In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0575, Greenlow appealed his conviction for several offenses, including unlawful possession of a controlled substance and false impersonation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Greenlow's suspended sentences but ordered a remand to modify one of his sentences due to it being longer than the law allows. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-693, Michael Wayne Dorsey appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree and Shooting with Intent to Kill. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Dorsey's conviction and his sentences but vacated the $5,000 victim compensation assessment set by the trial court. One member of the court dissented. Dorsey was found guilty by a jury of manslaughter and shooting with intent to kill. The jury decided on a punishment of thirty years for manslaughter and five years for the shooting charge, which would be served one after the other. Dorsey argued that he should have been allowed to use self-defense as a reason for both charges, but the court found that the instructions given to the jury were correct. Dorsey also claimed that the trial judge made an error with jury instructions regarding self-defense and intoxication, but the court disagreed. He further asserted that his lawyer was not effective because there was no objection raised to those jury instructions, but the court ruled that there was nothing wrong with the instructions in the first place. Lastly, Dorsey objected to the judge imposing the victim compensation amount without considering several important factors. The court agreed that the judge did not properly assess the situation and sent the case back to the trial court for a new decision on the compensation amount. Thus, the main outcome was that while Dorsey's conviction was upheld, the court required a reconsideration of the victim compensation assessment based on certain statutory factors outlined in the law.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-08, Ralph T. Smith, Jr. appealed his conviction for kidnapping, first-degree robbery, attempted rape, forcible sodomy, first-degree rape, and unlawful possession of a controlled drug. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence on Count I to ten years imprisonment and to remove post-imprisonment supervision from Counts III, IV, and V. One judge dissented. **Summary of the Case:** Ralph T. Smith, Jr. was found guilty of serious crimes against a 76-year-old woman, R.C., after they met at a casino. Smith initiated a friendly interaction with R.C., who ended up offering him a ride. However, he then assaulted her and committed various violent acts, including attempted rape, forcible sodomy, and robbery. The jury sentenced Smith to long prison terms for each conviction. **Key Facts:** - During a day at the casino, Smith befriended R.C. and, after some time, manipulated her into giving him a ride. - Smith then forcibly assaulted R.C. at her house and later at a motel. - After the incident, R.C. reported the crime to her family and the police. **Legal Issues:** 1. **Speedy Trial**: Smith argued that his right to a speedy trial was violated according to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. The court reviewed the timeline of events and denied his claim, stating that the time delays were justified. 2. **Sentencing Instructions**: Smith contested that the jury was improperly instructed about the potential punishment. The court agreed there was an error and modified the sentences accordingly. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: He claimed that he did not get adequate legal representation, particularly related to the sentencing instructions. The court noted that this claim was valid but remedied through the sentence modifications. 4. **Prosecutorial Misconduct**: Smith argued that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments were inappropriate. The court found the comments were not severe enough to undermine the fairness of the trial. 5. **Jurisdiction**: Smith questioned whether the court had jurisdiction over some charges since the crimes occurred in different counties. The court ruled that jurisdiction was proper because the kidnapping and subsequent crimes were closely connected. 6. **Pro Se Brief**: Smith attempted to submit additional complaints without sufficient support from his attorney. The court denied this attempt due to failure to follow proper procedures. In conclusion, while Smith's sentence modification was granted throughout the appeals process, the court maintained that he was rightly convicted and that the initial trial was fair despite some errors.
