In OCCA case No. F-2004-1217, a person appealed his conviction for escaping from a work facility. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reduced the original twenty-year sentence to ten years. One judge dissented, believing the original sentence was appropriate given the defendant's past convictions.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-527, Christopher Dwayne McGee appealed his conviction for distribution of a controlled substance and conspiracy to distribute a controlled dangerous drug. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for conspiracy and dismiss that count due to insufficient evidence, while affirming the conviction for distribution. One judge dissented on certain issues. McGee was found guilty in the District Court of Stephens County for distributing a controlled substance and conspiring to distribute another. He received a twenty-year sentence and a fine for each count. He appealed his convictions based on five main arguments. First, McGee claimed there was not enough evidence to support his conspiracy conviction. The court agreed with this claim, stating that for a conspiracy to exist, there must be two parties who agreed to commit the crime. Since there was no evidence showing that another person was involved in the agreement with McGee, the conspiracy charge was dismissed. Second, McGee argued he was denied his right to present mitigating evidence to the jury. The court noted that character evidence is generally not allowed in non-capital cases, therefore finding his claim without merit. Third, McGee said he was denied the right to represent himself in court. However, the court found that he had withdrawn his request to act as his own attorney, so this claim was also dismissed. Fourth, he argued that he did not receive effective assistance from his attorney. The court concluded that McGee's lawyer had successfully achieved the dismissal of two other charges against him and did not fail in his responsibilities. Finally, McGee felt that he had been wrongly made to defend against his past convictions during the trial. The court explained that after a previous plea deal was canceled, his case was reset as if no plea had happened, and thus, he was not unfairly treated by needing to defend against prior offenses. In summary, the court affirmed McGee's conviction for distribution but reversed and dismissed the conspiracy conviction due to a lack of evidence.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-161, James Robert Bonomelli appealed his conviction for three counts of crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the trial court and modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Bonomelli was found guilty of having child pornography, possessing a firearm as a felon, and having marijuana. The jury decided on long sentences, which added up to a total of 100 years in prison. Bonomelli claimed he did not have enough time to prepare a proper defense for his trial because the court did not let him postpone it. He also believed that the sentences were too harsh. After looking at the facts and Bonomelli's arguments, the court agreed that the judge should have allowed Bonomelli more time for his defense but decided that he did not prove this made his lawyer ineffective. However, they thought the total 100-year sentence was too much for him. They decided that the punishment should be reduced to 40 years in total, with all counts running at the same time instead of one after another. This means Bonomelli would spend a maximum of 40 years in prison instead of 100.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-1002, Benny Paul McCartney appealed his conviction for attempted manufacturing of a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distribute, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for the first two counts but to reverse and dismiss the third count due to double jeopardy concerns. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the third count, arguing that the appellant violated two different laws and should be held accountable for both.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-1084, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. In this case, Darrell Robert Johnson was found guilty of trafficking illegal drugs and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. The jury gave him a life sentence without the chance for parole for the first charge, and a fine for the second charge. He was unhappy with the way the trial went and believed mistakes were made that affected the outcome. One of the key mistakes he pointed out was that the jury had trouble reaching a unanimous decision. During their discussions, it became clear that one juror was not convinced of Johnson's guilt. The juror felt pressured by the others to change his mind, which made the situation problematic and unfair. This juror expressed confusion about the deliberation process in notes to the judge, which should have led to clearer instructions being given. The judge talked to the jurors about what deliberation meant but did not provide the specific charge that addresses situations where juries are stuck. This is typically done to ensure jurors understand they shouldn't feel forced to give in just to agree and go home. After discussing their options, the jury still couldn't agree, and the judge sent them back to deliberate further without giving a proper instruction. Eventually, the jury reached a verdict, but one juror said it wasn’t his honest opinion that the defendant was guilty. The judge had to decide if they could accept that verdict or if they needed to keep discussing. The court found that sending the jury back without the proper instruction was a mistake that affected Johnson's right to a fair trial. It was determined that the pressure on the juror likely influenced his decision to agree with the group. In the end, the court decided that because the jury had not been properly instructed, Darrell's convictions should be reversed. The case was sent back for a new trial. This means that the mistakes made during the trial could not be allowed to stand, and Darrell Johnson deserved another chance to prove his side in court. The judges had differing opinions on this decision, with some agreeing and some disagreeing on whether the trial was managed correctly. One judge believed that the trial judge handled the situation well and didn’t see a reason to reverse the ruling. However, the majority of the court found the errors significant enough to require a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-939, the appellant appealed his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the sentences for both convictions to seven years each, affirming the judgment in other respects. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-729, Candy Mae Easton appealed her conviction for Manufacturing Methamphetamine and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine but affirmed her conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug. One judge dissented concerning the reversal of the manufacturing charge. Candy Mae Easton was on trial after neighbors reported a strong smell related to methamphetamine coming from the home of her co-defendant. Officers investigating found evidence that suggested meth was being made in the house, including white powder and other materials commonly used to manufacture meth. Easton admitted to using meth, but she said she did not help make it. The court examined whether there was enough proof to show that Easton helped her co-defendant in making the drug. The majority opinion stated that just knowing about the manufacturing and using the drug doesn’t mean she encouraged or assisted in making it. The appellate court mentioned that encouragement must be shown by some action or words, which were not present in Easton’s case. As a result, Easton’s conviction for manufacturing meth was reversed, meaning she was found not guilty of that charge. However, the conviction for unlawful possession was upheld because her sentence and fine were within the legal limits and were not seen as too harsh. The dissenting opinion believed there was enough evidence to support that Easton aided in the manufacturing, and thus would have kept her conviction for that charge. The judges' roles were discussed in terms of assessing evidence and the credibility of decisions made by the trial judge, emphasizing that it isn’t their place to change those factual decisions based on their opinions. Ultimately, the case was sent back to be corrected only in terms of the record regarding the possession conviction, while the manufacturing conviction was dismissed.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-268, Martin Roy Romero appealed his conviction for drug-related crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of his convictions but upheld the rest. A judge dissented in part. Romero was found guilty by a jury in Stephens County for three charges: Conspiracy to Traffic in Methamphetamine, Trafficking in Methamphetamine, and Using a Minor to Distribute Methamphetamine. He was sentenced to several years in prison and significant fines. Romero raised several issues on appeal. He claimed that the prosecutor's actions during the trial were unfair and affected his chances for a fair trial. He also argued that he should not have been punished for both conspiracy and trafficking crimes because they stemmed from the same act, saying it was a violation of his rights against double punishment. He thought that the evidence used to convict him of conspiracy was not enough. Lastly, he felt that it was wrong to convict him of using a minor for trafficking and trafficking itself, again arguing it was related to the same act. After reviewing the case, the court found that one of the convictions for trafficking was indeed improperly counted and reversed that decision. They decided that his actions did not violate the rule against double punishment for the other charges. The court concluded that there was enough evidence to support the conspiracy charge. However, the conviction for trafficking was reversed because the same act could not support two different charges. In summary, the court agreed with Romero about the double punishment issue regarding trafficking, but upheld the other convictions. The final decision reversed and remanded the trafficking charge while affirming the rest.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-643, Earnest Alphonzo Lee appealed his conviction for Attempted First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence to fifteen years. One judge dissented. Earnest Alphonzo Lee was found guilty by a jury of Attempted First Degree Burglary. The jury believed he deserved to go to prison for twenty years, and the trial court agreed with their decision. Earnest felt this was unfair, so he appealed his case. In his appeal, Earnest raised several issues he thought were wrong during his trial. The first issue was about something called an “evidentiary harpoon.” This means that he thought the arresting officer made a comment that brought up Earnest’s right to stay silent after he was arrested. The court looked closely at this and decided it was not a big deal because there was a lot of strong evidence proving he was guilty, which made the officer’s comment not harmful. The second issue was about a juror named Barker that Earnest wanted removed from the jury, but the judge did not agree. The court said this did not cause any problems since Earnest’s lawyer could have removed the juror another way. For the third issue, Earnest believed that the judge did not explain the punishment ranges to the jury correctly. The court agreed and said the law was not followed properly when the jury decided on the punishment. So, they changed Earnest’s sentence to fifteen years. The fourth issue claimed the prosecutor did something wrong during the trial, but the court found that this did not affect the outcome of the trial since there was still a lot of strong evidence against Earnest. In the fifth issue, the court believed there was enough evidence for the jury to find Earnest guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, the sixth issue was about whether all the errors together were so bad that Earnest did not get a fair trial. The court decided that the problems were not serious enough to change the outcome of the trial. Overall, the court agreed that the trial had some mistakes but decided that the most important issue was the incorrect instructions about the punishment. They changed Earnest’s sentence to 15 years but said the rest of the trial was fair.