In OCCA case No. RE-2002-1077, Tracy Allen Mitchon appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation and send the case back to the District Court to correct the written order regarding the time Mitchon had already served. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-718, Veronica Coronado appealed her conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction. One judge dissented. Veronica was found guilty of trafficking illegal drugs and was sentenced to ten years in prison with a fine of $25,000. After reviewing the case closely, the court found an important problem with how the police searched Veronica. The judges stated that her rights were violated because the search did not follow the rules laid out in the U.S. Constitution. According to the Constitution, people should not be subjected to unreasonable searches. The judges referred to an important case, Terry v. Ohio, which explains that police can only search someone if they have good reasons to believe that the person is dangerous. In Veronica's case, the officer who searched her did not have specific reasons to believe she was armed or dangerous. The search was done just as a normal procedure. Also, after the officer looked and determined she was not carrying a weapon, the officer had no right to take anything from her without a warrant, which is a legal document allowing police to search. Therefore, since the search was not done the right way, any evidence found during that search should not have been used against her in court. Because of these issues, the judges decided that Veronica should not have been convicted and ordered that her case be dismissed.
In OCCA case No. RE 2002-1124, Earnest Williams appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences in three cases but vacated the revocation of one case because it was found that the court did not have the authority to revoke that particular sentence. One judge dissented on part of the decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-537, Andre Lasuan Marshall appealed his conviction for several offenses including shooting with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of the charges and affirm the others. One judge dissented. The case began when Marshall was charged with multiple counts, including three counts of shooting with intent to kill, one count of entering a building with unlawful intent, and one count of possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony. A jury found him guilty on most counts after the trial. He received sentences that the jury recommended, which were to be served at the same time, except for one count. Marshall raised several points for appeal. He argued that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he shot someone with the intent to kill. He also said that the jury should not have been instructed on a lesser charge, that his convictions for possessing a firearm and shooting someone should not count separately, and that some police testimony about gang colors was unfair to him. Marshall believed that the evidence didn’t support one of the building charges and that the jury wasn't given all the necessary instructions. He mentioned that there were problems with what the prosecutor said during the trial and that all of these issues together should lead to his convictions being reversed or his sentences being changed. After reviewing everything, the court agreed some points raised were valid. They decided that Marshall did run from the scene after the shooting and that the evidence showed he was likely the shooter. They did find, however, that it was a mistake to instruct the jury about the lesser charge without a request from the state. Therefore, they reversed that particular conviction related to the shooting but upheld the others. The court concluded that while they were reversing one conviction, the remaining charges were upheld, and Marshall would continue serving his other sentences. One judge disagreed with how the reversal was handled, believing that if a new trial was warranted, it shouldn’t just overturn the charge outright but should instead allow for reconsideration by a jury. So, that’s a summary of the case and what the court decided.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-613, Muhajir A. Sango appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute, after Former Conviction of Two or More Drug Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reversed the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Sango was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to thirty years in prison and a fine of $10,000. He raised several arguments on appeal. He claimed that evidence showing his gang affiliation was irrelevant and unfairly influenced the jury. He also argued that his lawyer did not properly object to this evidence, which made his legal representation ineffective. Lastly, he believed the jury was given incorrect information about his possible sentence. Upon reviewing the case, the court agreed that there was an error in the jury instructions concerning the punishment range for habitual drug offenders. The court concluded that the jury was mistakenly told that the minimum sentence was twenty years instead of the correct ten years. Despite agreeing with some of Sango's concerns, the court found that the introduction of gang-related evidence did not significantly impact the jury's decision, and the arguments about ineffective assistance did not hold up. As a result, his conviction was upheld, but the court mandated that the sentencing should be redone to correct the earlier mistake.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-809, the appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and possession of a firearm while committing a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction. One judge dissented. Russell Andrew Doza was found guilty of trafficking in methamphetamine and possessing a firearm during a felony. The trial took place in Logan County, where the judge sentenced him to ten years in prison for the drug charge and two years for the firearm charge. The sentences were set to be served at the same time. The main point of the appeal was whether the police officers had the right to search his car. The appellant argued that the officers were outside their legal area when they conducted the search. The court agreed with him, referencing a previous case that stated police cannot perform searches outside their jurisdiction. Because the evidence used against him was obtained unlawfully, the court found there was not enough evidence to support his convictions. Therefore, they reversed the lower court's decision and instructed that the case be dismissed.
