In OCCA case No. F-2005-1057, Saul Mintz appealed his conviction for two counts of Robbery with a Firearm. In a published decision, the court decided that while his conviction was affirmed, his sentence for the second count should be modified to ten years' imprisonment. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2005-288, George Luther Carter, III appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Carter was accused of sexually abusing a child and was found guilty by a jury. They decided he should spend thirty years in prison for this crime. After the trial, Carter appealed, arguing that the trial court made several mistakes. Carter's main reasons for appealing included that the court should not have allowed evidence of other alleged crimes he had committed, and that the use of a videotape during the trial was not fair. He also believed the verdict was not supported well by the evidence. The court looked closely at these points and decided that admitting the evidence of the other alleged crime was a mistake. The evidence did not clearly connect to the case at hand and could have unfairly influenced the jury's decision. Since the court was not sure that this mistake did not change the outcome of the trial, they decided to grant Carter a new trial. In summary, Carter’s conviction was reversed because the trial court allowed improper evidence that could have affected the jury's verdict. The remaining arguments did not need to be discussed since the first point was enough for a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-1277, Hammons appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments and sentences for Counts 1, 2, 4, and 5, but reversed the judgment and sentence for Count 3. One judge dissented regarding the communication with the jury.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-357, Bruce Morris Barnett appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and misdemeanor possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided that while the trial judge made a mistake by imposing a fine of $100,000 instead of the minimum fine of $25,000, the convictions were upheld. The judge's sentence was modified to change the fine, but the overall decision affirmed the jury's findings regarding the evidence for the convictions. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-405, Edward Mark Szczepan, Jr., appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery upon a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence. The dissenting opinion was not recorded. Szczepan was tried in a non-jury trial and found guilty of assaulting a police officer. The court sentenced him to four years in prison and a $1,000 fine. He challenged two things in his appeal. First, he questioned whether he properly waived his right to a jury trial. The court found that the record showed he had indeed made a valid waiver. The second challenge was about whether the evidence was enough to prove he had prior felony convictions. The State admitted they failed to show this evidence during the trial. Because the prior convictions must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the court agreed that the evidence was insufficient. Since the State could not present proof of Szczepan's prior convictions, the court noted that he could not be given the enhanced sentence that came with those convictions. Thus, the court modified his sentence to one year in prison and reduced the fine to $500. Overall, while the court upheld the conviction, Szczepan's punishment was made less severe due to the lack of evidence for the prior convictions.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-874, Pierson appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to thirty years of imprisonment. One judge dissented. Deitric Benard Pierson was found guilty of sexually abusing a twelve-year-old girl, referred to as L.H. The case started when L.H. told her mother that Pierson had done something inappropriate to her. She explained to her mother and grandmother that he had pulled her pants down and touched her with his private parts. There was also DNA evidence that connected Pierson to the abuse. During the trial, the girl did not testify herself, but her statements to her mother, grandmother, and a social worker were presented as evidence. Pierson argued that this was unfair because he could not cross-examine the girl, which is normally his right in court. The court decided that the girl's statements were reliable and allowed them to be presented. Pierson raised several points in his appeal. He claimed that the way jurors were chosen was unfair because some were removed based on race. He also argued that he should have been informed about how much time he needed to serve before being eligible for parole. Additionally, he felt that his sentence was too harsh and should be changed. After looking at all the issues, the court concluded that most of the problems Pierson pointed out were not strong enough to change the decision. They recognized that the failure to inform the jury about parole eligibility was a mistake and adjusted his sentence from life in prison to thirty years. However, one judge thought that changing the sentence was not correct because the jury had decided he should spend life in prison, and he felt that altering that decision disregarded the jury's authority. In summary, the court upheld the conviction but agreed to change the length of the sentence, allowing Pierson a chance for parole after serving thirty years instead of life in prison.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-363, Adan Ramos, Jr. appealed his conviction for Robbery by Force or Fear. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. The court found that there was no valid waiver of Ramos's right to a jury trial, which is a fundamental right. Ramos's other claims about ineffective assistance of counsel, exclusion of evidence, and interpreter issues became moot since the court ordered a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F 2005-362, Pat Lee Richardson appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Pat Lee Richardson was found guilty of First Degree Manslaughter after a trial without a jury in Comanche County. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison. He appealed, arguing that he had a defense based on Oklahoma's Make My Day Law, which allows people to use force against intruders in their homes. Richardson claimed the victim was an intruder when he was stabbed. The court explained that the Make My Day Law applies only when someone enters a home, but the victim was standing on the porch, not inside the house. Therefore, Richardson could not use that law as a defense. The court also noted that stabbing the victim a second time while he was on the ground was not justified. Richardson argued that his lawyer did not provide good assistance by not presenting the Make My Day Law defense. However, the court believed this did not affect the outcome of his trial since the law did not apply to his case. He also argued that his actions were justifiable as self-defense. The court stated that there was no evidence to show that he was in danger at the moment he stabbed the victim, considering the victim presented no serious threat. Lastly, Richardson argued that his 35-year sentence was too harsh. The court agreed and modified his sentence to 20 years, feeling that the original sentence was shocking and too severe when taking into account certain factors of the case. Overall, the court upheld the guilty verdict but decided to reduce the prison time that Pat Lee Richardson would have to serve.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-478, David Glen Heard appealed his conviction for two counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but vacated the imposition of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. David Glen Heard was found guilty of two counts of Lewd Molestation after being tried by a jury in Tulsa County. The charges stemmed from an incident on June 15, 2006, when Heard was observed behaving inappropriately towards two young girls at a Walmart store. He followed them around the store and attempted to look under their dresses. Witnesses reported his unsettling behavior, and he was later found with a pornographic magazine in his car and identified as a registered sex offender. At the time of the incident, he was on probation for previous sex-related offenses against children. During the trial, testimonies from various witnesses were presented, including a woman who testified about a similar incident involving Heard from years prior. Evidence was admitted under the law to show motive and absence of mistake, which supported the prosecution's case against him. Heard raised several arguments during his appeal, including claims that the statute he was convicted under was vague, the admission of other testimonies was inappropriate, and errors in jury instructions and the failure of his counsel to object to certain evidence. The court found that the law did not provide for a vagueness claim since Heard's actions clearly violated the statute in question. The admission of prior testimonies was ruled permissible as relevant to the case. The trial court’s instructions were also deemed not harmful to the verdict. However, the court recognized an error when ordering post-imprisonment supervision, as it was not authorized for the crimes Heard committed at the time. Thus, while his conviction was confirmed, the order for post-imprisonment supervision was vacated. Ultimately, Heard’s two twenty-year sentences were upheld due to the nature of his actions and background as a repeat offender.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-1147, James Earl Ware appealed his conviction for first-degree rape and lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for first-degree rape but reverse the conviction for lewd molestation with instructions to dismiss that charge. One judge dissented. The case involved accusations made by a girl named D.P. who testified that Ware had molested and raped her when she was 12 years old. During the trial, D.P. shared experiences of how Ware touched her inappropriately multiple times, with one incident where he penetrated her. Her brother also testified that he saw Ware kissing D.P. Ware denied the allegations and claimed that D.P. and her brother were lying about him. He argued that the evidence presented was not strong enough to prove he was guilty. However, the trial judge found D.P.'s testimony credible and believed Ware did commit the acts he was accused of, despite saying that she initially had doubts. The court noted that Ware could not challenge the evidence because he presented his defense after listening to the prosecution's case. It was decided that, while the evidence was strong enough to uphold the first-degree rape conviction, the lewd molestation charge did not have enough proof to support a guilty verdict. Therefore, the conviction for lewd molestation was dismissed, while the conviction for first-degree rape was confirmed.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-366, Timothy Purcell Teafatiller appealed his conviction for Possession of Concealed Drug. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Teafatiller was found guilty by a jury for having a small amount of methamphetamine that was discovered in his wallet. He was sentenced to six years in prison. He raised seven main points in his appeal. The court mainly focused on one significant issue: the destruction of the evidence against him, which Teafatiller argued violated his rights. The drugs were received by a state bureau for testing and then sent back to the sheriff’s office for destruction without informing Teafatiller or his lawyer. This meant that Teafatiller could not have the chance to test the evidence that was being used against him. The court found that this action went against laws meant to protect the rights of individuals and ensure a fair trial. The judges concluded that the destruction of the evidence constituted a serious violation of Teafatiller's rights. While in previous similar cases, not having evidence might not have led to a reversible error, in this situation, the specific evidence that formed the basis of the charges was completely destroyed. Because there was no opportunity for Teafatiller to review or challenge the evidence, the court decided the only fair action was to reverse the conviction. As a result, the court mandated that the case be sent back for new proceedings where Teafatiller would have the chance to examine the evidence against him, ensuring his rights were upheld.