In OCCA case No. F-2000-796, Ronald Phipps appealed his conviction for attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine (as a subsequent offense), possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the $1,000 fine for the possession of marijuana but affirmed all other convictions and sentences. One judge dissented on the issue of the fine.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-335, Alfred Lee Horn appealed his conviction for three counts of Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, and Cultivation of Marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented, suggesting the sentences should be modified to twenty years each.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-451, Christopher B. Andrews appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Andrews' conviction and send the case back for a new trial. One justice dissented. Andrews was found guilty of robbing someone and sentenced to thirty-five years in prison. After the jury finished their discussions about the case but before they made their final decision, the judge let the jury go home for the night. This happened even though both Andrews' defense team and the state's lawyers did not want this to happen. According to the law, after the jury starts talking about the case, they should stay together and not be allowed to go home or talk to others about the case. If they are allowed to separate, it can hurt the fairness of the trial, and courts believe that this is automatically a problem for the defendant. The court carefully examined the situation in Andrews' case and found that since the jury was allowed to leave, they could have been influenced by others, which is not fair. The state did not show enough evidence that the jury would not be prejudiced by being separated. As a result, the court reversed the original decision, meaning that Andrews' conviction was not valid, and the case was sent back for a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-671, Robert F. Barnes appealed his conviction for Maiming and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Maiming but reversed the conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, instructing the lower court to dismiss that charge. One justice dissented. The case began when Barnes was accused of injuring someone during a single event. The jury found him guilty of Maiming but decided on a lesser charge for the second count. Barnes received a punishment, which included jail time and fines, along with an order for restitution to the victim. When Barnes appealed, he raised several arguments. He claimed that he should not have been punished for both charges since they came from the same event. The court agreed, stating that it was against the law to punish someone multiple times for one crime, so they reversed the second charge. Barnes also argued that the jury should have been given instructions on lesser charges during the trial, but the court found that the evidence did not support this. Thus, the judge's decision was not seen as a mistake. Additionally, Barnes said that there was misconduct during the trial, but the court did not find this to be serious enough to change the original decision. Lastly, the court noted that there was not enough information in the records about the restitution order, so they couldn't decide if it should be adjusted. In summary, the court confirmed the guilt of Barnes for Maiming (Count I) but decided that he should not be punished for the second charge (Count II), which was reversed.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-386, Rodney Eugene Cheadle appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and several other charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his conviction from First Degree Murder to Solicitation for Murder in the First Degree and changed his sentence from life without parole to life imprisonment. One judge dissented. Rodney Eugene Cheadle was charged with many serious crimes, including selling drugs and murder. The case started when a woman named Donna Phillips was working with the police while she was arrested. She bought drugs from Cheadle, and police later got a search warrant for his house. When they searched it, they found drugs and guns. Cheadle was in jail when he told other inmates that he wanted to prevent Phillips from testifying against him. He even tried to get someone to kill her. Eventually, another inmate, Vance Foust, did kill Phillips. After the murder, a jail inmate told the police about Cheadle's plans. During the trial, the jury found Cheadle guilty on multiple counts, and he received heavy sentences. However, Cheadle appealed, claiming there wasn't enough evidence for some of the charges against him, especially for First Degree Murder. The court agreed with him, stating that while he did solicit someone to kill Phillips, the evidence did not show that it was in furtherance of his drug activities as required by law. Ultimately, the court agreed to change his First Degree Murder conviction to a lesser charge of Solicitation for Murder and reduced his sentence. It also reversed some of his other convictions due to double jeopardy issues. Therefore, while he was found guilty of many crimes, the court decided to modify his most serious conviction and sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-692, Donald Gean Miller appealed his conviction for escape from the county jail and injury to a public building. