In OCCA case No. F-2000-1308, Recil Gravitt appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Maintaining a Dwelling for Drugs, and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in the Presence of a Minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions, but modified the fine on Count I to $10,000. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-805, Dustin Loy Wells appealed his conviction for several crimes, including Shooting with Intent to Kill and Possession of a Stolen Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one conviction related to assault. One judge dissented on the decision to reverse that conviction. Dustin Loy Wells was tried in a jury trial and found guilty of multiple charges. The trial court then sentenced him to a total of forty-five years in prison and imposed several fines. Wells believed he was unfairly convicted and claimed there were mistakes made during his trial. He raised several points of error on appeal. First, he argued that the trial court should have separated (or severed) his different charges for trial, but the court found that joining them was appropriate. Second, he said there was a mistake when certain identification evidence was allowed. While the court agreed this was an error, it was considered harmless because there was strong other evidence against him. Third, Wells argued that there was not enough evidence to support one of his assault convictions and the court agreed, reversing that specific conviction. Further, he contended that some evidence should not have been admitted at all, but the court found that the trial court had made the right decision. Wells also claimed there was not enough proof that he intended to kill when he shot someone, but the court concluded there was sufficient evidence for the jury to reach that conclusion. Wells pointed to what he believed was prosecutorial misconduct, claiming he did not get a fair trial because the prosecutor had made improper statements about him. However, the court decided that these actions did not change the outcome of the trial. Finally, he claimed that the combined errors were serious enough to warrant a new trial, but the court found that only one conviction needed to be reversed. In summary, while the court upheld most of Wells’s conviction and sentence, it found that one of the assault convictions should be dismissed. One judge disagreed with this part of the decision.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-1157, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case was about a man named Robert G. Kirkpatrick, who was found guilty by a jury. He was working as a security guard when the incident happened. The jury decided he was guilty, but he thought he didn’t do anything wrong. He believed that he was just trying to keep the peace at a dance event, and he said he was acting in self-defense. Kirkpatrick asked the court to review two main points. First, he said that the judge should have explained what a dangerous weapon is and should have told the jury about a less serious crime they could consider. Second, he argued that the judge did not allow the jury to hear about self-defense. After looking carefully at the case, the court agreed that the second point was important. They believed that if the jury had been given the correct information about self-defense, they might not have found Kirkpatrick guilty. The judges explained that Kirkpatrick had the right to use reasonable force to do his job as a security guard, which included keeping people safe and protecting property. The law says that anyone, including security guards, can help maintain law and order. Because of this, the court decided that Kirkpatrick should not have been found guilty. They reversed the decision of the lower court and said the case should be dismissed. However, one judge disagreed with the dismissal. This judge thought that there was enough evidence to suggest that Kirkpatrick might have been acting in self-defense. They believed that the case should go back to court for a new trial where the jury could hear about self-defense properly. So, the main outcome was that Kirkpatrick's conviction was reversed. The case was sent back to the lower court with orders to dismiss the charges. The decision showed that proper instructions and understanding of the law are very important in a trial.
In OCCA case No. F-99-1422, Crider appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Crider was found guilty of killing his 12-year-old stepdaughter, Crystal Dittmeyer, after she went missing in 1996. In trial, the evidence against him included blood found in their home and in his car, as well as a patterned injury on Crider's arm that was argued to be a bite mark from Crystal. The prosecution claimed Crider transported her body in a garment bag and disposed of it. Crider raised several issues in his appeal, including concerns about the reliability of expert testimony that suggested the bite mark on his arm could have come from Crystal. The court found that the expert methods used were not scientifically reliable and did not help the jury understand the evidence. This issue alone warranted a reversal of the conviction. Additionally, the court identified errors in admitting evidence related to luminol tests, which suggested the presence of blood in Crider's car but later tests were inconclusive. The admission of testimony related to a rural area where Crystal's body was not found was also seen as prejudicial and misleading. Overall, the court determined that the combination of these errors negatively impacted Crider's right to a fair trial. The ruling emphasized the need for reliable and helpful expert evidence in criminal trials, especially in cases involving serious allegations like murder. The court called for a new trial to ensure Crider received a fair hearing.