In OCCA case No. M-2011-1083, the appellant appealed his conviction for resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Franklin Savoy Combs, who was found guilty of resisting an officer after a jury trial. The trial took place in Hughes County, and the appellant received a sentence of ninety days in jail and a fine of $300. Combs later appealed this decision, challenging the way he represented himself in court. In his appeal, Combs argued that the trial court did not properly inform him of the risks of self-representation. The court looked at the records from the trial to see if Combs had knowingly decided to waive his right to have a lawyer. They found that there was not enough evidence to show that he fully understood what he was doing when he chose to represent himself. The court explained that before someone can represent themselves, it is very important that they know what that means and what they might be giving up. If there are doubts about whether a person really understood their rights, those doubts should be viewed in favor of that person. Since the court determined that Combs did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel, they decided that his conviction needed to be reversed. The case was sent back for a new trial where he can have proper legal representation.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-686, Joseph Dewayne Conner appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery and First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal regarding the robbery conviction, but granted it concerning the burglary conviction. The court found that Conner had been misinformed about the possible sentence for burglary, which affected his decision to plead guilty. Although Conner’s actual sentence was within the correct range, the incorrect information he received could have influenced his plea. #n dissented on the decision regarding the robbery conviction.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-473, Joseph Randal Arndt appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm. In a published decision, the court decided that Arndt's right to cross-examine his co-defendant was denied, which required a reversal of his conviction and a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Arndt, his co-defendant, and another man who planned to buy marijuana from a person named Ouni. Instead of a legal transaction, things turned violent when Arndt's accomplice pulled a gun and shot Ouni when he thought he was cheated. Arndt was in the car during this event and was accused of participating in the robbery. During the trial, Arndt argued that he should have been allowed to question his co-defendant about important details that could affect his case. These details included accusations that Arndt had a shotgun and was told to push Ouni out of the vehicle. Arndt's lawyer objected when this information was presented during the trial, but the judge denied the request to cross-examine the co-defendant. Arndt maintained that both he and the co-defendant claimed to have no knowledge of any robbery plan. When the co-defendant testified against Arndt, the court should have allowed Arndt to cross-examine him. The court found that the judge's failure to do so was a serious error that harmed Arndt's rights. In conclusion, the decision emphasized that when someone testifies against you in court, you have the right to question them. Since Arndt was not given this opportunity, the court decided that he deserves a new trial where he can fully defend himself.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-866, Emanuel D. Mitchell appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony (Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Mitchell's case for a trial where he may be allowed to represent himself. One judge dissented. This case began when Mitchell was found guilty of murder and conspiracy after a jury trial. He was sentenced to life in prison for the murder and 35 years for conspiracy, along with an additional 10 years for unauthorized vehicle use. Mitchell appealed, stating four main reasons why he believed his conviction should be overturned. First, Mitchell claimed that he was not allowed to represent himself during his trial, which he argued violated his rights. He believed he could defend himself better than his attorney. However, the court denied his request for self-representation, stating that it was not in his best interest. The court should have ensured that he was fully aware of the potential risks associated with representing himself before denying his request. Second, Mitchell argued that the laws applied to him during his murder prosecution were not supported by the evidence presented. He believed his rights were violated, which would require the court to dismiss the murder charge. Third, Mitchell stated that he was not allowed to present a full defense in court, suggesting that this was an unfair violation of his rights. Finally, he claimed that his attorney did not provide effective assistance, which is a right guaranteed by law. After reviewing all the information in the case, the court found that Mitchell's first argument was valid. It concluded that the trial court had wrongly denied his request to represent himself and that this mistake warranted a reversal of his conviction. They remanded the case back to the lower court so Mitchell could exercise his right to defend himself. Although the court found that the felony-murder charge against Mitchell was valid, and that there was no error in the jury instructions about the defenses, they acknowledged that these points were not the main issue due to the ruling on self-representation. Consequently, the matter about ineffective counsel was deemed moot. The final decision was to reverse the current judgments against Mitchell and send the case back to start fresh, allowing Mitchell the opportunity to represent himself.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-1062, Scott Allen Phillips appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Phillips' conviction and sentence, but remanded the case for consideration of whether Phillips' sentence should be suspended. One judge dissented. Scott Allen Phillips was found guilty by a jury of Lewd Molestation, which is a serious crime involving inappropriate touching of a child. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison, during which he must serve at least 85% before he can be considered for parole. Phillips claimed there were several errors during his trial that should lead to his conviction being overturned. Phillips argued that the prosecutor presented too many instances of inappropriate touching without clearly stating which one he was being accused of for the charge. He also believed there wasn't enough evidence to support the conviction. Additionally, he stated that the judge's decision not to consider a less severe punishment for him was unfair because he exercised his right to a jury trial. Phillips raised multiple issues during the appeal. The court looked at arguments closely and decided that the prosecutor's actions were correct and that they followed the law. They found that there were enough facts for the jury to conclude that Phillips had molested the child. The judges pointed out that the jury's role is to decide who they believe and what evidence to trust. Regarding the sentencing process, the judges noted that the trial judge didn't consider Phillips' request for a lesser sentence. This became important because a judge is expected to think about such requests carefully, regardless of whether the defendant went to trial. This is why the court decided to give the case back to the lower court for a fresh look at Phillips' request for a suspended sentence. Another major point Phillips raised was his concern about how the trial was handled. He asked to speak with jurors after the trial ended, hoping to gather more insight about their decision. However, the court said this was not allowed because jurors cannot discuss their deliberations or decisions after the trial is over. The court also examined the use of videotaped evidence during the trial. Phillips complained that the videos of the alleged victim’s statements should not have been shown again to the jurors while they were discussing. However, the judges felt the decision to show the videos was acceptable and did not harm Phillips' chances at a fair trial. Ultimately, the judges concluded that they would not disturb Phillips' conviction since there was sufficient evidence and no significant errors during the trial that affected the outcome. However, they did want the lower court to look again at Phillips' request for a suspension of his sentence, ensuring he had a fair chance at having that request reviewed properly. In conclusion, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence while allowing the opportunity for reconsideration regarding the potential suspension of the sentence, which shows that even in serious cases, there are processes in place to ensure fair treatment under the law.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-866, Emanuel D. Mitchell appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony (Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand the case for a new trial where Mitchell may have the chance to represent himself. One judge dissented. Mitchell was found guilty of serious crimes and was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and additional years for conspiracy. He felt he was not being properly defended by his attorney and had asked multiple times to have his attorney replaced. Eventually, he requested to represent himself, expressing dissatisfaction with his legal counsel. The court found that Mitchell’s request to represent himself was clear and that he understood the risks of doing so. The court concluded that he had the constitutional right to self-representation, which had been violated when his request was denied. Although the court addressed other issues raised in Mitchell’s appeal, the main reason for the reversal was the denial of his right to represent himself. The dissenting opinion argued that the trial court acted correctly by not allowing Mitchell to self-represent due to his disruptive behavior during the trial process. In summary, the decision allows Mitchell another opportunity to conduct his own defense, considering that he properly requested this right before the trial proceedings were fully underway.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-664, Juan Gabriel Choxmis appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Choxmis's petition for a writ of certiorari, meaning they agreed to look at his case again because he did not receive fair representation at his hearing to withdraw his guilty plea. The court found he should have had a lawyer who did not have a conflict of interest. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. J 2013-0130, D.I.S. appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order adjudicating D.I.S. as a delinquent child and remand the matter to the District Court with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. This case began when a Juvenile Petition was filed on July 25, 2012, against D.I.S., who was just 14 years old. He was charged with three counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon in Pontotoc County. After a hearing on February 5, 2013, the judge found that D.I.S. had committed the offenses and declared him a delinquent child. He was ordered to stay with his mother under supervision until another court hearing about his situation. D.I.S. appealed this decision, arguing that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he used a dangerous weapon, or that he had intent to cause serious harm. The law requires that to be declared a delinquent child, the evidence must clearly show proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeals court agreed with D.I.S. and said that the evidence was not sufficient to support the idea that he was guilty of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Therefore, they reversed the previous ruling and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case against him. The case was important because it highlighted the need for strong evidence when judging a child in the juvenile justice system. The court made it clear that if the facts aren’t strong enough, they cannot find a child guilty of serious charges. This ruling protects the rights of young people by ensuring they are only judged based on solid evidence.
In OCCA case No. S-2012-553, Armstrong appealed his conviction for unlawful drug possession and distribution. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling that evidence obtained during a search of a vehicle occupied by Armstrong and Johnson should be suppressed. Johnson dissented. The case started when police met with an informant who said they could buy methamphetamine from Armstrong. The police observed a controlled purchase of drugs and later obtained a search warrant for Armstrong's home. They executed this search warrant a few days later and found Armstrong and Johnson in a car outside his residence, where they discovered several drug-related items. Both Armstrong and Johnson hired the same lawyer and filed motions to suppress the evidence from the car search. The district court agreed with their argument that the police had not executed the search warrant immediately, as the warrant required. Because of this, the court decided the search was not valid. The appeals court looked into whether the district court had made a mistake. They decided that the court did not abuse its discretion and confirmed the lower court's decision to suppress the evidence. This means that the evidence collected during the search could not be used against them in court. The court emphasized that the terms of the warrant were not followed as required. The ruling highlighted the importance of following legal procedures when executing search warrants. In summary, Armstrong's appeal was not successful, and the ruling to suppress the evidence was upheld.
