Files - Page 51 of 66 - OCCA Opinions

C-2004-1108

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 9, 2005
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2004-1108, Jonathan Andrew McCubbin appealed his conviction for four counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant McCubbin's petition for Writ of Certiorari and remanded the case for a new hearing on his application to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Here's a summary of what happened: McCubbin entered a blind guilty plea, which means he agreed to plead guilty without a deal or knowing what his sentence would be. He was sentenced to fifty years in prison, but would serve only thirty years for each count, all at the same time. After some time, McCubbin wanted to take back his guilty plea and tried to do so by asking the court. He argued that his lawyer did not give him good legal help and that their interests were not the same; his lawyer seemed to be against him during the hearings. The court found that there was a true conflict between McCubbin and his lawyer. The lawyer was unable to defend him properly because they were arguing with each other over whether McCubbin should be allowed to withdraw his plea or not. Because of this conflict and the lack of good legal help, the court said McCubbin needed a new chance to withdraw his guilty plea. This meant the case would go back to the trial court for a proper hearing where he could have a different lawyer represent him.

C-2004-850

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 30, 2005
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2004-850, the petitioner appealed her conviction for five crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the appeal for most of the convictions, but they did reverse and dismiss one misdemeanor count. One judge dissented.

F-2004-825

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 28, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-825, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to twenty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, Craig LaFranz Taylor, was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Comanche County, where the jury sentenced him to life in prison after the conviction. The appellant argued that his rights were violated in several ways. He claimed that the jury received wrongful outside information about him being arrested for another charge, which he believed affected their decision on his sentence. He also argued that the identification of him as the robber was not reliable and that there were problems with how the identification was made. Furthermore, he mentioned that one juror saw him in handcuffs and leg irons, which he thought unfairly influenced the juror's opinion of him. Lastly, he felt that the prosecutor asked inappropriate questions during the trial that hurt his chances for a fair trial. The court reviewed all the information presented and decided to maintain the conviction. They believed that there were enough checks in place during the trial for the jury to evaluate the eyewitness testimony fairly. They also felt that the juror's brief view of the appellant in restraints was not enough to interfere with the trial, especially since the appellant did not mention this to his lawyer until after the trial was over. The defense raised concerns about the prosecutor’s questions, but the court noted that most of the objections were upheld, meaning the unfair questions did not significantly harm the appellant’s case. However, the court agreed that there were issues with how the jury handled sentencing. The jury's initial recommendation was not clear, and they had received outside information that affected their decision. Because of this, the court decided to change the life sentence to a shorter term of twenty years instead, allowing the appellant to have a fairer outcome in that regard. In the end, the decision confirmed that while the conviction stood, the punishment was adjusted to ensure fairness, leading to a modified sentence of twenty years of imprisonment.

F-2004-527

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 23, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-527, Christopher Dwayne McGee appealed his conviction for distribution of a controlled substance and conspiracy to distribute a controlled dangerous drug. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for conspiracy and dismiss that count due to insufficient evidence, while affirming the conviction for distribution. One judge dissented on certain issues. McGee was found guilty in the District Court of Stephens County for distributing a controlled substance and conspiring to distribute another. He received a twenty-year sentence and a fine for each count. He appealed his convictions based on five main arguments. First, McGee claimed there was not enough evidence to support his conspiracy conviction. The court agreed with this claim, stating that for a conspiracy to exist, there must be two parties who agreed to commit the crime. Since there was no evidence showing that another person was involved in the agreement with McGee, the conspiracy charge was dismissed. Second, McGee argued he was denied his right to present mitigating evidence to the jury. The court noted that character evidence is generally not allowed in non-capital cases, therefore finding his claim without merit. Third, McGee said he was denied the right to represent himself in court. However, the court found that he had withdrawn his request to act as his own attorney, so this claim was also dismissed. Fourth, he argued that he did not receive effective assistance from his attorney. The court concluded that McGee's lawyer had successfully achieved the dismissal of two other charges against him and did not fail in his responsibilities. Finally, McGee felt that he had been wrongly made to defend against his past convictions during the trial. The court explained that after a previous plea deal was canceled, his case was reset as if no plea had happened, and thus, he was not unfairly treated by needing to defend against prior offenses. In summary, the court affirmed McGee's conviction for distribution but reversed and dismissed the conspiracy conviction due to a lack of evidence.

F-2004-1217

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 23, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1217, a person appealed his conviction for escaping from a work facility. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reduced the original twenty-year sentence to ten years. One judge dissented, believing the original sentence was appropriate given the defendant's past convictions.

