims should not change the outcome of her case and that there was no big mistake made that would affect her rights significantly. Stumpe specifically challenged the length of her sentence for the first crime. The law said she could only get a maximum of two years in prison for that charge, but the court had given her five years. The court agreed that this was a mistake and decided to change her five-year sentence for that crime down to two years while keeping the other parts of her punishment the same. In summary, while Stumpe's requests to withdraw her pleas based on poor advice were denied, the court granted her request to reduce her sentence for the first crime to match the law.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-1154, Charles D. North appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter, among other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to grant North's request to withdraw his guilty pleas due to the fact that he was denied his right to have a lawyer present during the hearing on this motion. North also challenged the legality of his sentences for two other counts. The court agreed that those sentences exceeded what was allowed by law. Therefore, they vacated the illegal sentences and sent the case back to the lower court for North to have new counsel and a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his pleas. No one dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-276, Bobby Ray Laney appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for a Writ of Certiorari. The court determined that Laney should be allowed to withdraw his Alford plea due to ineffective assistance of counsel concerning his competency to enter the plea. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-699, Holstine appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his request and remanded the case for a proper hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-686, Joseph Dewayne Conner appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery and First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal regarding the robbery conviction, but granted it concerning the burglary conviction. The court found that Conner had been misinformed about the possible sentence for burglary, which affected his decision to plead guilty. Although Conner’s actual sentence was within the correct range, the incorrect information he received could have influenced his plea. #n dissented on the decision regarding the robbery conviction.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-664, Juan Gabriel Choxmis appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Choxmis's petition for a writ of certiorari, meaning they agreed to look at his case again because he did not receive fair representation at his hearing to withdraw his guilty plea. The court found he should have had a lawyer who did not have a conflict of interest. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-277, Crystal Lynn Erb appealed her conviction for Child Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for the appointment of new, conflict-free counsel to represent Erb in her application to withdraw her Alford plea. One judge dissented. Crystal Lynn Erb was charged with child neglect after she was accused of not taking care of her infant, Tamberlyn Wheeler. The events that led to the charges happened between January 2008 and April 2008, but the official charges were not filed until January 2011. This was a delay of almost 2 years and 9 months. A preliminary hearing took place in May 2011, and Erb was bound over on the charge. On October 12, 2011, she entered an Alford plea, which means she did not admit guilt but accepted a plea deal because it was in her best interest. She agreed to testify against her co-defendant, Samuel Wheeler, and was released on her own recognizance. During the sentencing hearing in February 2012, Erb was sentenced to 30 years in prison. Shortly after, her lawyer filed a motion for her to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing that Erb was innocent. However, during the hearing for this motion, the lawyer did not present any strong arguments or evidence for why Erb should be allowed to withdraw her plea. The judge denied the motion. Erb later filed an appeal and sought a review by the court, raising several claims for why her plea should be re-evaluated. She argued that her plea was not made knowingly or intelligently and that she did not receive good legal help due to a conflict with her attorney. The court noted that the issues Erb raised in her appeal were not dealt with properly by her lawyer when they tried to withdraw her plea. The court expressed concerns about whether her plea was voluntary and if her attorney did not provide effective assistance. Since the same lawyer represented Erb during both the plea and the motion process, the court decided that Erb needed a new attorney who could help her without any conflicts of interest. As a result, the court ordered that the case be sent back to appoint a new lawyer for Erb so that they could help her file a new application to withdraw her Alford plea and represent her in any related hearings. The decision was made to ensure that Erb received fair and effective legal help.