Files - Page 32 of 66 - OCCA Opinions

F-2011-366

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 12, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-366, Tony Ray Gipson appealed his conviction for First Degree Malice Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and remand the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Tony Gipson was found guilty of murdering Victor Berryhill by stabbing him multiple times during an argument at a housing complex. The argument arose after tensions escalated between Gipson's brother and Berryhill. Earlier in the night, Gipson had an altercation with his girlfriend, after which he left. When he returned, he saw his brother involved in an argument with Berryhill, which prompted him to stab Berryhill before kicking him. During the trial, Gipson tried to argue that he was acting in defense of his brother, claiming that he was provoked. He raised several issues on appeal, including a challenge to the state’s jurisdiction based on his Indian heritage and the property being classified as Indian country. The court found that the property did not meet the criteria to be considered Indian country under federal law, concluding that the state had jurisdiction to prosecute Gipson. Gipson also argued that the trial court erred in excluding certain statements made by his co-defendant, but the court determined that these statements were not reliable or relevant. The court found no abuse of discretion regarding jury instructions on self-defense or the admission of evidence regarding a prior domestic dispute involving Gipson, even though this evidence may have harmed his chances during sentencing. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction but decided that Gipson's harsh sentence was likely influenced by the improper admission of evidence relating to his character, which led to the decision to vacate the sentence and order resentencing.

C-2011-945

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 6, 2012
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2011-945, Hall appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny Hall's petition to withdraw his plea but reversed the conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented.

F-2011-4

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 6, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-4, Dara D. Payton appealed her conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Drugs, Second and Subsequent Offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order of deferment from the District Court. One judge dissented. Payton was found guilty after a bench trial, which is a trial without a jury. The judge decided not to give her a final judgment or sentence right away, instead deferring it for five years. Payton appealed this decision, raising three main points. First, she argued that her arrest should not have happened because it was made outside the officer's jurisdiction, and the officer did not follow the rules for making a citizen's arrest. Second, she claimed that she should not have to pay certain costs and fees because she relies only on disability benefits for her income. Third, she said the written order of deferment did not match what the judge said in court. The court found that Payton's arrest was legal. Even though the officer was outside his normal area, the court believed he was justified in his actions due to fresh pursuit, meaning he was actively following Payton because he saw her breaking the law. The judge stated that the officer followed Payton, observed her erratic driving behavior, and called for more help when Payton could not pass a sobriety test. The arrest was determined to be lawful under the circumstances. Regarding the costs and fees Payton questioned, the court said it could not decide the issue because she had not properly followed the procedures to dispute them. Payton did not request a hearing or show evidence about her financial situation to the court, making it unclear if the costs should be adjusted. For the written deferment order, the court acknowledged that it did not accurately represent what the judge had said. They decided to send the case back to the District Court to fix these errors so that the written order matched what the judge had pronounced in court, specifically that the deferment period would end on December 11, 2015, and that the supervision by the district attorney would only last for the first two years. In summary, while the court agreed with the deferment and found Payton's arrest valid, they also recognized the need to correct the written order to reflect the judge's original statements properly. The judge's conclusions about the case led to an affirmation of the deferment but a remand for the clerical corrections.

C-2011-1119

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 5, 2012
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2011-1119, Hollis Michael Anson appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Hollis Michael Anson was charged in Osage County District Court with making a controlled dangerous substance. He pleaded guilty, which means he admitted to the crime. After that, he was given a long sentence of twenty-five years in prison. Later, he wanted to take back his guilty plea, so he filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. However, the court did not agree with his request after a hearing. In his appeal, Anson claimed there were mistakes made that affected his trial and his plea. He argued that his lawyer had a conflict of interest, which meant that his lawyer could not effectively help him. This was because the same lawyer had worked on his plea and sentencing, which made it hard for the lawyer to clearly represent Anson during the hearing to withdraw his plea. Anson believed that there wasn’t enough proof that he understood what he was pleading guilty to. He also thought that the sentence he received was too harsh. After looking closely at all the details of the case, the court agreed that there was a significant problem with Anson's representation during the motion to withdraw his plea. They found that his lawyer did not provide the help he needed because he couldn't argue properly without pointing out his own mistakes. So, the court said they would send the case back to the lower district court. There, Anson would have the chance to have a different lawyer represent him—one without any conflicts—to properly address his concerns about withdrawing his guilty plea. This was an important decision because it meant Anson would have another chance to argue his case.

