Files - Page 38 of 66 - OCCA Opinions

F-2008-1041

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 22, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1041, David Roland Boschee appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one related to possession of a firearm after a felony. One judge dissented from the decision. Boschee was found guilty after a jury trial for several offenses, including robbery with a firearm. The court sentenced him to a total of 25 years in prison for his serious crimes. Boschee raised several arguments in his appeal regarding the fairness of his trial and the legitimacy of the multiple charges against him. Firstly, he argued that it was unfair to force him to defend against two robbery charges in one trial. The court found no abuse of discretion in joining these cases, meaning they decided it was reasonable to have them heard together. Secondly, Boschee contended that his convictions for both robbery and possessing a firearm with a defaced serial number were against the law because they represented double punishment for the same act. However, the court disagreed, stating these were separate offenses and did not violate any statutes. Thirdly, Boschee argued that he was wrongfully convicted of two counts of possessing a firearm after a felony. The court agreed that there was not enough evidence to support two convictions and decided to dismiss one of these counts. The court also found that his argument about receiving ineffective assistance from his lawyer was without merit, concluding that his rights were not violated in this regard. In summary, the court upheld most of Boschee's convictions but agreed that one count of possession should be dismissed. The judges had different opinions, with one judge dissenting, stating that the joining of the robbery charges may have harmed Boschee’s case.

RE 2009-0080

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 19, 2010
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2009-0080, Zachary Glenn Hayes appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the order requiring him to pay jail costs. One member of the court dissented.

F-2007-1133

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 10, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-1133, Jona Ann Montgomery appealed her conviction for Second Degree Murder and Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Second Degree Murder and affirmed the conviction for Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. One judge dissented. Jona Ann Montgomery was tried in Pittsburg County for her involvement in a tragic incident where she hit two children with her car while speeding near a crowded football game. The younger child, a ten-year-old girl, unfortunately died, while her brother survived. After the accident, Montgomery left the scene but left behind her belongings in the car. The main issue in Montgomery's appeal was the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the possibility of a lesser charge known as Misdemeanor Manslaughter. Initially, the law at the time of Montgomery's trial did not permit this instruction, and her attorney argued against it. However, shortly after the trial, a higher court changed its stance on this law, ruling that driving while impaired could indeed be used for a Misdemeanor Manslaughter charge. Montgomery argued that she should receive a new trial based on this new rule. The court reviewed the situation and agreed that the trial court had made a mistake by not allowing the jury to consider this lesser charge. They believed that a fair jury could have potentially found Montgomery guilty of Misdemeanor Manslaughter instead of Second Degree Murder, given the circumstances of the case. Montgomery also raised concerns about other evidence that was presented during her trial. This included items found in her vehicle that were linked to drug use and remarks made during the trial suggesting she showed no remorse for her actions. The court found that much of this evidence was not necessary and could unfairly bias the jury against Montgomery. The decision ultimately led to the reversal of her conviction for Second Degree Murder because of the instructional error on Misdemeanor Manslaughter, while they upheld the conviction for Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. The judges aimed to ensure that future trials would avoid the errors found in Montgomery's case.

C-2009-617

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 8, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-617, Christopher Overby appealed his conviction for Possession of a Firearm While Under Supervision of the Department of Corrections. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his request for a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. The case started when Overby pleaded guilty to having a firearm while he was supposed to be under supervision. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison, with some of that time being suspended. After some time, Overby wanted to change his plea, so he filed a motion to withdraw it. He felt that he did not get proper help from his lawyer during this process. The court looked at Overby's case and determined that there was a conflict of interest between him and his lawyer. Because of this conflict, the court found that Overby did not get the effective help he was entitled to, especially when it came to his request to withdraw his plea. This situation meant he deserved a new hearing with a different lawyer who could fully represent his interests without a conflict. In conclusion, the court decided that Overby should have another chance to present his case for changing his plea. Thus, the decision was made to give him a new hearing to ensure that he had the right kind of support during this important process.

