Files - Page 54 of 66 - OCCA Opinions

F 2003-196

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 30, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-196, Joe Dean Meadows appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One member of the court dissented. Joe Dean Meadows was tried for First Degree Murder after a jury found him guilty. The trial took place in Oklahoma County District Court, and the jury decided he should be sentenced to life in prison. After the trial, Meadows appealed the decision because he believed there had been many mistakes. He claimed several things went wrong during his trial: 1. Meadows argued that there was not enough proof to show he was guilty of First Degree Murder. 2. He said that his statements to the police should not have been allowed in court because they were taken after an illegal arrest, and he did not receive proper warnings about his rights. 3. He also believed he could not question his co-defendant's confession, which mentioned him as guilty. 4. He thought his lawyer did not do a good job defending him. 5. Finally, he claimed that all the mistakes together meant he did not get a fair trial. The court looked carefully at all the claims made by Meadows. They agreed that allowing his co-defendant's confession was wrong because it violated his right to confront the witness against him. A law called the Sixth Amendment gives people the right to question witnesses during their trial, and this was not respected in Meadows' case. The court also agreed that Meadows should have received warnings about his rights before speaking to the police. They found that the police did not follow proper procedures, so his statements should not have been used in the trial. The judges felt that the combination of these two mistakes could have affected the outcome of the trial and made it unfair. They decided that Meadows should get a new trial because these errors were serious. Since the court reversed the conviction, they did not consider the other arguments Meadows made. In conclusion, the court's decision meant Meadows would have another chance to prove his case in a new trial. The dissenting judge thought the trial court had correctly allowed Meadows' confession to be used, but agreed the co-defendant's statement was a problem that needed to be fixed.

F-2003-633

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 30, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-633, John Edward Schoonover appealed his conviction for Accessory After the Fact to Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. John Edward Schoonover was originally tried and found guilty of Child Abuse Murder, but that conviction was overturned. In this retrial, he was convicted of Accessory After the Fact to Murder and sentenced to seven years in prison and a fine. Schoonover raised several arguments on appeal, claiming his conviction should be overturned due to various errors that occurred during the trial. The court found that Schoonover's conviction was not valid for two main reasons. First, the actions he took to help after the injury occurred were done before the victim died. According to the law, to be guilty of being an accessory after the fact, the person must knowingly help the person who committed a crime after the crime has been completed, which means after the victim has died in this case. Since the victim did not die until later, the court argued that the conviction did not hold. Secondly, Schoonover's right to due process was violated. He had no notice that he would have to defend against the charge of Accessory After the Fact to Murder. The information provided to him before the trial did not include this specific charge. The court decided that because Schoonover was unaware of this potential charge, it would be unfair to convict him based on it. The court ruled that since these two significant issues were present, Schoonover's conviction was reversed, and he would receive a new trial to ensure a fair process. The remaining arguments he raised were not addressed because the main reasons for reversing the conviction were decisive.

F 2003-1078

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 29, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-1078, Joseph Lee Rick Knight appealed his conviction for endeavoring to manufacture a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. However, it ordered a remand to the District Court of Creek County to vacate certain costs associated with the charges for which Knight was acquitted or not prosecuted. One judge dissented. Joseph Knight was found guilty after a bench trial, which means there was no jury, and the judge made the decision. The trial took place over several days, and Knight was sentenced to twenty years in prison, with nine years to be served and the rest suspended. Knight argued four main points in his appeal. First, he said that his arrest and the search of his home were not done lawfully. The court disagreed, stating that the search was allowed because Knight's wife gave permission, meaning the police did not need a warrant. Secondly, Knight claimed that he did not truly understand what it meant to give up his right to a jury trial. The court found that he had given up this right knowingly, so this point was also denied. The third point Knight made was that he could not cross-examine his co-defendant, whose statements were used against him. The court decided this was not a problem because the judge said those statements would only be considered for the co-defendant. Lastly, Knight believed that his sentence was too harsh. The court said the sentence was appropriate based on the laws and did not seem unfair. In summary, the court upheld Knight's conviction and kept his sentence the same but ordered some of the costs to be canceled because he was not convicted on all charges.

