In OCCA case No. F-2017-1230, Oleithia June Cudjo appealed her conviction for second degree murder while in the commission of felony driving under the influence, driving while privileged suspended, and transporting an open container of liquor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1191, Leroy Edward Gilbert, Jr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One justice dissented. The case involved the murder of Erma Jean Goodou, who was killed in 1994. For many years, the murderer remained unknown. Goodou was found dead in her home, showing signs of a violent struggle. There were indications that someone entered through a window, attacked her, and fled. Despite extensive investigation, her murder stayed unsolved for almost twenty years. In 2013, some of the evidence was retested, which produced DNA that identified Gilbert as the suspect. He had previously denied knowing Goodou despite having been a high school acquaintance. His fingerprints were also found at the crime scene. During the trial, Gilbert testified, claiming they had a secret relationship and tried to explain the presence of his DNA and prints, but the evidence was compelling against him. Appellant's arguments in the appeal included claims of improper jury instructions regarding the 85% Rule, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that while there were errors in jury instructions, specifically about the 85% Rule not being applicable to his case, these did not affect his substantial rights or the outcome. The comments made by the prosecutor during the trial were also deemed not to have harmed Gilbert's defense. Ultimately, despite a dissenting opinion regarding the impact of those errors, the court upheld the trial's decision, maintaining Gilbert's conviction for First Degree Murder and sentencing him to life without the possibility of parole.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1140, Michael Harold Denham appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Michael Harold Denham was found guilty of a crime related to domestic abuse. The jury, which is a group of people that decides if someone is guilty or not, recommended that he be sentenced to three years in prison. The judge who oversaw the trial followed this recommendation and also ordered that Denham pay some fees and receive credit for the time he had already spent in jail before the trial. Denham's appeal claimed that several mistakes had occurred during his trial. He listed five main points where he believed the trial had not been fair: 1. The trial court allowed the state to have an expert witness testify about domestic abuse. Denham argued that this was a mistake. 2. He said that one of the witnesses who testified about domestic violence was not properly qualified to do so. 3. Denham claimed that some evidence was admitted that should not have been according to the rules of evidence. 4. He argued that the court did not let his defense team ask questions about one juror, which meant they could not see if the juror was biased. 5. Finally, he said that all these mistakes happened together and made the whole trial unfair. The court looked closely at Denham's claims and the evidence from the trial. They decided that the court did not make errors that were significant enough to change the outcome of the trial. For the first point about the expert witness, the court ruled that Denham did not show why his defense would have benefited from having his own expert witness. His claim of needing a continuance (more time) to prepare for the trial was not justified because he could not show how it would have helped his case. For the second point, the court decided that the qualifications of the expert witness were acceptable. The judge found that the officer had enough training and experience in domestic violence matters to testify. Regarding the third point, Denham did not follow the right procedure to complain about the late disclosure of the expert witness. As a result, the court found no major violations that would affect the trial's fairness. For the fourth point, the court reviewed how the trial judge handled questions for the jurors. They found that the process was fair because the juror had given no indication beforehand that she would be biased. Lastly, for the fifth point about the overall fairness of the trial, the court did not agree that the combined claims could show any level of unfairness. They found no cumulative error that would merit a different outcome. In conclusion, the court upheld Denham's conviction, deciding that he received a fair trial and that the claims of error did not have enough merit to change the verdict. The appeal was denied, and the conviction was confirmed, meaning Denham would serve his sentence as decided by the jury.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-639, Christopher Lantz Wildman appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided that his conviction would be upheld. One judge dissented. Christopher Wildman was found guilty by a jury of killing someone and was sentenced to 12 years in prison. He was awarded credit for the time he served before the trial. Wildman argued several points in his appeal, claiming that his rights were violated during the trial. First, he said the evidence didn’t prove he wasn’t acting in self-defense, which is an important legal argument in these cases. He believed that if the evidence did not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with wrongful intent, he should not have been convicted. However, the court found that there was enough evidence suggesting he did not act in self-defense. Wildman also claimed that his trial was unfair because some evidence showed bad character, and that the trial court did not properly instruct the jury on how to consider that evidence. The court reviewed this point and decided that the evidence presented was not overly prejudicial, so it allowed the trial to continue without a limiting instruction. He argued prosecutorial misconduct, which means he felt the prosecutor acted inappropriately during the trial. Wildman argued that remarks made by the