In OCCA case No. RE-2003-86 and RE-2003-87, Christi Marie Farris appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but remanded the case to the district court to order that the sentences be served concurrently. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2002-580, Garcia appealed his conviction for obtaining money by means of a false check. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the acceleration of Garcia’s deferred sentencing and sent the matter back for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Here is what happened in simpler terms: Garcia was found guilty of a crime and got a chance to avoid a harsh punishment by being put on probation for five years. But a short time after starting probation, the state said he broke the rules, so they wanted to give him a tougher punishment. The judge first made sure Garcia was mentally okay to understand what was happening and to help in his defense. After deciding he was competent, the judge allowed the hearing to continue without first ensuring that Garcia had a lawyer present. During a later hearing, it was found that Garcia indeed had violated probation, and he was sentenced to a year in jail and a fine. Garcia argued that the judge should not have moved ahead with the case without following the proper steps, especially regarding his right to have a lawyer. The court agreed with Garcia’s point. They decided that the earlier decision to make his sentence tougher was not done correctly. So, the court reversed the punishment and sent the case back to make sure Garcia had a lawyer and that all the necessary rules were followed in the next steps.
In OCCA case No. RE-2002-1077, Tracy Allen Mitchon appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation and send the case back to the District Court to correct the written order regarding the time Mitchon had already served. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE 2002-1124, Earnest Williams appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences in three cases but vacated the revocation of one case because it was found that the court did not have the authority to revoke that particular sentence. One judge dissented on part of the decision.
In OCCA case No. RE 2002-1245, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with a weapon and conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence but modify the sentence for conspiracy to ten years. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2002-523, Lonnie George Baker, Jr., appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but modified the length of the sentence. One judge dissented. Baker had pleaded guilty to possessing illegal drugs and was given a five-year suspended sentence, which meant he wouldn't go to jail unless he broke the rules. However, he violated the terms of his suspension, leading the state to file a petition to revoke it. After a hearing, the judge decided that Baker had indeed broken the rules and revoked his suspended sentence. Initially, the judge announced Baker should be locked up for 4 years and 4 months. But later, Baker argued that this was incorrect because he had less time left to serve. The state agreed with him on that point. They also discussed extra time Baker spent in a mental hospital, but the court decided he wasn't entitled to credit for those days. Ultimately, the court agreed that Baker should go to jail, but they changed his sentence from 4 years and 4 months to 4 years and 90 days.
In OCCA case No. RE 2002-0993, a person appealed their conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the person's suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case started when the person pled guilty in January 2000 and was given a ten-year suspended sentence, which meant they'd stay out of prison as long as they followed certain rules. However, in July 2002, the state claimed the person broke the rules by testing positive for methamphetamine during a drug test. During the hearing to decide if the suspended sentence should be revoked, the person's probation officer said that the test showed the person had methamphetamine in their system. The person then explained they had many health problems, including severe joint issues, high blood pressure, and a history of cancer. They also used a cough syrup prescribed by a doctor, which potentially contained ingredients that could cause a positive drug test. The probation officer, when asked, said he couldn’t be sure if the cough syrup was the reason for the positive test results. Because of this uncertainty about the cause of the positive test, the court found there wasn't enough proof that the person had broken probation rules. As a result, the court reversed the previous decision to revoke the suspended sentence, meaning the person did not have to serve that part of their sentence. The court instructed the lower court to dismiss the application to revoke.
In OCCA case No. RE 2002-0387, a person appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty to robbery with a dangerous weapon on October 5, 2000, and received a six-year suspended sentence along with a $1,500 fine. He was also given rules to follow while on probation. A little over a year later, on January 1, 2002, the state filed a petition to revoke the appellant's suspended sentence. This meant they wanted to take away his suspended sentence because they believed he broke the rules. The hearing took place on February 27, 2002. The judge found that the appellant had violated some conditions of his probation, which led to three years being taken away from his suspended sentence. The appellant was only fifteen when he committed the crime and was still just seventeen at the time of the hearing. During the appeal, the appellant argued that the evidence the state provided was not good enough to prove he violated his probation. He also said that taking away three years of his suspended sentence was too harsh, especially since there were reasons that might lessen his punishment. The case included the fact that the appellant had not finished high school, and he had a lot of rules to follow without any support or treatment. One specific rule was that he could not hang out with people who had criminal records. The state claimed that he broke this rule by being around a certain person who had a felony conviction. However, during a trial, the appellant explained that being in a large group did not mean he was talking to or hanging out with that person. The state argued that they had enough evidence since the transcripts from another trial included the appellant's testimony. However, these transcripts were not available for the court to review in this case. In the end, the court agreed with the appellant that the evidence was not strong enough to prove he had violated the probation rules. Because of this lack of evidence, the court reversed the decision made to revoke the suspended sentence and ordered it to be dismissed.