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for escape but modified the sentence for injury to a public building to run concurrently with the escape sentence. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentence for the escape conviction be reduced from 200 years to 45 years and believed that the injury to a public building conviction violated legal statutes.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-446, Christopher Edward VanAnden appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Christopher VanAnden was found guilty by a jury of serious charges, including First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. After the trial, he was sentenced to five years for the first charge and three years for the second, with both sentences to be served at the same time. After his conviction, VanAnden argued several points in his appeal. He believed he was unfairly denied the chance to present important witness testimony, that his rights were violated by obtaining an involuntary written statement, that there was not enough evidence to convict him, and that admitting evidence of his other crimes influenced the jury unfairly. The court looked closely at these issues and agreed with VanAnden, deciding that the evidence of other crimes he allegedly committed was particularly problematic. The court pointed out that this evidence was not shown to be connected to the current case in a clear and convincing way, meaning it should not have been allowed at trial. Ultimately, since the court felt that the admission of this other crime evidence was very unfair to VanAnden and could have changed the jury's decision on his guilt, they ordered a new trial. This means that he will have another chance to defend himself against the charges in a new court session, where the jury will hear the case from the beginning without the prejudicial evidence that affected the first trial.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-292, Joe Stratmoen appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Drug (Methamphetamine) and Possession of a Weapon While Committing a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified the sentence for the weapon charge. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. Stratmoen was found guilty of having methamphetamine and a weapon during a felony. At his trial, he was sentenced to 30 years for the drug charge and 20 years for the weapon charge. He raised three main issues on appeal. First, he argued that the court did not correctly explain the state’s need to prove his past convictions. Second, he claimed the jury was misinformed about the punishment ranges for the second charge. Third, he said the jury was not correctly told about the punishments for the drug offense. The court looked carefully at all the evidence and arguments presented. They decided that the way the jury was instructed about the drug charges was correct. However, they agreed that the sentence for the weapon charge should be less severe based on their interpretations of the law, setting it to the minimum of two years instead of the original twenty. One judge disagreed with the decision to lessen the sentence for the weapon charge, feeling that the jury’s sentence should be upheld. The final conclusion was that while the main conviction was upheld, the penalty for possession of a weapon was reduced.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-367, Kenneth Matthew Crase appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance - Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction with instructions to dismiss the case. One member of the court dissented. Crase was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to twenty years in prison and fined $50,000. He argued several points about why he should not be convicted. He claimed there was not enough evidence to prove he helped make methamphetamine. He also said there wasn't enough support for the testimony from an accomplice, that evidence of other crimes was unfair during his trial, and that the prosecutors behaved badly, making it hard for him to get a fair trial. After looking closely at all the evidence and records from the trial, the court agreed with Crase. They found that just being present and knowing that someone was making methamphetamine did not mean he was guilty of making it or helping to make it. The court concluded that there was not enough proof to convict him, so they reversed the lower court's decision and ordered the case to be dismissed.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-365, Kevin Michael Crase appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance, specifically methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction. One judge dissented. Crase was found guilty after a trial by jury and received a sentence of twenty years in prison and a $50,000 fine. He argued several points for his appeal, including that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he was actually involved in making the drugs or helping someone else do it. Upon reviewing everything, the court agreed with Crase, stating that although he was there and knew what was happening, there was no proof that he helped or encouraged the drug production in any way. Simply being present at the scene isn’t enough to prove someone committed a crime. Therefore, the court reversed his conviction and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case.