F-2008-786

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 8, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA Case No. F-2008-786, James Dion Smith appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that had accelerated his Judgment and Sentence and ordered the District Court to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. Smith had originally entered a plea of no contest for possession of a controlled substance, and his sentence was delayed for two years. This means he didn't have to go to jail right away as long as he followed the rules during that time. However, later on, the State of Oklahoma asked the court to speed up Smith's sentence because they believed he had broken the rules. When the court had a hearing to look into the State’s request, they decided to impose Smith's sentence. But Smith argued that the court shouldn’t have done this based on something that happened after his period of supervision had ended. After examining the details, the court agreed with Smith. They found that the reason for speeding up his sentence was tied to a new case that occurred after the time Smith was supposed to be on probation. They decided the lower court was wrong to speed up his sentence and told them to cancel the action against Smith. In the dissenting opinion, the judge felt the court overlooked how the situation happened. This judge pointed out that Smith admitted to not following the rules during his probation. When Smith did not show up for a later hearing, the judge believed the court could still take action against him based on his failure to appear, even if new charges could not be considered. In the end, the main ruling was to reverse the earlier decision and to dismiss the case against Smith.

RE-2008-753

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 8, 2010
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2008-753, the Appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana and driving while privilege revoked. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the Appellant's suspended sentences for most counts, but vacated the revocation of the suspended sentence for one count because the Appellant had already served that sentence. One member of the court dissented. Here's what happened: The Appellant had entered guilty pleas for multiple charges, including possession of drugs and driving offenses, and was given suspended sentences, meaning he would not serve time in jail as long as he followed the rules of his probation. Later, the state accused the Appellant of breaking the rules of his probation. After a hearing, the judge ruled to revoke all of his suspended sentences. The Appellant appealed, arguing that one part of the judge's decision was incorrect because he had already finished serving that part of his sentence. The court agreed and decided to remove the part of the revocation related to that count. However, the court did not find that the judge acted unfairly or excessively in revoking the other suspended sentences, as the Appellant did not comply with the probation requirements despite being given a second chance. In summary, while the Appellant lost the chance to keep those suspended sentences, one mistake in the original order was corrected.

C 2008-1183

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 4, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2008-1183, Kory Williams appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including shooting with intent to kill and possession of a firearm. In a published decision, the court decided that his plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily, leading to the granting of his petition for certiorari. The judgment and sentence were vacated and the case was sent back for further proceedings. One member dissented.

F-2008-1199

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 3, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1199, Cody Robert Grenemyer appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for two counts. One judge dissented. Grenemyer was found guilty of committing serious sexual crimes against his daughters, including rape and lewd molestation. The abuse happened over a period of time and was described by multiple victims. Despite Grenemyer's denial of the allegations, the testimony of his daughters was consistent and compelling enough for the jury to convict him. During the trial, Grenemyer wanted to introduce evidence that the younger victims had been molested by another man earlier. However, the trial court decided that this information wasn't relevant to the case at hand. The judge recognized that while the evidence could have some bearing, it also risked confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing the victims. Grenemyer argued that his sentences were too harsh, claiming that life imprisonment without parole was not appropriate under the law effective at the time of his offenses. However, this was found to be without merit as the law allowed for such sentences. The appeals court found an issue with how much past behavior information was shared during the trial, particularly focusing on the testimonies of older siblings who spoke of their own experiences of abuse. The amount of such information might have led the jury to concentrate more on past actions rather than the specific charges brought against Grenemyer. The judges agreed that while the evidence did not affect the jury's determination of guilt, it likely influenced the sentences they recommended. Thus, Grenemyer’s sentences for the first-degree rape charges were modified to ensure he would have the possibility for parole after serving a portion of his sentence. In conclusion, while the convictions were upheld based on the strong testimony of the victims, the sentence was adjusted to reflect the concerns regarding the fairness of the trial and the overwhelming amount of past abuse information presented.