prosecutor affected his right to a fair trial. The court noted that comments made by the prosecutor were not serious enough to change the outcome of the trial and were in response to claims made by Wildman. Wildman believed that his attorney did not perform well and that he should have had a better defense. The court examined this claim closely. It stated that for someone to prove their lawyer was ineffective, they need to show that their lawyer's performance was very poor and that it influenced the trial's outcome. The court found that Wildman's lawyer did not make serious mistakes. Additionally, he felt that some evidence about the victim’s habits was improperly allowed into the trial. However, since he did not object to this evidence during the trial, it made it harder for him to appeal this point later. Finally, Wildman argued that all these errors combined led to an unfair trial. The court did not find any significant errors, so they upheld the conviction. In conclusion, the court affirmed Wildman's conviction and sentence, stating that the original trial was fair and proper according to the evidence and legal standards.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-184, Juanita Martinez Gomez appealed her conviction for First Degree Malice Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction. One judge dissented. Juanita, a 49-year-old woman, was found guilty of killing her daughter, Geneva Gomez, who was 33 years old, in Oklahoma City. The events took place in August 2016 after a violent encounter at Juanita's home. Geneva had previously lived with her boyfriend but went to collect her belongings with her mother. The boyfriend later became worried when he could not communicate with Geneva. The trial revealed that when the boyfriend visited Juanita's home, he found Geneva's body. She had severe injuries on her head and signs that she had been beaten. Instead of asking for help, Juanita showed strange behavior, claiming that Geneva was possessed. Evidence showed that Juanita attempted to clean up the crime scene and tried to prevent her boyfriend from leaving. At trial, Juanita did not testify, and her lawyers claimed that her odd behavior and statements meant she did not kill her daughter with intent. The jury, however, found that the evidence showed a clear intention to kill, considering the violent nature of the attack and Juanita's actions afterward. Juanita raised multiple claims of error in her appeal, but the court found that she had not been denied a fair trial. Her statements to the police about her motive for killing Geneva were not allowed in court because they were considered hearsay. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that it was sufficient to support the conviction for malice murder, rejecting Juanita's claims for lesser charges or defenses. The court ultimately affirmed the judgment of the District Court.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1270, Bryan James Abner appealed his conviction for several offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the decision to terminate him from drug court and sentence him according to the plea agreement. One judge dissented. Bryan James Abner was involved in multiple criminal cases related to theft, guns, drugs, and burglary. He was given the chance to join a Drug Court program to help him with his drug addiction instead of going straight to prison. However, if he did not follow the rules of the program, he would be sentenced for his crimes. Abner did well in the Drug Court for the first six months, but then he started to have problems. He tested positive for methamphetamine several times, had legal troubles, and missed appointments. The State's attorney asked to terminate him from the Drug Court because of these issues. During the hearing, witnesses testified about Abner's behavior. One officer found drugs on him, and a supervisor explained that Abner had many chances to improve but did not make enough progress. Abner's counselor testified that he had learned from some difficult experiences, including the death of his son, and asked for another chance in the program. The judge decided against Abner, saying that despite what the counselor said, Abner's problems continued. She noted that he had broken the rules of the Drug Court many times and had not responded to the chances he had been given. In summary, the court ruled that Abner needed to be removed from the Drug Court program for not following the rules, and he was sentenced based on his plea agreement. The court found that the evidence supported this decision, and there was no abuse of discretion by the judge.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1231, Antonio Tiwan Taylor appealed his conviction for two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One member of the court dissented. Antonio Tiwan Taylor was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma for harming his girlfriend's seven-year-old daughter in December 2014. The girl talked about what happened to her, and the State also shared letters that Taylor wrote to the child's mother where he seemed to admit his actions and apologize. Furthermore, a young woman testified that Taylor had raped her before, which was included to show his tendency to commit such acts. Taylor appealed his conviction on several points. First, he argued the trial court should not have allowed the woman’s testimony, claiming it was more harmful than helpful to his case. The court reviewed this claim and found no error in allowing her testimony; they saw it as relevant and not unfairly prejudicial to Taylor. Second, during the trial, the woman who made the earlier accusation did not show up, and Taylor argued that her absence meant her prior testimony shouldn’t be used. The court decided she was unavailable and allowed her earlier testimony to be read to the jury. Taylor disagreed but the court believed the State made enough effort to locate her, and they maintained that her previous testimony was still valid and credible. Next, Taylor made a claim based on collateral estoppel. This is a legal principle that says if someone was found not guilty of a crime, they shouldn’t be tried again for the same issue. Taylor believed that because he was acquitted of raping the woman in question, her testimony should not have been used against him in this case. However, the court explained that an acquittal does not mean the person is innocent but that there was reasonable doubt about their guilt. Thus, they could still consider the facts of the earlier case for a different purpose. Lastly, Taylor argued that even if the trial had a few errors, they added up to a reason for a new trial. Since the court found no errors in the previous claims, this argument was also denied. The court ultimately affirmed the decisions made during the trial, meaning Taylor's convictions and sentences remained in place.