In OCCA case No. M 2010-1026, Luck appealed his conviction for Malicious Mischief. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence but vacate the restitution order, remanding the matter for a hearing to determine the correct amount of restitution. No dissent was registered.
In OCCA case No. M-2009-1146, Ronald Dean Gallaway appealed his conviction for Driving while Impaired (Count 1). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reversed the sentence and ordered a remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Gallaway was tried in Texas County for two offenses: Driving while Impaired and Speeding. The jury found him guilty of the lesser offense of Driving while Impaired and decided on a sentence of six months in jail and a $500 fine for that charge, plus a $200 fine for speeding. Gallaway's appeal focused on two main issues. First, he argued that the breath test results should not have been allowed in the trial because the proper procedures for administering the tests were not followed. However, the court found that even if this was an error, it was harmless because the evidence from the trial was still strong enough to support the conviction for Driving while Impaired. The jury chose not to convict Gallaway for the more serious charge of Driving under the Influence, which would have required reliance on the breath test results. Second, Gallaway claimed that his sentence was incorrect because the court did not follow the rules regarding alcohol assessments. The law requires that an alcohol and drug assessment be done before sentencing and that the recommendations from this assessment be included as part of the sentence. The court found that while an assessment was done, the judge did not include all of the recommended conditions in the sentence. As a result, the court decided to reverse the sentence and send the case back for resentencing in accordance with the law. Gallaway was given the opportunity to request an order to suspend part of his sentence during this new hearing.
In OCCA case No. M-2010-341, Katherine Denise Burns appealed her conviction for Harassment by Use of an Electronic Device. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and instructed to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. Burns was found guilty in a trial in the District Court of Seminole County, where she was accused of sending harassing text messages to Jennifer Johnson. The court sentenced her to six months in jail, but the sentence was suspended. Burns argued that the way the charges were written (the Information) was not clear enough and that the evidence against her was not strong enough to convict her. During the trial, the State presented evidence that Burns sent three text messages to Johnson. The first message included Johnson's social security number, the second suggested Burns knew personal information about Johnson, and the third revealed Johnson's home address. The State claimed that Burns violated a law that prohibits making electronic communications without disclosing one’s identity in a way that annoys, abuses, threatens, or harasses another person. However, the court found that the messages did not meet the legal requirement because Burns’s cell phone number was visible to Johnson. The court concluded that since Burns's identity was clear, she could not be convicted under the law cited by the State. Ultimately, the court decided that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that Burns committed the specific crime she was charged with, leading them to reverse her conviction and dismiss the case.
In OCCA case No. M 2009-1064, Jesse Douglas Stein appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse- Assault and Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the Judgment and Sentence and remand the matter for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jesse Douglas Stein was charged with domestic abuse and had a trial without a jury. He was found guilty and got a sentence that included some jail time and a fine. However, Jesse claimed that he did not properly give up his right to have a jury trial, which is really important. The court found that there was not enough proof that he made this choice in a clear and smart way. During the appeal, the State tried to add more information to the case, but the court decided that this new information did not prove that Jesse had given up his right to a jury trial the right way. Because of this mistake, the court said that they would send the case back for a new trial where Jesse could have a jury. The judges agreed that they needed to reverse the earlier decision because of the issues with the jury trial waiver. They did not need to look at other reasons Jesse gave for appealing since they already decided to reverse the decision and start fresh. In summary, Jesse's conviction was overturned, and he was given another chance for a trial with a jury.
In OCCA case No. M 2007-0560, William Galletly appealed his conviction for splitting contracts. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and dismiss the case. One judge dissented. Here's a simpler explanation: William Galletly worked as the City Manager of Grove. He was charged with splitting a big contract into smaller ones, which is against a law meant to create fairness in bidding for city contracts. A jury found him guilty of this charge and he had to pay a fine. The main question was whether what he did should be considered a crime. The law at the time of his actions did not clearly state that splitting contracts was a crime, which is why the court decided he should not be punished under the general rules for misdemeanors. Because of this, they decided to reverse the punishment and dismiss the case against him. One judge disagreed with this decision.