In OCCA case No. RE-2002-174, the appellant appealed her conviction for various crimes related to embezzlement and forgery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began in 1995 when the appellant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment, which was suspended, meaning she would not go to prison immediately if she followed certain conditions. These conditions included paying back over $35,000 to the victim of her crimes as restitution, reporting to a probation officer, and not changing her residence without permission. In 1997, the state said the appellant broke the rules of her probation by failing to report to her probation officer, changing her residence without permission, and not paying her restitution as required. A judge found that she did violate her probation, but there were multiple delays in resolving her punishment, which lasted about four and a half years. In 2001, the appellant missed a court hearing, and the court issued a warrant for her arrest. After her arrest in January 2002, a final hearing took place where the judge ordered her to serve the full five years of her sentences and added extra fees for sheriff's costs. The appellant then appealed this decision, proposing several arguments against the court's order: 1. She argued that the sheriff's fees were imposed unlawfully and violated her rights. 2. She claimed the restitution amount was uncertain and should not be required. 3. She believed the court could not revoke her suspended sentence after such a long time. 4. She felt her due process rights were violated because the imposed punishment was excessive. After reviewing the case, the court agreed with some of the appellant's points. It decided that the sheriff's fees were not legally appropriate because they cannot be added after a sentence has been given. They also found that appellant’s arguments about the restitution were too late because those challenges should have been made back in 1995 when the restitution was set. However, the court did agree with the appellant that it was too long between when she was sentenced and when her probation was revoked; thus, they ordered that her two five-year sentences should run at the same time (concurrently) instead of one after the other (consecutively). In conclusion, the court modified the earlier order by removing the sheriff's fees and adjusted how long the appellant would be imprisoned.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-1375, the individual appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Theft of a Debit Card, Grand Larceny, Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, and others. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but modified the sentence for Grand Larceny in one count due to an error. One member of the court dissented. The case began when the individual pled guilty to several offenses on December 5, 2000. He was given sentences that were mostly suspended, meaning he would not have to serve time unless he broke the rules of his probation. However, on September 25, 2001, the State of Oklahoma said he violated those rules by not reporting to his probation officer and committing another crime, which led to a hearing. During the hearing, the judge decided to revoke his suspended sentences. The appellant argued that his punishment for Grand Larceny was too harsh since it violated the rules for sentencing that say he should not have gotten more than a year in jail for that specific crime. The court agreed that the original sentence was incorrect but also ruled that it did not harm the individual too much since his other sentences were still valid. The individual also claimed that he was unfairly required to pay for restitution he believed he should not have been responsible for, but the court found he did not follow the proper steps to challenge that. Lastly, he argued that his overall sentences were excessive, but the court determined that since the sentences were within a reasonable range and he had indeed violated his probation, there was no unfairness in the judge's decisions. So, the court affirmed most of his sentences and ordered a correction for the incorrect Grand Larceny sentence, which should only require one year of confinement.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-947, the appellant appealed his conviction for indecent exposure. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the matter to the District Court of Noble County for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The story begins when the appellant entered a guilty plea for indecent exposure in 1991 and was given a suspended sentence. This means he wouldn't serve time unless he broke the rules of his probation. However, in 1999, the State said he had committed another crime while on probation and wanted to take away his suspended sentence. During the revocation hearing, it was discovered that when the appellant was sentenced, he should not have been given a suspended sentence at all because of his prior convictions. According to Oklahoma law, if someone has three or more felony convictions, they aren't allowed to receive a suspended sentence. The court noted that both the appellant and the State were aware of his criminal history, and no evidence was presented to show that he was eligible for a suspended sentence. In fact, the plea agreement that he entered into was not legal under the law. Because of these issues, the court decided that the appellant's original judgment and sentence should be vacated, meaning it was canceled. This allows the appellant a chance to withdraw his guilty plea, which he can do if he wants to go to trial for the indecent exposure charge again. If he chooses not to withdraw his plea, he will then be sentenced again, but this time, it will be done right and in accordance with the law. Ultimately, the court took this action to ensure that everything was done fairly and legally, giving the appellant a proper opportunity to have his case heard correctly in the District Court. The ruling was important in maintaining the rules around sentencing and ensuring that people with multiple convictions are treated based on the law.