F-2010-1237

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 5, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-1237, James Lee Gilford, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery with a weapon, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, assault while masked or disguised, and first-degree burglary, each after prior felony convictions. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and assault while masked or disguised but affirmed his convictions for robbery with a weapon and first-degree burglary. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of one of the convictions. The case began when Gilford was tried by a jury and convicted on several counts. The jury decided that Gilford should spend life in prison for each count, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. Gilford appealed, raising several issues, including concerns about jury selection, due process, multiple punishments for the same act, and inaccuracies in his judgment and sentence. 1. **Jury Selection**: Gilford argued that the prosecutors unfairly removed minority jurors. The court found that the prosecutor had provided good reasons for these removals, and Gilford did not prove any discrimination occurred in the jury selection process. 2. **Due Process Rights**: Gilford claimed he was denied a fair trial because the state didn't share some important information about a key witness. However, the court determined that this did not affect the outcome of the trial significantly. 3. **Multiple Punishments**: The court analyzed whether Gilford's convictions were for separate crimes or for just one act. Gilford's robbery, where he stabbed the victim and took his things, was connected to assaults he committed during that event. The court decided that the assault and battery charges arose from the same action as the robbery and therefore fell under laws that prevent punishing someone twice for the same act. 4. **Judgment and Sentence Issues**: Since the court reversed the assault charges because they were multiple punishments for a single act, they found that any inaccuracies in the sentencing for those charges didn't matter anymore. The final decision was that Gilford's sentences for robbery with a weapon and first-degree burglary would stay, while the court ordered the other two charges to be dismissed due to legal protections against multiple punishments. There was a dissenting opinion by one judge who felt that the conviction for assault while masked should not have been reversed.

F-2011-563

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 1, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-563, Ronnie Lee Martin appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs After Former Conviction of Three Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. One judge dissented. Ronnie Lee Martin was found guilty after a bench trial, meaning there was no jury, and received a life sentence without the chance for parole. Martin's case stemmed from a traffic stop where drugs were discovered in his possession. The police officer who stopped the car noticed Martin acting suspiciously and later found a substantial amount of crack cocaine during a search of Martin's belongings. Initially, Martin was charged with possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, which could have resulted in a sentence of four years to life. However, a plea deal of ten years was offered but not accepted due to Martin's attorney advising against it. Later, after more evidence was presented, Martin was charged with the more serious crime of trafficking, which led to a mandatory life sentence without parole. Martin claimed his attorney failed to provide effective counsel, particularly in advising him about the plea deal. The court found his attorney's performance to be deficient, as he did not read important documents that would have clarified the seriousness of Martin’s situation. Additionally, the attorney failed to prepare properly for both pretrial motions and the trial itself. The court looked at the history of Martin's defense lawyer and noted that this attorney had been previously disciplined for ineffective practices, which raised concerns about Martin's representation throughout the trial. The judge stated that Martin was denied a fair trial, and as a result, the court had no choice but to reverse the conviction and send the case back for a new trial. In summary, the court determined that due to many errors made by Martin's lawyer, he did not receive sufficient legal representation, and therefore, his convictions could not stand. Martin’s journey through the legal system was marked by these failings, which ultimately led to the court's decision to give him another chance to defend himself properly.

F-2011-460

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 13, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-460, Tate appealed his conviction for multiple offenses including Attempting to Elude a Police Officer and Running a Roadblock. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some convictions and reverse others. One judge dissented. Tate was found guilty of trying to get away from the police and running through roadblocks. He also faced charges for assaulting a police officer. The jury recommended sentences which included prison time and fines. Tate argued that he should not be punished for multiple offenses when they stemmed from the same action of fleeing from police, claiming this violated laws against double punishment. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that, while some of Tate's claims were valid, such as his objections to being convicted for both Obstructing and Resisting an Officer, other aspects did not warrant reversal. The judges agreed that being punished separately for Attempting to Elude and for Assaulting an Officer was acceptable because they involved different actions. Overall, the court upheld the conviction on some counts, but reversed others due to overlapping aspects of Tate’s actions. The discussion highlighted the importance of careful laws around double jeopardy to ensure fair punishment.

