In OCCA case No. RE 2009-0080, Zachary Glenn Hayes appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the order requiring him to pay jail costs. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2008-753, the Appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana and driving while privilege revoked. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the Appellant's suspended sentences for most counts, but vacated the revocation of the suspended sentence for one count because the Appellant had already served that sentence. One member of the court dissented. Here's what happened: The Appellant had entered guilty pleas for multiple charges, including possession of drugs and driving offenses, and was given suspended sentences, meaning he would not serve time in jail as long as he followed the rules of his probation. Later, the state accused the Appellant of breaking the rules of his probation. After a hearing, the judge ruled to revoke all of his suspended sentences. The Appellant appealed, arguing that one part of the judge's decision was incorrect because he had already finished serving that part of his sentence. The court agreed and decided to remove the part of the revocation related to that count. However, the court did not find that the judge acted unfairly or excessively in revoking the other suspended sentences, as the Appellant did not comply with the probation requirements despite being given a second chance. In summary, while the Appellant lost the chance to keep those suspended sentences, one mistake in the original order was corrected.
In OCCA case No. RE-2008-1001, Sedrick Moltke Frierson appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of six and one-half years of his nine and one-half year suspended sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when Appellant entered a guilty plea for delivering controlled substances and was given a suspended sentence in 2007. This meant he wouldn’t have to serve time in prison right away, but he had to follow certain rules. Unfortunately, he broke those rules by using drugs, committing more crimes, and not paying required fees or attending counseling. The state of Oklahoma requested that his suspended sentences be revoked because he didn’t follow the conditions of his probation. A hearing was held to look into this matter, and the judge decided that Appellant had indeed breached his probation conditions. So, he decided to revoke a big portion of Appellant's suspended sentence. Appellant raised two main points in his appeal. He argued the judge's decision was not fair and that it didn’t help him get better. He also claimed some costs should be removed from the written order, saying they were not part of the original agreement. The court explained that when reviewing a revocation, they could only look at whether probation rules were broken and decide on the sentence. The judge’s original decision to revoke the sentence was affirmed because the Appellant had indeed violated the terms of his probation. However, the court agreed that there was a mistake about some of the conditions in the written order regarding supervision. They said that the written order needed to be updated to reflect that Appellant’s remaining term of supervision should not require him to have any supervision, as the original ruling suggested. Overall, while the revocation was upheld, it was determined that the written decision needed to change to make sure there was clarity about the conditions of the remaining term.
In OCCA case No. RE-2008-880, William John Myers appealed his conviction for two counts of Second Degree Arson. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation order in one of the cases but affirmed the revocation in the other case. One judge dissented. Myers had earlier pleaded guilty to two arson offenses and received a suspended sentence of 20 years, with the first 7 years of that sentence active, meaning he had to serve that time in prison unless he followed probation rules. Later, in 2008, the court found that he had broken the rules of his probation, leading to the judge revoking the suspended part of his sentence. Myers argued that one of his revocations should not have happened because the State did not file a required petition to seek that revocation. The court agreed with him, stating that without the petition, they did not have the authority to revoke his sentence for that case. However, for the other case, where Myers had also violated probation, the court held that the decision to fully revoke the suspended sentence was within the trial court's discretion, and they found no mistake in that ruling. Therefore, the court decided to reverse the order about the first case but keep the revocation in place for the second case. This means that Myers still has to serve part of his sentence for the second case while the order regarding the first case was sent back to the lower court to clarify that he still has his suspended sentence in that case.
In OCCA case No. RE 2008-0961, Adrian Smith appealed his conviction for robbery and burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but also ordered that the judgment be corrected to show that he had nine years remaining instead of ten years. One judge dissented. Adrian Smith had pleaded guilty to several crimes, including robbery with a weapon. He got a sentence of ten years for each crime, but all of them were set to run at the same time, which means he would only serve the longest sentence. If he completed a substance abuse program, he would not have to serve the sentences after the first year. After being released, the state asked to take back his suspended sentence because they believed he had not followed the rules. After a court hearing, the judge decided to revoke the suspended sentences completely. Smith then appealed, saying the judge made mistakes. First, Smith claimed the judge was wrong to revoke his sentence for ten years. However, the state agreed that it should state nine years instead. Second, Smith argued that he did not get a fair process because the judge did not write down why his sentence was revoked. The court found that he was given enough information about why this decision was made, so he was not denied due process. Lastly, Smith argued that revoking his full sentences was too much. The court concluded that the judge had the right to make this decision and found no abuse of discretion. In the end, the appeal confirmed that the sentences would stay revoked but corrected the record to show the appropriate time remaining.