In OCCA case No. S-2012-553, Frank Lee Armstrong appealed his conviction for unlawful drug charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that suppressed the evidence obtained during the search of a vehicle occupied by Armstrong and Sheila Carol Johnson. Johnson also appealed her conviction in a related case, S-2012-554. The court found that the law enforcement officers did not execute the search warrant in a timely manner as required, which led to the suppression of the evidence. The judge's determination was based on the conclusion that the search was not conducted immediately as directed by the issuing judge, and therefore, the court upheld the lower court's decision, sustaining the motions to suppress. No dissenting opinion was filed.
In OCCA case No. RE-2011-606, Douglas Raymond Norwood appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug (cocaine) with intent to distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking Norwood's suspended sentences but vacated the portion of the order that unlawfully lengthened his sentences. One judge dissented. Here's a simple summary of what happened in the case: Norwood was given a six-year sentence for possessing cocaine, but this was suspended, meaning he didn’t have to go to jail right away if he followed certain rules. Later, he had problems following those rules, which led to more charges against him for drug possession. He confessed to these new charges and took a plea deal, which resulted in longer sentences. After some time, a judge reviewed his case and decided to reduce his sentences but required him to go to a program called Avalon after he got out of jail. Norwood didn’t manage to get into Avalon because he couldn't pay the admission fees, which led the judge to completely revoke his suspended sentences. Norwood argued in court that the judge shouldn’t have done that because he had followed some of the rules, and he claimed he didn't intend to break those rules. However, the court found that he didn’t follow the requirement to report to Avalon properly. In the final decision, the court agreed with Norwood about a mistake in how his sentence was handled, stating that the judge had taken away more time than he should have. But overall, the court decided that Norwood had violated his probation, so he had to serve his time in jail as determined by the judge.
In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0259, the appellant, Samuel David Murich, appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In a published decision, the court decided that the revocation of Murich's suspended sentences was not valid because the State did not prove the finality of the conviction it used to revoke his probation. The court agreed with Murich’s argument and reversed the revocation. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2011-710, Jermaine Richard Newton appealed his conviction for two counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation order of his suspended sentences to time served. One judge dissented. Newton had originally pleaded guilty to the charges and was given a ten-year suspended sentence, which meant he would not go to prison right away as long as he followed certain rules. One of the rules was that he could not break any laws. Later, he was accused of violating a protective order that had been put in place to keep him away from a specific person. The court examined whether there was enough evidence to show that Newton had broken the order. They found that there was enough proof that he had violated the order by being near the person it was intended to protect. The court also looked at whether the decision to revoke his suspended sentences was fair or too harsh. The judges noted that he was young and hadn't been in trouble before this violation. They concluded that sending him to prison for the full ten years was not necessary since he hadn't done anything very dangerous lately. In the end, the court decided he should not serve the full ten years but should instead be given a second chance, and they ordered that he should be returned to probation. The judges who agreed with this decision believed it was a fair outcome. However, one judge disagreed and felt that the original decision to revoke his suspended sentences should stand.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-499, Richard Harold Bazemore appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child (Counts I-VI) and Lewd or Indecent Acts With a Child Under Sixteen (Count VIII). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the presentence investigation fee to $250.00. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2012-294, Doris Jean Whitaker appealed her conviction for an unspecified crime. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and remand the case for a new trial due to a lack of adequate record on appeal. The State agreed with the decision, acknowledging that the failure to provide a trial transcript denied Whitaker her right to a meaningful review of her case. A dissenting opinion was not noted.