In OCCA case No. F-2008-329, the appellant appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, Possession of Controlled Substance, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Driving a Motor Vehicle while Under the Influence of Alcohol and Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that because there was no record showing that the appellant waived his right to a jury trial, his conviction must be overturned and he is entitled to a new trial. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-214, Joe Lee Birmingham appealed his conviction for three counts of lewd and indecent acts with a child under sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentences to four years imprisonment in each count, to be served concurrently, and as modified, the decision was affirmed. One judge dissented. Joe Lee Birmingham was found guilty by a jury of three counts of lewd acts against a child in the District Court of Oklahoma County. He was sentenced to four years for each count, and the sentences were to be served back-to-back. Birmingham had raised several arguments in his appeal, saying his trial was unfair because important evidence was not allowed, his lawyer didn’t help him properly, and other issues with the trial and sentencing. First, he argued that the judge would not let him show he had a medical condition called ALS, which he thought was important for his defense. However, the court concluded that this evidence did not really change the situation since he admitted to touching the girl, even if he said it wasn’t inappropriate. Next, Birmingham claimed his lawyer made many mistakes that hurt his case, but the court found that the mistakes did not likely change the trial's outcome. He also said that the proof his actions were wrong wasn’t good enough, but the court disagreed, stating that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to reach a conclusion. Birmingham’s complaints about not getting the right jury instructions were found to be invalid, as he did not raise them during the trial. Regarding the idea that changing one of the charges after the state had presented its evidence was incorrect, the court found it was done properly. Birmingham said the prosecutor behaved badly during the trial, but the court believed the comments made were just pointing out reasonable conclusions from evidence. His argument about the length of his sentences being too harsh was also denied. The court even said they believed he should serve his sentences concurrently, rather than back-to-back, because of his health issues. Overall, the court felt that the trial was fair, and even if there were some minor issues, they did not believe they negatively affected the outcome much. Thus, they decided his sentences would be adjusted to only four years overall for his actions, instead of having to serve each count one after the other.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-229, an individual appealed his conviction for several counts of child sexual abuse and related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one count. One judge dissented. The individual, Timothy Ray Belvin, faced multiple serious charges in a district court. The charges included child sexual abuse, procuring a child for pornography, and lewd acts with a child. During the trial, some charges were dropped, but he was found guilty on others. The judge sentenced him to life imprisonment on two counts and ten years on the rest, with the sentences being served at the same time. In his appeal, the individual raised several arguments. He claimed that some of his convictions should be overturned due to the statute of limitations, which limits the time for prosecuting a crime. He also argued that there wasn't enough evidence to prove certain charges and that he did not receive proper legal help during his trial. Furthermore, he believed the punishment was too severe. After reviewing everything, the court determined that the prosecution was allowed to pursue one of the charges because there was evidence that acts occurred within the time frame allowed by law. They also found enough evidence for the conviction on several counts. However, they agreed that one charge did not have enough proof, so they reversed that specific conviction. The court also concluded that the defense was effective and that the sentences were appropriate given the nature of the crimes and the circumstances. As a result, the court upheld most of the convictions and instructed the lower court to dismiss one charge.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-848, Marvis Evans appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm after felony conviction, and pointing a firearm at another. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for robbery with a firearm and possession of a firearm but reversed and dismissed the conviction for pointing a firearm. One judge dissented. Marvis Evans was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County for several serious crimes. The jury decided he should spend twenty years in prison for each crime, but some sentences would be served at the same time. Evans argued that he was punished unfairly because of double jeopardy, meaning he did not think he should be tried and punished for the same act in two different ways. He also claimed there wasn't enough proof to prove he committed the crimes. The court looked at Evans's arguments closely. They found that he was guilty of robbery and possession of a firearm, and the law does allow for those two separate charges. However, they agreed that Evans was punished too harshly for pointing a firearm, which they decided to dismiss because it was too similar to the robbery charge. In the end, the court confirmed that he was guilty of robbery and possession of a firearm, but not for pointing a firearm. They ruled that the evidence against him was strong, including being caught shortly after the crime and making incriminating statements to police. Therefore, the court upheld part of his punishment but removed one conviction.