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1167, Revival Aso Pogi appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Revival Aso Pogi was convicted of murdering Steven Qualls in Oklahoma City in April 2014. Qualls was found dead in his home, and the scene was very bloody. An autopsy showed he had been beaten and stabbed over fifty times. Pogi was arrested after his wallet and bloody handprints were found at the crime scene. During police questioning, Pogi initially denied any involvement but later admitted to killing Qualls, stating he acted in self-defense after being held captive. Pogi’s appeal raised several arguments. He claimed that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction and that the trial court made mistakes. He argued that the jury should have been given instructions on a lesser charge of manslaughter, that his statements to police were made under duress, and that evidence of the victim's past conduct was improperly excluded. Pogi also challenged the use of a graphic photograph of the victim and claimed that the cumulative impact of all errors warranted a new trial. The court rejected Pogi's claims. They found that the jury had enough evidence to conclude that Pogi intentionally killed Qualls and that his self-defense claim wasn’t justified. They ruled that the trial court made appropriate decisions about jury instructions and evidence. The court noted that even if there were errors, they were harmless and did not affect the outcome of the trial. Ultimately, the court upheld Pogi's conviction for First Degree Murder and confirmed the life sentence imposed by the trial judge.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1042, Vincent Ray Perosi appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. The case began when Perosi, who had recently divorced, was ordered to leave the house he had been living in by January 1, 2016. After that date, his ex-wife, Pamela Perosi, returned to the house with two friends to change the locks because he had not moved out. This led to a confrontation. Perosi shot and killed Pamela and another friend, Buddy Weber, while wounding Karen Priest, who was also present. Perosi claimed he shot in self-defense, saying he was scared of Weber. However, evidence showed that he had a history of threats against his ex-wife and evidence contradicted his version of events. The court ruled that he did not qualify for immunity under the Stand Your Ground law and denied his request for related jury instructions. In reviewing the evidence, the court found sufficient proof to support the convictions, rejecting Perosi's claims of self-defense and that shooting Pamela was accidental. Further, his videotaped confession was admitted as evidence, despite defense claims it was coerced; the court found it was voluntary. In addition, the court allowed testimony about Perosi's bad character and a victim impact statement from Pamela’s family. Ultimately, the court upheld the trial’s decisions and affirmed the conviction, denying any errors raised in the appeal.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1214, Marco Antonio Hernandez appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Methamphetamine) and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute (Marijuana & Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences as they were presented. A dissenting opinion noted disagreement with the majority's conclusions regarding lesser included offenses and related jurisprudence. Here’s a summary of the case events: Marco Hernandez was found guilty of serious drug offenses after police searched his motel room and discovered illegal drugs and paraphernalia. Specifically, the officers found marijuana, methamphetamine, cocaine, and various drug-related items. The police execution of the search warrant included forcing entry into his room when no one answered the door. During their search, they also found evidence suggesting Hernandez had been dealing drugs for a long time. Hernandez was sentenced to life in prison, with fines associated with his offenses. Throughout the trial, Hernandez confessed to drug possession and selling drugs, but he also tried to shift some of the blame to his girlfriend. The court faced challenges regarding whether the jury was correctly instructed on lesser included offenses, which could provide alternative verdict options for the jury beyond the heavier charges they faced. Hernandez’s appeals focused on the court's jury instructions and his attorney's effectiveness during the trial. The majority opinion found that the trial court did not err in not giving instructions about lesser included offenses since there was not sufficient evidence to support these lesser charges. Ultimately, the appeals court agreed with the trial court's decisions and upheld the convictions, despite dissenting opinions that argued for a need to reconsider how lesser offenses were treated in this case. The judgment and sentence were thus affirmed, meaning Hernandez's convictions and sentences stood as delivered by the lower court.