S-2012-214

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 13, 2012
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-214, Nhanh Van Dang and Nhi Thi Nguyen appealed their conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and conspiracy to traffic in illegal drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's decision to suppress the evidence, meaning the charges against them could not proceed. One judge dissented. The case began when law enforcement stopped the vehicle driving by Dang and Nguyen. They were suspected of breaking traffic laws, but the court found that the officers did not have enough reason to pull them over. The original judge ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the stop, which led to the suppression of the evidence gathered afterward. The state tried to argue that the stop was justified because of alleged traffic violations. However, the appeals court agreed with the lower court's decision, saying the evidence did not clearly show that the officers had a good reason to stop the vehicle. Since the stop was deemed improper, the gathered evidence could not be used in court against Dang and Nguyen. Therefore, the appeals court confirmed that the right decision was made by the lower court in suppressing the evidence, reinforcing the idea that fair legal procedures must be followed.

F-2011-480

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 9, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-480, Huyen Ai Thi Tran appealed his conviction for perjury. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for correcting the fine but otherwise affirmed the conviction. One judge dissented. Ms. Tran was found guilty of perjury by a jury and was sentenced to ten years in prison, with three years to be served. Ms. Tran raised several issues in her appeal. She claimed that evidence from other crimes unfairly influenced the jury, which made her trial unfair. She argued that the trial court mentioned she was in custody for an unrelated matter and that her co-defendant talked about other crimes during the trial. However, the court found these issues did not have significant impact. She also argued that the prosecutor asked questions that brought up evidence about other crimes without proper warning, but the court decided these errors didn’t affect the outcome. Ms. Tran argued that her right to remain silent was violated when the jury heard that she had refused to answer questions in a previous case. The court noted that the trial judge intervened and instructed the jury to ignore that testimony. Another point Ms. Tran made was about her lawyer's failure to challenge a juror who was a police officer. Ms. Tran’s lawyer did not pursue this challenge, but the court found that it was not a serious issue since the juror was not working in law enforcement at the time of the trial. Ms. Tran then pointed out that the fine noted in the final judgment was different from what the court initially stated during sentencing. The court agreed to correct this mistake. Lastly, Ms. Tran suggested that all these issues combined created a harmful effect on her case. However, the court concluded that any significant errors were not enough to change the trial’s outcome due to strong evidence against her. The final decision required the correction of the fine in the records, but the conviction for perjury was largely upheld.

F-2011-482

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 9, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-482, Christopher D'Shun Cleveland appealed his conviction for perjury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from ten years to seven years imprisonment but otherwise affirmed the conviction. One judge dissented. The case began when Cleveland was found guilty of perjury in the District Court of Oklahoma County and was sentenced to ten years in prison. He raised two main points in his appeal. First, he claimed that two witnesses, who were attorneys, should have been sworn before they testified. He argued this violated both a state law and his constitutional rights. However, the court found that the trial judge’s reminder to the attorneys that they were testifying under oath was adequate, and no major error was shown. In his second point, Cleveland argued that the jury should have been instructed to consider whether the statements he made were important to the case when deciding his sentence. He believed that not allowing this instruction led to a sentence that was too harsh. While the court recognized that the denial of this instruction was an error, it ultimately decided that the error was not severe enough to overturn the conviction. Instead, they modified his sentence length. Overall, Cleveland's punishment was reduced, but his conviction remained in place. The court stated its decision firmly, ensuring that Cleveland's rights were considered, while also balancing the necessary legal standards.