RE-2003-1203

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 29, 2004
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2003-1203, Floyd Andrew Morris appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence and remand the case for correction of the length of the sentence. One judge dissented. Floyd Andrew Morris had a suspended sentence for growing and having marijuana after he pleaded guilty. Initially, he was supposed to serve ten years for one charge and one year for another, but both sentences were put on hold. Later, the state argued that he broke the rules of his probation by not following the drug court program instructions and testing positive for drugs. After some hearings, the judge decided to revoke his suspended sentence. However, there was confusion about how much of that sentence should actually be carried out. The appeal pointed out that the written order didn’t match what the judge had said before and that the time he was supposed to serve was excessive based on what he had done. The court found that the way the sentence was ordered needed to be corrected to show that Morris should serve ten years minus the thirty days he had already served. They decided not to change the decision to revoke the entire suspended sentence, as they believed it was not an unreasonable choice given the situation.

F-2003-976

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 17, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-976, Rodney Lamont Garrett appealed his conviction for Conspiracy to Traffic Controlled Dangerous Substance and Attempting to Traffic A Controlled Dangerous Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentences but upheld his convictions. One judge dissented. Garrett was tried in a non-jury trial and found guilty of the two counts. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, but ten years of each sentence were suspended. The sentences were to run at the same time. He appealed, saying that he should not be punished for both crimes since they required the same proof. The court reviewed the case and the evidence. They found that the two crimes were different enough, as each had unique elements that made them separate actions. Garrett had planned with another person to be involved in large-scale drug dealing and met with an undercover agent to buy cocaine. Although the evidence for each crime was similar, the court concluded that they were indeed two separate crimes. The court also noted that Garrett was not entitled to have his suspended sentences based on the laws relevant to the case. Therefore, they decided to remove the suspended part of his sentences and changed them to ten years in prison for each count, still running concurrently. The appeal was denied, meaning his convictions were upheld, but his overall sentence was modified.

F-2003-747

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 10, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-747, John Carl Marquez appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery Upon a Police Officer, Prisoner Placing Bodily Fluids on a Government Employee, and Domestic Abuse, Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Resisting a Police Officer and Domestic Abuse but modified the sentence for the charge of Prisoner Placing Bodily Fluids from life imprisonment to thirty years. One judge dissented regarding the length of the modified sentence. The case involved an incident where Marquez got into a fight with his wife after a night of drinking. His wife called her parents for help, which led to the police being called. When officers arrived at their trailer, Marquez was found in the bathtub and refused to cooperate. After struggling with the officers, he was handcuffed and later spat on one of them. The jury convicted him for several offenses based on this behavior, and the trial court initially sentenced him to one year for the first and third counts and life imprisonment for the second count. During the appeal, Marquez argued that the life sentence was too harsh and that his arrest was illegal. The court found the arrest was lawful, the prosecution’s conduct was acceptable, and the cumulative errors did not deny him a fair trial. However, the court agreed that the life sentence for a non-violent act, such as spitting, was excessive and changed it to thirty years, citing a need for more reasonable sentencing. While the majority of the court upheld most of the trial court's decisions, a dissenting judge expressed that even the thirty-year sentence was excessive compared to the gravity of the crime Marquez committed against his wife, suggesting a need for sentencing reform to ensure fair punishment across similar cases.

C-2003-983

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 9, 2004
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-983, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for Conspiracy to Possess Methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, allowing the Petitioner to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. The case started when the Petitioner was charged with a crime related to making methamphetamine, but he later changed his plea to guilty for a lesser charge. He was put into a special drug court program. However, when he did not follow the rules of the program, the state decided to terminate him. The Petitioner then agreed to the termination but wanted to go back on his guilty plea. During the hearings, the court looked carefully at whether the Petitioner had really made his guilty plea freely and with understanding. They found that the evidence provided to support the guilty plea was not strong enough. The Petitioner didn't have a preliminary hearing, and there was no testimony from his past lawyer to back up the plea. Because of these reasons, the court decided that the Petitioner should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and reversed the previous judgment.

F 2003-1401

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 7, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-1401, Toni Lisa Dixon appealed her conviction for Driving while Under the Influence of Alcohol, second offense; resisting an officer; and failure to stop at a stop sign. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify her DUI conviction to a first offense and ordered a resentencing on that charge. The conviction for resisting an officer was affirmed, but the fine was reduced to $500. The conviction for failure to stop at a stop sign was also affirmed. One judge dissented.