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-1216, the appellant appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse-Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the fine. One judge dissented. Michael Hodges was found guilty by a jury in a district court. After the trial, he was sentenced to ten years in prison and asked to pay a $10,000 fine. He believed there were mistakes made during his trial and in how he was sentenced. Hodges raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that the punishment given was not right and that the fine should have been lower. Second, he said that his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial, which was unfair. Third, he thought that his sentence was too severe. Finally, he claimed that the court documents did not clearly show the law he had broken. After looking at all the information, the court found that Hodges's sentence was correct but changed his fine from $10,000 to $5,000. They also agreed that the official documents should be updated to correctly show the law he was convicted of breaking. The appeal did not show that he was treated unfairly during his trial, so the main conviction was kept. Overall, the court's main message was that while Hodges's sentence was mostly upheld, they also wanted to make sure he was charged the right amount for his fine and that the records reflected the correct details of his case.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-1065, the appellant appealed his conviction for lewd molestation, forcible oral sodomy, and exhibiting pornography to a minor child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case was tried in a district court where the appellant was found guilty on several charges and received a lengthy prison sentence. During the trial, there were issues related to expert testimony, jury instructions, and statements made by the prosecutor that the appellant argued denied him a fair trial. One problematic aspect involved a child welfare worker who said that the victim was truthful, which the court found to be inappropriate. Additionally, the trial court didn't give an important jury instruction that the appellant requested regarding inconsistent statements made by the victim, which could have helped his defense. The prosecutor also made statements that could have influenced the jury unfairly, such as referring to the appellant as a monster. Because of these and other errors combined, the court concluded that the appellant did not receive a fair trial. As a result, the court ordered a new trial to ensure justice was served.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-332, Sheila Ann Sutton appealed her conviction for grand larceny and knowingly concealing stolen property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify her conviction to petit larceny and reversed and dismissed the charge of concealing stolen property. One judge dissented. Sutton was accused of stealing electronic items, including DVD players, with friends. The jury found her guilty and she was sentenced to five years in prison for grand larceny and four years for concealing stolen property, with the sentences running at the same time. During her appeal, Sutton argued several points. She claimed that simply being in a car with stolen shoes did not mean she was hiding them. The court agreed that the evidence did not show she attempted to conceal the shoes and reversed the charge for that reason. Sutton also argued that she only took property worth less than $500, which should be classified as petit larceny, not grand larceny. The evidence showed that she took one DVD player worth $487, and the other players taken by her companions did not change that. The court agreed and changed her conviction to petit larceny. Additionally, Sutton claimed that the jury was not properly instructed about the law surrounding the charges against her. The court found that the instructions were lacking and noted that without proper guidance, the jury might have struggled to understand how to reach their decision on grand larceny. Sutton also pointed out that there was an instruction about flight, but the circumstances didn't support it, meaning it should not have been mentioned during the trial. The court acknowledged this, saying that giving such an instruction without proper context was wrong. After reviewing all of Sutton's claims, the court modified her conviction to petit larceny and changed her sentence to two years in prison. They dismissed the second charge. The dissenting opinion argued that there was enough evidence to support the original conviction and that the jury understood what happened during the events in question. In summary, the court modified Sutton's conviction and sentence due to errors in the trial process, particularly related to jury instructions, while the dissenting judge believed the jury's original decision was justified.