C-2012-714

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 31, 2012
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2012-714, the petitioner appealed his conviction for larceny of merchandise from a retailer and resisting an officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for larceny but to reverse and remand the conviction for resisting an officer. One member of the court dissented. The case began when Darrell Odell Golden was charged with stealing merchandise from a department store and for resisting arrest after being approached by law enforcement. Golden stole items valued over $1,000, and when police tried to arrest him, he ran away. Golden pled guilty to both charges but later wanted to withdraw his plea, arguing that he was confused about his possible sentence and that he did not understand the charges properly. The court found that while Golden’s plea for larceny was valid, his plea for resisting an officer lacked evidence of the required force or violence, which is necessary to support that charge. Therefore, the court allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea for that particular count but upheld his conviction for larceny. Ultimately, the decision meant that Golden will keep his larceny conviction and its associated penalties, but the charge of resisting an officer was overturned, allowing for further legal proceedings on that matter.

S-2011-765

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2012
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-765, Steven Cory Lymen appealed his conviction for Second Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the State's appeal to reverse the trial court's decision. The court determined that the trial court did not misuse its authority when it suppressed evidence and dismissed the case. The State had argued that the witness's identification of Lymen was valid despite it being considered unduly suggestive initially, but the court ultimately agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the identification was not reliable.

F-2010-1079

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 13, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-1079, Dale Anthony Chambers appealed his conviction for two counts of Child Sexual Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved allegations made by Chambers's twelve-year-old stepdaughter against him, claiming he had sexually abused her while her mother was away. The girl testified that the abuse began in early 2009 and included inappropriate sexual acts and exposure to adult content. She ultimately revealed the abuse to her mother after first denying it, fearing punishment. Chambers's appeal centered around several arguments, particularly that he was denied his right to confront witnesses against him. This was due to the admission of evidence from a sexual assault examination report that included statements from a forensic interviewer who did not testify at trial. The court found that this violated Chambers's constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to confront witnesses. The court assessed whether this error affected Chambers's substantial rights and the fairness of his trial. They noted that the admission of hearsay evidence was significant and that it likely influenced the jury's verdict, as the report was specifically requested during deliberations. Since the physical evidence was not strong, the judge emphasized that the case heavily relied on the victim's testimony alone. In conclusion, the court ruled that the improper admission of evidence was not harmless and reversed the conviction, ordering a new trial for Chambers.

F-2010-548

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-548, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple charges including unlawful possession of a firearm and drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial, finding that the trial court failed to properly inform the appellant about the dangers of representing himself. One judge dissented.

C-2011-592

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 10, 2012
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2011-592, Philipe Jean Pace appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the writ and allow the Petitioner to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial. One judge dissented. Philipe Jean Pace was charged with a crime and, instead of going to trial, he decided to plead nolo contendere, which means he did not contest the charges. The trial judge accepted his plea and sentenced him to twenty years in prison, but he only had to serve the first ten years. After the plea, Pace wanted to change his mind and asked to withdraw his plea, but the court said no. In his appeal, Pace argued two main points. First, he said he didn't understand what he was doing when he gave up his right to have a lawyer help him. He claimed that he didn't really know what would happen if he represented himself. Second, he believed that he was confused and didn’t make a proper decision to plead guilty. The higher court looked at all the details, including what happened in the trial court. They found that the original court did not really explain to Pace the risks of not having a lawyer. They noted that just because he had signed a form saying he wanted to waive his right to counsel, it didn't mean he actually understood what he was giving up. The judges pointed out that there was no evidence in the record that he was properly informed about the dangers of self-representation or that he clearly stated he wanted to represent himself. Because of these problems, the higher court ruled that the lower court made a mistake when it denied Pace's request to withdraw his plea. They believed it was important for a person to fully understand their rights and the consequences of their choices in court. As a result, the court decided that Pace could withdraw his plea and would be able to have a trial.