F-2003-673

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 1, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-673, Booker James Johnson, Jr., appealed his conviction for procuring a minor to participate in the preparation of obscene material and possession of child pornography. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences. One judge dissented. Johnson was found guilty of two serious crimes by a jury in Tulsa County. The jury decided he should go to prison for twenty years for the first conviction and pay a fine of $25,000 for the second. He didn't agree with this and appealed. Johnson claimed there were several problems during his trial. First, he said it was unfair to make him defend against both charges in the same trial. He believed that separate trials would have been better. He also argued that the instructions given to the jury about how to decide his punishment were wrong because they used the wrong law for his first charge. Johnson said he should only serve ten years for that charge instead of twenty based on this mistake. For the second charge, Johnson claimed he should have been charged under a different statute that better fit the crime. As a result, the fine for this charge should have been lower, at $5,000 instead of $25,000. Johnson also argued that his right to a fair trial was damaged by a statement made by the prosecutor during closing arguments, suggesting that both charges should be considered together. He felt that this was unfair and went against his rights. Additionally, Johnson said his lawyer did not help him enough, which made his trial unfair. Finally, he complained that he did not have access to important evidence needed for his defense. The court reviewed all of Johnson's claims. They decided that it was not a big mistake for the trial judge to keep both charges together. However, they did agree that the jury was instructed incorrectly about the first charge, and thus modified the punishment to ten years. For the second charge, they recognized that Johnson should have been charged under a more specific statute, so they also corrected the fine to $5,000. In the end, the court kept Johnson's conviction for both crimes but changed his sentence to ten years in prison for the first charge and a $5,000 fine for the second charge, with some paperwork corrections needed to officially note these changes.

C-2003-890

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 23, 2004
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-890, Saul Perez appealed his conviction for Child Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from eighteen years to ten years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Saul Perez pleaded guilty to the crime of Child Neglect, which means he was accused of not taking care of a child properly. He was sentenced to eighteen years in prison. Shortly after, Perez asked to take back his guilty plea, saying he shouldn’t have to accept the charge. He had several reasons why he believed the court should let him withdraw his guilty plea. First, he argued that there wasn’t enough evidence showing he was responsible for the child's neglect. Second, he thought he didn’t fully understand what he was pleading guilty to, so it wasn't a voluntary choice. Third, he said his punishment was too harsh, especially since he felt he hadn’t had a duty to care for the child, and the neglect wasn’t intentional. Lastly, he claimed he didn’t have a proper interpreter during an important meeting about his plea, which he believed violated his rights. The court reviewed all the facts and found that two of his reasons were valid enough to change his punishment. They determined that there was some confusion in the case about whether he truly understood the crime he was admitting to. They discussed what “neglect” meant and explained that the law is meant to hold responsible individuals accountable for a child's safety and care. Ultimately, while the court did not consider some of the reasons Perez gave for wanting to withdraw his plea, they agreed that his punishment was too severe based on the situation. Therefore, they reduced his sentence to ten years in prison instead of the original eighteen. One judge disagreed with the decision, arguing that without proving that Perez had a duty to care for the child, he should not be seen as guilty of a crime. This dissent meant that there was a difference of opinion among the judges regarding the case.

RE-2003-918

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 23, 2004
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2003-918, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that terminated him from the Drug Court program. One judge dissented. The case began on April 10, 2002, when the appellant pleaded no contest to a DUI charge. He was given a suspended sentence, meaning he would not serve time in prison if he followed the rules. He also had to pay a fine and do community service. Later, he faced another DUI charge. He pleaded guilty again with a promise that if he successfully completed the Drug Court program, he wouldn’t have to face further charges for the first DUI. However, on May 1, 2003, the State accused him of violating the terms of the Drug Court program. The State claimed he had been sanctioned multiple times for not following the rules. On August 5, 2003, the court decided to revoke his suspended sentence and ended his participation in the Drug Court program. The appellant believed the court made a mistake by terminating him from Drug Court based on violations he had already been punished for. He felt this was unfair and argued it amounted to double jeopardy, which means being punished twice for the same offense. The State argued that they were not punishing him again for those violations but believed that the sanctions had not helped him change his behavior. The court examined the situation and found that the appellant had already faced consequences for his earlier violations. It agreed with him that the reasons for his termination were flawed. The judges noted that if prior violations were allowed to be counted again for the same termination, it would be unfair and might discourage other participants in Drug Court. The court decided to remand the case back to the lower court, allowing the appellant to return to the Drug Court program with the original rules he had agreed upon. The judges highlighted that a new violation must occur in order for more severe actions, like termination, to be taken. In summary, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, indicating that the reasons for his termination from Drug Court were not valid, thus restoring his opportunity to complete the program.