In OCCA case No. M-2006-1334, Michael David Williams appealed his conviction for misdemeanor Domestic Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for one count but reversed the other, instructing that charge be dismissed. One member of the court dissented. Michael David Williams was charged with two counts of misdemeanor Domestic Abuse after incidents involving his wife. After a jury trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine for both counts, though one fine was not imposed. Williams claimed errors in the trial regarding witness statements, insufficient evidence for his conviction, and misconduct by the prosecution. During the trial, Williams' wife testified that no abuse had occurred and that injuries she had were due to a fight with her aunt and an accident. However, earlier police statements made by her during investigations indicated otherwise. Williams argued the trial court should not have allowed these statements without proper instruction on how the jury could use them. The court noted that it could allow witness statements to be used for impeachment purposes, even if the witness didn't fully recall making them. However, the court found that the jury might have been misled about how to use those statements in one of the cases, leading to confusion regarding the evidence of guilt. The court affirmed Williams' conviction for the first case, where there was a lot of strong evidence against him, including police testimony and photographs of the scene. However, for the second case, the court ruled that the evidence presented was not enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They decided to reverse this conviction and ordered it to be dismissed. In conclusion, the court upheld the conviction for the first incident but reversed the second due to insufficient evidence and errors in how the trial was conducted.
In OCCA case No. M-2005-375, the appellant appealed his conviction for Reckless Driving, Leaving the Scene of an Accident, Failing to Register a Vehicle, and Failing to Carry Security Verification. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions for Reckless Driving, Leaving the Scene of an Accident, and Failing to Carry valid Security Verification and remand for a new trial. The conviction for Failing to Register a Vehicle was also reversed with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case involves an appellant who was convicted after a jury trial in Love County. He was sentenced to a total of over two years in prison and ordered to pay restitution for damages. Appellant raised several issues on appeal, primarily arguing that the trial court made mistakes during the trial, including allowing improper questioning about a previously withdrawn guilty plea and imposing an illegal punishment. The trial started with the appellant being arrested for multiple offenses related to driving and vehicle registration. At first, he agreed to plead guilty but decided to withdraw that plea after getting legal help. During his trial, the prosecution wrongly questioned him about that guilty plea, which was acknowledged as an error by both sides. This error was seen as significant enough to potentially affect the jury's decision, therefore, the court believed a new trial was necessary. For the offense of Failing to Register a Vehicle, the court found that the punishment given was not within the law's limits. Furthermore, the state agreed that the appellant should not have been charged under Oklahoma law since the vehicle was bought out of state. Thus, the conviction for this offense was also overturned. In conclusion, the court acted to protect the fairness of the trial process by ordering new trials for some convictions and dismissing others. The decision addressed important legal standards and ensured that justice was served correctly.
In OCCA case No. M 2007-0118, the appellant appealed his conviction for public drunkenness. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Here’s a brief summary of what happened. The appellant was found guilty of public drunkenness after a bench trial in the Municipal Court of Oklahoma City. He was fined $69. The case began when the police received a noise complaint about the appellant's hotel suite, where he was hosting a group of kids for a football event. The kids had left earlier in the evening, and only a few adults remained. When the police arrived, they noted a strong smell of alcohol on the appellant. However, witnesses said they weren't drinking that night, including the appellant himself. During the trial, it was revealed that the appellant had a speech impediment, which may have been mistaken for drunkenness. Even though the police claimed the appellant was belligerent and had slurred speech, there was no strong evidence that he was actually intoxicated or causing any disturbance in a public place. The court found merit in the appellant's argument that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of public intoxication. They concluded that he was not drunk while in a public area, as he was in a rented hotel suite at the time. Based on this, the court reversed the conviction and directed the lower court to dismiss the case.
In OCCA case No. M-2007-192, the appellant appealed his conviction for three counts of Threatening by Telephone or Other Electronic Communication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. The appellant, Robert Eugene Schwab, was found guilty by a jury in Creek County for sending threats through electronic communication. The jury decided his punishment would consist of a short jail time and fines. However, the case raised a significant legal question about whether the appellant's actions were considered a crime at the time he committed them. During the trial, it was discovered that the specific crime Schwab was convicted of was not defined as illegal when he sent the emails in question. After looking into this issue, the State acknowledged this error and agreed that the conviction should be reversed. The court decided that Schwab's actions did not fit into the law as it was understood at that earlier time, which led to the decision to dismiss the charges against him.