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-1253, L. V. Drennon, III, appealed his conviction for distribution of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) within 2000 feet of a school and conspiracy to commit a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Drennon was found guilty of having marijuana and methamphetamine with the intention to distribute, as well as taking part in a conspiracy to distribute these drugs. He was sentenced to 40 years for each of these charges, which would be served at the same time. Drennon argued that he did not receive good help from his lawyer and that his punishment was too harsh. The court looked carefully at Drennon's claims and the evidence surrounding the case, including courtroom records and transcripts. They found that Drennon's lawyer had provided him with reasonable help. Regarding the punishment, the court discovered that the jury had been given wrong information about the length of the possible sentences for the crimes. They had been wrongly told that Drennon faced a longer-term sentence than what was actually correct. The correct rules allow for a shorter minimum sentence of 6 years for possession with intent to distribute and a minimum of 4 years for conspiracy after previous felony convictions. Because of this mistake, the court decided that the jury's punishment was too extreme. As a result, they changed Drennon's sentences to 20 years for each charge, to be served at the same time. In summary, the court agreed with the conviction but changed the length of Drennon’s sentence due to the mistakes made about punishment options.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-526, Chavis Lenard Day appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and Attempted Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence from the District Court. One judge dissented. Chavis Lenard Day was found guilty by a jury for two crimes: shooting someone with the intention to kill and attempting to rob that person using a dangerous weapon. The jury decided that he should serve life in prison for both crimes, but these sentences would happen at the same time, not one after the other. During his appeal, Day raised several concerns about his trial. First, he argued that he should not be punished separately for both crimes because it might violate rules against double jeopardy, which means being tried for the same crime twice. However, the court found that it was okay to punish him for both offenses. Day also questioned if the person who identified him as the shooter was telling the truth. The court looked at the evidence and determined that the jury was allowed to trust this witness's testimony, even if it was challenged during the trial. Another issue Day raised was about the advice given to the jury. He claimed the judge didn’t give certain instructions, like reminding them that eyewitnesses can make mistakes. The court decided that these instructions were not necessary and that the trial was fair. Day also thought a witness should not have talked about changing a photo used in the trial because it could confuse the jury. The court explained that mentioning this did not mean Day had done something wrong or had been involved with gangs. Additionally, Day argued that the jury should have been told about how long he would have to serve in prison before being eligible for parole. However, the court found that the law did not require that information for his specific charge. Finally, Day pointed out that a mistake was made in official documents. They stated he was guilty of robbery when he was actually guilty of attempted robbery. The court agreed and said they would fix this error in the official records. In conclusion, the court affirmed Day's punishment but ordered that the documents reflect the correct details of the conviction. Overall, the court found that none of Day's complaints were enough to change the outcome of the trial except for the clerical correction.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-340, Robert Dewayne Hayes, III appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder Youthful Offender, Shooting with Intent to Kill, and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for First Degree Murder and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, but reversed the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-987, Tony Brown appealed his conviction for Second Degree Burglary and Attempted Larceny of a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Tony Brown was found guilty of breaking into a building and trying to steal a car. He was given a total sentence of 17 years in prison along with a $1,000 fine. Brown believed that he was not given a fair trial for several reasons. He said that the jury should have been told about a simpler crime related to the burglary and that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the charge of attempted car theft. Brown also argued that a witness shouldn’t have been allowed to testify because it hurt his case. Additionally, he claimed that his lawyer didn’t do a good job defending him and that the prosecutor did things that were unfair. After looking at everything, the court found that Brown should have been given information about the simpler crime of unlawful entry, and that the jury should have considered that first. They also felt that the testimony from a detective saying Brown was lying was too much and unfairly harmed his chance to have a fair trial. Because of these issues, the court decided to reverse Brown’s convictions and send the case back for a new trial, where he could have a chance to present his defense properly.