RE-2003-902

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 18, 2004
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2003-902, Toni Jo Wallace appealed her conviction for obtaining merchandise by means of a bogus check. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentences but modified her sentence in Case No. CF-2000-225 from five years to one year. One judge dissented. Toni Jo Wallace faced multiple charges over several cases, including obtaining goods through a bogus check and various charges related to forgery and possession of drugs. Her sentences were initially suspended, meaning she wouldn't have to serve time if she stayed out of trouble. However, she committed new crimes and failed to pay fines, leading the state to seek the revocation of her suspended sentences. During the hearing, the judge found that Wallace did violate the terms of her probation and decided to revoke the suspended sentences in all her cases. Wallace argued that the judge made a mistake by revoking all her suspended sentences instead of giving her a chance to improve or face less severe punishment. She also felt that the punishment she received was too harsh and that the judge should not have made her new sentences serve longer than her original agreement. The court reviewed the judge's decision and felt that it was within his rights to revoke the sentences. They noted the importance of following through on punishments when someone breaks the rules again. However, they agreed that the initial five-year sentence for one of the charges was longer than allowed by law, so they shortened that sentence. In the end, while Wallace's appeal did not succeed in reversing her convictions, she did see a reduction in one of her sentences. The court emphasized that following the rules is essential, especially for someone on probation, while also ensuring sentences are fair and within legal limits.

M-2002-1195

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 10, 2004
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2002-1195, Anita Shank appealed her conviction for Driving Under the Influence, Transporting an Open Container of Beer, and Obstructing an Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm her convictions for Transporting an Open Container and Obstructing an Officer, but modified her Driving Under the Influence conviction to Driving While Impaired and remanded the case for sentence modification. One judge dissented. Anita Shank was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol, transporting open containers of beer, and obstructing an officer during her trial. She received a 90-day sentence for driving under the influence and fines for the other two charges. Shank contested her convictions on several grounds, claiming the evidence was insufficient and arguing errors regarding jury instructions and sentencing. During the trial, it was noted that Shank was stopped by a sheriff's deputy while she was driving and had an open container of beer in her car. The deputy observed signs of intoxication, like bloodshot eyes. Shank admitted to drinking two beers but refused to take a breathalyzer test. When questioned about the whereabouts of her child, she lied and was uncooperative. The court found that there was enough evidence to support her conviction for driving under the influence but acknowledged that the jury should have been instructed on the possibility of a lesser offense—Driving While Impaired. The state agreed that not instructing on this was an error, although they deemed it harmless. Additionally, Shank argued the trial court should have considered a suspended sentence for her. The record did not show that the court completely ignored this request, but the judge did express a need for proof of her willingness to enter treatment for alcohol issues. After the appeal, it was revealed that Shank completed the treatment program, prompting the court to order the lower court to consider this when evaluating her suspended sentence request. The court upheld the obstruction conviction, stating that her deliberate lies and refusal to cooperate with the deputy interfered with the execution of his duties, which constitutes sufficient grounds for the charge. In conclusion, while Shank's obstruction of an officer and open container convictions were affirmed, her DUI was modified to a lesser charge of DWI, and the court directed the district court to revisit her request for a suspended sentence.

F-2001-1224

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 29, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1224, the appellant appealed his conviction for two counts of Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentences. One judge dissented. The appellant, referred to as Donnie Joe Bacon, was found guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County. His jury trial was overseen by a judge, and the jury sentenced him to serve twenty-five years on one count of child abuse and forty-seven years on the other count. These sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. On appeal, the court looked at several arguments made by the appellant regarding his trial, including violations of his rights and errors made during the trial process. The court examined various points of error. One issue discussed was the testimony from a detective that did not follow a pretrial order, which the court said was a mistake but did not think it affected the guilt of the appellant; however, it did influence the length of the sentence. Another point was about the admission of evidence related to other crimes, which the appellant argued should not have been allowed in the trial. The court agreed that some of this evidence about other bad acts was not relevant and should not have been presented, yet again concluded it did not change the verdict of guilt but might have influenced the sentence. The court also looked into whether the prosecution failed to share important information with the defense and whether the appellant's lawyer did a good job representing him. They decided that the mistakes made by the defense lawyer mostly dealt with the other crimes evidence and didn't significantly impact the guilty verdict. In the end, the court affirmed the conviction of Donnie Joe Bacon but modified the punishment, reducing it to twenty years on each count, which would still be served consecutively. While most of the judges agreed with this decision, one judge wanted to reverse the conviction and order a new trial.

F 2003-442

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 24, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-442, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, First Degree Murder, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand two counts of Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, but affirmed the convictions on all remaining counts. One judge dissented, feeling that one conspiracy count and the robbery count should be upheld, while reversing the other counts.