In OCCA case No. RE 2001-1070, Billy Joe Baldwin appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, Feloniously Pointing a Weapon, and Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Baldwin's suspended sentences but modified the sentences to one year revoked with the remainder suspended, to run concurrently. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-1120, Mitchell Wayne Pate appealed his conviction for Felony Omission to Provide for a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the partial revocation of his suspended sentence. The State agreed that the appeal had merit, and the court changed the previous decision to state that only one year and six months of Pate's suspended sentence is revoked.
In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0911, the Appellant appealed his conviction for burglary and larceny of an automobile. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order from the lower court regarding the Appellant's participation in Drug Court. One judge dissented. In this case, the Appellant, after pleading guilty to burglary and larceny, had his original sentence changed to a suspended sentence with probation requirements. He was required to attend drug counseling and submit to drug tests. However, the State later claimed that he did not complete the agreed program. During the hearing about this issue, there was confusion about whether it was a revocation of his suspended sentence or a termination from Drug Court. The evidence showed uncertainty about the Appellant's actual participation in Drug Court. The court noted that it could not determine if the lower court had abused its discretion due to the confusion during the hearings. Ultimately, since it was unclear if the Appellant was appropriately part of the Drug Court, the higher court reversed the lower court's decision and instructed to dismiss the case instead of continuing with the termination.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-749, Lloyd Samuel Heath, Jr. appealed his conviction for the revocation of suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Lloyd Samuel Heath, Jr. had originally entered a guilty plea for Second Degree Burglary and Concealing Stolen Property in 1993. He was given three years of imprisonment on both charges, but these sentences were suspended, meaning he wouldn’t go to jail if he followed certain rules. However, he committed another crime in 1993, which violated the terms of his suspended sentences. In 1994, the State applied to revoke his suspended sentences because of this new crime. There was a significant delay before the hearing actually took place. Heath was not given a hearing until 2000, which was almost six years after the application to revoke was filed. He argued that the State did not act quickly enough and that this delay meant the revocation should not happen. The State admitted that they had made a mistake and agreed with Heath’s concerns about the delay. The court agreed with Heath’s argument and decided to reverse the order that revoked his suspended sentence. They also instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. The decision meant that Heath’s original sentences were not enforced, and he would not have to serve them because the State did not handle the process in a timely manner.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-687, the appellant appealed her conviction for Uttering Two or More Bogus Checks Exceeding $50.00. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the matter for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. One judge dissented. The case began in 1995 when the appellant entered a plea of Nolo Contendere, which means she did not admit guilt but accepted the punishment for the crime. She was found guilty of writing bad checks to a grocery store, and her sentence was put on hold for five years, during which she had to pay restitution and other costs. However, she violated her probation by not making payments or reporting to her probation officer, leading to the state requesting her sentence be enforced in 1999. On May 23, 2001, the court found the appellant had violated her probation and sentenced her to one year in jail. She was also ordered to pay restitution for her bad checks, but the total amount was very high compared to the checks she admitted writing. The appellant argued that she should not have to pay such a large amount of restitution because she was not convicted of all the other related checks that contributed to that total. There were many checks between different years, and she felt the court had made an error by imposing restitution for checks she never had to answer for in court. Additionally, the appellant felt that the court had not looked into whether she could afford to pay the restitution without hardship to herself or her family. The court had different amounts recorded for restitution over time, which contributed to her confusion regarding what she owed. Also, when she was jailed, the appellant thought the fees for her time in jail were unfair and more than the actual cost of her incarceration. She claimed that the costs were not justified by evidence and that no one checked if paying these fees would create a financial burden for her. The court recognized the problems she raised about her case, particularly regarding her obligation to pay the reported costs and restitution without proof they were correct or fair. They decided that the lower court needed to review everything again: why the appellant was ordered certain restitution, if she could afford to pay it, and what the correct amounts should be. In summary, the court referred the case back to the lower court to have them investigate these issues further. The goal was to ensure that the appellant's rights were protected and that the law was being correctly applied.