In OCCA case No. M-2007-62, Jimmy Dale Luttrell appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery in the Presence of a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Luttrell's conviction due to insufficient evidence. One judge dissented. Luttrell was found guilty by a special judge and was sentenced to one year in jail with the sentence suspended, along with fines and costs. The main issue in the appeal was the lack of evidence against Luttrell. The victim, who was Luttrell's wife, did not testify at the trial. Since the wife did not provide testimony, the judge did not allow police officers to share what she had told them or to show her written statement. This left no evidence that proved Luttrell was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The State tried to argue that even without the victim's testimony, there was enough evidence for a reasonable person to conclude Luttrell was guilty. However, the court found that in previous similar cases, the victim's statements were allowed as evidence. Since Luttrell's case did not have any proof to establish that he committed the crime, the court reversed his conviction. Because of double jeopardy rules, Luttrell cannot be tried again for the same accusation, and the case was sent back to dismiss the charges.
In OCCA case No. M-2006-370, #Nicholson appealed his conviction for #Direct Contempt of Court. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to affirm one count of contempt and reverse five counts. #One judge dissented. Jeremy Dion Nicholson was found in contempt of court during his co-defendant's trial. He received six citations, and each citation came with a six-month sentence in jail, which were to be served one after the other. Nicholson argued that being held in contempt violated his right to remain silent, as he was involved in another case that was still being appealed. He also said the judge acted improperly and that there was a mix of errors which caused him to not have a fair trial. The court explained that Nicholson had been granted immunity for his testimony, meaning his answers could not be used against him later. This immunity meant he was expected to testify and had lost his right to avoid incriminating himself in this situation. The court agreed that he would be held in contempt for refusing to testify, and canceled five of his six contempt convictions but kept one. The decision acknowledged that the trial judge made mistakes but noted that the judge's actions were aimed at making sure Nicholson was protected under the law. The judge didn't show any improper behavior in her conduct during the trial of the co-defendant. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction for one count of contempt but overturned the other five counts and instructed that those be dismissed. There was a disagreement among the judges, with one judge believing the judge had acted more like a prosecutor than an impartial figure, which could lead to problems in how justice was served.
In OCCA case No. M-2006-555, the appellant appealed his conviction for recklessly conducting himself with a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence and ordered a new trial. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was charged with a crime called Feloniously Pointing a Firearm. However, after a jury trial, he was found guilty of a lesser crime, which was Reckless Conduct With a Firearm. The punishment for this was six months in jail and a fine of $500. The appellant raised several arguments for why he believed the jury should have decided differently. First, he claimed that he was not properly told about his right to defend himself when he was faced with danger. Second, he argued that he could not access evidence that would show that a witness was not telling the truth. Third, he felt that the jury's decision was based on guesses rather than solid proof. Lastly, he believed he did not have good help from his lawyer during the trial. The court found that the instructions given to the jury were not clear about the appellant's right to self-defense. The jury had even sent a note to the trial court saying they did not feel they understood this important piece of information. The law says that a person must have the chance to explain their side of the story, especially when it comes to self-defense, and in this case, the jury did not get the right instructions about that. Since this was a big mistake that could have affected the jury’s decision, the court decided to reverse the original judgment. It means the appellant will have another chance to prove himself in a new trial. The court did not explore all the details of the self-defense claim but decided that the jury needed the proper guidance on this important matter. The case is now remanded back to the District Court for a new trial where the jury can hear the complete story, including the self-defense argument. This verdict was supported by the judges, but one judge had a different opinion about the case.
In OCCA case No. M 2005-0404, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented from this decision. The case involved an appellant who was found guilty by a jury in a district court. He was sentenced to one year for each of the two counts and was fined $1,000. During the appeal, the appellant raised several issues regarding his right to counsel. He argued that he did not knowingly or voluntarily give up his right to have a lawyer during the trial. The appellate court found that while the appellant had filled out a waiver of counsel form, the trial record did not clearly show that he understood the risks of representing himself. The court mentioned that the trial judge should have made sure the appellant was fully aware of what he was giving up by not having a lawyer. As a result, the court believed that the appellant did not make an informed choice about waiving his right to counsel, which affected the fairness of his trial. Because of this main issue, the court did not need to consider the other problems raised by the appellant, such as comments made during the trial and actions taken by the prosecutor. Overall, the court decided that the appellant should have a new trial to ensure he gets a fair chance to defend himself properly.