F 2004-161

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 15, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-161, James Robert Bonomelli appealed his conviction for three counts of crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the trial court and modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Bonomelli was found guilty of having child pornography, possessing a firearm as a felon, and having marijuana. The jury decided on long sentences, which added up to a total of 100 years in prison. Bonomelli claimed he did not have enough time to prepare a proper defense for his trial because the court did not let him postpone it. He also believed that the sentences were too harsh. After looking at the facts and Bonomelli's arguments, the court agreed that the judge should have allowed Bonomelli more time for his defense but decided that he did not prove this made his lawyer ineffective. However, they thought the total 100-year sentence was too much for him. They decided that the punishment should be reduced to 40 years in total, with all counts running at the same time instead of one after another. This means Bonomelli would spend a maximum of 40 years in prison instead of 100.

C-2005-78

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 2, 2005
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-78, Allen Eugene McCarthy appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant McCarthy's request to withdraw his guilty plea for the DUI charge only, while affirming the rest of his sentence. One judge dissented.

F 2004-1002

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 26, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1002, Benny Paul McCartney appealed his conviction for attempted manufacturing of a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distribute, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for the first two counts but to reverse and dismiss the third count due to double jeopardy concerns. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the third count, arguing that the appellant violated two different laws and should be held accountable for both.

J-2005-542

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 25, 2005
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2005-542, S.H. appealed his conviction for being sentenced as an adult. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the district court's decision, stating that there was not enough convincing evidence to support this adult sentencing. One judge dissented. The court found that S.H. should be sentenced as a youthful offender instead.

M-2004-802

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 21, 2005
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2004-802, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was stopped by a police officer early in the morning because his car was parked in a lot with its lights on, near a closed restaurant. The officer got suspicious due to a series of burglaries happening in the area recently. When the officer approached the car, it began to move. The officer then decided to stop the vehicle to ask what the appellant was doing there. During the trial, the appellant argued that the stop was illegal. He believed that the officer did not have enough reason to suspect that he was doing something wrong. The officer admitted during the hearing that he did not know for sure if the appellant was involved in criminal activity when he made the stop. The court reviewed the situation and concluded that the officer did not have a good reason to think the appellant was doing anything suspicious. They pointed out that the appellant's actions could easily be seen as innocent. The conclusion was that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion, which is necessary to make a legal stop, and therefore the evidence collected after the stop should not have been used against the appellant. Ultimately, the court reversed the conviction, meaning that the case would not proceed further and the appellant's charges would be dismissed. One judge disagreed with the decision, arguing that the officer had good reasons to make the stop based on the circumstances around the time and location.

F 2003-1084

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 3, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-1084, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. In this case, Darrell Robert Johnson was found guilty of trafficking illegal drugs and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. The jury gave him a life sentence without the chance for parole for the first charge, and a fine for the second charge. He was unhappy with the way the trial went and believed mistakes were made that affected the outcome. One of the key mistakes he pointed out was that the jury had trouble reaching a unanimous decision. During their discussions, it became clear that one juror was not convinced of Johnson's guilt. The juror felt pressured by the others to change his mind, which made the situation problematic and unfair. This juror expressed confusion about the deliberation process in notes to the judge, which should have led to clearer instructions being given. The judge talked to the jurors about what deliberation meant but did not provide the specific charge that addresses situations where juries are stuck. This is typically done to ensure jurors understand they shouldn't feel forced to give in just to agree and go home. After discussing their options, the jury still couldn't agree, and the judge sent them back to deliberate further without giving a proper instruction. Eventually, the jury reached a verdict, but one juror said it wasn’t his honest opinion that the defendant was guilty. The judge had to decide if they could accept that verdict or if they needed to keep discussing. The court found that sending the jury back without the proper instruction was a mistake that affected Johnson's right to a fair trial. It was determined that the pressure on the juror likely influenced his decision to agree with the group. In the end, the court decided that because the jury had not been properly instructed, Darrell's convictions should be reversed. The case was sent back for a new trial. This means that the mistakes made during the trial could not be allowed to stand, and Darrell Johnson deserved another chance to prove his side in court. The judges had differing opinions on this decision, with some agreeing and some disagreeing on whether the trial was managed correctly. One judge believed that the trial judge handled the situation well and didn’t see a reason to reverse the ruling. However, the majority of the court found the errors significant enough to require a new trial.