In OCCA case No. F-99-1615, Jackie Lavern Nuckols appealed his conviction for Manufacturing or Attempting to Manufacture Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and send the case back for a new trial. One member of the court dissented. Nuckols was found guilty by a jury, and he was sentenced to twenty years in prison along with a $100,000 fine. He appealed his conviction, raising several issues. First, he argued that old convictions were unfairly used against him, which should not have been allowed. The court agreed that this was not right since the old convictions could have influenced the jury too much. However, they also said that this alone didn’t change the outcome of the trial. Second, there was a problem with evidence about another crime that was brought up during the trial. The court found that this evidence was not appropriate but decided that it didn't have a big impact on the jury’s decision. Third, Nuckols thought that his fine was too high and should be changed, but the court did not agree with this point. Fourth, he claimed that he didn't have enough help from his lawyer when he needed it. The court said that even though his lawyer might not have done everything perfectly, it didn’t hurt Nuckols' chance for a fair trial. His lawyer had a chance to represent him in other important parts of the trial. Lastly, Nuckols felt that when all of these issues were looked at together, they took away his right to a fair trial. The court acknowledged that some mistakes were made, especially about the old convictions and the mention of another crime, and they concluded that these combined errors were serious enough to justify a new trial. All in all, the court decided to reverse Nuckols’ conviction and said he should have a new trial to properly address these issues.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-152, the appellant, Sidney Leon Crittenden, appealed his conviction for two counts of Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for the first count but reversed and remanded the second count with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Crittenden was charged with serious offenses, including First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. He was found guilty on two counts of Lewd Molestation and sentenced to 45 years in prison for each count, along with a fine. On appeal, Crittenden raised several arguments. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes, such as changing the charges and allowing evidence of other crimes, which he felt unfairly influenced the jury. He also argued that being convicted of two offenses from the same incident was against the rules, and he felt the sentences he received were too harsh. After looking carefully at all the details of the case, the court agreed with Crittenden on one issue—being charged for two separate offenses from one event was not acceptable. They affirmed the first conviction but ordered that the second one be dismissed as there was not enough evidence to support it as a separate act. The court noted that while some evidence suggested there might have been different incidents, it was not strong enough to meet the required level of proof. They concluded that the trial was mostly fair, and the sentences for the first count seemed appropriate. Overall, the decision respected that some of the rules regarding the number of convictions related to a single act were not followed and adjusted the outcome accordingly.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-599, Charles Earl Smith, Jr. appealed his conviction for Omitting to Provide for Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and modify the restitution amount. One judge dissented. Charles Earl Smith, Jr. was found guilty in a court for not taking care of his child. After the trial, he was sentenced to three years in prison and ordered to pay a fine and restitution. The restitution amount was initially set at $10,247.00, but Smith argued this was unfair. The court looked at the case closely and found that the restitution amount should actually be changed to $10,035.25 after considering some payments that Smith had already made. They agreed that the judge had the right to ask for restitution, but the amount needed to be fixed. In the end, the court agreed with Smith about changing the restitution amount but kept the rest of the conviction the same.
In OCCA case No. F-1999-1084, Jesse Stanard appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon with Intent to Kill and two counts of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction for the first count and remand it for a new trial, but affirmed the convictions for the other two counts. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-0310, Buckley appealed his conviction for Burglary Second Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of his deferred sentence but modified it to run concurrently with another sentence. None dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-99-1654, Damean Ortego Tillis appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute and Feloniously Carrying a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the first conviction to Unlawful Possession of Marijuana and reduce the sentence to one year of imprisonment, which would be served consecutively with the sentence for the firearm charge. One judge dissented. Tillis was tried by jury in Caddo County and found guilty of both charges. The jury recommended a ten-year sentence for the marijuana charge and a twenty-year sentence for the firearm