F-2008-1087

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 27, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1087, Mitchell Dewayne Baker appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape and Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacated the order for restitution, remanding the case to the district court for a proper determination of the victim's loss. One judge dissented. Baker was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to ten years in prison for each offense, with the sentences ordered to run consecutively. The trial court also required him to pay restitution. Baker raised several issues in his appeal, claiming that the court had made errors during the trial process. One major issue was about the restitution ordered by the trial court, which Baker argued lacked factual support. The court acknowledged that the trial judge has discretion in deciding restitution, but determined that the record did not provide enough information to support the amount that was initially ordered. Therefore, while the conviction stood, the restitution order was removed, and the case was sent back to determine the correct restitution amount. Baker also challenged the prosecution’s use of evidence from his past crimes, saying it was unfairly used to paint him as a bad person. The court ruled that this evidence was allowed to help show that Baker’s explanation of how the victim got hurt was not credible. This was because his past behavior was relevant to his defense. Another point raised by Baker dealt with how the prosecutor questioned witnesses about their feelings during and after the incidents. The court said this questioning was relevant to establish the elements needed to prove the charges against Baker. They found no error in how this evidence was presented as it was crucial to the prosecution's case. Lastly, Baker pointed to some statements made by the prosecutor regarding the burden of proof. The court found that any mistakes were not serious enough to affect the fairness of the trial, as the jury was correctly informed about the burden of proof at several points. Overall, while the court upheld Baker's convictions, they took issue with the restitution ordered and directed that it be reassessed to ensure a fair determination.

S-2009-363

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 26, 2010
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-363, Heather Renee Trask appealed her conviction for First Degree Child Abuse Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that prevented the State from arguing alternative theories of guilt against her. One judge dissented. Heather Trask was arrested and charged with very serious crimes after her baby daughter, Mackenzie, died. The baby had injuries that suggested she had been hurt badly. Evidence from doctors showed that the baby died from head injuries caused by blunt force trauma. When the baby was found, she was not breathing and could not be revived. During the trial of Heather's husband, he testified about the night of the baby’s incident. Heather left for work after 7:00 p.m. on the night of the tragedy, and her husband was the only adult with the baby after that time. The experts in the trial said the baby must have suffered severe injuries shortly before she died, but they could not pinpoint the exact moment it happened. The district court listened to the arguments and decided that there was enough evidence to show that Heather’s husband was likely the one who caused the fatal injuries. Because of this, the court ruled that the State could not present alternative theories that might shift blame to Heather. After hearing everything, the appeals court agreed with the district court's decision. They determined that the lower court did not make a mistake by blocking the State from using other theories to argue guilt. Therefore, the ruling that prevented the State from pursuing various angles was upheld, affirming the decision made by the district court.

C-2009-89

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 8, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-89, the appellant appealed his conviction for burglary in the first degree and aggravated assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Murray a hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. One member dissented. William Jackson Murray pled nolo contendere to two serious crimes: burglary in the first degree and aggravated assault and battery. After pleading, he was sentenced to a total of thirty-five years in prison. Murray wanted to take back his pleas, so he filed a request to withdraw them. However, the judge denied his request without holding a hearing first. Murray argued that the trial court made a mistake by not giving him a hearing on his motion. He was right. The court looked at the case and saw that there should have been a hearing to discuss his request. Even though a date for a hearing was set, the judge made a decision before they could actually have the hearing. The court noted that it is important for a person to have a chance to speak about their request to withdraw a plea because it is a significant part of the trial process. Since he did not get this chance, the court decided that Murray deserved a hearing about his motion before any further decisions were made. The decision of the court was to allow Murray to have a hearing on his motion to withdraw his pleas. They sent the case back to the lower court so that the hearing could take place.