RE-2003-933

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 24, 2004
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2003-933, the appellant appealed his conviction for abandonment. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case started when the appellant was found guilty of abandoning his child by not paying court-ordered child support. He owed nearly $10,000 in unpaid support for his ten-year-old daughter. After initially being sentenced to five years in prison, his sentence was later changed to a suspended sentence of about four years and eight months. This meant he would not go to prison immediately and could work on paying the support he owed. The appellant was required to get a job, do community service, and make monthly payments towards his child support. However, he fell behind on these payments, and the court eventually issued a warrant for his arrest because of this failure to pay. Over the next couple of years, the court continued to postpone his sentencing. The appellant managed to pay some of his arrears, but he still owed money. By 2003, the court revoked his suspended sentence, saying he had not met the payment requirements. After reviewing the case, the appellate court found that the appellant's suspended sentence actually ended before the revocation took place. The court explained that even though he had missed a payment, the revocation occurred after his sentence had technically expired, which was different from the usual rules. Because of this, the court decided to reverse the revocation and said the case must be dismissed.

F 2002-1540

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 23, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1540, Steven Edward Noble appealed his conviction for aggravated manufacturing of methamphetamine, possession of a precursor substance, and possession of a firearm while committing a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and modify his conviction for aggravated manufacturing to manufacturing less than fifty grams of methamphetamine, reducing the sentence to twenty-five years and a $50,000 fine. The sentence for possession of a firearm was modified to twenty years. However, the conviction for possession of a precursor substance was affirmed.

F 2003-1018

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 23, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-1018, Orcutt appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, Second and Subsequent Offense. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Orcutt was found guilty in a jury trial of several charges linked to driving while drunk. This happened in Creek County after a trial that lasted a few days in August 2001. The jury decided that he should spend ten years in prison and pay a big fine for his most serious crime, as well as some smaller fines for the other charges. Orcutt claimed that there were mistakes made during his trial. He said that the jury was not given the right instructions about how they should decide on the punishment. He also argued that the prosecution acted unfairly and that the jury should have been kept together without being allowed to leave during the trial. After looking at all the evidence from the trial and listening to the arguments made by both sides, the court said that Orcutt's convictions would stand. However, they agreed that the sentence needed to be changed. The jury had been instructed incorrectly about the possible punishments for Orcutt's offenses. The law said that they could not set his punishment to include both treatment and prison time at the same time. While his prison time of ten years and the fine were kept in place, the part of the punishment that required treatment and use of an ignition device was removed. The court found that some of Orcutt's other arguments about unfairness during the trial did not hold up, and no changes were made based on those claims. In conclusion, the court affirmed the main conviction but modified part of the punishment, removing some of the conditions, while agreeing on the primary penalties.

J-2004-149

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 23, 2004
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2004-149, a juvenile, referred to as #x, appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine) and possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the juvenile court's order certifying #x as an adult for possession of methamphetamine but vacated the certification regarding possession of drug paraphernalia. The opinion was agreed upon by all judges, with none dissenting. The case starts with #x being about seventeen years old when he was charged with having methamphetamine and paraphernalia related to drugs. The state wanted to treat #x as an adult, so they asked the court to certify him. After a hearing, the judge decided that #x should indeed be tried as an adult for both charges. #x then appealed the decision, claiming several things were wrong. First, he believed the court made a mistake when it didn't throw out the evidence found on him. #x argued that this evidence was obtained through an unreasonable search, which is not allowed. However, the court found that the police officer had a good reason to search him because of how #x was acting. Thus, the court allowed the evidence to be used. Next, #x argued that the judge shouldn't have decided that he couldn’t be helped or rehabilitated in the juvenile system. The court looked at #x's history and found that he had been in trouble before, had problems with drugs, and was close to turning eighteen. Given these facts, the court agreed with the judge's decision to certify #x as an adult because they felt that #x might not improve in the juvenile system. Finally, #x claimed his lawyer didn’t help him properly, saying the lawyer should have asked for more time to prepare for the hearing and should have provided more evidence on his behalf. However, the court decided that #x did not show how this would have changed the outcome and that these claims were not enough to prove the lawyer was ineffective. In the end, the court decided to allow the charge of possession of methamphetamine to be treated as an adult crime, but they said that the charge for possession of drug paraphernalia should not be. Thus, they upheld part of the decision but overturned part of it too.

J-2004-305

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 23, 2004
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2004-305, D.H.D. appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the denial of D.H.D.'s motion for certification as a juvenile but reversed the denial for certification as a youthful offender, meaning D.H.D. would be tried in a system that focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment. One judge dissented.