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-146, Luke Sinclair appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that his conviction would be upheld, but he would be resentenced. One judge dissented. Luke Sinclair was found guilty of murdering James Robbins by shooting him four times in the chest. The incident happened in the early hours after Sinclair and his friends had been drinking at a bar. Robbins, a retired Army veteran, approached Sinclair and his friends in the parking lot, trying to engage them in conversation. Sinclair and his friends found Robbins to be strange and made dismissive comments. Sinclair even jokingly suggested that Robbins should be shot. Believing they were joking, Sinclair's friends egged him on when he drove after Robbins, blocked his van, and then shot him. After the shooting, Sinclair instructed his friends to keep quiet about the incident. Sinclair admitted on appeal that the evidence against him was strong and that he was guilty. Sinclair raised several issues in his appeal, particularly concerning the sentencing process. He argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence about his character during sentencing and that his lawyer did not provide effective representation. The court found these claims unpersuasive, noting that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and suggesting that presenting this character evidence could have hurt Sinclair's case more than helped it. One of the significant points in Sinclair’s appeal related to whether the jury was instructed about the state law that required defendants convicted of murder to serve 85% of their sentences before being eligible for parole. Sinclair argued that jurors mistakenly believed a life sentence meant he could be released after a few years. The court agreed with Sinclair regarding the instructions on the 85% rule, so they decided to reverse the sentence and remand the case for resentencing. Additionally, Sinclair complained about the prosecutor's arguments in closing that he was a dangerous man lacking conscience, which were not supported by the evidence. The court found that the prosecutor's statements were problematic and influenced the jury in reaching their sentencing decision. In conclusion, while Sinclair's conviction remained intact, the court ruled that he should be resentenced due to the errors in the jury instructions and the inappropriate comments made during his trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-814, James Joseph Wymer appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Wymer was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to forty-five years in prison. He argued that the jury was not fully instructed about the law regarding his sentence, which meant he wasn't told he had to serve eighty-five percent of it. He also felt that his sentence was too long and that the evidence against him wasn't strong enough to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. After looking closely at both the facts and the law, the court believed that the jury should have been informed about the eighty-five percent rule, but they did not think this mistake was enough to set aside the conviction. Therefore, they decided to lower Wymer's sentence from forty-five years to thirty-five years. The court also considered whether his sentence was excessive. They found that given Wymer's past convictions, the sentence was fair and not shocking or unreasonable. Finally, they reviewed the evidence and concluded that there was enough proof to show that Wymer took part in the burglary rather than just standing by. The final decision was to keep the conviction but change the punishment to thirty-five years.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-767, Reginald Lamond Brazell appealed his conviction for Robbery in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to thirty years imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. Brazell was found guilty of committing a robbery, and the jury sentenced him to forty years in prison. He challenged this conviction by arguing that the evidence against him was not strong enough, that he should have been given instructions about a lesser crime (second-degree robbery), and that the jury should have been told about parole eligibility under the eighty-five percent rule. The court reviewed the evidence and decided it was sufficient to support the conviction. They also agreed that the jury did not need to hear about the second-degree robbery since the evidence did not support that claim. However, they found that the jury should have been instructed about the eighty-five percent rule, which relates to how much of the sentence a person must serve before being eligible for parole. As a result, the court affirmed the conviction but shortened Brazell's sentence to thirty years.
In OCCA case No. F 2005-41, James Nye appealed his conviction for Manufacture or Attempted Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence. One judge dissented. James Nye was found guilty by a jury in a district court in Grady County. The jury decided he should go to prison for sixty years for his crime. After the trial, Nye believed there were problems that made his trial unfair, so he appealed the decision. He raised six main reasons for his appeal: 1. He said there wasn't enough good evidence to prove he did the crime based on what his co-defendant said. 2. He thought the court made mistakes by allowing too much evidence that helped the co-defendant's story without being necessary. 3. He claimed that the people working for the state did things that were unfair and made the jury give him a harsher sentence. 4. He felt that some evidence presented was not related to the case and led to a higher sentence than it should have been. 5. He argued that the sentence he got was too harsh. 