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1189, Lawrence Raymond Silver, Jr. appealed his conviction for Solicitation for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence from the district court. One judge dissented. The case started when Silver was tried and found guilty of trying to get someone to commit murder. The jury decided he should go to prison for thirty-seven years. During the trial, Silver raised several issues on appeal. First, he argued that the prosecutor said some unfair things that hurt his chances for a fair trial. However, the court found that these comments were not serious enough to make the trial unfair, and there was no error. Silver also thought that he should not have received three years of supervision after leaving prison since the law said this only applied to specific crimes. The court agreed that there was an error, but the trial judge later fixed it, reducing the supervision time to nine months to a year. Because this was corrected, Silver did not need any more relief on this issue. Additionally, Silver claimed that his lawyer did not help him well enough during the trial. The court explained that to show his lawyer was ineffective, Silver needed to prove that if the lawyer had done better, the result of the trial would have been different. Since the court didn't find any of the previous claims valid, they decided that his lawyer's work couldn't be judged as ineffective. Finally, Silver said that even if no single issue mattered on its own, the overall mistakes during the trial combined to deny him a fair trial. The court ruled that without any valid individual mistakes, his claim for cumulative errors was groundless. In conclusion, the court upheld the original judgment and sentence against Silver, and his request for further testing of his lawyer's assistance was denied.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1104, Joseph Johnson appealed his conviction for first degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Joseph Johnson was found guilty of killing Quavis Trae Cato during an argument over a car. The jury sentenced Johnson to life in prison without parole. The incident happened on October 10, 2016, when Johnson shot Cato 14 times, after a dispute over a stolen car. Witnesses testified that Johnson was armed with two guns and returned to the argument after briefly leaving the scene. During the trial, Johnson's defense argued for instructions on lesser charges of manslaughter, claiming he acted in the heat of passion or self-defense. However, the court found no evidence that Cato provoked Johnson sufficiently to warrant such instructions. The judges decided that Johnson escalated the situation by bringing guns into the argument and that simply being angry or upset does not justify the use of deadly force. Johnson also claimed that the prosecutor's closing arguments contained misconduct, asserting that they misled the jury about the facts and the law of self-defense, but the court found no errors that affected the fairness of the trial. Finally, Johnson’s defense argued that his lawyer didn't perform adequately by not presenting expert testimony about psychological conditions that might have affected his perception of the situation. However, the court concluded that even if the lawyer's performance was deficient, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the trial because Johnson had initiated the conflict while armed. In summary, the court upheld the conviction for murder, concluding that Johnson acted with intent and malice when he killed Cato. The judges agreed that there was no basis for a lesser charge or for claims of ineffective counsel. Overall, the ruling was in favor of maintaining the original sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-145, Davis appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his termination from the Drug Court program. One judge dissented. On June 23, 2015, Davis pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine. He was given a chance to avoid prison by being put on probation for five years. However, in December 2016, the state said Davis was not following the rules of his probation, leading to his case being taken to Drug Court in March 2017. Drug Court was meant to help him, but it also had strict rules he had to follow. If he completed the program successfully, he could avoid serious penalties. In January 2018, the state said Davis had broken the rules of the Drug Court and asked to have him removed from the program. After a hearing, the judge agreed, and Davis was taken out of Drug Court. Davis appealed this decision, saying the state did not prove he should be terminated and that his mental health issues were not considered. However, the court found no evidence that further sanctions would have helped him follow the rules. Throughout his time in Drug Court, he repeatedly missed appointments and failed to participate, which meant he was not eligible for further leniency. On the issue of his mental health, Davis did not present any evidence in court to explain how his mental health affected his ability to comply with the Drug Court program. Therefore, the court did not find this argument convincing. Ultimately, the court decided that the judge did not make a mistake in removing Davis from Drug Court, and his appeal was denied.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1259, Davis appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving with a suspended license. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of Davis from the Drug Court program and upheld his sentencing. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1103, the appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One justice dissented. Jose Jonathan Rivera-Chavez was convicted of killing Wanda Cooper at a hotel. On December 27, 2016, Cooper went to the hotel office pleading for help while covered in blood. She collapsed shortly after and died from her injuries. Witnesses saw Rivera-Chavez trying to open car doors nearby after the incident. The police found him on the run and apprehended him with help from a police dog. Evidence showed blood on his clothes matched Cooper's. During the trial, Rivera-Chavez claimed he was under the influence of drugs and did not intend to kill Cooper. He admitted to stabbing her multiple times with a knife after becoming paranoid during a drug high. Despite his defense, the court noted that his actions and demeanor suggested he was not severely intoxicated. One key issue in the appeal was whether the court allowed evidence of Rivera-Chavez's silence after being read his rights, which he claimed violated his rights. The court found that this evidence was used properly to address his claim of voluntary intoxication and did not unfairly suggest guilt. The court concluded that even if there had been some error in admitting the evidence, it was harmless because ample evidence showed Rivera-Chavez's intent to kill. The judgment and sentence were ultimately upheld.