In OCCA case No. RE-2007-1233, Jeffrey Allen Holden appealed his conviction for two counts of First Degree Rape and one count of First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the District Court's ruling and dismiss the State's application to revoke Holden's suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Holden had originally entered a guilty plea and was given a long sentence with part of it suspended. However, he was accused of violating probation by contacting the victim while in prison. The rules say that a hearing to revoke a suspended sentence needs to happen within twenty days after the guilty plea. When the second hearing wasn't conducted on time, Holden argued that the court didn't have the power to proceed. The court ultimately agreed with Holden, ruling that the process was not followed correctly, and because of this, they did not have the authority to go forward with the revocation. Therefore, the case was sent back with instructions to dismiss the application.
In OCCA case No. RE 2008-411, Rocky Allen McCracken appealed his conviction for Unlawful Delivery of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but modified his five-year sentence to time served. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-061, Antwaun Deon Lewis appealed his conviction for First Degree Malice Murder and Robbery with a Firearm. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified the sentence for first-degree murder from life without the possibility of parole to life imprisonment. The sentences for both charges were ordered to run consecutively, and the decision to revoke Lewis's suspended sentence was affirmed. One judge dissented concerning the introduction of a witness's testimony from a previous trial, arguing it violated Lewis's right to confront witnesses.
In OCCA case No. RE-2008-599, Betty Sue Black appealed her conviction for obtaining cash by false pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of her probation and dismiss the State's motion to revoke her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Betty Sue Black was sentenced to ten years in prison for her crime, but she only had to serve one year in jail if she followed the rules of her probation. She was also required to pay a fine and make restitution, which means she had to pay back money she owed. After being released from jail, her first payment was due in January 2008. However, in January, the State of Oklahoma filed a motion to revoke her probation, claiming she had failed to make her restitution payment. A hearing was held, where it was found that she was unable to pay because of her financial situation. She had disabilities that affected her ability to get a job, and she lived with her sick daughter. There was no proof that she could pay the $200 she owed at that time. The court found that the only issue was her failure to pay the restitution, and they agreed that this was not a good reason for revoking her probation since she couldn't pay. They ruled that it was not fair to revoke her for something she could not control. The appellate court decided to reverse the revocation order and directed that the motion to revoke her probation be dismissed because they felt that the trial court had made a mistake in the decision. The dissenting judge believed that the trial court had not made an error and felt that the judge should be trusted to make these decisions based on what he heard and saw during the hearings.
In OCCA case No. RE 2007-0484, Shaun Lee Gessel appealed his conviction for multiple charges including unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and threatening a witness. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but ordered the cases to be sent back to the District Court for re-sentencing to fix the errors related to how the sentences were to run. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2007-850, Barbara Denise Sanders appealed her conviction for grand larceny and false declaration of ownership, as well as three counts of bail jumping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence for the grand larceny charge, but reversed the revocation of her bail jumping sentences, which means those were dismissed. One judge dissented. Barbara Sanders had pleaded guilty to her charges and received several sentences that were mostly suspended, meaning she wouldn't have to serve time if she followed certain rules. However, she did not follow these rules, which included not paying fees, failing to report to her probation officer, and leaving Oklahoma without permission. Because of these issues, the state tried to revoke her suspended sentences. At a hearing, Barbara admitted to the problems but argued the state had not acted quickly enough to bring her back to court for these issues. The judge did not agree with her and decided to revoke her sentences. On appeal, Barbara claimed that the state had not been diligent in prosecuting her case, and she also pointed out mistakes in the court's records. The court agreed that certain parts of her previous sentences had not been revoked properly and decided that the state had acted too late in one of her cases, which resulted in those charges being dismissed. In the end, the court kept the revocation for the grand larceny charge but said the revocation for the bail jumping charges was invalid because the state did not follow the rules in time.