F 2010-1128

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2010-1128, Chad Allen Turner appealed his conviction for conspiracy to manufacture a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine) and conspiracy to traffic a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for conspiracy to manufacture and affirm the conviction for conspiracy to traffic. One judge dissented. Chad Allen Turner was found guilty of two crimes involving methamphetamine. He was given two years in prison for one crime and fifteen years for the other, and he was ordered to serve these sentences one after the other. Turner believed his convictions were not fair for several reasons. He argued that there was not enough evidence to prove he was guilty of conspiracy to traffic methamphetamine. He also claimed that the prosecutors did not properly show how they handled the evidence of the drugs. Additionally, he felt the prosecutors did not tell the jury about any deals made with witnesses and made mistakes during their closing arguments that hurt his chance for a fair trial. Turner raised several other points about why he thought he should not have been convicted. He argued that he was punished twice for the same crime and that he didn’t get enough notice about the charges against him. He also believed he should have been given instructions about a lesser charge related to the crime. He felt that the court made mistakes during the trial that made it hard for him to get a fair outcome. After looking at all the facts and arguments presented, the court decided that there wasn’t enough proof to uphold one of the conspiracy charges against Turner. They agreed with his argument that there was only one conspiracy agreement, which made it unfair to convict him of both conspiracy charges. Therefore, the court reversed the conviction linked to that charge. However, the court found that there was enough evidence for the conspiracy to traffic charge, and they affirmed that conviction. In the end, the court told Turner that one of the charges against him was overturned and the other charge stood. The dissenting judge had a different opinion about some parts of the decision. In summary, the court agreed to reverse one of Turner's convictions but kept the other, affecting the total time he would spend in prison.

F-2010-665

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 4, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-665, Roy C. Williams appealed his conviction for Second Degree Felony Murder and two counts of Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Discharge of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one count of his conviction while affirming the others. One judge dissented. Roy C. Williams was sentenced for his involvement in a drive-by shooting that resulted in the death of one person and injuries to another. Williams was found guilty by a jury in the Tulsa County District Court of two counts related to using a vehicle in the shooting and one count for murder. The judge sentenced him to a total of eighteen years in prison, which included twelve years for the murder charge and three years for each of the other counts, to be served one after the other. Williams raised several arguments as reasons for appealing his conviction. He believed that his confession to the police should not have been used against him because he claimed he did not have his right to remain silent protected. He also thought that the evidence against him was not strong enough to support his convictions. Upon reviewing the case, the court decided that the law enforcement officials acted correctly when they obtained Williams's confession. The court said that he willingly talked to them, so this argument was denied. Regarding the second argument, the court noted that Williams knowingly drove to a place where rival gang members were located with guns in the vehicle. This behavior was enough to show he was part of the act that led to the shooting, so this argument was also denied. The third argument was about a legal principle called the merger doctrine. Williams’s defense argued that his felony murder charge should not stand because it was related to the same act as the charge for using a vehicle to facilitate the shooting. However, the court decided to keep the felony murder conviction, stating that both charges could stand because of the way the law is now interpreted. For his fourth argument concerning double jeopardy, which means a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice, the court agreed. They stated that the charges were based on the same set of facts, so they could not convict him on both counts pertaining to the same act. Because of this, the conviction for the second count of using a vehicle was reversed. The fifth argument was about whether Williams should receive credit for the time he spent in jail before the trial. The court ruled that it was up to the trial judge to decide whether to grant that credit and found no evidence that the judge made a mistake in denying it. This argument was also denied. The sixth argument claimed that his lawyer did not do a good job representing him during the trial. The court found that even if his lawyer made some mistakes, they did not affect the overall outcome of the case. After reviewing all of his arguments, the court decided to reverse the second count concerning the vehicle but kept the murder conviction and the first charge intact. Thus, Williams had mixed results from his appeal, with one conviction dismissed but others upheld. In conclusion, the decision resulted in one count being reversed and the remaining convictions affirmed, meaning Williams would continue to serve his sentence, minus the count that was reversed.