In OCCA case No. M 2005-0332, the appellant appealed his conviction for reckless driving. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the conviction and modify it to a lesser charge of speeding. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant received a speeding ticket on September 17, 2003, for going 90 mph in a 65 mph zone. During the trial, the judge found the appellant guilty of reckless driving and sentenced him to 90 days in jail, with 30 days to serve and the rest suspended, along with a $300 fine. The appellant did not appeal in time but was allowed to do so later. During the appeal, the appellant claimed two main points. First, he argued that his speeding did not meet the level of culpable negligence needed for reckless driving. The law requires more than just speeding to prove reckless driving. The state argued that speeding around other cars during the day showed enough negligence to support the conviction. Second, the appellant contended that he was not allowed to cross-examine a witness after the judge asked a question about intersecting roads. The judge’s questioning provided new information that had not been discussed before. The court pointed out that the appellant had the right to confront witnesses and cross-examine them, which was denied in this case. Ultimately, the court found that there was not enough evidence to support the reckless driving charge and modified the conviction to speeding instead. The court agreed to vacate the reckless driving sentence and sent the case back to the district court for proper sentencing on the speeding charge.
In OCCA case No. M 2005-0332, the appellant appealed his conviction for reckless driving. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the conviction from reckless driving to speeding due to insufficient evidence of reckless behavior. One judge dissented. The case started when the appellant received a traffic ticket for speeding, going 90 mph in a 65 mph zone. The traffic stop occurred on a dry day with moderate traffic. The officer who stopped the appellant said he did not see anything dangerous other than the speeding. The appellant was guilty of speeding, but the state argued that speeding was enough to prove reckless driving. For reckless driving, the law requires showing that someone acted with culpable negligence, which means the behavior must be more than just speeding. The court cited past cases that supported this idea, indicating that simply going over the speed limit is not automatically reckless driving. The state claimed that because there were other cars on the road and the appellant passed an intersection, that made the speeding reckless. However, the appellant pointed out that while he was speeding, he did not engage in reckless behavior that would endanger others. Another issue in the case was that the trial judge asked a witness about intersections but did not allow the appellant to ask the witness questions afterward. The court found that this was a mistake because everyone has the right to question witnesses against them. In the end, the court decided that while the appellant was guilty of speeding, there wasn't enough evidence for the reckless driving charge. They changed the conviction to speeding, removed the reckless driving sentence, and sent the case back to the lower court to decide the proper punishment for speeding.
In OCCA case No. M-2004-802, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was stopped by a police officer early in the morning because his car was parked in a lot with its lights on, near a closed restaurant. The officer got suspicious due to a series of burglaries happening in the area recently. When the officer approached the car, it began to move. The officer then decided to stop the vehicle to ask what the appellant was doing there. During the trial, the appellant argued that the stop was illegal. He believed that the officer did not have enough reason to suspect that he was doing something wrong. The officer admitted during the hearing that he did not know for sure if the appellant was involved in criminal activity when he made the stop. The court reviewed the situation and concluded that the officer did not have a good reason to think the appellant was doing anything suspicious. They pointed out that the appellant's actions could easily be seen as innocent. The conclusion was that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion, which is necessary to make a legal stop, and therefore the evidence collected after the stop should not have been used against the appellant. Ultimately, the court reversed the conviction, meaning that the case would not proceed further and the appellant's charges would be dismissed. One judge disagreed with the decision, arguing that the officer had good reasons to make the stop based on the circumstances around the time and location.
In OCCA case No. M 2004-0742, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicants and failure to wear a seat belt. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the decision and dismiss the case. One judge dissented. The case involved an appellant who was stopped by a police officer for not wearing a seat belt. The officer did not see the appellant driving erratically. However, the officer noticed that the appellant smelled like beer and had bloodshot eyes. The appellant told the officer he had consumed three or more beers, but the officer did not ask how long ago he had been drinking. During the trial, it became clear that the judge did not properly define what under the influence meant according to the law. The judge misunderstood that for someone to be considered under the influence, their ability to drive must be affected. This misunderstanding is very important because it means the trial didn't follow legal rules which are necessary for a fair judgment. Because of the mistake in understanding the law, the court decided that the evidence wasn't enough to support the appellant's conviction for driving under the influence. As a result, they overturned the conviction and directed the lower court to dismiss the case. This means that the appellant's conviction is no longer valid, and there will be no punishment against him for the charges.