In OCCA case No. RE 2006-0482, Juston Dean Cox appealed his conviction for multiple charges related to the concealment of stolen property and other offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Cox's suspended sentences but remanded the cases for resentencing to correct the terms to what was originally ordered. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2006-1312, Ronnie Ray Shelton appealed his conviction for Robbery by Force. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Shelton's suspended sentence. One member of the court dissented. Here is what happened: Shelton had been sentenced to ten years in prison for robbing someone, but he only had to serve three years if he followed the rules of his probation. However, on July 3, 2006, the State of Oklahoma said he broke the rules by committing new crimes, including Domestic Assault and Battery, Possession of a Controlled Substance, and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. A hearing took place on December 18, 2006, where Shelton had a lawyer. The judge said Shelton did violate his probation by committing Domestic Assault and Battery, which led to the decision to take away his suspended sentence completely. Shelton was not happy with this decision and decided to appeal it. In court, the judges reviewed if the decision to revoke Shelton's sentence was fair. They explained that to revoke a suspended sentence, there only needs to be enough evidence showing he broke the rules. They found enough evidence that Shelton did commit the necessary crime. The judges decided that taking away Shelton's suspended sentence was the right choice and there was no abuse of discretion in the judge's decision. However, they noted that there was a mistake in the paperwork regarding how long Shelton's sentence was supposed to be. The court said this mistake should be corrected to show his correct sentence. Ultimately, they agreed with the lower court's decision to revoke Shelton's sentence but ordered them to fix the error in the paperwork.
In OCCA case No. RE-2007-323, Durant appealed his conviction for the unlawful use of photographic equipment for lewd and lascivious purposes. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. To provide a bit more detail: Durant had entered a plea of no contest to a charge of second-degree rape in 2003 but received a suspended sentence. In 2005, he was charged with a new crime, which caused the state to seek to revoke his suspended sentence. After being convicted of the new offense in 2006, his suspended sentence was revoked in 2007. Durant argued that the law used to revoke his sentence was unconstitutional, that evidence against him was gathered illegally, and that there wasn't enough evidence for revocation. Later, in May 2008, the court reversed his conviction for the new crime, suggesting that his actions, though not acceptable, did not fit the legal definition of a crime. Because his suspended sentence was based only on that conviction, the court reversed the decision to revoke it.
In OCCA case No. RE-2006-1322, a person appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the District Court's revocation of his suspended sentence and instructed the District Court to vacate the sentence imposed. One judge dissented. The case began when the person entered a guilty plea in 2001 for First Degree Rape. He was originally sentenced to seven years in prison, with three years served and the rest suspended, meaning he would be on probation under certain conditions. In 2006, the state filed a motion to revoke his suspended sentence because he did not register as a sex offender, did not pay his probation fees, and did not pay fines. After a hearing, the court revoked his suspended sentence entirely. The person argued that his sentence was illegal because he was treated as a youthful offender, which is for younger people who commit crimes. He maintained that he should not have been sent to an adult prison. The court found that he had been correctly charged as a youthful offender and that the state did not follow proper procedures to change his status. The court also ruled that the lower court committed an error by sentencing him as an adult instead of as a youthful offender, which was against the law. Since he was now older, they could not send him back for new sentencing as a youthful offender, and the original sentence needed to be canceled. In summary, the appellate court acted to correct the mistakes made in the original sentencing, showing that legal procedures must be followed when sentencing individuals, especially those classified as youthful offenders.
In OCCA case No. RE 2007-0517, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute (cocaine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences. The court also decided that the order must be corrected to reflect that one of the sentences was for five years, not ten years. One judge dissented in part, agreeing with the overall decision but raised concerns about the details of the sentencing.