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-856, Ricky Louis Hunter appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Proposals or Acts to a Child Under 16 and Unlawful Use of a Computer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for the first count while dismissing the second count due to double punishment concerns. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2007-201, Kristopher Lee Morphew appealed his conviction for Second-degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Morphew's Judgment and Sentence and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Morphew was found guilty of Second-degree Murder after a jury trial. The jury decided on a punishment of twenty years of prison time. However, Morphew argued that he did not receive a fair trial due to several reasons, including ineffective help from his lawyer, errors in jury instructions, and misconduct by the prosecution. The main issue that led to the court's decision was about how the jury was instructed regarding what depraved mind meant in the context of Second-degree Murder. The jury was confused about a key part of the instruction, and the trial judge did not clarify it properly. Because of this, the court found that the instructions did not adequately explain the law and could have led to a misunderstanding during the trial. Since this error was significant enough to possibly change the outcome of the case, the court concluded that Morphew deserved a new trial. The other points raised by Morphew were not discussed because the error regarding jury instructions was sufficient to reverse the conviction. In summary, the court's decision sends Morphew back for a new trial to ensure he receives a fair chance to defend himself under the correct laws and instructions.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-575, Jeffrey Marler appealed his conviction for three counts of Sexual Abuse of a Minor and one count of Possession of Child Pornography. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for the possession count, vacate the fines imposed on all counts, and otherwise affirm the convictions. One judge dissented regarding the sentencing structure for the sexual abuse counts.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-336, Michelle Ann Barry appealed her conviction for First-Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Michelle Ann Barry was found guilty of murdering her infant daughter, Andrea Heath. The jury decided on a life sentence for Barry. Barry argued that the evidence against her was not strong enough to prove she was guilty. Her main point was that the evidence only suggested she might be guilty but did not rule out other possibilities of who could have harmed her child. The court explained that it had to look at the evidence in a way that favored the state. They concluded that the jury could have believed Barry was the one who harmed her daughter. This was largely because the only other person awake during the incident was Barry's five-year-old son, who was too small to cause the injuries. Barry also claimed her lawyer did not do a good job defending her in court. To win this point, she had to show that her lawyer made serious mistakes and that those mistakes changed the outcome of her case. She pointed out that her lawyer failed to object to certain evidence that could have hurt her chances in the trial, like bad character evidence about her lifestyle and drug use. The court agreed with Barry that her lawyer's performance was lacking. They noted that her lawyer didn’t challenge negative testimony that could mislead the jury, and importantly, did not find experts to counter the claims made about her son’s physical inability to cause the injuries. Due to the many mistakes made by her lawyer during the trial, the court felt that Barry's conviction couldn’t stand. They reversed her conviction which means she would have a chance at a new trial to present her case again. One judge dissented, believing that the conviction should be upheld.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-1208, Kendall Dewayne Carr appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Carr being convicted by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. The main issue during his appeal was that Carr was not given a fair trial because he could not remove a juror who showed bias towards police officers. This juror openly stated he would believe police testimonies more than other witness statements, which raised concerns about his ability to be fair. The court agreed that this bias should have led to the juror's removal. They noted that when any doubts exist about a juror's fairness, they should favor the accused. Since this bias was significant, the court ruled that Carr did not receive proper justice and ordered a new trial. They decided not to consider other issues raised in the appeal since the need for a new trial was clear. In summary, the court found that an unfair juror could have influenced the case against Carr, leading to their decision to reverse the conviction and mandate a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-616, Donald and Tanya Dorr appealed their convictions for various drug-related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss all of their convictions. One judge dissented. Donald Dorr was found guilty of growing and possessing marijuana, carrying a firearm as a felon, and possessing drug paraphernalia. He received a 20-year prison sentence and other fines. His wife, Tanya Dorr, was convicted of marijuana cultivation and possession, receiving a suspended sentence and a fine. The Dorrs argued that the police searched their property illegally. They raised several issues about the search, including that it was based on observations from a helicopter without