charge. The judge agreed to these sentences and ordered them to be served back-to-back. Tillis raised several points in his appeal. He argued that the trial court made mistakes, including admitting evidence of his previous conviction and not allowing a separate trial for the firearm charge. He claimed this hurt his chances for a fair trial. He also believed there wasn't enough evidence to prove he intended to distribute marijuana and that his sentence was too harsh. After reviewing everything, the court agreed that the trial court made a mistake by admitting evidence of Tillis's past conviction during the first part of the trial. This was against the rules because the laws say only certain previous convictions should be shared at certain stages of the trial. However, the court decided that, even with this mistake, the evidence against Tillis for possessing marijuana was strong enough to still uphold his conviction, but it should be changed to a less serious charge. For the second point, the court found no error in not telling the jury about a lack of knowledge defense regarding the firearm. They said there was no evidence to support that claim. On the third point, they agreed there wasn't enough evidence to show he wanted to distribute marijuana, so they modified that conviction to simple possession, which is less serious. Lastly, they said the sentences were not extreme, so the decision on the firearm charge stayed unchanged. In summary, Tillis's conviction for marijuana possession was lessened, and his sentence was adjusted, but the firearm conviction was maintained as originally sentenced.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-434, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss some of the charges while affirming others. One judge dissented regarding the dismissal of a particular charge. William Forrest Mondier was found guilty of attempting to make drugs, possessing drugs, and allowing a place for drug users. The court looked at his case and found mistakes in how the jury was instructed regarding one of the charges. Because the jury didn't have the right information, they couldn't properly decide if Mondier had acted knowingly or intentionally when maintaining a place used for drugs. Therefore, that conviction was reversed. The court also found that Mondier's possession of marijuana and methamphetamine was too similar to keep both convictions, so they reversed one of them. However, his other convictions, including drug manufacturing and possession of drug paraphernalia, remained in place, as there was enough evidence against him for those charges. There were also several arguments raised by the appellant about the fairness of his trial and the enforcement of laws regarding the charges, but the court denied those claims. The final decision was to reverse and dismiss the charge of maintaining a place for drug users and the marijuana charge. The convictions for attempting to manufacture drugs and possessing paraphernalia were affirmed. One judge disagreed with the dismissal and wanted a new trial instead.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-341, Cortez Lamont Franklin appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Cocaine Base). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction. One judge dissented. Cortez Franklin was found guilty after a trial in Oklahoma County. The jury sentenced him to twenty years in prison. He appealed, arguing that the trial court should have excluded evidence found during his arrest, claiming it violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. He also said the evidence was not enough to prove he had the drugs. The appellate court looked at the reasons for stopping Franklin. The judges found that the police did not have reasonable suspicion when they detained him. Because Franklin's detention was considered unreasonable, they stated that the drugs found during this unlawful detention could not be used as evidence. Since there was no valid evidence left to support his conviction, the court reversed the trial court's decision, meaning Franklin's case was sent back with instructions to dismiss the charges against him. They did not need to discuss Franklin's second point about the sufficiency of the evidence.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-213, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Carrying a Controlled Dangerous Substance into Jail. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One member of the court dissented. The case involved Heather Davenport, who was accused of bringing illegal substances into a jail. During her trial, the jury found her guilty and suggested a fine and imprisonment. Davenport argued that the jury's decision was unfair because evidence about her husband’s unrelated past crimes was brought into the trial. This evidence was shown to suggest that she knew what she was doing was wrong, which she believed was not relevant to her case. The court agreed with her and noted that the evidence against her did not clearly show that she knew she was breaking the law when she brought the items to the jail. The use of information about her husband’s actions was too unfair and prejudiced her chance for a fair trial. Therefore, the court decided that the conviction should not stand, stating that the evidence presented could have caused a significant mistake in the trial's outcome. The final opinion indicated that the trial court's decision was reversed, and the case was sent back with instructions to dismiss the charges against Davenport.