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-970, Angelica C. Coats appealed her conviction for several crimes including drug possession and obstruction of an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court’s decision to accelerate her deferred judgment and sentence because she had violated probation by failing to pay required fees. One judge dissented, arguing that she was not willfully failing to pay because she had been declared indigent in court and there was no inquiry into her ability to pay.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-952, Jerry Don Battenfield appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child under age twelve. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. Mr. Battenfield was found guilty without a jury and received a sentence of thirty years in prison and a fine for each of the two counts, which means he must serve over twenty-five years before he can be considered for parole. He raised several arguments on appeal. First, he argued that he did not understand that he was giving up his right to a jury trial. He believed he might face the death penalty, but the court found he was not misled about the possible punishment. Therefore, his claim was denied. Second, he claimed that the judge improperly relied on evidence that was not admitted during the trial. However, the court found that the judge could only use the evidence that was presented and determined there was no error. Third, he argued that there should have been a hearing to check if child hearsay was reliable before it was allowed in court. The court noted that his attorney had actually agreed to let the hearsay in, which meant that there was no error to review. In the fourth point, he contended that some of the child’s statements were allowed into the trial in a way that violated his right to confront witnesses. The court agreed that there was a mistake concerning some statements but concluded the mistake was harmless, as there was enough other evidence to show he was guilty. Fifth, he stated that his lawyer did a poor job for not fighting harder to protect his rights during the trial. However, the court believed that the lawyer did not make any major mistakes that would have changed the outcome of the trial. Finally, he asked for a review based on multiple mistakes during the trial. The court found that the previous issues did not add up to deny him a fair trial. The court affirmed the judgment and said that the decisions made during the trial were generally correct, despite acknowledging a small error regarding the child’s statements. Overall, his appeal was denied, and he will continue to serve his sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-911, the appellant appealed his conviction for various offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of the appellant from the Drug Court program. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, previously convicted of two counts of Second Degree Burglary, was sentenced to twenty-one years for each count but with most of that time suspended. While under supervision, the appellant was accused of violating the terms of his release due to new criminal charges. He later pleaded guilty to those new charges as well. To avoid serving the full sentences, the appellant entered a Drug Court program aimed at helping him overcome substance abuse issues. However, after several years in the program, he faced multiple sanctions for drug use and missed compliance with program rules. Eventually, the state moved to terminate him from Drug Court, asserting he had violated several agreements tied to his participation. During the hearing to decide whether he should be removed from the program, the trial judge ultimately decided that the appellant had not adequately followed the rules and terminated his participation. The appellant then argued that the judge should have considered giving him additional chances rather than terminating him outright. The court checked to see if the trial judge had abused his discretion, meaning if the judge made a choice that was unreasonable or did not follow the law. The records showed the appellant had been sanctioned several times over his three years in the program, but he continued to struggle with drug use. The court found no evidence that the judge had failed to weigh all the necessary factors before deciding to end the appellant's time in Drug Court. In the end, the court affirmed the decision to terminate the appellant from the Drug Court program, stating that the earlier judgments regarding his sentence also needed no changes since the mistakes made in paperwork were corrected. Therefore, the appeal was largely dismissed as moot.