RE-2004-812

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 3, 2005
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-812, Duckett appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of A Controlled Drug. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order of the District Court regarding the revocation of Duckett's suspended sentence and instructed the court to dismiss the case, leading to Duckett's immediate release. One judge dissented. The case began when Duckett entered a guilty plea for possessing crack cocaine and was given a three-year suspended sentence. However, in 2002, the state wanted to revoke this sentence due to alleged violations of probation. Duckett was arrested and confessed to violating the terms of his probation in early 2003, but his sentencing was postponed several times. When Duckett failed to appear for a hearing in June 2004, a warrant for his arrest was issued. After being taken into custody, he had his sentencing hearing on July 26, 2004, during which the court revoked his suspended sentence due to his absence at the earlier hearing. Duckett appealed this decision, arguing that the court could not revoke his probation after his three-year term had expired. The court agreed with Duckett's argument, stating that the District Court did not have the authority to sentence him after the probation had ended. Although the court had taken steps to help him, such as continuously supervising his probation, the law does not allow for a suspended sentence to be extended indefinitely. The ruling emphasized that once the suspended sentence expired, the District Court lost its power to revoke it. Therefore, the court reversed the earlier decision and instructed the District Court to dismiss the case, allowing Duckett to be released.

F-2004-939

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 27, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-939, the appellant appealed his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the sentences for both convictions to seven years each, affirming the judgment in other respects. One judge dissented.

F-2004-729

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 26, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-729, Candy Mae Easton appealed her conviction for Manufacturing Methamphetamine and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine but affirmed her conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug. One judge dissented concerning the reversal of the manufacturing charge. Candy Mae Easton was on trial after neighbors reported a strong smell related to methamphetamine coming from the home of her co-defendant. Officers investigating found evidence that suggested meth was being made in the house, including white powder and other materials commonly used to manufacture meth. Easton admitted to using meth, but she said she did not help make it. The court examined whether there was enough proof to show that Easton helped her co-defendant in making the drug. The majority opinion stated that just knowing about the manufacturing and using the drug doesn’t mean she encouraged or assisted in making it. The appellate court mentioned that encouragement must be shown by some action or words, which were not present in Easton’s case. As a result, Easton’s conviction for manufacturing meth was reversed, meaning she was found not guilty of that charge. However, the conviction for unlawful possession was upheld because her sentence and fine were within the legal limits and were not seen as too harsh. The dissenting opinion believed there was enough evidence to support that Easton aided in the manufacturing, and thus would have kept her conviction for that charge. The judges' roles were discussed in terms of assessing evidence and the credibility of decisions made by the trial judge, emphasizing that it isn’t their place to change those factual decisions based on their opinions. Ultimately, the case was sent back to be corrected only in terms of the record regarding the possession conviction, while the manufacturing conviction was dismissed.

C-2005-120

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 19, 2005
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-120, Charles Hackney McBride appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Unlawful Possession of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to grant McBride's request and remand the case for a hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. McBride had entered a guilty plea to the charges in January 2004 and was placed in a rehabilitation program. After completing the program, he was sentenced in January 2005 to life imprisonment for manufacturing the controlled substance and one year in the county jail for marijuana possession. Eight days after his sentencing, McBride sought to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming his sentence was too harsh and he had not waived his right to a hearing. However, the district court denied his motion without holding a hearing, which was mandatory according to court rules. The appeals court acknowledged that McBride was entitled to this hearing to ensure proper procedures were followed. Therefore, the court decided to require the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on McBride's application to withdraw his plea, allowing him another chance to defend his claims.

J-2005-549

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 2, 2005
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2005-549, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the previous ruling and remand the case for a new certification hearing. One judge dissented. The case involved a fourteen-year-old who was charged as an adult with murder. The court first evaluated whether the appellant was competent to stand trial. Initially, he was found incompetent but later deemed competent after receiving training and treatment. The appellant sought to be classified as a youthful offender or juvenile instead of being tried as an adult. During the certification hearing, the appellant's attorney did not present any evidence to support this request. The court determined that the attorney failed to provide adequate representation by not investigating or suggesting experts until after the state had already presented its case. As a result, the court found that the appellant's rights were violated due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The court ruled that the appellant should receive a new hearing with proper legal support, including expert witnesses, to help his argument for being treated as a juvenile or youthful offender. The court emphasized the importance of moving quickly on the case due to delays that had previously occurred.