RE-2008-1001

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 6, 2010
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2008-1001, Sedrick Moltke Frierson appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of six and one-half years of his nine and one-half year suspended sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when Appellant entered a guilty plea for delivering controlled substances and was given a suspended sentence in 2007. This meant he wouldn’t have to serve time in prison right away, but he had to follow certain rules. Unfortunately, he broke those rules by using drugs, committing more crimes, and not paying required fees or attending counseling. The state of Oklahoma requested that his suspended sentences be revoked because he didn’t follow the conditions of his probation. A hearing was held to look into this matter, and the judge decided that Appellant had indeed breached his probation conditions. So, he decided to revoke a big portion of Appellant's suspended sentence. Appellant raised two main points in his appeal. He argued the judge's decision was not fair and that it didn’t help him get better. He also claimed some costs should be removed from the written order, saying they were not part of the original agreement. The court explained that when reviewing a revocation, they could only look at whether probation rules were broken and decide on the sentence. The judge’s original decision to revoke the sentence was affirmed because the Appellant had indeed violated the terms of his probation. However, the court agreed that there was a mistake about some of the conditions in the written order regarding supervision. They said that the written order needed to be updated to reflect that Appellant’s remaining term of supervision should not require him to have any supervision, as the original ruling suggested. Overall, while the revocation was upheld, it was determined that the written decision needed to change to make sure there was clarity about the conditions of the remaining term.

C-2009-317

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 1, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-317, Lee Otis Robinson, Jr. appealed his conviction for entering a no contest plea. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Robinson a new hearing to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. Robinson had entered his no contest plea in the Oklahoma County District Court but later wanted to change that decision. He argued that he didn't fully understand what he was doing when he entered the plea and that he had been confused and misled. Additionally, Robinson claimed that he didn't get good help from his lawyer. His lawyer was supposed to represent him during the plea hearing and also during the hearing where Robinson asked to change his plea. However, during the second hearing, the lawyer ended up saying things that were against Robinson’s interests. This created a problem because it meant that Robinson wasn't getting fair help from his lawyer, and he was disadvantaged in his efforts to withdraw his plea. The court found that it was important for Robinson to have a different, unbiased lawyer for a fair hearing. They decided he should be allowed to have a new hearing with a lawyer who had no conflict of interest. The ruling meant that Robinson's case would be sent back to the district court so that the new hearing could take place.

S-2009-235

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 14, 2009
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-235, Angel Chavez appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling, which granted a motion to suppress evidence. The court found that the police officer did not have enough reason to keep Chavez detained after a traffic stop, meaning the search that followed was not valid. One judge dissented.

F-2008-832

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 10, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-832, George Robert Brewington appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and other related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions on some counts but reversed one count due to insufficient evidence. One judge dissented. Brewington was found guilty of possessing drugs near a public park and in the presence of a minor. The evidence showed that he had knowledge of the drugs and had control over them, which was enough for the court to uphold this part of the conviction. However, for another count related to the possession of drugs without a tax stamp, the evidence was not enough. Brewington only had a small amount of drugs, which didn’t meet the legal requirement needed for that charge. He also claimed that his lawyer didn’t do a good job by not trying to have certain evidence thrown out. The court determined that his lawyer was not ineffective because the evidence was gathered from a consented search. Therefore, there was no need to suppress the evidence as the search was legal. Overall, the court confirmed that Brewington's conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance was valid, but they reversed the conviction for having the drugs without a tax stamp and will correct the records to reflect the accurate law he was convicted under.

S-2009-623

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 10, 2009
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-623, Walker appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that reduced the charge to a misdemeanor for possession of marijuana. One judge dissented from the decision. Walker was originally charged after police found a small amount of marijuana at his home. A person named Brawdy had earlier told deputies that he bought marijuana from Walker. When the police searched Walker's home, they found a very small quantity of marijuana and no other evidence like cash or scales that would suggest he was selling drugs. Two district judges reviewed the evidence and concluded that it did not support the idea that Walker intended to distribute drugs; they only found evidence that he might have had the marijuana for personal use. The state argued that since Brawdy mentioned buying drugs from Walker earlier, this should mean Walker had intent to sell. However, the court pointed out that without more evidence, like packaging or cash, they could not say Walker intended to sell the drug. The judges decided that the lower court acted correctly in reducing the charge. Therefore, the ruling from the District Court that lowered Walker's charge to a misdemeanor was upheld.