6. Finally, he believed that all these problems combined made the trial not fair. After looking at the evidence and the reasons presented by Nye, the court agreed that his conviction should not be changed because there was enough evidence to support the decision. However, they also found that there were issues in the trial that affected his sentence. The court recognized that while some mistakes were made, they ultimately did not affect the conviction itself. The court highlighted that the prosecutor said things that should not have been said and presented evidence that was prejudicial. The judge noted that bringing up Nye’s past in court and how long he spent in jail might have made the jury unfairly biased against him. Because of these mistakes and the belief that the original sentence was excessive, the court changed the sentence from sixty years to a new sentence of twenty years. The judges felt that this new sentence was a fairer punishment for the crime Nye committed. One judge disagreed with the amount the sentence was lowered to, suggesting it should be reduced to thirty-five years instead. In summary, James Nye's conviction is upheld, but he will now serve twenty years in prison instead of sixty because of errors made in the trial.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-1305, Anthony Joseph Frost appealed his conviction for Aggravated Attempting to Elude a Police Officer and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for the aggravated attempting to elude charge due to errors during the trial. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. Frost faced a jury trial where he was found guilty of two charges. The jury decided on a punishment of 40 years for the first charge and 1 year with a $1,000 fine for the second charge. The sentences were set to be served at the same time. Frost appealed the decision, claiming that the trial court did not give the jury enough information about parole eligibility and that the court made a mistake by not redacting previous sentence information from his prior convictions. The court found that the trial court did not do anything wrong with the first claim because Frost did not raise an objection during the trial. However, the court agreed that there was a mistake in how previous sentences were presented to the jury. This information could have influenced the jury's decision on the punishment. The court decided to change Frost’s sentence for aggravated attempting to elude from 40 years to 25 years, while keeping the sentence for the drug paraphernalia charge the same. The judges all agreed on some parts of the decision, but one judge disagreed with changing Frost's sentence, believing that the jury should be fully informed about the defendant's history to make a fair decision.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-1182, Bryan Matthew Carroll appealed his conviction for multiple offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse some of his convictions and modify others. One judge dissented. Carroll was found guilty by a jury of several charges. These charges included Assault and/or Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Attempting to Elude a Police Officer, and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, among others. The jury sentenced him to various fines and jail time for these offenses. Carroll argued that he was unfairly punished for some offenses and that there was not enough evidence to support the charges against him, especially for the more serious ones like Assault and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. He claimed his rights were violated and that he did not receive fair representation from his lawyer. In looking at Carroll's appeal, the court decided to dismiss some of the judgments against him, specifically the Assault and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia charges. The court found that the evidence did not convincingly support the Assault charge and there was not enough proof that Carroll was intending to use the paraphernalia for drugs. For the Attempting to Elude charge, the court noted that Carroll was also convicted for not stopping at a stop sign while trying to escape from the police, which should not happen according to legal rules. The court ruled that one of the offenses was covered by the other, and that means Carroll was unfairly charged twice for one action. As for other charges, the court changed the punishment for speeding because the jury was not correctly informed about the possible penalties. They modified Carroll's sentence for that charge but kept the other sentences intact, concluding that they were fair based on what happened. In summary, Carroll's case showed that even when someone is charged with multiple offenses, it's important for the legal system to follow rules to ensure fairness. The court made changes that reflected these principles, showing that justice is essential in every case.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-1261, Jonathan Dwight Harjo appealed his conviction for rape in the first degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to ten years in prison. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-314, the appellant appealed his conviction for the Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the conviction to Attempting to Unlawfully Manufacture Methamphetamine. One judge dissented. Here’s a summary of the case: Morton D. Hayner was found guilty of making methamphetamine in a trial. The jury sentenced him to life in prison and imposed a $50,000 fine. Hayner argued that the evidence was not enough to prove he manufactured meth, he should have been given chances for lesser charges, and that the fine was too high for him since he didn't have much money. The court looked carefully at the evidence and agreed with Hayner on the first point. They said he was actually trying to manufacture meth but had not finished the process when the police arrived. So, they changed his conviction from manufacturing to attempting to manufacture. On the second point, the court found that Hayner was not denied the chance to consider lesser charges. For the third point, the court decided the fine was appropriate because it matched the seriousness of the crime. In conclusion, Hayner's conviction was changed to Attempting to Unlawfully Manufacture Methamphetamine, but the life sentence and fine were kept the same.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-1226, Anthony Jerome Johnson appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including felony eluding an officer, obstructing an officer, and robbery with a firearm. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for eluding an officer and robbery with a firearm, but reversed the conviction for obstructing an officer, with instructions to dismiss that charge. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the obstruction charge. The case stemmed from an incident where Johnson carjacked a woman’s car and fled from police after they initiated a traffic stop. During his escape, he ran numerous stop signs and caused danger to others on the road. Following a high-speed chase, he crashed the car and then ran on foot, trying to evade capture from arresting officers. At trial, Johnson was found guilty and sentenced to several years in prison as well as a fine for the offenses committed. On appeal, he argued four points. First, he claimed that the charges against him violated protections against double jeopardy, stating that the actions he took should not be counted as separate crimes since they arose from one act of fleeing. Second, he contended that evidence for felony eluding was not sufficient, suggesting the situation warranted a lesser charge. Third, he asserted that there was insufficient evidence for the armed robbery conviction. Lastly, he believed inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony supported reducing his sentence. The court, after reviewing the case thoroughly, determined that the convictions and sentences for eluding and robbery were valid. The court found sufficient evidence supporting these convictions, including testimony from eyewitnesses and evidence that directly linked Johnson to the robbery. However, they agreed with Johnson's argument regarding the obstructing charge, concluding both his car and foot chases should be treated as one continuous act of fleeing, therefore only allowing the conviction for eluding. In the end, the court affirmed the convictions for eluding an officer and robbery but instructed that the obstruction charge be dismissed. The dissenting opinion expressed a different view on the obstruction charge, arguing that Johnson's actions could be considered separate acts deserving of distinct charges.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-682, Felix Finley, IV appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but reversed and remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Finley had been tried by a jury and found guilty of Manslaughter after he stabbed a man during a fight. He argued that he acted in self-defense because the other man was bigger, older, and hitting him. He raised several issues in his appeal, asking why the jury instructions on self-defense were not clear enough and arguing that evidence presented against him was unfair. The court reviewed the case closely. They found the jury's instruction about self-defense was correct and that the evidence indeed indicated that Finley was not acting in self-defense when he stabbed the man. They also felt that despite some irrelevant evidence being presented during the trial, it did not change the outcome of the jury's decision regarding his guilt. However, the court agreed that Finley’s sentence of 70 years was too long without proper guidance to the jury about parole eligibility, which might have affected how they viewed the seriousness of the sentence they were giving. Therefore, while his conviction was upheld, the court mandated a new sentencing hearing to correct these issues. This case highlights the importance of clear rules in court and how the way information is presented to a jury can influence their decisions on guilt and punishment.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-422, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentences for certain counts. One judge dissented. The case involved Jerry Lee Mays, who was found guilty of multiple charges, including shooting with intent to kill and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. The jury sentenced him to several years in prison, varying by count. Appellant believed that the evidence presented at trial was not enough to support his conviction for shooting with intent to kill. He argued that there was no proof of his intent to kill a specific person when he fired his weapon. Mays also claimed that his convictions violated double jeopardy laws, which protect individuals from being tried for the same crime multiple times. He argued that he should not be punished for both possession of a firearm and shooting with intent to kill since they were related offenses. Additionally, he felt that his punishment for possession of a firearm was excessive, that the jury should not have considered assault and battery as a lesser offense, and that the jury did not receive adequate instructions about his right to a fair trial. The court carefully reviewed Mays's arguments and considered all the evidence from the trial. They found that the jury had enough evidence to convict him of shooting with intent to kill. Even though Mays focused on the victim’s perception of his actions, the law does not depend solely on that view but considers all evidence as part of understanding a defendant's intent. The court also concluded that Mays's double jeopardy claim did not hold since he committed two separate offenses at different times. The first offense was possessing the firearm, and the second offense was shooting at people, which were considered distinct. In terms of sentencing, the court recognized that Mays's conviction for possession relied on prior felony convictions, which were also used in different charges. However, they concluded this did not unfairly impact his sentence. Important to note was that the trial court had made an error in telling the jury that Mays's conviction for assault and battery could be enhanced due to previous felonies, which was incorrect for a misdemeanor charge. The judges found that this error did not change the overall outcome significantly, so it was ruled as harmless. They did acknowledge a need to change the length of Mays's sentence for shooting with intent to kill from forty years to thirty years for each of those counts due to one of Mays's points about jury instructions that were missed. Ultimately, the court affirmed most of Mays's convictions and modified some sentences. Despite some errors, the