a warrant, and that their consent to search the property was not given freely. The court found that the initial observation from the helicopter did not violate their rights, as the police were allowed to look from the air. However, the Dorrs raised valid points about the lack of a search warrant. The court noted that police did not show there was immediate danger that required them to act quickly without a warrant. The officers had enough time to get a search warrant after spotting the marijuana. The court also considered the circumstances under which Donald Dorr gave consent to search. They found that the large presence of armed officers, along with a helicopter overhead, likely made it challenging for Dorr to give genuine consent. The judges decided that the officers acted inappropriately by not seeking a warrant and that the consent given was not voluntary. Since the evidence obtained from the search was considered illegal, the court concluded that all charges against the Dorrs should be dismissed. This decision rendered the other arguments made by the Dorrs unnecessary. Therefore, all convictions against Donald Dorr and Tanya Dorr were reversed and dismissed.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-767, Walter Roundtree appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, kidnapping, first-degree rape, and forcible sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentences to run concurrently. One member of the court dissented. Walter Roundtree was charged with committing serious crimes, including robbery and rape. After a jury trial, he was found guilty and received various sentences that totaled quite a bit of time in prison. All of his sentences were set to run one after the other, which means he would have to serve them one at a time. Roundtree argued that the judge should have considered allowing his sentences to run at the same time instead. The law allows judges to decide whether sentences can be served concurrently or consecutively. However, the judge in this case had a rule that if someone chose a jury trial and lost, all their sentences would go one after the other. This policy was seen as potentially wrong because it might discourage people from exercising their right to have a jury trial. The court looked closely at this situation and decided that the judge had indeed abused his discretion by not even considering the option of concurrent sentences. Because of this, Roundtree's sentences were changed so that he would serve them at the same time instead of one after the other. The court also discussed some other issues Roundtree raised, such as not getting credit for the time he spent in jail waiting for his trial and the $500 fine that was added to one of his sentences. The court found that the trial didn't violate his rights in these areas, so they upheld the trial's decision regarding those matters. In the end, the court confirmed the conviction but made changes to the way the sentences were to be served, allowing them to be concurrent instead of consecutive.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-438, Gregory Lynn Bryant appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence of six years imprisonment, while vacating the $2500 fine. One judge dissented. Bryant was found guilty of lewd molestation after a jury trial. He had previously faced charges of first-degree rape but was acquitted of that charge. The jury recommended Bryant receive a six-year prison sentence and a fine. Bryant then appealed the decision, listing several reasons for his appeal. He claimed that there were errors that affected his trial. First, he argued the prosecution suggested he had a history of similar misconduct, which he believed was unfair because there was no evidence to support that. Next, he argued that an expert witness's testimony was improperly allowed, which affected the truthfulness of a key witness for the state. Bryant also argued that he should receive credit for time he spent in county jail while waiting for his trial. He further believed that the jury was wrongly instructed about the fine they imposed and that the trial court did not follow proper procedures when jurors had questions. Lastly, he claimed that the trial judge was wrong to stop an expert from testifying about psychological tests he performed on him. After reviewing all the evidence, the court found no errors that would lead to overturning the conviction. The court decided the prosecution did not improperly suggest past crimes. They also stated the expert witness did not comment on the victim's truthfulness and that Bryant was not entitled to credit for time served. Regarding the fine, the court ruled the previous instructions to the jury were incorrect, which led to the fine being vacated. Furthermore, they noted that the rules for communication with jurors were not followed, but this did not harm Bryant's case. Lastly, they concluded that the expert testimony he wanted to present was not relevant to his guilt or innocence. Overall, the court upheld the conviction and confirmed the six-year prison sentence, while directing the trial court to reassess his jail fees.