F-2004-268

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 29, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-268, Martin Roy Romero appealed his conviction for drug-related crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of his convictions but upheld the rest. A judge dissented in part. Romero was found guilty by a jury in Stephens County for three charges: Conspiracy to Traffic in Methamphetamine, Trafficking in Methamphetamine, and Using a Minor to Distribute Methamphetamine. He was sentenced to several years in prison and significant fines. Romero raised several issues on appeal. He claimed that the prosecutor's actions during the trial were unfair and affected his chances for a fair trial. He also argued that he should not have been punished for both conspiracy and trafficking crimes because they stemmed from the same act, saying it was a violation of his rights against double punishment. He thought that the evidence used to convict him of conspiracy was not enough. Lastly, he felt that it was wrong to convict him of using a minor for trafficking and trafficking itself, again arguing it was related to the same act. After reviewing the case, the court found that one of the convictions for trafficking was indeed improperly counted and reversed that decision. They decided that his actions did not violate the rule against double punishment for the other charges. The court concluded that there was enough evidence to support the conspiracy charge. However, the conviction for trafficking was reversed because the same act could not support two different charges. In summary, the court agreed with Romero about the double punishment issue regarding trafficking, but upheld the other convictions. The final decision reversed and remanded the trafficking charge while affirming the rest.

F-2004-643

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 26, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-643, Earnest Alphonzo Lee appealed his conviction for Attempted First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence to fifteen years. One judge dissented. Earnest Alphonzo Lee was found guilty by a jury of Attempted First Degree Burglary. The jury believed he deserved to go to prison for twenty years, and the trial court agreed with their decision. Earnest felt this was unfair, so he appealed his case. In his appeal, Earnest raised several issues he thought were wrong during his trial. The first issue was about something called an “evidentiary harpoon.” This means that he thought the arresting officer made a comment that brought up Earnest’s right to stay silent after he was arrested. The court looked closely at this and decided it was not a big deal because there was a lot of strong evidence proving he was guilty, which made the officer’s comment not harmful. The second issue was about a juror named Barker that Earnest wanted removed from the jury, but the judge did not agree. The court said this did not cause any problems since Earnest’s lawyer could have removed the juror another way. For the third issue, Earnest believed that the judge did not explain the punishment ranges to the jury correctly. The court agreed and said the law was not followed properly when the jury decided on the punishment. So, they changed Earnest’s sentence to fifteen years. The fourth issue claimed the prosecutor did something wrong during the trial, but the court found that this did not affect the outcome of the trial since there was still a lot of strong evidence against Earnest. In the fifth issue, the court believed there was enough evidence for the jury to find Earnest guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, the sixth issue was about whether all the errors together were so bad that Earnest did not get a fair trial. The court decided that the problems were not serious enough to change the outcome of the trial. Overall, the court agreed that the trial had some mistakes but decided that the most important issue was the incorrect instructions about the punishment. They changed Earnest’s sentence to 15 years but said the rest of the trial was fair.

C-2004-598

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 12, 2005
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2004-598, Seno McKinley Speed appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including possession of a controlled substance, eluding a police officer, and resisting an officer, among others. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Speed’s request to withdraw his guilty pleas for the misdemeanor charges and allowed him to proceed to trial. The court agreed there was no factual basis for those misdemeanor pleas, which led to the decision. There was no dissent in this case.

F-2004-1065

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 12, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1065, the appellant appealed his conviction for lewd molestation, forcible oral sodomy, and exhibiting pornography to a minor child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case was tried in a district court where the appellant was found guilty on several charges and received a lengthy prison sentence. During the trial, there were issues related to expert testimony, jury instructions, and statements made by the prosecutor that the appellant argued denied him a fair trial. One problematic aspect involved a child welfare worker who said that the victim was truthful, which the court found to be inappropriate. Additionally, the trial court didn't give an important jury instruction that the appellant requested regarding inconsistent statements made by the victim, which could have helped his defense. The prosecutor also made statements that could have influenced the jury unfairly, such as referring to the appellant as a monster. Because of these and other errors combined, the court concluded that the appellant did not receive a fair trial. As a result, the court ordered a new trial to ensure justice was served.

F-2004-1216

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 12, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1216, the appellant appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse-Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the fine. One judge dissented. Michael Hodges was found guilty by a jury in a district court. After the trial, he was sentenced to ten years in prison and asked to pay a $10,000 fine. He believed there were mistakes made during his trial and in how he was sentenced. Hodges raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that the punishment given was not right and that the fine should have been lower. Second, he said that his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial, which was unfair. Third, he thought that his sentence was too severe. Finally, he claimed that the court documents did not clearly show the law he had broken. After looking at all the information, the court found that Hodges's sentence was correct but changed his fine from $10,000 to $5,000. They also agreed that the official documents should be updated to correctly show the law he was convicted of breaking. The appeal did not show that he was treated unfairly during his trial, so the main conviction was kept. Overall, the court's main message was that while Hodges's sentence was mostly upheld, they also wanted to make sure he was charged the right amount for his fine and that the records reflected the correct details of his case.