In OCCA Case No. F-2004-110, Kelly Dallas Evans appealed his conviction for Burglary in the Second Degree and Possession of Burglary Tools. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences, although they modified the fine for the possession of burglary tools. One justice dissented. Evans was found guilty by a jury of burglary after they considered his past felony convictions. The jury recommended a life sentence for the burglary and a one-year jail sentence for having burglary tools, along with a fine. Evans argued that the prosecutor made unfair comments about his silence during the trial, that his life sentence was too harsh for a property crime, and that the fine for the misdemeanor was too high. The court examined Evans' complaints. They noted that his claims about the prosecutor’s comments were not raised during the trial, meaning they were looked at carefully for any major mistakes. They found that the prosecutor's remarks did not directly point to Evans not testifying but were more about the weak defense he presented. On the issue of his life sentence, the court recognized that it seemed severe, but they upheld it based on Evans' criminal history, saying it did not shock their sense of fairness. Regarding the fine for possession of burglary tools, the court agreed it was too high and decreased it to the correct maximum amount. In summary, the court confirmed Evans' long prison term for the burglary but changed the fine for the other charge.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-907, David Wayne Robbins appealed his conviction for the Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Possession of a Firearm After Former Felony Conviction, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modify his sentences to fifty years for each of the first two counts, which would be served one after the other. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-281, Lori Jo Schram appealed her conviction for Possession of Precursor Substances with the Intent to Manufacture a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence but vacated the order of restitution. One member of the court dissented. Lori Jo Schram was found guilty by a jury in Grady County after the police found items related to methamphetamine production at a trailer. The jury decided that she should go to prison for ten years, but five years would be suspended, along with a fine of $10,000. The court also said she needed to pay $2,544.46 to the victim. On appeal, Schram raised several points for why she thought her conviction should be reversed. First, she said the trial court made a mistake by not allowing a motion to suppress evidence. She argued the police obtained a search warrant through an illegal search. However, the court explained that an officer was invited to the property and found suspicious items in plain view. Therefore, the court said the search was legal and that the trial court did not make an error. Second, Schram claimed that the prosecution did things that were unfair and that these actions affected her sentence. The court looked at the instances she mentioned and noted that the trial judge told the jury to ignore any improper comments from the prosecutor. The court believed this helped fix any potential errors, and since Schram received a light sentence, the issues raised did not impact it. Finally, Schram argued that the amount of restitution she was ordered to pay was wrong because she was not convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine, only possession. The court agreed that the trial court did not properly determine the restitution amount based on the guidelines, so they decided to vacate that order and send it back to the trial court for a proper assessment. Overall, the court upheld the conviction but changed the restitution order, making it necessary for the trial court to reassess how much Schram owed.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-871, George Shelton, Jr., appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Shelton's conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. George Shelton was found guilty after a trial. He was accused of hiding stolen things and had a history of past crimes, which meant he could face a heavier punishment. The jury decided on a sentence of thirty-five years in prison. Shelton thought this punishment was too harsh and argued that what the prosecutor did was unfair because they brought up his past crimes during the trial. He believed this was done because he had tried to defend himself. The court looked very closely at everything that happened. They thought there wasn’t enough evidence to show that the prosecutor acted unfairly against Shelton. They believed that the facts presented during the case were enough to prove he was guilty. However, they agreed with Shelton that his punishment was too much. They decided to change his sentence to five years instead of thirty-five. In short, the court upheld the conviction of Shelton but changed his punishment to be less severe. While one judge agreed with the conviction and the sentence reduction, they did not think the modification was correct and chose to disagree.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-433, the appellant appealed his conviction for Conjoint Robbery and Possession of a Stolen Vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for the robbery charge but affirmed the sentence for the stolen vehicle charge. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was charged with possessing a stolen vehicle and leaving an accident scene in 2001. Later, he faced a charge for Conjoint Robbery. He initially pleaded no contest to the stolen vehicle charges, which led to a delayed sentencing while he was to complete a rehabilitation program. However, he could not participate in this program due to the new robbery charge. The appellant pleaded no contest to the robbery charge, resulting in concurrent five-year deferred sentences. In 2004, he was accused of a new crime involving a firearm, leading the state to file an application to accelerate his sentences from the previous cases. After entering a stipulation to the violations, he received a five-year sentence for the firearm charge and additional sentences for the previous offenses. On appeal, the appellant argued that his sentences were excessive. While the court upheld the sentences for the stolen vehicle charge, it acknowledged that the sentence for the robbery was too harsh given the circumstances. Therefore, the sentence for the robbery was modified to ten years with five years suspended. The court found that, overall, the sentences were within the legal limits but decided the particular facts called for a reduction in the robbery sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-293, Sarah Lynne Ganis appealed her conviction for nine counts of Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that her convictions were upheld, but her sentence was modified to run all counts concurrently. One judge dissented. Sarah was found guilty of neglecting