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-1282, Michael Ralph Conroy appealed his conviction for several serious crimes, including first-degree rape, kidnapping, and domestic abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but ordered a new sentencing hearing. One judge dissented, agreeing with the convictions but opposing the need for resentencing. Conroy was found guilty after a jury trial that reviewed evidence against him. He received significant prison time, amounting to 50 years for most of his charges and a year in jail for the domestic abuse charge, along with a fine. During the appeal, Conroy argued various issues, including the admission of evidence related to other crimes, the authenticity of certain exhibits, and the overall lack of evidence supporting his conviction. He also claimed that some evidence presented at trial was not allowed by law and that he did not receive effective legal representation. The court examined all of these arguments. They found that the evidence admitted during the trial was relevant and showed Conroy's guilt, including letters he wrote that indicated his intent to influence witness testimony. The report concerning the sexual assault was also deemed admissible because it fell under a specific exception to regular rules about hearsay. However, the court acknowledged a mistake regarding jury instructions on the 85% rule, which requires certain criminals to serve a significant part of their sentences before being eligible for parole. This oversight necessitated a new hearing only for sentencing. In the end, even though the appeals court affirmed the guilty verdicts, it recognized the trial court should reconsider the sentencing due to the jury instruction error.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-690, Eduardo Rivera Fajardo appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs, failure to obtain a drug tax stamp, and possession of paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction on the latter two counts and to modify the sentence for the drug trafficking conviction. One member of the court dissented. Fajardo was found guilty of trafficking in cocaine and marijuana, failing to obtain a tax stamp for these drugs, and possessing drug paraphernalia. He was sentenced to a total of 44 years in prison and hefty fines. The appeal raised several issues including whether there was enough evidence for the convictions and whether the arguments made by the prosecutor were improper. The court ruled that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to find Fajardo guilty. However, the court noted that the prosecutor had exceeded appropriate arguments during the trial. Still, they determined that this did not deprive Fajardo of a fair trial since the evidence against him was strong. However, the court recognized that the way the punishment was presented to the jury was confusing and that it could have affected the sentence given to Fajardo for drug trafficking. As such, they decided to modify Fajardo’s sentence for that conviction from 44 years to 25 years in prison along with a reduced fine. Ultimately, the court affirmed the conviction on the drug tax stamp and possession charges but modified the prison sentence for drug trafficking, ensuring that any errors in the trial process were addressed.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-636, Bryan William Long, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the sentence imposed by the District Court was vacated, and the case was remanded to determine the total number of days served under the original sentence. In C-2007-743, the judgment and sentence for Burglary in the Second Degree was affirmed, but the District Court was directed to correct the journal entry regarding prior felony convictions. #1 dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-432, Keyion Kaseen Terry appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Drug in Jail (marijuana). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss Terry’s conviction due to jurisdictional issues related to a motion to quash that had been granted by the trial court, which indicated insufficient evidence to proceed with that charge. One member of the court dissented, expressing frustration over the outcome and arguing that the trial court should have retained the ability to reinstate the charge since the original ruling to quash was seen as erroneous.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-346, Shawn Dion Reid appealed his conviction for various drug-related offenses including possession of methamphetamine and marijuana with intent to distribute. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of Reid from the Drug Court Program; however, it vacated the judgments and sentences imposed on certain counts that had been dismissed prior to his guilty pleas. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-200, Jamie Cruz appealed his conviction for Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Jamie Cruz, who was found guilty on two counts of engaging in inappropriate conduct with an eight-year-old boy named T.M. Cruz was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for each count, to be served concurrently. The case had a long history of delays and court proceedings before it finally went to trial. During the trial, the evidence included Cruz’s admissions made during a polygraph examination he took while on probation. His defense argued that these admissions were wrongly obtained and that the trial court made errors in not considering his motion to suppress these statements. The trial court denied requests for continuances which the defense claimed were needed to prepare adequately for trial. Several arguments were made on appeal, including claims that the trial court should have suppressed the admissions made during the polygraph test because it violated his right against self-incrimination. Cruz argued that the compulsion to take the polygraph test because of his probation created a situation where he did not have a true choice, as refusing to comply could lead to his imprisonment. The court ruled that Cruz's rights were not violated. They said he had failed to assert his privilege against self-incrimination when he did not refuse to answer questions during the polygraph. The majority opinion found the polygraph examination was part of the conditions of his probation, and thus the admissions were not compelled in a manner that would invalidate them. Cruz also argued about other evidentiary issues during the trial, including the admission of prior bad acts as evidence and restrictions on jury selection. The court noted that while some of the trial court’s actions could be seen as problematic, they did not rise to the level of prejudice needed to overturn the conviction. In conclusion, while the court affirmed the convictions, they found that Cruz should not have received the life sentences as structured and directed that the case be sent back for proper resentencing under the relevant laws, as the previous sentencing did not follow the correct statutory guidance.