In OCCA case No. M-2004-66, Foy Anthony Boyd appealed his conviction for Driving While Impaired (DWI). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Boyd’s judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Boyd was convicted in the District Court of Coal County after a jury trial. He was sentenced to pay court costs and a fine because he was found guilty of DWI. Boyd argued that he should not have been convicted because he believed the results of his breath test should not have been used as evidence. He claimed that the rules about how the breath test should be given were not followed, so the results were not valid. The state, which was against Boyd in the case, argued that they did not make a mistake and that there was enough evidence to convict him without the breath test results. However, the court pointed out that it was the responsibility of the state to prove that all rules were followed when giving the breath test. The state did not show what the relevant rules were or that the officers followed them properly. Boyd presented evidence showing that the breath test was not conducted according to the rules that the Board had in place. The state just had officers say they believed the rules were followed without providing the actual rules or clearing up the concerns about them. The court decided that this was a significant error. Even though officers testified that Boyd showed signs of being impaired before the breath test was done, the court concluded that the use of the test in the trial was a violation of Boyd's rights. Since the state didn't prove that the breath test was done correctly, the court believed Boyd deserved a new trial. Boyd asked for his conviction to be completely dismissed. However, the court felt that it was fairer to allow the state to have another chance to present the case with proper evidence. If the state could show that the breath test was given correctly in the retrial, they could use those results against Boyd. The court ordered that Boyd's conviction be overturned and that the case be sent back for a new trial where the state could fix the issues with the evidence. In the dissenting opinion, the judge believed that the evidence supporting Boyd’s conviction was strong enough even without the breath test. This judge pointed out that the officers had seen signs of intoxication in Boyd, like the smell of alcohol, his bloodshot eyes, and his poor performance on sobriety tests. The judge argued that Boyd's guilty verdict should stand since traditional signs of impairment by officers could be enough for a conviction.
In OCCA case No. M-2002-1195, Anita Shank appealed her conviction for Driving Under the Influence, Transporting an Open Container of Beer, and Obstructing an Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm her convictions for Transporting an Open Container and Obstructing an Officer, but modified her Driving Under the Influence conviction to Driving While Impaired and remanded the case for sentence modification. One judge dissented. Anita Shank was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol, transporting open containers of beer, and obstructing an officer during her trial. She received a 90-day sentence for driving under the influence and fines for the other two charges. Shank contested her convictions on several grounds, claiming the evidence was insufficient and arguing errors regarding jury instructions and sentencing. During the trial, it was noted that Shank was stopped by a sheriff's deputy while she was driving and had an open container of beer in her car. The deputy observed signs of intoxication, like bloodshot eyes. Shank admitted to drinking two beers but refused to take a breathalyzer test. When questioned about the whereabouts of her child, she lied and was uncooperative. The court found that there was enough evidence to support her conviction for driving under the influence but acknowledged that the jury should have been instructed on the possibility of a lesser offense—Driving While Impaired. The state agreed that not instructing on this was an error, although they deemed it harmless. Additionally, Shank argued the trial court should have considered a suspended sentence for her. The record did not show that the court completely ignored this request, but the judge did express a need for proof of her willingness to enter treatment for alcohol issues. After the appeal, it was revealed that Shank completed the treatment program, prompting the court to order the lower court to consider this when evaluating her suspended sentence request. The court upheld the obstruction conviction, stating that her deliberate lies and refusal to cooperate with the deputy interfered with the execution of his duties, which constitutes sufficient grounds for the charge. In conclusion, while Shank's obstruction of an officer and open container convictions were affirmed, her DUI was modified to a lesser charge of DWI, and the court directed the district court to revisit her request for a suspended sentence.
In OCCA case No. M-2003-450, Edward Allen Rayls appealed his conviction for Attempting to Elude a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction with instructions to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. Rayls was found guilty after a jury trial and was sentenced to a fine and time in jail. He argued that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction. He also said the court made a mistake by not allowing a 911 tape that could have helped his case and that the prosecutor was unfair. The court looked at all the information and agreed with Rayls that there wasn’t enough evidence to say he was trying to get away from the police. The law says that for someone to be guilty of attempting to elude, they must be intentionally trying to escape. The facts showed that Rayls was driving normally and didn't break any traffic laws when a police officer tried to pull him over. He didn’t see the police car until just before he stopped his vehicle. Because of this, the court decided to reverse the judgment and instructed to dismiss the case. The dissenting judge felt differently. This judge thought the jury had enough evidence to make their decision and that the evidence should be respected. The dissenting opinion argued that there was a reasonable basis for the jury to find Rayls guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence they heard during the trial.