F-2008-1043

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 4, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1043, William D. Hibdon appealed his conviction for endeavoring to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand his convictions. One judge dissented. Hibdon was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to a total of 31 years in prison. The convictions were based on evidence found after police officers searched his home without a search warrant. The police had gone to Hibdon’s house after receiving a tip that he was making methamphetamine. When they arrived, they smelled ether, a chemical often used in meth production. After arresting Hibdon, one officer entered the house without a warrant and found more evidence. Hibdon argued that this search violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence, but this was denied by the trial court. The appeals court found that the officers had enough time to get a search warrant but did not do so. They decided that there was no immediate danger to the public that would justify the warrantless search. Since the officers did not meet the requirements for an emergency situation, the court believed Hibdon’s rights were violated. Therefore, the evidence obtained during the search could not be used against him. The court reversed Hibdon's convictions and sent the case back for further proceedings. One judge disagreed with the majority's decision, believing that the police acted correctly in their search based on the circumstances they faced at the time. This dissenting opinion asserted that the smell of ether justified a limited check of the house for safety reasons. Overall, the majority decision emphasized the importance of obtaining a proper search warrant to protect individuals' rights, while the dissent highlighted the potential dangers law enforcement officers may face in similar situations.

F-2009-15

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 20, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-15, Alfred Burke, Jr. appealed his conviction for Kidnapping and Forcible Oral Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Burke was found guilty in Oklahoma County and received a very long sentence of 273 years for each crime, to be served one after the other. This was due to previous convictions he had. Burke disagreed with his punishment and claimed there were several mistakes made during his trial. He argued that a law he was judged under was unfair and went against his rights. He also said that evidence from a previous case should not have been shown in court. He thought his sentence was too harsh and believed that evidence from other crimes made the trial unfair. Finally, he believed that all the errors combined made it impossible for him to have a fair trial. The court looked closely at all of Burke's arguments. They found that the law he challenged was not unconstitutional. Most of the evidence against him was strong, especially the testimony from the person he victimized and DNA proof of his actions. However, the court agreed that showing evidence of his past crime likely impacted the jury's choice on punishment more than it should have. As a result, they changed his punishment to life imprisonment for both crimes, but now those sentences would be served at the same time instead of one after the other. The judges concluded that while there were some mistakes, they did not think these mistakes were enough to change his convictions. One judge did not agree with changing the sentences at all, believing the previous evidence was important for the case.

C-2009-410

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 19, 2009
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-410, the petitioner appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for an evidentiary hearing regarding the petitioner's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. The case revolved around the petitioner who had pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine. He had a plea deal where he was supposed to receive a five-year sentence, but ultimately, he was given a ten-year sentence instead. After his sentencing, the petitioner believed that the judge did not follow the plea agreement correctly and moved to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court did not hold a hearing on his motion, which the petitioner argued was unfair. He raised several concerns, including that there was no clear reason for his guilty plea, that he might not have been competent to enter the plea, and that he didn’t receive proper help from his lawyer. He also claimed the sentence and other penalties were too harsh. After reviewing everything, the OCCA found that there should have been a hearing on the petitioner's request to withdraw his guilty plea. They ordered the trial court to have a hearing where the petitioner could present his case and have a lawyer help him. The hearing needed to happen within 45 days, and if the motion was denied, the court was to send the details to the OCCA, where the petitioner could appeal if he wished. In summary, the court decided that the petitioner deserved another chance to explain his reasons for wanting to withdraw his guilty plea, and a proper hearing should take place to address those issues.