In OCCA case No. RE 2006-0808, Covey appealed her conviction for revocation of her suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation order and send the case back for a new hearing with counsel present. One judge dissented. Covey had pled guilty to a crime and was given a suspended sentence, meaning she wouldn't serve time unless she broke the rules again. The State thought she had broken the rules and asked the court to take away her suspended sentence. At the hearing, Covey didn’t have a lawyer because she claimed she couldn’t pay for one. The judge said Covey had enough chances to get a lawyer but decided to go ahead without one. However, the court found that there was no clear proof that Covey was okay with not having a lawyer or that she understood the risks of representing herself. This is important because everyone has the right to have a lawyer help them during important hearings like this one. Because the court didn’t follow the proper rules for allowing Covey to go without a lawyer, they reversed the previous decision and said she should have another hearing with a lawyer or a clear agreement that she didn’t want one.
In OCCA case No. RE-2006-246, the appellant appealed his conviction for several offenses involving credit cards and a weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the suspended sentences for the credit card offenses but affirmed the revocation of the suspended sentence for the weapons offense. One judge dissented. The appellant had pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including possession of a stolen credit card and using a weapon. He was sentenced to prison but his sentences were suspended, meaning he would not serve time if he followed the rules. Over time, the court decided to revoke some of this suspended time, claiming that he violated the conditions of his release. The main point of disagreement was whether the appellant had violated the terms of his suspended sentences and if the court was right to impose harsher penalties. The court found that for the first case, the timing meant the sentences had already lapsed before the state could take action, so that part was reversed. However, for the weapons offense, the court decided that enough evidence was presented to support revoking the suspended sentence, even considering the appellant’s claims about mental health issues. The judges had different views on the fairness and reasons behind the court's decisions on these matters, leading to the dissenting opinion.
In OCCA case No. RE-2006-180, the appellant appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided in part to grant the appeal, allowing credit for thirty days previously served, but denied the rest of the appeal concerning time served in county jail during the revocation proceedings. One judge dissented. The case involved Raynard Emory Dinkins, who had received a suspended sentence after pleading guilty to Unlawful Possession of Marijuana. Over time, Dinkins faced various legal issues, including an application to revoke his suspended sentence due to numerous probation violations. A judge found that he had violated several rules during his probation, leading to a revocation of his suspended sentence. The court noted that Dinkins had been in jail before his revocation hearing but did not grant him credit for that time, arguing that it was because he had trouble working with his attorneys. Dinkins contested this, claiming he should receive credit for the time he served while awaiting the hearing. The court agreed that he should receive credit for an earlier thirty-day jail term related to his probation. In the end, the court found that while Dinkins was entitled to some credit for time served, it was within the judge's discretion not to grant him credit for the later time spent in jail. Therefore, the appeal was partially granted to correct the credit issue, while other claims were denied.
In OCCA case No. RE 2006-0260, Rudy Leon Brockelsby appealed his conviction for Burglary II. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but remanded the matter to the District Court for modification of the sentence to give credit for all time served during the period of the suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Brockelsby originally pled guilty to Burglary II in 2002 and was given a five-year suspended sentence, which meant he would not go to prison if he followed the rules of probation. He had to spend the first ten days in jail and was also ordered to pay some fines and restitution. Over the years, there were several attempts to revoke his suspended sentence. Two applications from the State to revoke his sentence were dismissed after he faced sanctions and served jail time. However, in 2005, the State filed a third application, leading to a hearing in March 2006. After this hearing, the judge decided to revoke Brockelsby's suspended sentence entirely, sending him to prison for five years. On appeal, Brockelsby argued that the judge wrongly made him serve a longer sentence than originally given because he believed that he should get credit for the days he already spent in jail. He claimed he had served 190 days in jail during his suspended sentence. The State agreed that he should receive credit for those days but argued that he was still responsible for other parts of his probation. Brockelsby also said that there was not enough evidence to prove that he willfully failed to pay the restitution that was ordered. However, the court found that Brockelsby had violated other rules of his probation, not just the restitution ruling. The court ruled that the judge had the right to revoke Brockelsby's sentence based on the evidence presented and found no abuse of discretion. Therefore, while they upheld the decision to revoke the suspended sentence, they ordered that Brockelsby receive credit for the time he served while on probation.