In OCCA case No. F-99-1465, Sean Michael Johnson appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Forcible Oral Sodomy, and Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. In a published decision, the court decided to modify Johnson's conviction for First Degree Rape to Second Degree Rape and reduce his sentence to five years. The judgments and sentences for the other counts were affirmed. One judge dissented, expressing concerns about the handling of juvenile procedures in this case.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1232, Virginia Lee Patton appealed her conviction for Second Degree Murder and Injury to a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Second Degree Murder but reversed the conviction for Neglect of a Minor Child with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Virginia Lee Patton was found guilty by a jury of killing someone (which was labeled as Second Degree Murder) and of causing harm to a child (originally charged as Injury to a Minor Child). The jury recommended a punishment of fifty years in prison for the murder, and a one-year sentence for the charge related to the minor child. The sentences were set to be served one after the other. During her appeal, Patton claimed two main issues. First, she argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support the murder conviction and that it was wrong to charge her with Second Degree Murder. Secondly, she pointed out that it was unfair to charge her with two crimes based on the same situation, which might violate her rights. The court examined all details and evidence from the trial. After reviewing everything, the judges agreed that there was enough evidence to support the murder conviction. They felt that a reasonable person could conclude she was guilty of that offense based on the facts presented during the trial. However, the court also recognized that charging Patton with both Second Degree Murder and Neglect of a Minor Child was a problem because it relied on the same evidence for both charges. Due to this, they decided to reverse the conviction for Neglect of a Minor Child and ordered it to be dismissed, meaning she would not be punished for that crime. In summary, the court upheld the serious conviction for murder while removing the lesser charge related to the child. One judge disagreed with the decision about the murder conviction.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-282, Sidney Wayne Clark appealed his conviction for Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer and Placing Bodily Fluids on a Government Employee. In a published decision, the court decided to modify Clark's sentence for Count I to one year in the County Jail and for Count II to one year imprisonment, with both sentences to run consecutively. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 99-1293, #1 appealed his conviction for #4 counts of Lewd Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3 counts were affirmed and #1 count was reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss. #0 dissented. #1, William Dean Carter, was found guilty in a jury trial after being accused of committing inappropriate acts against children. These acts happened a long time ago, but the case took a while to come to court. Carter was sentenced to several years in prison for his crimes. Carter claimed that his rights were violated during the trial. He said he should not have been charged because the time limit for bringing the case to court had passed. He also argued that the prosecution made unfair comments during the trial and that he did not get a fair chance to defend himself. The court looked closely at all the details of the case. They found that for two of the counts against Carter, the prosecution was valid, but for the other two, the time limit had expired. Because of this, those two counts were dismissed. The judges felt that the evidence against Carter was strong enough for some of the charges, even if there were some errors during the trial. In conclusion, the court said that two of Carter's convictions would stay, but the other two would be thrown out and should not continue in court.
In OCCA case No. F-99-1260, Carl Ray Holmes appealed his conviction for unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine, unlawful possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and unlawful possession of marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for the first two counts but reversed the marijuana possession conviction, ordering a new trial for that count. One judge dissented regarding the second count, suggesting it should be dismissed due to double jeopardy concerns.
In OCCA case No. F-99-1652, Mickey Lee Cosar appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute and Unlawful Possession of Paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided that his termination from the Drug Court program was not handled correctly and mandated a new termination hearing with proper notice. One judge dissented. The case began when Cosar entered a blind plea to the drug charges in September 1998 as part of a condition to join the Drug Court program, which allows individuals to receive treatment instead of immediate punishment. However, during the process, certain legal requirements were not met. A hearing in April 1999 determined that Cosar should be removed from the Drug Court program, which led to a sentencing hearing in May 1999 where he was sentenced to life in prison despite not having any prior serious convictions. On appeal, Cosar argued that he was denied due process because he was improperly arrested, was not given proper notice of the charges against him, and was not presented a fair hearing before a judge. He contended that his sentence was too harsh given his background and that it was improperly based on unproven allegations. The court found merit in Cosar’s claims. It noted that he did not receive written notice of the termination hearing, which is necessary, and that his due process rights were violated. The court emphasized that to follow proper legal procedures, a new hearing must be held where Cosar would receive notice of the reasons for his termination from the Drug Court. This notice must be clear enough for him to prepare a defense. Moreover, the court stated that the sentencing hearing was flawed because the judge considered improper evidence and unsworn testimony. The judge based the harsh life sentence on matters unrelated to the charges for which Cosar was convicted, including knowledge of allegations of a rape and murder that were not properly vetted in court. The decision noted that a judge should only consider evidence presented during the formal hearing process, which did not happen here. The court’s ruling ordered a new termination and, if necessary, a new sentencing hearing to be conducted by a different judge who would base the decision solely on the evidence presented appropriately. The conclusion stressed the importance of following the law to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, particularly within programs aimed at rehabilitating offenders. In summary, Cosar’s appeal highlighted the need for proper legal procedures in termination and sentencing hearings, emphasizing the rights of defendants to fair treatment under the law.