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-649, RE-2001-650, the appellant appealed his conviction for revoking a suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold the revocation of the suspended sentences but instructed the lower court to correct the time remaining on one of the sentences. One judge dissented. The case involved an individual who had previously been convicted of pointing a firearm and was given a ten-year sentence that was suspended, meaning he did not have to go to jail right away if he followed the rules set by the court. Unfortunately, the appellant broke several of these rules, which led to the first part of his suspended sentence being revoked after five years. Later, he committed new offenses while still on probation, including not reporting to his probation officer and testing positive for drugs. Because of these additional violations, the state filed applications to revoke the remainder of his suspended sentence. In court hearings, the appellant was given chances to show he could follow the rules, but he did not meet the requirements set by the court, leading to the revocation of both suspended sentences. The court found there was enough evidence to show he had violated his probation. However, the appellant argued that the court made a mistake by sentencing him to serve a full five years in one part of his case when he had less than five years left. The state agreed with this point, and the appeals court ruled to correct the time he should actually serve. Overall, the court decided that the revocation was justified due to multiple violations. The case shows the importance of following court rules after a suspended sentence is given.
In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0540, Eddie Craig Monarch appealed his conviction for a suspended sentence violation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the additional imposition of community service. One judge dissented. In this case, Monarch had initially pled guilty to Driving While Under the Influence and Driving Under Suspension. He received a five-year suspended sentence for the first charge and a short jail time for the second, along with some fines and requirements like community service and using an interlock device on his vehicle. Later, Monarch did not meet the conditions he agreed to, such as paying probation fees and using the interlock device, which led the State to ask for a revocation of his suspended sentence. After a hearing, the judge found that he had indeed violated these terms and revoked two years of his suspended sentence. Monarch appealed this decision, stating that the evidence against him wasn't strong enough and that he didn't have the means to pay the fees or participate in the programs. The court noted that only a preponderance of evidence was needed to prove a violation and found that there was enough evidence to support the judge's decision to revoke his sentence. However, the court agreed with Monarch that the judge did not have the authority to impose extra community service hours since it was not part of the original punishment. So, they confirmed the revocation of his suspended sentence but removed the extra community service requirement.
In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0383, Benton appealed his conviction for indecent or lewd acts with a child under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Benton pleaded guilty to three counts of indecent or lewd acts with a child in 1996. He was sentenced to seventeen years for each count, but the last ten years of his sentences were suspended, meaning he wouldn't have to serve that time in prison if he followed certain rules and conditions, like going to counseling and keeping the court informed of his address. In February 2000, the state filed a request to take back his suspended sentence because they claimed Benton violated his probation. They said he didn’t report his change of address to the authorities, didn’t check in regularly, and didn’t attend counseling. However, the hearing regarding his probation violation was postponed until March 2001, almost two years after the request was made. During the hearing, the judge found that Benton had indeed failed to report, change his address, and attend the required counseling. As a result, the judge decided to revoke his suspended sentences, which meant Benton would have to serve ten years for each count in prison. Benton appealed this decision, arguing that the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove that he had violated the terms of his probation. The court acknowledged that the state's witness did not have sufficient information about Benton’s case since she had just started working on it and had never met him. The probation officer who had worked with Benton was no longer at the office and did not testify. Additionally, it was mentioned that Benton might not have reported or informed the authorities of his new address because he was mentally incompetent and was in a hospital at the time. It seemed he could not attend counseling sessions because he was referred to other types of treatment. The court found that there was not enough evidence to show that Benton willingly broke the probation rules. They decided to reverse the order revoking his sentences and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. Overall, the court said that the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Benton violated his probation, leading to the reversal of his sentence.