In OCCA case No. RE-2007-378, Kevin Davis appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm part of the revocation while reversing another part. One judge dissented. Kevin Davis had previously been sentenced for possession of marijuana and for driving under the influence. These sentences included portions that were suspended, meaning he could avoid serving time if he followed the rules of his probation. However, when Davis was convicted of attempted robbery, the state sought to revoke his suspended sentences. The decision in the case centered around two main issues. First, Davis argued that the court unfairly required him to serve his revoked sentences one after the other, instead of allowing him to serve them at the same time as his new sentence. The court found that the judge had the right to make that decision and did not see it as wrongful. Second, Davis claimed that the court had no power to revoke his earlier marijuana charge since the time to do so had already passed. The court agreed with him on this point and decided that the application to revoke was filed too late. As a result, the court kept the revocation of one sentence in place but instructed the lower court to dismiss the application concerning the other sentence because it was no longer valid.
In OCCA case No. RE-2006-262, Gessel appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Gessel’s revocation was not valid due to a lack of adequate notice about the reasons for his revocation. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2005-1195, #x appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (cocaine base). In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation order of the suspended sentence. #n dissented. In this case, the appellant was found guilty of trafficking in illegal drugs back in 1997. He was given a ten-year sentence but was allowed to serve only five years after some of it was suspended. Over the years, he was on probation. However, in September 2005, the state claimed that he had violated his probation by doing something called domestic abuse and by not following a protective order. A hearing took place to investigate these claims. The judge decided that the appellant did break the rules by having some contact that could be considered domestic abuse, but it was a small violation. The contact happened when he was trying to see his baby son, which was allowed by a court order. It seemed that the meeting was short and not planned, and he ended it when it became clear that the other person wouldn't follow the rules. The court thought these special circumstances made the punishment too harsh. They decided to lessen the punishment and only took away one year from the suspended sentence instead of a larger amount. The appellant would still have to follow the rules of his probation after this one year was served. In summary, the court agreed that the appellant had a minor violation worth a one-year revocation, but otherwise, he would return to probation for the rest of his sentence.
In OCCA case No. RE-2006-1308, an individual appealed their conviction for obtaining merchandise by false pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the order revoking the suspended sentence for one case was reversed because the court did not have the right to revoke it after it expired, but the revocation for the other case was affirmed. One judge dissented. Here’s a simpler breakdown of the case: The person involved, let's call her Appellant, got in trouble for pretending to be someone else and committing fraud. In 2001, she was given a three-year punishment, but it was suspended, meaning she didn't have to go to jail right away if she followed certain rules. In 2002, she got into more trouble with three more crimes of taking things without paying. Again, her punishment was suspended, allowing her some time to pay back the money she owed. However, by 2003, the Appellant wasn't paying back the money as she was supposed to, so the authorities filed to take away her suspended sentences. Over several years, Appellant was given multiple chances to fix her mistakes and to pay what she owed, but she continued to have problems and missed important hearings. In December 2006, the decision to take away her suspended sentences was finalized. The Appellant argued that the court should not have the power to do that because the time to punish her had already passed. The court agreed on one point: they couldn't revoke one of her sentences because it had expired. But the other case was still valid because some papers had been filed before that expiration. After going through everything, the court reversed the decision about one of the suspended sentences but agreed that the other sentence could still be revoked since she had not followed the rules. This means she would still face consequences for her actions there. In the end, it showed that if you don’t follow the rules when given a second chance, there can be serious consequences, and sometimes time limits can change what can happen in court.
In OCCA case No. RE-2006-363, the appellant appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine) with intent to distribute. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence but modified the sentence to six years of incarceration. One judge dissented. The background of the case includes that the appellant entered a guilty plea in July 2003 and was sentenced to twelve years, which was suspended on the condition that she complete an inpatient drug treatment program. However, in March 2005, the state filed an application to revoke her suspended sentence due to several violations, including failure to report to her probation officer and failing to comply with drug testing and treatment requirements. The court found that she also had new drug-related charges against her. In November 2005, a hearing took place where she admitted to the violations. The court then revoked her suspended sentence completely. The appellant later tried to withdraw her plea regarding the revocation but was denied. The review showed that the court followed proper procedures, and the evidence supported the decision to revoke her sentence. Although the court upheld the decision, it decided to lower the amount of time she would spend incarcerated from twelve years to six years.