In OCCA case No. M-2003-784, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Stalking. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the Appellant's judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The Appellant, Bradley Allen Crawford, was initially convicted of Stalking in the District Court of Oklahoma County. He was sentenced to six months in county jail. During his appeal, he argued that he should have been allowed to show that the complaining witness might have had a reason to be biased against him. During the trial, the Appellant wanted to present evidence related to a child custody case that involved the complaining witness. However, the trial court did not permit this information. The Appellant also tried to question the complaining witness about her possible bias during her testimony, but the trial court stopped him, stating that it was related to other domestic issues. After the trial, the Appellant requested a new trial because the judge had not allowed him to present evidence about the witness’s potential bias, but this request was denied. The court noted that it’s important to allow evidence that could show a witness might be biased. It explained that this kind of evidence is usually admissible in court. The appellate court found that the Appellant was not given a chance to show that the complaining witness had motives that could affect her testimony. They pointed out that the witness's credibility was crucial to the trial since everything the police said was based on her accounts. The appellate court decided that the trial court's errors in not allowing the questioning about the witness's bias were significant enough that they could have changed the outcome of the trial. Because of this, the Appellant's original conviction was overturned, and the case was sent back to be tried again.
In OCCA case No. M-2003-495, a person appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but noted that there was a mistake in calculating the court costs. The appellant claimed that the court costs were too high and asked to have them changed. The state agreed that an error was made in the amount of costs. The court ordered that the case be sent back to the District Court to fix the court costs. The appellant also argued that the prosecutor did things that were unfair during the trial, but the court found no reasons to change the verdict since there weren’t any objections during the trial. Therefore, the judgment and sentence were upheld.
In OCCA case No. M-2003-513, the appellant appealed her conviction for resisting an officer and possession of marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the fine for possession of marijuana. One judge dissented. The appellant was found guilty by a jury for two charges: resisting an officer and possession of marijuana. The incident happened when a truck driver reported a car driving erratically on a highway. When officers arrived, they found the appellant behind the wheel, showing signs of intoxication with the smell of alcohol and marijuana. Initially, the appellant was compliant, but she soon became aggressive and refused to cooperate with the officers. When they tried to arrest her, a struggle ensued, and the appellant physically fought with the officers. After getting her under control, the officers conducted a search of her vehicle and found marijuana. Later, while being booked at the jail, they discovered she had a marijuana cigarette in her pocket. The appellant believed her sentence of twenty months for the crimes was too harsh. She requested that they serve her sentences at the same time instead of one after the other. However, the court found that the sentences were reasonable and did not shock their conscience, so they decided to keep them consecutive. However, they agreed with the appellant that a fine of $1,000 imposed by the trial court was too high, as it exceeded what the law allowed. The maximum fine for the possession charge was actually $500 according to the law, so they reduced her fine to this amount. In summary, while the court upheld the appellant's conviction and the overall punishment, they made a small change to the fine amount.
In OCCA case No. M-2002-1146, Michael Lee Vickery appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, and driving under suspension. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to three months of incarceration, giving credit for time served. One judge dissented regarding the modification.
In OCCA case No. M-2002-263, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In a published decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. In this case, the appellant, who we will call #1, had several legal issues. He was found guilty of different crimes related to driving, like drinking and driving and having an open container of alcohol in his car. Because of these convictions, he received various punishments, including jail time and fines. #1 claimed that he should not have been punished multiple times for what he did, saying it violated his rights. He also believed that the punishment he received was too harsh and did not follow the law. The court looked at everything and decided that #1's convictions were valid and should stay. However, they also believed that the sentences should be changed. Instead of the original punishments, they modified them to be a total of 60 days, and all fines and costs were put on hold. This was a fair decision considering the circumstances, and it meant that #1 would not have to serve as much time as originally decided. The decision seemed mostly agreed upon by the judges, but one judge thought differently and did not agree with the majority's opinion.