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1304, Michael Renee Powell appealed her conviction for manufacturing controlled dangerous substances (CDS), unlawful possession of methamphetamine, maintaining a place for keeping and selling drugs, and unlawful possession of paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss the conviction for manufacturing CDS due to insufficient evidence. It noted that the conviction for maintaining a place for keeping and selling drugs would be modified to a misdemeanor instead of a felony. The court affirmed the convictions for the other counts. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the manufacturing charge, believing there was enough evidence to uphold that conviction.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-1241, McCandless appealed her conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that two of her three convictions were unfair and should not stand because they violated laws against being punished twice for the same action. McCandless claimed that finding different types of drugs in her home should only count as one offense. The court agreed with her on that point and reversed two of the convictions. However, the court found sufficient evidence to keep the other two convictions. One member of the court disagreed with this decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-991, Tammy Renee Baldwin appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled and dangerous substance (methamphetamine) and possession of a controlled and dangerous substance (marijuana). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for the marijuana charge and affirmed the conviction for methamphetamine. One judge dissented. Tammy Baldwin was found guilty of possessing both methamphetamine and marijuana in Oklahoma. The jury sentenced her to 20 years in prison for methamphetamine and 1 year in jail for marijuana, and the sentences were to be served one after the other. Baldwin raised several points in her appeal. First, she argued that her two convictions violated the double jeopardy rule, which means you can’t be punished more than once for the same offense. She believed that because both drugs were found in the same place, it should be treated as one act. Second, she claimed her rights were violated because the judge had already decided to give her consecutive sentences if she was found guilty, which she felt was unfair. Third, Baldwin thought the judge made a mistake by not letting the jury hear her side of the story, specifically by refusing to give instructions about circumstantial evidence. Fourth, she argued that the evidence obtained from her purse should not have been allowed in the trial because it violated her rights against illegal searches. Lastly, she felt that all these errors combined made the trial unfair, which denied her due process. After looking closely at Baldwin’s case, the court agreed that the two convictions for possession were wrong because they were based on the same act of possession. The court decided that having both drugs in one place meant she could only be charged with one count of possession, not two. Due to this, they reversed the marijuana conviction but kept the methamphetamine conviction and the 20-year prison sentence. The judge's other points were either not decided or did not matter because of this main decision about the double jeopardy issue. The final outcome was that Baldwin's sentence for methamphetamine stayed, but the marijuana charge was dismissed, meaning she didn’t have to serve time for that. One judge disagreed with the majority decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1163, Byrin Carr appealed his conviction for unlawful delivery of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine base). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Carr's convictions. One judge dissented. Byrin Carr was found guilty by a jury of two counts related to selling cocaine near a school and public housing. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison for each count, plus fines. However, Carr argued that the court made mistakes during his trial. One of the key points was that Carr wanted the jury to hear about entrapment. This means he believed he was tricked into committing the crime by police. The court agreed that this important point should have been shared with the jury. Because of this mistake, the court changed Carr's convictions. Now, instead of being convicted of delivery, Carr was found guilty of possessing cocaine near a school and just possession of cocaine in general. His new sentence was reduced to five years for each conviction, to be served one after the other. While most of the judges agreed with this decision, one judge dissented. This dissenting judge believed that instead of changing the convictions, the case should be sent back for a new trial to address the mistakes made. Overall, the case highlighted the importance of fair instructions to the jury and how mistakes in court can lead to changes in sentences or corrections in charges.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-897, Jack Albert Lowe appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary and Rape in the First Degree by Instrumentation. In a published decision, the court decided to modify Lowe's conviction from Rape by Instrumentation to Lewd Molestation because the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the required element of penetration. The court also modified his sentence to life imprisonment for the lewd molestation, which would be served consecutively with a twenty-year sentence for First Degree Burglary. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-880, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the appellant's sentence from ten years to seven years imprisonment. One judge dissented, stating that the error did not amount to plain error and that he would not modify the sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-55, Lawrence Ray Washington appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana and unlawful possession of money within a penal institute. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana but reversed the conviction for unlawful possession of money and instructed to dismiss that count. One judge dissented. Washington was charged with three counts: possession of marijuana and money while in prison, and assaulting a correction officer. He was found not guilty of assault but guilty on the other two counts. He received a twenty-year sentence for each count, which would be served at the same time. Washington argued that being punished for both possessions was unfair because they were closely related. The court examined the details and decided that having both items at the same time was part of one action, rather than two separate actions. As a result, they thought punishing him for both possessions was against the law. Therefore, they took away the conviction for possession of money but kept the conviction for possession of marijuana. The dissenting judges believed Washington should have been punished for both counts because the law allows for separate punishments for different kinds of contraband items, even if they are found together.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1427, John Vernon Dubiel appealed his conviction for possession of forged evidences of debt. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm one count of the conviction but vacated two counts. One judge dissented on the issue of sentencing. Dubiel was charged with three counts of possessing forged checks. At trial, the jury found him guilty of all counts and recommended a long sentence for each, which the judge imposed to run one after the other. After Dubiel appealed, he argued that he was unfairly punished twice for the same crime and that the sentences were too harsh. The court agreed with Dubiel on the double jeopardy argument, stating that the law allows for only one punishment for having several forged checks at the same time. Because of this, they decided to cancel two of the counts against him but upheld the conviction for the first count. The court also found that any references to Dubiel's personal drug use during the trial were not significant enough to impact the fairness of the trial. Lastly, since they reduced his conviction, they did not need to further discuss the claim about excessive sentencing.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1313, Robert Guy Wisner appealed his conviction for attempting to manufacture a controlled dangerous substance, unlawful possession of a controlled drug, and unlawful possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence for the conviction of attempting to manufacture a controlled dangerous substance and unlawful possession of marijuana, but reversed the conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug, instructing to dismiss that count. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1138, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case involved David Land Ashlock, who was found guilty of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon after a jury trial in Creek County. The jury sentenced him to forty years in prison and a fine of ten thousand dollars. Mr. Ashlock raised three issues on appeal about his trial. First, he argued that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing a defense instruction about defending another person. Second, he claimed that he was denied a fair trial because the jury convicted him of a crime that was not in the original charges against him. Finally, he said the prosecutor made an error by trying to explain the term reasonable doubt during the trial. The court looked closely at these issues and agreed with Mr. Ashlock on the second point. They found that he was wrongfully convicted of a crime that was not explicitly charged against him. The original charges were about first-degree manslaughter, but during the trial, the jury was instructed on Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon without Mr. Ashlock’s consent. The court said that when a defendant objects to a lesser crime being included in the instructions, they should have the right to decide to stick with the main charge only. Mr. Ashlock’s lawyer had clearly objected, and the trial court should have respected his choice not to include the lesser charge of Assault and Battery. Because of this error, the court decided that Mr. Ashlock did not receive a fair trial. They concluded that the trial court had made a mistake, which warranted reversing his conviction. As a result, the court instructed to dismiss the case entirely.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-618, Keith Avey appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence, After Former Conviction of Driving Under the Influence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Avey's judgment and sentence of eight years imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. However, the court requested a remand for a hearing on restitution. One judge dissented. Avey was found guilty by a jury which heard evidence that he was driving under the influence of alcohol. This included observations of his strong smell of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and unstable walking after a collision. The jury decided to give him a punishment of eight years in prison and a fine, along with restitution payment. During the appeal, Avey argued that the trial court made mistakes. He believed the court should have informed the jury about a lesser charge called Driving While Impaired. However, the appellate court ruled that the evidence against him was strong enough that not giving this instruction was acceptable. Avey also contended that the trial court should have examined the specific losses experienced by the victims before setting the restitution amount. The appellate court agreed that the trial court failed to provide this hearing, stating that the law requires the court to establish the actual losses suffered by the victims. This is why they sent the case back for a restitution hearing. Avey argued that he did not get a fair defense because his attorney didn’t challenge the order of restitution effectively. However, the court disagreed, saying that the attorney did raise objections about the amount of loss and therefore did not provide ineffective assistance. Furthermore, Avey claimed that the evidence presented was not enough to prove he was guilty. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Finally, Avey said that the eight-year sentence was too harsh. The appellate court stated that the sentence was appropriate and in line with the law. In summary, while the appellate court upheld Avey's imprisonment and fine, it required a new examination of the restitution amount due to the trial court's failure to provide proper hearings.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1531, Thomas Paul Richardson appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but modified the sentence for the drug possession charge to ten years. One judge dissented. Richardson was tried by a jury, found guilty of both crimes, and received a life sentence for manslaughter, twenty years for drug possession, and a ten-day jail term for speeding. The sentences were to be served one after the other. He raised several arguments about his trial and sentencing, including claims that his rights were violated and that he was given an unfair sentence. The court reviewed his claims and agreed that he was incorrectly sentenced for the drug possession charge, as the maximum penalty should have been ten years, not twenty. However, the court found no significant problems with other aspects of the trial, including the admission of certain testimonies and the conduct of the prosecutor. They believed the errors did not change the outcome or harm Richardson's chances for a fair trial. Overall, the court decided to lessen Richardson’s drug sentence while keeping the other convictions intact.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1156, Randy Scott Bucsok appealed his conviction for lewd molestation and rape by instrumentation. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the lower court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Bucsok was found guilty of multiple charges, including lewd molestation and rape by instrumentation. The jury sentenced him to a total of 60 years in prison, with some sentences running consecutively while others were partially suspended. Following his conviction, Bucsok raised several arguments in his appeal regarding mistakes made during the trial. First, he argued that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing two witnesses, Shell and Kemble, to testify. The court found this was a serious error because their testimony could have been important to Bucsok's defense. The judges believed that excluding this evidence hurt Bucsok's chance for a fair trial. Bucsok also claimed that the trial court wrongly allowed hearsay testimony from other witnesses. However, the court decided that this part of the trial was handled correctly and that the testimony was admissible. Additionally, Bucsok expressed concern about unfair evidence being presented to the jury regarding uncharged crimes, but the court determined that there was no plain error in how this evidence was managed. Finally, he disagreed with the trial court’s decision to bar testimony about the victim's behavior that could explain injuries. In conclusion, the court found that the trial court had made critical mistakes, particularly in not allowing key witnesses to testify, which warranted a new trial for Bucsok.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-484, Sam Henry Watkins appealed his conviction for Endeavoring to Manufacture Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Watkins was tried in a court without a jury and found guilty of trying to make methamphetamine. He was given a 20-year prison sentence. Watkins claimed that there were several mistakes made during his trial that should change the decision. He argued that: 1. He did not properly give up his right to have a jury trial. 2. The police illegally took evidence from him and questioned him. 3. Inappropriate evidence was used against him, which made his trial unfair. 4. He did not have good help from his lawyer. The court looked carefully at all these points and the entire situation. They concluded that Watkins did not show that he willingly gave up his right to a jury trial, which was important. The court noted that there was no proof that he understood what giving up that right meant. Therefore, this was a mistake. As for the evidence collected from Watkins, the court decided that it did not need to change the decision. The court found no error in the way the police handled the evidence during his detention. In the end, the court reversed Watkins's conviction and sent the case back for a new trial. This meant that he would get another chance to defend himself against the charges.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-771, Jeffrey Allen Brown appealed his conviction for Attempted Escape from the Department of Corrections. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. The case began when Brown was tried in the District Court of Comanche County and found guilty of Attempted Escape, which is against the law. His punishment was a twenty-year prison sentence, the minimum allowed. Brown did not agree with his conviction and appealed it. Brown had three main reasons for his appeal. First, he believed that he did not get a fair trial because a witness for the state shared something that Brown had not been told about before his trial. This made him feel like he was surprised or ambushed during the trial. Second, Brown thought that the evidence presented against him was not strong enough to prove he tried to escape. Third, he argued that the judge was unfair by giving him a longer sentence because he chose to have a jury trial instead of accepting a plea deal. After looking closely at the evidence and listening to all arguments, the court found that although the state did not share everything with Brown's lawyer in time, it did not change the outcome of the trial. The judges said that even with the surprise testimony, there was enough evidence to show that Brown attempted to escape. Regarding the sentencing, the judges agreed that the trial judge had made a mistake by giving Brown a harsher sentence just because he decided to have a jury trial. However, since Brown had a serious criminal history with six previous felony convictions, the judges felt the mistake did not require a new sentencing. In conclusion, the judges decided that Brown's conviction and sentence would remain as they were.