F-2004-332

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 11, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-332, Sheila Ann Sutton appealed her conviction for grand larceny and knowingly concealing stolen property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify her conviction to petit larceny and reversed and dismissed the charge of concealing stolen property. One judge dissented. Sutton was accused of stealing electronic items, including DVD players, with friends. The jury found her guilty and she was sentenced to five years in prison for grand larceny and four years for concealing stolen property, with the sentences running at the same time. During her appeal, Sutton argued several points. She claimed that simply being in a car with stolen shoes did not mean she was hiding them. The court agreed that the evidence did not show she attempted to conceal the shoes and reversed the charge for that reason. Sutton also argued that she only took property worth less than $500, which should be classified as petit larceny, not grand larceny. The evidence showed that she took one DVD player worth $487, and the other players taken by her companions did not change that. The court agreed and changed her conviction to petit larceny. Additionally, Sutton claimed that the jury was not properly instructed about the law surrounding the charges against her. The court found that the instructions were lacking and noted that without proper guidance, the jury might have struggled to understand how to reach their decision on grand larceny. Sutton also pointed out that there was an instruction about flight, but the circumstances didn't support it, meaning it should not have been mentioned during the trial. The court acknowledged this, saying that giving such an instruction without proper context was wrong. After reviewing all of Sutton's claims, the court modified her conviction to petit larceny and changed her sentence to two years in prison. They dismissed the second charge. The dissenting opinion argued that there was enough evidence to support the original conviction and that the jury understood what happened during the events in question. In summary, the court modified Sutton's conviction and sentence due to errors in the trial process, particularly related to jury instructions, while the dissenting judge believed the jury's original decision was justified.

F-2004-110

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 9, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA Case No. F-2004-110, Kelly Dallas Evans appealed his conviction for Burglary in the Second Degree and Possession of Burglary Tools. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences, although they modified the fine for the possession of burglary tools. One justice dissented. Evans was found guilty by a jury of burglary after they considered his past felony convictions. The jury recommended a life sentence for the burglary and a one-year jail sentence for having burglary tools, along with a fine. Evans argued that the prosecutor made unfair comments about his silence during the trial, that his life sentence was too harsh for a property crime, and that the fine for the misdemeanor was too high. The court examined Evans' complaints. They noted that his claims about the prosecutor’s comments were not raised during the trial, meaning they were looked at carefully for any major mistakes. They found that the prosecutor's remarks did not directly point to Evans not testifying but were more about the weak defense he presented. On the issue of his life sentence, the court recognized that it seemed severe, but they upheld it based on Evans' criminal history, saying it did not shock their sense of fairness. Regarding the fine for possession of burglary tools, the court agreed it was too high and decreased it to the correct maximum amount. In summary, the court confirmed Evans' long prison term for the burglary but changed the fine for the other charge.

F-2004-907

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 5, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-907, David Wayne Robbins appealed his conviction for the Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Possession of a Firearm After Former Felony Conviction, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modify his sentences to fifty years for each of the first two counts, which would be served one after the other. One member of the court dissented.

F-2004-281

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 2, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-281, Lori Jo Schram appealed her conviction for Possession of Precursor Substances with the Intent to Manufacture a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence but vacated the order of restitution. One member of the court dissented. Lori Jo Schram was found guilty by a jury in Grady County after the police found items related to methamphetamine production at a trailer. The jury decided that she should go to prison for ten years, but five years would be suspended, along with a fine of $10,000. The court also said she needed to pay $2,544.46 to the victim. On appeal, Schram raised several points for why she thought her conviction should be reversed. First, she said the trial court made a mistake by not allowing a motion to suppress evidence. She argued the police obtained a search warrant through an illegal search. However, the court explained that an officer was invited to the property and found suspicious items in plain view. Therefore, the court said the search was legal and that the trial court did not make an error. Second, Schram claimed that the prosecution did things that were unfair and that these actions affected her sentence. The court looked at the instances she mentioned and noted that the trial judge told the jury to ignore any improper comments from the prosecutor. The court believed this helped fix any potential errors, and since Schram received a light sentence, the issues raised did not impact it. Finally, Schram argued that the amount of restitution she was ordered to pay was wrong because she was not convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine, only possession. The court agreed that the trial court did not properly determine the restitution amount based on the guidelines, so they decided to vacate that order and send it back to the trial court for a proper assessment. Overall, the court upheld the conviction but changed the restitution order, making it necessary for the trial court to reassess how much Schram owed.