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-849, Samuel Cosby appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Samuel Cosby was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County and sentenced to life imprisonment. He raised several arguments to claim that errors during the trial affected his right to a fair trial. First, Mr. Cosby argued that the trial court made a mistake by not having a pretrial hearing to check if the expert testimony about firearms was reliable. The court found no error in allowing the expert testimony because it is generally accepted in trials. Second, he claimed the firearms expert's analysis was flawed and unfair. However, the court decided that there was no plain error since the expert's opinion was based on accepted methods. Third, he argued that a phone call he made from jail should not have been used as evidence. While he objected in court, the judges felt the phone call was relevant because it showed he was aware of the situation. Fourth, Mr. Cosby said there were mistakes in how evidence was handled, particularly about the victim's injuries. The court ruled that the evidence was necessary for proving the case. Fifth, he felt the jury instructions were wrong because his request for an explanation about inconsistent statements was denied. The court explained that the victim's testimony was not inconsistent enough to require such an instruction. Lastly, Mr. Cosby claimed he did not receive effective help from his lawyer. The court found that since these errors did not actually happen, this claim was also not valid. The overall decision was that the judgment and sentence against Mr. Cosby were correct, and his appeals did not show any significant errors that affected the fairness of his trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-559, Jonas Jorge Conroy-Perez appealed his conviction for Harboring a Fugitive From Justice. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing. One judge dissented. The case started when Conroy-Perez entered a guilty plea in 2015, which allowed him to avoid immediate penalties but required him to follow certain rules for two years. One of these rules involved paying fees. Later, the state claimed he violated these rules by not only missing payments but also due to new felony charges. In 2017, after a hearing, the judge decided that Conroy-Perez had violated his probation and increased his sentence to a 10-year term, with time suspended except for the first 90 days in jail. Conroy-Perez argued that he couldn’t pay the fees because he was unable to work after a vehicle accident and was receiving worker's compensation. The court looked into his arguments. On one hand, the court agreed that while the state proved he owed money, they should also have checked whether he was willfully not paying. The state did not show he could afford to pay the fees, thus the court ruled it was not right to increase his sentence based solely on that. Therefore, they sent the case back for further examination. On other points of appeal, the court found that there was no evidence his legal representation was inadequate and did not rule on the length of the new sentence since they had already reversed it. The dissenting judge noted concern about the implications of the ruling, emphasizing the importance of understanding a person’s ability to pay before increasing sentences for not paying fees.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1038, Zachary Craig Anderson appealed his conviction for Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Zachary Craig Anderson was found guilty after a trial for neglecting a child, which is against the law. The judge gave him a sentence of 20 years in prison but also gave him credit for the time he had already served. Anderson did not agree with his conviction and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to review the decision made in his original trial. Anderson claimed that his lawyer did not help him effectively by not challenging the statements he made to the police. He argued that his lawyer should have questioned whether those statements could be used against him in court because he was not read his rights, which are important for protecting people when they are being questioned by police. These rights are known as Miranda rights, and they are designed to help ensure that people are not forced to speak without understanding their rights. In the appeal, the court looked at whether Anderson's lawyer did a good job or not. To win this argument, Anderson had to show that his lawyer's performance was poor and that this hurt his chances of a fair trial. The court found that Anderson did not show evidence that his lawyer was ineffective. They said that Anderson actually voluntarily talked to the police and did not feel pressured or threatened. Since he cooperated, the court thought there was no reason for the lawyer to challenge his statements to the police. After looking at all the evidence and arguments, the court decided to keep Anderson's conviction and sentence as they were. They also denied his request for a hearing to discuss the effectiveness of his lawyer's help during the trial. In summary, Anderson's appeal did not lead to any changes in his conviction. The court agreed that the statements he made to the police were allowed and that his lawyer’s actions were reasonable in the situation.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1166, the appellant appealed his conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of the appellant's deferred sentence. One judge dissented. The appellant, Kenneth Allen Day, was charged with two crimes: unauthorized use of a vehicle and concealing stolen property. He pleaded guilty to the first charge, and the second was dismissed. His sentence was postponed until 2021, with conditions he needed to follow during probation. However, the State later claimed he had not followed these conditions, including not reporting as he was supposed to and being involved in new criminal activity. During a hearing, it was found that he had indeed violated his probation rules. As a result, the court decided to move up the date for his sentencing, leading to a five-year prison term and a fine. The appellant argued that the court had made a mistake in this decision. However, the court found that the trial court acted within its rights and did not abuse its discretion. Thus, they confirmed the earlier decision about the appellant's sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-950, Terry Lyn Elkins appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine and Resisting an Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but remand for resentencing on the possession count. One judge dissented. Terry Lyn Elkins was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine and for resisting a police officer. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison for the drug charge and fined $500 for resisting the officer. The jury did not find him guilty of assaulting a police officer. Elkins argued that the trial was unfair because the jury saw evidence that was not relevant to his case, which might have affected their decision about his punishment. The evidence included a document from the Department of Corrections that had many details about Elkins’ past, including other crimes he committed many years ago. Some of this information was not needed for the current case and could have made the jury think more negatively about him. The judges decided that while the evidence showing Elkins’ past convictions was correctly used, parts of the additional information were not relevant and should not have been presented to the jury. They believed that this extra information could have influenced how the jury decided on the punishment. Therefore, they decided to keep the convictions as is, but send the case back to lower court for a new review of his punishment for the meth charge. In a separate opinion, a judge agreed with keeping the conviction but believed that sending the case back for resentencing was not necessary since Elkins did not receive the maximum punishment possible.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-758, Shawn Conrad Freeman appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including Kidnapping, Forcible Sodomy, Rape in the First Degree, and Robbery in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the District Court. The court did, however, instruct the District Court to correct a clerical error regarding the fine for one of the robbery counts. Freeman was tried by jury and was found guilty on multiple counts involving four separate women. The jury sentenced him to long prison terms and significant fines. The trial court followed the jury's recommendations for sentencing. Freeman raised several arguments on appeal. He argued that having multiple convictions for crimes like Kidnapping, Rape, and Forcible Sodomy at once was unfair and violated laws against double punishment. However, the court found that the crimes were separate and showed that each act occurred at different times, meaning he could be punished for all of them. He also claimed that trying all fourteen counts together was wrong because it might have led the jury to convict him based on the total evidence rather than on proof for each individual charge. The court determined that the offenses were connected enough to be tried together and that no error occurred. Another point of contention was that one of the victims couldn't testify in court, and the jury was allowed to hear her previously recorded testimony instead. The court upheld this decision, stating that Freeman had previously had the chance to question her during an earlier hearing. Freeman argued that the evidence was not enough to support his robbery conviction. The court disagreed, stating that the evidence clearly showed he unlawfully took property from a victim. He raised questions about misconduct by the prosecutor, ineffective assistance of counsel, and that his sentences were too harsh. The court found no evidence to support his claims of improper actions or ineffective counsel. It ruled that his sentences were not excessively severe given the nature of the crimes he was convicted for. Finally, Freeman claimed that the combined issues during the trial denied him a fair trial. However, the court noted that it found no individual errors that would warrant a new trial. In conclusion, the court affirmed Freeman's convictions and sentences but ordered a correction to a minor error in the judgment regarding the fine imposed for one count of robbery. There was a dissenting opinion from one of the judges.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1053, Greenwood appealed her conviction for drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her termination from the Drug Court program but required the lower court to remove a $500 fine that had been improperly assessed. One judge dissented. The case began when Greenwood, on October 13, 2015, agreed to participate in the Drug Court program after pleading no contest to a charge of possessing methamphetamine and guilty to having drug paraphernalia. If she successfully completed the program, her sentence would be deferred, meaning she wouldn't have to serve time unless she failed to meet the program requirements. However, on August 31, 2017, the State asked to terminate Greenwood from the Drug Court program. The judge held a hearing where they discussed her progress. The judge decided to end her participation because Greenwood had not been following the rules of the program. As a result, she was sentenced according to her plea agreement, but the judge also added a $500 fine. Greenwood did not agree with this fine and argued that it was illegal because it wasn't part of her original plea deal. She also claimed it wasn't fair to terminate her from the program since she felt that the court hadn't tried hard enough to help her comply with the program's requirements through smaller penalties before jumping to termination. The court looked at her arguments. They found that the fine was indeed not allowed because of the rules surrounding Drug Courts, which require that once admitted, a judge can't change the conditions of someone's plea agreement. Since Greenwood's agreement stated she wouldn't have a fine, the court ordered the lower court to remove that $500 fine. As for her termination from the Drug Court, the judges looked at the evidence that showed she had repeatedly not followed the rules. There was testimony showing she missed meetings, didn’t show up for drug testing, and was not engaging with the services offered to her. The court found that while Greenwood believed she wasn't given enough help, it was ultimately her responsibility to follow the rules. In the end, the court decided to keep the termination of Greenwood from the Drug Court but mandated that the fine be taken away. The ruling confirmed that the Drug Court successfully supported the justice system while also highlighting the importance of personal responsibility in such programs.