judges felt that Mays received a fair trial overall, and the necessary adjustments to his sentences did not warrant a full new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-67, Marrio D'Shane Willis appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction. One judge dissented. Marrio D'Shane Willis was found guilty by a jury for robbing someone while using a gun. Because he had a previous conviction, the court gave him a sentence of ten years in prison and a fine. Willis did not agree with this decision and decided to appeal. Willis claimed that his attorney did not do a good job in representing him during the trial. He said that the only witness who identified him as the robber had made a mistake and that there was evidence to support that claim which was not presented in the trial. Willis asked for another chance, known as a new trial, based on this new information. The appeals court looked into Willis's claims and sent the case back to a lower court to find more information. This lower court had a hearing where they listened to the eyewitness. During this hearing, the eyewitness changed his story and said he was not sure about his identification of Willis during the trial. He even said he thought another person might be the actual robber. The appeals court found that Willis’s attorney did not try hard enough to prove that the eyewitness might have made a mistake. They decided that if the attorney had investigated this more during the trial, it could have led to a different result. They believed Willis was treated unfairly because of his lawyer's mistakes. After reviewing everything, the appeals court reversed Willis's conviction, meaning he would not be found guilty anymore based on the trial's results. They agreed with the findings of the lower court that the eyewitness's changed testimony made it difficult to trust what he had said during the trial. In conclusion, the court said that the way Willis was represented in court was not good enough, and because of that, they decided he should not have been convicted of robbery.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-129, Denise Sue Watie appealed her conviction for sexually abusing a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Denise Sue Watie was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for sexually abusing her son. The jury suggested that she should serve eight years in prison. She was sentenced accordingly on January 24, 2005. After her conviction, she decided to appeal the decision, stating several reasons why she believed the trial was unfair. First, Watie claimed the court made an error by allowing certain evidence that she thought was unnecessary and repetitive. However, the court found that the admission of a videotaped interview of the complainant was acceptable under the law. Since the court followed the correct procedures, this part of her appeal was denied. Next, Watie argued that her confession to the police should not have been allowed because it was taken without informing her of her rights. The court examined how the police interviewed her. They noted that she was not arrested and could leave at any time. Because of this, the court concluded that the interview was not a custodial interrogation and did not require the police to read her the Miranda rights. Thus, Watie's statements were considered voluntary, and these claims were also denied. Watie also contended that the jury should have been instructed about the requirement that she would serve at least 85% of her sentence in prison. The court agreed that this information was important and should have been provided to the jury upon Watie’s request. Due to this oversight, her sentence was modified from eight years to six years. Lastly, Watie claimed that her sentence was too harsh. Since the court found that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule, they reduced her sentence but did not fully agree with her position on its harshness. The decision to modify the sentence made her final argument about the severity of the punishment unnecessary. In conclusion, the judgment of the district court was affirmed, but her sentence was reduced to six years. The appeal brought attention to important legal procedures, but ultimately, the court decided that the original conviction stood, with a slight change to the length of time she would serve in prison.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-997, Johnny Freddy Locust appealed his conviction for burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed the judgment but modified his sentence to fifteen years imprisonment. One judge dissented in part, expressing disagreement with the court's decision to modify the sentence without it being raised in the appeal. Johnny Freddy Locust was found guilty by a jury for breaking into a building without permission. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison and a fine after the trial judge decided his punishment. Locust appealed, saying that the trial had mistakes. He argued that the instructions given to the jury were wrong and that the evidence did not prove he was guilty. He also claimed his lawyer did not do a good job defending him, and that overall, the errors during the trial meant that he did not get a fair chance. During the appeal, the court looked closely at what Locust's arguments were and reviewed the evidence from his trial. They found that while there was a mistake in not giving the jury proper instructions about consent, this mistake did not change the outcome of the trial. They agreed that even though the instructions were important, Locust still had enough evidence against him to be found guilty. The court also said that even though his lawyer could have done better by not asking for the right instructions, this did not likely change the trial's final result. In the end, they decided to lower his prison sentence from twenty years to fifteen years. The judgment against him for breaking and entering remained the same, and he still had to pay the fine. One judge disagreed with the decision to change the sentence because it was not an issue brought up during the appeal, believing that the matter had been overlooked. Overall, Locust's appeal led to a shorter prison term, but his conviction still stood.