her children. She was sentenced to a lot of time in prison, with some counts getting longer sentences than others. She appealed this decision because she thought there weren't enough facts to prove she was guilty, the jury wasn't given the right instructions, and she was punished unfairly for the same actions more than once. She also argued that some testimonies and pictures used in the trial were too harsh and unrelated, and that evidence of other issues in her life was unfairly included. Sarah believed these problems made her trial unfair. On review, the court looked closely at Sarah's arguments. They decided that there was enough evidence to support the jury’s decision. Even though some jury instructions could have been better, they didn't think it made a big difference in the outcome of the trial. The court also found that it was appropriate for Sarah to be convicted for separate counts involving different children and incidents, meaning she didn’t suffer from double punishment. Regarding the pictures and testimonies, the court believed they were relevant to the case and didn't unfairly sway the jury. They also thought the evidence of Sarah receiving assistance was closely related to the charges against her, not a separate crime. After considering everything, the court believed that while the convictions stood, the sentences were too heavy and decided to change them so she would serve her time for all counts at the same time, rather than one after the other. Even though there were claims of wrongdoings in how the case was handled during trial, the court found it didn’t lead to a new trial or different outcome.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-0328, the appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and distribution of a controlled substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the acceleration of the appellant's deferred sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, who was 19 years old, pled guilty to the charges and received a five-year deferred sentence in each case after completing a rehabilitation program. However, the state later sought to accelerate these sentences due to alleged violations of probation. During a hearing, the judge concluded that the appellant had not complied with conditions and imposed a lengthy sentence of twenty-five years for each charge, running consecutively. The appellant argued several points on appeal. He claimed that the acceleration hearing was unfair because he did not have a lawyer to help him. The court agreed that he had not properly waived his right to counsel. The judge's decision to proceed without an attorney was found to be incorrect, as there was no evidence that the appellant could afford a lawyer. Furthermore, the court noted that there were other errors in the process that impacted the fairness of the hearing. The appellate court found merit in the appellant's first argument about not having a lawyer and therefore reversed the acceleration of his sentences. The judges on the panel emphasized that if a new hearing takes place, the appellant must be represented by a lawyer and informed of his rights regarding any plea agreements.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-368, an individual appealed his conviction for multiple counts of sexual crimes against his daughter. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Second Degree Rape, Forcible Sodomy, and Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation, but reversed the conviction for Lewd Molestation. One judge dissented on the Forcible Sodomy count. Tommie Loyd Payne was charged with numerous sexual offenses in Muskogee County, with the jury acquitting him of 97 counts but convicting him on 4. The court sentenced him to a total of 70 years in prison, with some sentences to be served one after the other. Payne raised several issues on appeal. He argued that the conviction for Forcible Sodomy violated double jeopardy because the jury instructions blended different elements of the crimes, which could have led to a wrongful conviction based on the same actions. However, the court found that the jury's understanding of the separate charges made this error negligible, so the convictions stood. He also contended that Lewd Molestation should not be punished because it was a lesser included offense of Rape by Instrumentation. The court agreed that both charges referred to the same act, which violated the prohibition against double jeopardy, resulting in the reversal of the conviction for Lewd Molestation. Finally, Payne pointed out that the trial court did not complete a pre-sentence investigation before sentencing, which was a mandatory requirement. However, the lack of this investigation was found to be a harmless error. Overall, the court upheld the serious convictions against Payne while addressing significant legal standards regarding double jeopardy and trial procedures.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-666, the appellant appealed his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to two years imprisonment. One judge dissented. The case involved Steven Randel Hargrove, who was found guilty by a jury for not registering as a sex offender, which is a legal requirement for people with certain criminal backgrounds. He was sentenced to five years in prison by the judge, following the jury's recommendation. Hargrove appealed, arguing several points regarding his trial and conviction. First, he claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he intentionally failed to register. He felt this violated his rights as protected by the U.S. Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that while it was unclear if he had intentionally failed to register, there was enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude otherwise. Therefore, his argument on this point was denied. Second, Hargrove argued that he did not get good representation from his lawyer. He felt his lawyer made mistakes that harmed his case. The court agreed that his lawyer should have tried to keep certain information about Hargrove's past offenses from the jury. This information likely influenced the jury to give him a harsher sentence. As a result, the court recognized this as a significant issue. Finally, Hargrove believed his sentence was too harsh and that the mistakes made during the trial denied him a fair trial. Since the court agreed with him about the ineffective assistance of counsel, they decided to change his sentence from five years to two years in prison. In summary, the court upheld Hargrove's conviction but reduced his prison time due to the errors made during his trial. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing there was not enough proof of Hargrove's intent to fail to register as a sex offender.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-576, Jimmy Allen Phillips appealed his conviction for two counts of Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modify the sentences to be served concurrently. One judge dissented. Phillips was found guilty after a trial in the Rogers County District Court. The jury recommended that he serve a total of 34 years in prison—12 years for the first count and 22 years for the second count. Phillips argued that he did not get a fair trial because of inappropriate remarks made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. The court examined the entire case, including records and evidence presented. They agreed that some comments made by the prosecutor were improper and potentially harmful. For example, the prosecutor suggested his personal belief in the case and made remarks that tied the actions to a divine judgment, which the court found inappropriate. Despite recognizing these issues, the court concluded that they did not warrant a complete reversal of the convictions. Instead, they determined that Phillips’ sentences should run concurrently, meaning he would serve the time at the same time rather than back-to-back. This decision aimed to address the improper comments while still upholding the jury's verdict.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-197, McNeil appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, resisting an officer, and speeding. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. McNeil was convicted by a jury for three counts: possession of methamphetamine, resisting an officer, and speeding. The judge sentenced him to two years in prison for the drug charge and imposed fines and jail time for the other charges. McNeil believed he did not get a fair trial for several reasons. Firstly, he argued that the jury heard about other crimes that did not relate to the current case, which might have made them think he was a worse person than he actually is. Secondly, he claimed that a police officer made comments during the trial that unfairly influenced the jury against him. In reviewing the case, the court found that one of the officer’s comments was particularly damaging and could have influenced the jury's decision. The judge's warnings to the jury did not fix the problem, and since the evidence against McNeil was not strong, it was decided he deserved a new trial. Because the appeal was successful based on these issues, the court did not need to discuss the other points McNeil raised about his trial. The outcome was that McNeil's conviction was overturned, and the case was sent back for a new trial where he could have another chance to defend himself.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-991, James Preston Ray, Sr., appealed his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided that while Ray's conviction and life imprisonment sentence were affirmed, the $50,000 fine imposed was vacated. One judge dissented regarding the vacation of the fine. The case was about Ray being found guilty of making methamphetamine after a trial where the jury heard evidence about his prior felony convictions. Ray argued that he did not get a fair trial due to several problems with how the trial was handled. He listed eight points of error. One major point was that he believed the jury was incorrectly told about the punishments they could give him. He also argued that the court should not have let evidence of his previous convictions be shown to the jury and that this influenced their decision unfairly. Ray claimed that the evidence of his guilt was not strong enough, and he thought the fine he was given was too high. He also said that all the mistakes made together took away his chance for a fair trial. The court reviewed these claims. They specifically looked at his concerns about the instructions the jury received regarding punishment. They noted that Ray was charged under a law that set his punishment between seven years and life in prison. Because Ray had prior convictions, he could be sentenced to a longer term. The law had been changed in 2002, meaning that the state could ask for both a longer imprisonment and additional fines for drug offenses. However, the state did not ask for the jury to be instructed about the fine, which led to the decision to vacate it. Ray also questioned whether the state could present the second page of the Information that listed his prior offenses, but the court ruled that he had agreed to those charges beforehand and did not raise any objections at the right times during the process. In the end, the court found that the evidence against Ray was sufficient for the conviction, and even though there were some mistakes, they did not change the trial's outcome. Therefore, his conviction and life sentence were upheld, but the fine was removed because it was not properly included in his penalty based on the law at the time. One judge, however, believed that the fine should not have been removed, stating that the changes made by the legislature allowed for both a longer sentence and a fine.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-82, Billy Dale Lathrop appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and child endangerment. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for conspiracy, possession of methamphetamine, possession of precursor chemicals, and possession of paraphernalia, but to reverse the convictions for child endangerment. Three judges dissented regarding one of the convictions.