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-939, Tony Guinn appealed his conviction for Workers' Compensation Fraud. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented, arguing that one of the counts should be reversed due to a violation of double jeopardy, stating that there was only one claim for benefits which led to two misrepresentations.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-912, Jerry Leon McManus, Jr. appealed his conviction for several serious crimes, including Kidnapping, Assault, Rape by Instrumentation, and Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his convictions on two counts to a lesser charge and change the sentences but upheld his other convictions. One judge dissented. The case started in a court in Muskogee County where McManus was accused of multiple crimes against a victim. A trial jury found him guilty of most counts after being directed that he was not guilty of a few charges. Each of the remaining charges led to a life sentence that would run at the same time. On appeal, McManus presented several arguments about why he should not have been convicted. He said the trial court did not explain the rules correctly regarding one type of crime, leading to confusion. He also argued that the court allowed some evidence about past actions of his that were not relevant to the case, and he believed this affected the fairness of the trial. Furthermore, he claimed the prosecutor made improper comments during the trial and said there wasn’t enough evidence to support his convictions for certain crimes. The court reviewed these arguments carefully. It agreed with McManus on one point: the jury should have been instructed properly about the crime of Rape by Instrumentation. Since the jury was incorrectly steered towards a greater charge, the court decided to change McManus's convictions for this specific crime to a lesser offense of Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation and adjusted his sentence to fifteen years for those two counts instead of life imprisonment. However, the court found that even though some evidence from old crimes should not have been shared, it did not change the outcome of the trial. The jury's decision was seen as just because there was enough solid evidence presented against McManus. The court also thought that despite various issues raised during the trial, those did not combine to make the trial unfair or warrant a full reversal of all convictions. In summary, while the court changed some aspects regarding the Rape by Instrumentation, they affirmed the rest of the convictions and sentences for McManus, deciding he would serve a reduced time for the lesser charges but still maintain his convictions for the other serious crimes.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-740, the appellant appealed his conviction for Attempted Escape. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence from three and a half years to two years imprisonment. Two judges dissented regarding the sentence modification. The case involved the appellant trying to escape from a private prison that was not officially recognized as a penitentiary. The court determined that the appellant should have been charged under a specific law concerning attempted escapes from non-penitentiary facilities. After reviewing the case, the judges concluded that while the conviction was valid, the original sentence was excessive since the appropriate law related to his actions was different than what was originally applied.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-617, Bernard Eugene Laster, Jr. appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the order of acceleration of Laster's sentences for the first two offenses but vacated the judgment for the third offense related to a tax stamp. There was no dissent.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-821, Mitchell Lawrence Rose appealed his conviction for Solicitation of First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but vacate the sentence and remand the case for resentencing. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-00-861, Anthony Tyrone Raymond appealed his conviction for trafficking illegal drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the conviction but modified the fine imposed. One judge dissented. Raymond was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to ten years in prison and a fine of $25,000. He raised several errors on appeal, including that the trial court wrongly excluded a witness's testimony, improperly instructed the jury about evidence, and made mistakes regarding the imposed fine and the legality of the search that found drugs on him. The court agreed that it was wrong to deny the defense witness the chance to testify, but believed this did not affect the outcome of the trial. About the jury instructions, the court found that there was no error because the instructions followed the defense's request. They also said the fine was incorrectly high based on the law, so they changed it to $10,000. Regarding the search that uncovered drugs, the court ruled that the officers acted properly since they had reasonable suspicion about Raymond’s involvement in crime. They also noted that Raymond had the right to contest the evidence against him, but there was no issue about him not being able to present his case during the hearing about this. Finally, they stated that the amount of drugs relevant to the conviction was clearly outlined. The final decision was to maintain the conviction but adjust the fine to reflect the correct amount.