RE-2003-660

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 23, 2004
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2003-660, Fox appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the revocation order should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Fox was found guilty of Concealing Stolen Property and received a suspended sentence, which meant he wouldn't serve jail time right away but had to follow certain rules. He had to pay money as part of his sentence and stay employed. Over time, Fox struggled to meet these requirements due to health issues and other challenges, and the State said he violated the rules of his probation. Upon review, the Court looked at whether Fox’s actions were willful. This means they examined if he meant to break the rules or if there were reasons he couldn’t comply. Fox's attorney had agreed with the State's claims but there was confusion about whether Fox could argue that he had a good reason for not following the rules. In the end, the Court found that Fox had the right to argue that he did not willfully break the rules of probation. The previous order revoking his sentence was reversed, and more discussions were needed to figure out his situation properly.

F-2003-315

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 21, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-315, Shawn William Jacks appealed his conviction for Possession of a Firearm after felony conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Shawn Jacks was found guilty by a jury for having a firearm, which is not allowed because he had a previous felony conviction. The jury decided that Jacks should spend five years in prison. He did not agree with this decision and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to look at the case again. Jacks raised several reasons for his appeal. First, he argued that he did not know he was being tried for the specific crime he was accused of. He also claimed that his lawyer did not help him enough. In addition, he said that some evidence used in the trial was unfair and should not have been allowed. Lastly, he felt that the punishment he received was too harsh. After looking carefully at everything, the court agreed with Jacks and found that he was not properly defended during his trial. They said that his lawyer’s strategy implied that Jacks was guilty, which is not what a lawyer should do. Because of this, the court decided that Jacks should get a new trial where he has a chance to defend himself properly. In conclusion, the court’s decision meant that Shawn Jacks could fight the charges against him again in court.

F-2003-336

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 21, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-336, Joe Lynn Paddock appealed his conviction for several crimes, including conspiracy to manufacture drugs and possession of drugs with intent to distribute. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss one conviction due to lack of evidence but upheld the other convictions and modified some sentences. One judge dissented on the sentencing decision.

C-2003-845

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 26, 2004
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-845, Curtis Randall Foote appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including First Degree Burglary, Intimidation of a Witness, Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery, and Threatening an Act of Violence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for First Degree Burglary, Intimidation of a Witness, Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery, but to reverse the conviction for Threatening an Act of Violence with instructions to dismiss that charge. One judge dissented. Foote had entered a no contest plea in the District Court of Grady County, where the judge sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment. Foote later tried to withdraw his plea, but the court denied his request. He then appealed this denial. The court reviewed the entire case record and considered multiple reasons Foote presented for his appeal. The first issue was whether he truly entered his plea of no contest. The court found that he did intend to plead no contest, so the plea was accepted correctly by the trial court. Foote also argued that he should not have been treated as a habitual offender because his past convictions were not properly documented. While the court found that his maximum sentence was appropriate, they acknowledged an error in the judgment that needed correcting. Foote also claimed that being convicted of both Intimidation of a Witness and Threatening an Act of Violence was unfair, as they were linked. The court agreed and reversed the latter conviction. However, it determined that his other convictions were valid and based on separate actions. The court ruled that the evidence supporting his intimidation charge was sufficient, and his claim of not having proper legal representation was rejected. Ultimately, the court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari, which means they did not find enough reason to change the lower court's decisions aside from the reversal of the Threatening an Act of Violence charge. They ordered some corrections to the written judgment but upheld most of the other convictions.

F-2003-583

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 26, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-583, Ronald Lee King appealed his conviction for Unlawful Delivery of Cocaine Base, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Ronald King was found guilty of delivering a type of illegal drug. The jury decided that he should go to prison for twenty-five years and pay a fine of $30,000. King thought the trial was unfair for several reasons. First, he argued that the evidence, which was the illegal drug, should not have been used in court. He believed there was not enough proof to show that the drug was really connected to him. However, the court thought that the State had enough proof to say that the evidence was properly linked to King. Second, King said he should have been able to see notes from a police officer who helped in his case. The court found that there was no mistake here because King had everything he needed from the prosecutor's file. Third, King believed his punishment was too harsh and thought the prosecutor said some unfair things during the trial that might have influenced the jury. The court agreed that the sentence was too much in terms of the fine. They lowered the fine from $30,000 to $10,000 but kept the prison sentence the same. In the end, King's prison sentence stands, but the amount he has to pay was reduced.