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-168, Tommie Joe Moore appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, and Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Moore's convictions but modified his fine on one count. One judge dissented. Moore was found guilty after a jury trial and received a sentence of twenty years for Distribution and a $25,000 fine, ten years for Possession and a $7,500 fine, and twenty-five years for Trafficking with another $25,000 fine. The sentences for the Distribution and Possession counts were ordered to be served at the same time, but the Trafficking sentence was to be served afterward. Moore raised several points in his appeal. He argued that the fine for the Distribution count was too high and that it should be corrected. He claimed that the jury should have been instructed about a lesser charge related to Possession and that he did not get a fair trial because of mistakes made during the trial, including some comments made by the prosecution. He also stated that the sentences he received were too harsh and should not have been served one after another, but at the same time. After reviewing all the evidence and arguments, the court agreed that the fine for the Distribution count was indeed too high and changed it to $10,000. However, the court found that there was no need for a lesser charge instruction, and that the prosecution's actions did not affect the fairness of Moore's trial. The sentences given to Moore were within legal limits, and the court did not think they were excessively harsh. In the end, the court affirmed Moore's convictions but made a change to reduce the fine in one of the counts. This meant that while the convictions stood, Moore would not have to pay the original high fine, and he could continue to serve his sentences as ordered.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-437, Mark J. Lawler appealed his conviction for rape in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Mark J. Lawler was found guilty of rape in the first degree by a jury and given a sentence of thirty-five years in prison. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes during his trial. First, Lawler thought he should have been allowed to represent himself instead of having a lawyer. He argued that this was his right under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court agreed with him, stating that he had clearly asked to represent himself at least five days before the trial, which was a reasonable request. The court also found that Lawler understood the risks involved in defending himself without a lawyer. The trial court was wrong to deny his request, so that was a significant error. Second, Lawler argued that he did not get a speedy trial, which is another right he had under the law. Although there were delays in the trial, the court found that they were not entirely Lawler's fault. The reasons for the delays included busy courts and other issues that were not intentional. However, the court also decided that Lawler did not show he was hurt by the delay, so they did not agree with his claim on this point. In summary, the court found that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing Lawler to represent himself. Because of this error, they reversed his conviction and sent the case back for a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-407, Kevin Maurice Brown appealed his conviction for multiple counts of robbery and firearm possession. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions on all counts except for one count of possession of a firearm, which was reversed. One judge dissented. Kevin Brown was found guilty of robbing several businesses in Tulsa, using a firearm during these crimes. The jury decided on severe punishment, including life imprisonment and hefty fines. The trial also took note of Brown's previous felonies, which influenced the decisions. During the case, issues arose regarding double punishment for two counts of firearm possession that were related to the same gun. Brown’s defense argued that charging him with both counts violated the principle against double jeopardy, which protects individuals from being punished multiple times for the same crime. The court agreed that the evidence showed he was being punished twice for the same offense, which is not allowed, and reversed the conviction for one of those counts. Brown also felt he didn’t receive good legal help during his trial because his lawyer didn’t challenge the double counting of the firearm charges. However, since one count was reversed, this concern was considered resolved. Additionally, Brown thought his sentences were too harsh, especially since no one was hurt in the robberies. The court stated that while the sentences were serious, they were within the law, and given his past convictions, they did not seem extreme or unjust. Brown submitted additional concerns in a separate brief, but these were not accepted because they did not follow required guidelines. As a result, the court denied those arguments. In summary, while Brown's convictions for robbery and firearms were mostly upheld, one of the firearm possession counts was overturned due to improper double punishment. The court found no errors significant enough to change his overall sentence, which reflected the severity of the crimes committed.