F-2010-914

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 26, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-914, Burdex appealed his conviction for uttering a forged instrument. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified Burdex's sentence from life imprisonment to twenty years. One judge dissented. Burdex was found guilty of dealing with a fake check, and the jury decided he should serve life in prison due to his past crimes. His appeal raised several issues, including whether he received a speedy trial, if the evidence against him was strong enough, and if the judge made mistakes during the trial. The court looked at the claim for a speedy trial and used a test from a previous case. They found that he was not denied this right. They also believed there was enough evidence that showed Burdex knew the check was fake since he gave different reasons for having it. Burdex argued that the state shouldn't have used some of his old felonies to lengthen his sentence. However, the court found that the state followed the rules correctly. They said that the past felonies were not too old to be used in deciding his punishment. The court also looked into whether Burdex had good lawyers. They found no evidence that his lawyers did a bad job. Additionally, the judges decided the trial court was correct in not explaining what a life sentence meant. When it came to his sentence, the court felt that life imprisonment was too harsh for a non-violent crime. They noticed that the jury seemed to struggle with the punishment and had questions about how to decide it. Because of this, they decided to change his sentence to twenty years instead of life. In summary, the court agreed with the trial's decision to convict Burdex but felt the punishment should be lighter. One judge did not agree with changing the sentence and believed the jury's decision on punishment should stay as it was.

RE-2010-762

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 6, 2012
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-762, Mason appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Mason's suspended sentence but ordered a correction regarding the time served. One judge dissented. Mason had previously entered a guilty plea for a drug-related charge and received a suspended sentence, which meant he didn’t have to go to prison immediately but had to follow certain rules. Over time, he violated those rules several times. The state government, which is responsible for enforcing the law, filed multiple applications to revoke his suspended sentence due to his failures to comply with the terms of probation. He confessed to some of the allegations against him, such as not completing community service and not paying fees. After multiple chances and extensions given by the court to fix his issues, Mason still did not follow the rules. For example, he used drugs again and didn’t seek help as he was supposed to. At a hearing, the court found that Mason did not meet the terms of his probation and decided to revoke his suspended sentence completely. Mason argued that the court shouldn’t have been able to take away the whole suspended sentence because he had already served some time. The court agreed that Mason needed to be credited for time served but found it was appropriate to revoke the rest of the suspended sentence given that he didn’t comply when given chances. The final decision was to affirm the judgment that Mason had violated probation, but with instructions to the lower court to ensure they correctly noted how much time was left on his sentence. In conclusion, while Mason's appeal did not succeed in changing the outcome of the revocation, he was recognized for the days he had already spent in custody.

S-2011-543

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 6, 2012
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-543, the State of Oklahoma appealed its conviction for suppressing evidence against DAREN LEVI GEYER. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's order. The judges noted that the trial court was correct in determining that the State had violated rules regarding evidence disclosure and imposed sanctions on the State for not following these rules. The court found that the State's failures warranted these sanctions, and the imposition of a jury instruction against the State was also upheld. One judge dissented, emphasizing the importance of fair play in the discovery process during trials.

S-2011-544

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 6, 2012
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-544, the State of Oklahoma appealed a court's decision where evidence was suppressed in a criminal case. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling. One member of the court did not agree with this decision. The case began when the district court, under the Special Judge, found that the State had not followed the rules about sharing evidence, known as the Discovery Code. The State argued that it had done nothing wrong and claimed that the court should not have punished them for this. They believed the judge’s decision to tell the jury about the supposed violation was also wrong, especially since they didn't act in bad faith. The court examined the arguments from both sides and concluded that the district court did not make a mistake. They believed that the State really did not follow the rules and agreed that it was appropriate to impose penalties for this. The court also explained that they don't usually review jury instructions in these matters. Ultimately, the higher court decided to keep the ruling from the district court, meaning the previous decision to suppress the evidence remained in effect. The ruling was considered important in the context of the legal process. In the end, the reasoning emphasized that having a fair process helps both sides in a case and that knowing the strengths and weaknesses of each other's arguments can make trials go better. Even though some might think the penalties were harsh, the court felt it was essential to make sure that such rules are followed in the future.