F 2009-70

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 3, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2009-70, Phillip Ray Herndon appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and the sentence of twenty years imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. Phillip Ray Herndon was found guilty in the Ottawa County District Court. The jury decided on a sentence of twenty years for his crime, which was based on his history of previous felonies. After his conviction, he claimed that the trial had some issues. Herndon pointed out a few problems he believed affected his trial. First, he argued that the judge should have allowed the jury to consider a lesser crime: simple Assault and Battery instead of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. He thought this was unfair and took away his rights to a fair trial. Second, he argued that the evidence against him wasn't strong enough to prove he had used a dangerous weapon. He said there was no clear proof that the object he used was actually a dangerous weapon or that it could hurt someone badly. Lastly, he mentioned that the official court documents didn’t show an order that his new sentence would run at the same time as a sentence from another case. He wanted this to be fixed, calling for a correction to the official records. The court reviewed all the facts and evidence presented in the trial and decided that the judge did not make a mistake when refusing the request for the lesser offense. They agreed that there was enough evidence for the jury to convict Herndon of the more serious charge. They also acknowledged that the judge had ordered his sentence to run concurrently with another but agreed that the paperwork needed to be corrected. In the end, the court upheld the sentence of twenty years but sent the case back to fix the clerical error about the sentence running concurrently with Herndon’s other case.

RE-2008-880

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 29, 2009
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2008-880, William John Myers appealed his conviction for two counts of Second Degree Arson. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation order in one of the cases but affirmed the revocation in the other case. One judge dissented. Myers had earlier pleaded guilty to two arson offenses and received a suspended sentence of 20 years, with the first 7 years of that sentence active, meaning he had to serve that time in prison unless he followed probation rules. Later, in 2008, the court found that he had broken the rules of his probation, leading to the judge revoking the suspended part of his sentence. Myers argued that one of his revocations should not have happened because the State did not file a required petition to seek that revocation. The court agreed with him, stating that without the petition, they did not have the authority to revoke his sentence for that case. However, for the other case, where Myers had also violated probation, the court held that the decision to fully revoke the suspended sentence was within the trial court's discretion, and they found no mistake in that ruling. Therefore, the court decided to reverse the order about the first case but keep the revocation in place for the second case. This means that Myers still has to serve part of his sentence for the second case while the order regarding the first case was sent back to the lower court to clarify that he still has his suspended sentence in that case.

C-2009-17

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 27, 2009
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-17, Olindia Toann Vaughn appealed her conviction for Attempted Robbery With a Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her request to withdraw her guilty plea. One judge dissented. Olindia Toann Vaughn pleaded guilty to attempting to rob someone with a weapon in the District Court of Tulsa County. She had an agreement with the court and was given a 15-year prison sentence that would run at the same time as another sentence she had. Later, Vaughn wanted to take back her guilty plea and asked the court to let her do it, but her request was denied after a hearing. Vaughn then filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari, which is a request for the court to review her case. She also asked to add more information to her appeal and wanted a hearing to talk about her claims regarding the assistance of her lawyer when she tried to withdraw her plea. The court agreed to look at her additional information and set a hearing to explore specific questions about whether her lawyer gave her inadequate help. During the hearing, it was established that the lawyers who helped Vaughn when she wanted to withdraw her plea did not do a good job. They did not visit her beforehand to discuss her claims, did not investigate her confusion and mental health issues, and did not question her about how her health could affect her plea. As a result of these findings, the trial court decided that Vaughn had not received the proper assistance she needed from her lawyer during the plea withdrawal hearing. After reviewing the information, the court granted Vaughn's petition and allowed her to withdraw her guilty plea. They sent the case back to the District Court of Tulsa County for her to formally withdraw her plea and for further proceedings. The court recognized that it is important for everyone to have help from a competent lawyer, especially when they want to change their plea.