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-543, Sean Ray Smith appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from 100 years to 45 years imprisonment. One judge dissented, opposing the modification and suggesting the case should be sent back for resentencing with proper jury instructions. Sean Ray Smith was found guilty of a serious crime after a jury trial. The jury's verdict led to a very long sentence of 100 years. Smith said there were three mistakes made during the trial. These mistakes included the judge and prosecutor calling the victim a victim, which he argued took away his rights, incorrect information given to the jury about sentencing, and that the 100-year sentence was too harsh. Upon reviewing the case and the evidence presented, the court agreed that one of Smith's claims about the jury instructions was valid. The jury received the wrong instruction regarding how long he would have to serve in prison before being considered for parole. The jurors were confused and asked how many years make up a life sentence, which increased concerns about how they understood the law related to his sentence. The court decided that while there were indeed errors, Smith would not get a new trial. Instead, it reduced his sentence to 45 years, which was deemed more appropriate given the circumstances, including Smith's history and the nature of the crime. The decision made by the court was to uphold the conviction but change the sentence to a lesser punishment. One judge disagreed with this change, believing that the jury should properly decide the length of the sentence without this modification. The strategy suggested by the dissenting judge was to keep the conviction and have the case sent back for proper sentencing instructions.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-102, #Hightower appealed his conviction for #forcible oral sodomy, resisting arrest, and indecent exposure. In a (published) decision, the court decided #to reverse the conviction for indecent exposure and remand for a new trial, while affirming the other convictions. #One dissented. Corey Antwonne Hightower was found guilty of three crimes. The first crime was for forcible oral sodomy, the second was for resisting arrest, and the third was for indecent exposure. The jury decided that Hightower should spend a total of eleven years and eight months in prison for the first two crimes and three years for the third. Hightower's team argued that his convictions for forcible oral sodomy and indecent exposure should not both count because they were too similar. They also said that the indecent exposure charge was wrong since the act wasn’t mentioned in the original court documents, and he didn't get a fair chance to defend himself. Finally, they claimed the judge didn’t properly tell the jury how to use the evidence of other crimes during the trial. After looking closely at everything presented in the case, the court decided that it was not fair to convict Hightower for the indecent exposure. They found that the original case wasn’t clear about which incidents occurred when, especially since the indecent exposure was thought to have happened on a different date than the other crimes. The judges agreed that Hightower should have another chance to defend himself for the indecent exposure charge. However, they said that the convictions for forcible oral sodomy and resisting arrest would remain. The court's decision was important because it showed that everyone has the right to know exactly what they are being charged with and that they need a fair chance to defend themselves in court.
In OCCA case No. F 2006-443, Bill Neal Robison, II, appealed his conviction for causing an accident involving great bodily injury while driving under the influence of alcohol. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. A judge dissented. Robison was found guilty in a trial that took place in Oklahoma County. The jury decided he should serve five years in prison and pay a fine of $5000. He appealed on two main points. First, he argued that the results of a blood test from the hospital should not have been used against him in court. Second, he claimed that his lawyer did not represent him properly. The court looked closely at Robison's first point and agreed that the blood test should not have been included as evidence. The test was done for medical reasons, and the court noted that it was not one of the specific tests approved for measuring alcohol levels under the law. The treating doctor testified that Robison's blood alcohol level was very high, but because the test did not follow the right rules, it could not be trusted as evidence in the trial. Since this test result was important for the case, the court could not ignore the mistake, which led them to reverse his conviction. They decided that Robison should have a new trial where this evidence would not be used against him. The second argument about the lawyer's performance was not needed since the court ordered a new trial. The final decision meant that Robison would go back to court for a fresh trial without the improper blood test evidence. The judges' opinions on the new trial varied, with one judge expressing disagreement with reversing the conviction based on the blood test's results.