S-2011-545

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 6, 2012
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-545, the State of Oklahoma appealed his conviction for evidence suppression. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order. One judge dissented. The case involved the State of Oklahoma appealing a decision made by a special judge in Cleveland County. The State was unhappy with the judge's ruling to suppress evidence, which they felt was unfair. The main reason for the appeal was that the State believed the judge did not have the right to impose punishment on them for what they claimed was a misunderstanding of the Discovery Code. Essentially, they argued that they had not violated any rules regarding the sharing of evidence and information before the trial. The court had to look at whether the judge's decision was reasonable or if it was clearly wrong. The judges found that the special judge had good reason to impose sanctions on the State because it was determined that the State did not follow the proper procedures for sharing evidence. This is known as discovery. The court highlighted that it is very important in criminal cases for both sides to share information so that there are no surprises during the trial. This process helps ensure fairness and allows both sides to prepare adequately. The court explained that there are rules in place for how evidence should be shared and that these rules are crucial to ensuring justice. The district court had determined that the State should have done more to preserve evidence that could have been useful for the defense. Because they did not do this, the special judge decided to impose penalties on the State as a form of punishment for not following the rules. After reviewing the situation, the court found that the special judge acted within his rights in deciding to sanction the State. As a result, the court affirmed the decision made by the district court in Cleveland County. The judges agreed that enforcing these discovery rules is necessary to avoid similar problems in future cases. So, in the end, the court supported the lower court's ruling by stating that the sanctions against the State were appropriate. This decision encourages the State and other prosecutors to comply with the Discovery Code in future cases, ensuring fair trials for everyone involved.

F-2010-495

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-495, Marco Lamonte Carroll appealed his conviction for one count of Second Degree Felony Murder and two counts of Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Discharge of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for Counts 1 and 3 but reverse Count 2 based on double jeopardy grounds. One judge dissented. Carroll was found guilty in a case related to a drive-by shooting that led to one person's death and another's injury. The evidence indicated that there were multiple guns in the vehicle, and shots were fired from more than one of them. The jury's conclusion that Carroll participated in the incident was deemed sufficient by the court. Carroll raised several reasons for his appeal. He argued that there wasn't enough evidence for the charge of Drive-by Shooting, which also supported his Second-Degree Murder conviction. He believed that the merger doctrine should mean his murder charge couldn't be based on the same act that caused the death, meaning his murder conviction should be vacated. He claimed that being convicted of both murder and using a vehicle to facilitate the shooting violated double jeopardy laws, which protect from being tried for the same crime twice. Finally, he argued that the trial court wrongly refused to give him credit for the time he spent in jail before the trial. After looking closely at all the arguments and the case records, the court upheld Carroll's convictions for Second Degree Murder and Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Discharge of a Firearm related to the second shooting incident. However, they agreed that counting the charge for the first shooting incident separately violated double jeopardy principles, leading to the reversal of that conviction. Overall, while Carroll's main murder conviction and the second vehicle charge were confirmed, the charge of Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Discharge of a Firearm from the first shooting was dismissed. The court concluded that the trial judge had functioned properly regarding the defendant's time served and did not find grounds to change that part of the decision.

F 2010-1191

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 30, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2010-1191, Mark A. Sanders appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and carrying a weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for further proceedings. One judge dissented.

F-2011-354

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 29, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-354, Isaiah Hasan Gilbert appealed his conviction for Felonious Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirty years to twenty years in prison. Gilbert was found guilty after a jury trial. He was charged with having a gun even though he was not allowed to because of his past criminal record. The jury recommended a sentence of thirty years and a fine of $5,000. Gilbert argued that his lawyer did not do a good job during the trial and that his sentence was too long considering the circumstances. The court looked carefully at everything that happened during the trial. It agreed that Gilbert's lawyer made mistakes but concluded that they did not affect the trial's outcome enough to reverse the conviction entirely. One of the main issues was that Gilbert's lawyer did not call a witness who could have said the gun belonged to someone else. Instead, the lawyer tried to bring that information up in a way that was not allowed, which was a mistake. The court also found that the jury heard improper information about Gilbert’s past, specifically that he had been given suspended sentences from previous convictions. The prosecutor mentioned this to the jury, which could have unfairly influenced their decision on how long to sentence him. Because of these issues, the court decided to reduce Gilbert's sentence from thirty years to twenty years. In conclusion, the decision by the court maintained Gilbert's conviction but reduced the time he had to spend in prison due to the unfair use of his past criminal history in the trial process.