In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0663, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In a published decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. In this case, the Appellant had previously pled guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, possession of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. As a result, the Appellant was given a suspended sentence of five years for the first two counts and a one-year suspended sentence for the third count. A suspended sentence means that the person does not have to serve time in jail unless they break the rules. Later, the State wanted to take back the suspended sentences because they believed the Appellant broke the rules. They filed an application for revocation, and a hearing was held. The judge decided to revoke the five-year suspended sentences for the first two counts but found that the one-year sentence for the third count had already expired. The judge also ordered that the new sentences would run consecutively with any new cases the Appellant might have. This means that the Appellant would serve time for the revocation and also for any new offenses afterward without merging those sentences. However, the Appellant appealed this decision, arguing that the judge did not have the authority to order the five-year sentences to run consecutively with new cases. The higher court agreed with the Appellant's argument and said the judge made a mistake in this part of the decision. The court affirmed the revocation of the Appellant's suspended sentences but modified the sentence to remove the part about running consecutively. This means the Appellant would still be punished for breaking the rules, but they wouldn't have to serve their new sentences one after the other in this case. The court instructed the lower court to update the judgment to reflect this change. In summary, while the Appellant's suspended sentences were revoked, the way the new sentences were to be served was changed. The final decision supported the revocation, but clarified the terms of the punishment.
In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0351, the appellant appealed his conviction for violating probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided in favor of the appellant, agreeing that the trial court made a mistake in ordering sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-180, Jason Lee Hunt appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Hunt's suspended sentence. One member of the court dissented. Jason Lee Hunt had originally been convicted for unlawfully possessing marijuana and had received a suspended sentence, which means he did not have to serve time in jail as long as he followed certain rules. However, he got in trouble again when he did not report to his probation officer, did not tell the officer when he moved, and missed payments he was supposed to make as part of his probation. The court held a hearing to discuss these issues. The judge determined that Hunt had clearly violated the terms of his probation and decided to revoke his entire suspended sentence. Hunt appealed this decision, arguing that the judge made some mistakes, like not properly checking if he could afford to make the payments and not giving him a fair chance to defend himself. After reviewing the case, the court found that there was enough proof that Hunt had not followed the rules of his probation. They agreed with the judge's decision to revoke his sentence but disagreed with the part where he was asked to pay for jail expenses. The court decided to remove those payment orders.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1209, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including kidnapping and rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty to several serious charges in 1992, including kidnapping and rape, and received suspended sentences, meaning he wouldn't serve time in prison as long as he followed certain rules. Later, a protective order was issued against him due to concerns from another person. Over the years, he faced more legal issues, including a new conviction in 1997. In 2000, the state asked the court to revoke his suspended sentences, claiming he violated the protective order. After a hearing, the court revoked all his suspended sentences. The appellant disagreed with this decision and pointed out four main problems with how his case was handled. He argued that his new sentence was too long, that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he broke the protective order, that the revocation was unfair, and that he didn’t properly receive notice about the charges. The court reviewed his claims and found that there was enough evidence to support the revocation of his sentences and that the trial court made a reasonable decision. However, the court also agreed with the appellant that his sentence for one charge was incorrectly stated as nine years when it should have been seven years. In the end, the court upheld the revocation of his suspended sentences but changed his sentence for the kidnapping charge to the correct length.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1429, Walker John Myers appealed his conviction for attempting to elude a police officer and resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered that the district court clarify the order. One judge dissented. Myers had originally received a sentence of one year in jail for each of the charges, with some time suspended. After an investigation, the court found he had violated the terms of his probation. The appeal focused on whether there was enough evidence for this decision, and on the clarity of the revocation order. The court found that Myers had previously admitted to violating his probation, which meant that the revocation was supported by evidence. However, it also noted that the order was unclear about how much of his remaining sentence was actually being revoked, leading to the requirement for a clearer explanation from the district court.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1470, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided that while the appellant's suspended sentence was properly revoked, the trial court should have clarified whether the sentence was to be served at the same time as other offenses or one after the other. One judge dissented.