In OCCA case No. RE-2011-562, Jack Joseph Taylor appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided in favor of Taylor, reversing the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Taylor entered a guilty plea in 2001 to arson and conspiracy to commit arson, leading to a ten-year sentence, most of which was suspended under probation conditions. In 2011, the State accused him of violating his probation due to a new charge of child abuse. A different judge held the hearing, during which he checked evidence from Taylor's new case and found that Taylor had violated his probation. However, he postponed deciding on the punishment until after the new trial. The new trial resulted in a conviction for child abuse, with a ten-year sentence. The judge then revoked Taylor's suspended sentence, which led him to appeal. Taylor argued that he did not receive a fair hearing because the judge presiding over the revocation was previously involved as a prosecutor in his original case. The court ruled that it is important for judges to be neutral and not have prior involvement in cases they are deciding. The court found that the judge should have recused himself due to his past connection with Taylor's case, stating that a decisionmaker must be fair and detached according to legal standards. Ultimately, the court determined that the revocation hearing was not handled correctly and ordered a new hearing before a different judge.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-1019, Timmy Howard Dickey appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his conviction to Incest instead. Two judges dissented. Timmy Howard Dickey was tried by a jury and found guilty of Child Sexual Abuse. The trial occurred in the District Court of Caddo County, and the judge sentenced him to 5 years in prison. Dickey was charged with having sex with his 17-year-old niece, B.D. The charges came to light when B.D. reported to the police that Dickey had raped her. Dickey's main argument on appeal was about the definition of a person responsible for the health, safety, or welfare of a child. He claimed that the court didn't have enough evidence to show that he was in a position of responsibility for B.D. at the time of the incident, which was necessary for a conviction of Child Sexual Abuse according to the law. The court agreed with Dickey’s argument, stating that there wasn't enough proof that he was a custodian as defined by the law. The law categorized those responsible for a child’s welfare, and the court found that Dickey did not fit into these categories like parents or legal guardians do. Since the legal definition of custodian requires formal authority granted by a court, and Dickey did not have such authority, the court found his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse could not stand. Even though they found insufficient evidence for that specific charge, the court acknowledged that Dickey did commit a serious crime against B.D. They indicated that it would be more fitting to change his conviction to Incest, recognizing that Dickey admitted to having consensual sex with B.D. during an interview after the incident. Ultimately, the court decided to change Dickey's conviction from Child Sexual Abuse to Incest but kept the sentence at 5 years of imprisonment. The decision was made to send a strong message about the seriousness of the crime. In conclusion, Dickey's charge was modified to recognize the seriousness of his actions, but technically, he was incorrectly charged at first. The judges had different opinions on the case, with two of them disagreeing with the court's decision to alter the conviction.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-277, Crystal Lynn Erb appealed her conviction for Child Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for the appointment of new, conflict-free counsel to represent Erb in her application to withdraw her Alford plea. One judge dissented. Crystal Lynn Erb was charged with child neglect after she was accused of not taking care of her infant, Tamberlyn Wheeler. The events that led to the charges happened between January 2008 and April 2008, but the official charges were not filed until January 2011. This was a delay of almost 2 years and 9 months. A preliminary hearing took place in May 2011, and Erb was bound over on the charge. On October 12, 2011, she entered an Alford plea, which means she did not admit guilt but accepted a plea deal because it was in her best interest. She agreed to testify against her co-defendant, Samuel Wheeler, and was released on her own recognizance. During the sentencing hearing in February 2012, Erb was sentenced to 30 years in prison. Shortly after, her lawyer filed a motion for her to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing that Erb was innocent. However, during the hearing for this motion, the lawyer did not present any strong arguments or evidence for why Erb should be allowed to withdraw her plea. The judge denied the motion. Erb later filed an appeal and sought a review by the court, raising several claims for why her plea should be re-evaluated. She argued that her plea was not made knowingly or intelligently and that she did not receive good legal help due to a conflict with her attorney. The court noted that the issues Erb raised in her appeal were not dealt with properly by her lawyer when they tried to withdraw her plea. The court expressed concerns about whether her plea was voluntary and if her attorney did not provide effective assistance. Since the same lawyer represented Erb during both the plea and the motion process, the court decided that Erb needed a new attorney who could help her without any conflicts of interest. As a result, the court ordered that the case be sent back to appoint a new lawyer for Erb so that they could help her file a new application to withdraw her Alford plea and represent her in any related hearings. The decision was made to ensure that Erb received fair and effective legal help.
In OCCA case No. S-2012-244, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Sonya Renee Wichert for unlawful purchase of pseudoephedrine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the case against Wichert. One judge dissented. Wichert faced eleven counts related to breaking the Meth Registry Act, which had come into effect on November 1, 2010. She had a previous conviction for possession of methamphetamine and was on probation. The case stemmed from an investigation that revealed she purchased pseudoephedrine after the law took effect, leading to her arrest. At her preliminary hearing, Wichert argued that the law shouldn't apply to her because her conviction happened before the law was in place. The judge agreed with her, stating there could be serious problems with fairness if the law was applied to her without her having been informed of it. Because of this lack of notice about the new law, the district court decided to dismiss the charges. The court referenced a previous case, Wolf v. State, which established that individuals who are on probation when a law takes effect must be notified if it affects them. Without proper notice regarding the Meth Registry Act, the court ruled that it would not be fair to hold Wichert accountable under this law. Thus, the overall decision was to uphold the dismissal of her case because applying the law without notification did not meet the necessary fairness requirements.