F-2008-531

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 22, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-531, Jim Evans appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled drug and embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his termination from Drug Court and vacate part of his sentence. One judge dissented. On November 29, 2006, Jim Evans pleaded guilty to two crimes: possession of a controlled drug after having a felony conviction, and embezzlement. The court sentenced him to five years for possession and one year for embezzlement, with both sentences running at the same time. He could avoid serving this time if he successfully completed a Drug Court program, but if he failed, he would have to serve his sentences. On May 22, 2008, Evans was taken out of the Drug Court program, leading to his appeal. He claimed three main issues: First, during his hearing, he wasn't properly confronted with a witness against him, and his lawyer let him say things that made him look guilty. Second, he thought the court made a mistake by considering evidence that shouldn’t have been allowed. Third, he argued the court couldn't extend his probation past his original sentence. About the first two points, Evans said his lawyer should have stopped the officer from speaking about what another person said. He contended this wasn't fair. The court examined his claims and found that the rights in Drug Court are not as extensive as in normal criminal trials. It noted that some statements made by the officer were acceptable under the law. For the last point, Evans pointed out that his one-year sentence had ended, and the court didn’t have the authority to give him more time. The State, which was appealing against him, admitted that it was a mistake to extend his probation beyond his original sentence. Ultimately, the court agreed with Evans on his last point and decided to change the records by vacating the one-year sentence for embezzlement. However, the court also confirmed the decision to remove Evans from the Drug Court program.

F-2008-1014

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 22, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1014, Marcus Durell Hooks appealed his conviction for trafficking in controlled substances, possession of an offensive weapon in the commission of a felony, and eluding a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but remand the case for correction of the Judgment and Sentence. One judge dissented. Marcus was found guilty by a jury on three counts. His main issues on appeal included claims of improper evidence use, insufficient evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, excessive sentencing, prosecutorial misconduct, and errors related to jury instructions and sentencing fees. The court reviewed the propositions raised by Marcus and concluded that the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion regarding the police checkpoint situation since the evidence causing the convictions was not a result of the checkpoint. The evidence showed that Marcus had joint control over the drugs and firearms involved in the case. About counsel's performance, the court found no effectiveness issues because the alleged errors did not affect the trial's outcome, nor did the sentencing appear excessively severe. The prosecutor's statements during the trial were also determined not to have harmed Marcus's case. Additionally, the court agreed with Marcus about some fees being improperly assessed but decided that overall, any errors did not combine to deny him a fair trial. Thus, while most of Marcus's complaints were rejected, the court ordered corrections related to the sentencing paperwork.

F-2008-1016

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 22, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1016, Robert C. Ferrell appealed his conviction for trafficking in controlled substances (MDMA, or Ecstasy) and possession of an offensive weapon in the commission of a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions, but remand for correction of the Judgment and Sentence. One judge dissented. Robert C. Ferrell was found guilty by a jury in McIntosh County. The jury decided that he was guilty of two serious crimes: having a large amount of drugs and having firearms in a way that was illegal. The judge then sentenced him to serve twenty years in prison for the drug crime and thirty-five years for the weapon charge. These sentences would be served one after the other, making a total of fifty-five years in prison. Ferrell raised several points in his appeal. He argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough to support his convictions. He also thought that his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial. He believed his punishment was too harsh. Additionally, he stated that the court made errors when it added costs related to charges he wasn't even tried for, and that the prosecutor did not act fairly. After looking carefully at everything, the court agreed that the evidence showed that Ferrell had shared control over the drugs and firearms discovered during a police chase. The police had seen guns and heard conversations that suggested he was involved in wrongdoing. The court determined that this evidence was enough for a reasonable person to find him guilty. The appeal also discussed whether Ferrell's lawyer had failed him by not challenging a witness's statements or trying to block certain pieces of evidence. However, the court felt that the lawyer's actions did not affect the outcome of the case. Ferrell asked the court to change his punishment, but they decided the sentences were reasonable given his past actions. As for the other points he made about the fines and counts that were wrong, the court agreed that some costs should be removed because he was not convicted of all those charges. They also acknowledged a mistake in the legal reference for the drug charge. In the end, the court upheld Ferrell's convictions, but they sent the case back to make corrections to the official records. They found that there were no major errors that would change the outcome of the trial, so the convictions remained intact.