In OCCA case No. RE 2002-1245, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with a weapon and conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence but modify the sentence for conspiracy to ten years. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-855, Brandon Grimland appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence from one hundred years to twenty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented, believing the case should be sent back for re-sentencing. Grimland was found guilty of causing the death of another person through a beating that led to severe injuries. The trial jury recommended a very long sentence of one hundred years, but there were concerns about how the prosecutor talked about parole, which might have influenced the jury's decision. The court agreed that the way the prosecutor approached the topic was not right and decided to reduce the sentence to a more reasonable twenty-five years. While the conviction stood, the judges thought it was important to correct the sentence based on how the trial was conducted.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-1116, Billy Ray Rodgers appealed his conviction for Manufacturing Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Billy Ray Rodgers was found guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine in Oklahoma County. He was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison and a fine of fifty thousand dollars. After the trial, he appealed the decision, raising several reasons why he believed the conviction should be overturned. First, he argued that the evidence did not show he actively participated in making methamphetamine. The law states that for someone to be convicted of a crime, there must be proof that they either committed the crime themselves or helped someone else do it. In this case, the court agreed with Rodgers. They said that simply being present at the scene of the crime was not enough to prove that he was guilty of manufacturing meth. Rodgers' lawyer had argued that the trial judge did not give the jury proper instructions. He also claimed there were mistakes made by the prosecutor and that his own lawyer did not do a good job, which all contributed to an unfair trial. Lastly, he said that the evidence collected against him should not have been used because it was obtained through an illegal search. After reviewing all the evidence and arguments, the court decided that there was not enough proof to support the conviction. They found that being present at the meth lab did not equal participating in its operation. Therefore, they reversed his conviction and ordered that the case be dismissed entirely. The dissenting judge believed there was enough evidence to sustain the conviction. They argued that Rodgers was present where meth was being manufactured, and there were items connecting him to the lab. This judge felt that a reasonable juror could find him guilty based on the evidence, which included his fingerprints on lab equipment and his social security card found there. In summary, the court overruled the conviction because they believed the evidence did not sufficiently prove Rodgers was involved in the crime, while one judge disagreed and thought the evidence was enough for a conviction.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-1041, Carlos Gomez Modesto appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Methamphetamine and Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Count 1 with instructions to dismiss it, while affirming Count 2. One judge dissented. The case started when Modesto was found guilty in an earlier trial of trafficking both methamphetamine and cocaine. The jury decided his punishment for methamphetamine should be ten years and a fine of $50,000, and for cocaine, ten years and a fine of $25,000. However, during sentencing, the judge changed the punishment for methamphetamine to just four years, allowing both counts to run at the same time. Modesto raised several issues during his appeal, challenging the fairness of the trial. He claimed that: 1. The trial court didn't properly handle his request to dismiss the charges based on double jeopardy, which is when a person can't be tried twice for the same crime. 2. He argued that having two convictions seemed unfair, like getting punished twice for the same wrongdoing. 3. He believed that the evidence presented was not enough to support his convictions. 4. Modesto complained about the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments, suggesting they were harmful and unfair. 5. He pointed out that some decisions made by the trial court regarding evidence were wrong, which affected his right to a fair trial. After looking carefully at all the facts and arguments, the court agreed with Modesto on some points. They found that his two convictions did violate the rule against double punishment, so they decided to reverse the conviction for methamphetamine and instruct the lower court to dismiss that charge. However, they determined there was enough evidence to uphold the conviction for cocaine and decided to affirm that part. The court also recognized that the prosecutor's comparison of Modesto to a notorious criminal was inappropriate, but they concluded it wasn’t enough to change the trial's outcome. Lastly, although there were some mistakes in handling evidence, they decided those were not serious enough to affect the fairness of the trial. In summary, the court's final ruling was that Modesto's conviction for trafficking cocaine would stand, while the conviction for methamphetamine was reversed and dismissed.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-548, Brian Wheatley Fire appealed his conviction for seven counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand his case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Brian Wheatley Fire was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County of multiple counts of a serious crime. The jury recommended he serve twenty years in prison for each count, and the judge ordered the sentences to be served one after the other, meaning he would spend many years in prison. After getting convicted, Brian Wheatley Fire raised several issues, called propositions of error, which he believed showed he did not get a fair trial. These were a set of complaints about how the trial went and how evidence was presented. The court looked at the arguments made by Brian's side. One important issue was that a social worker and a school counselor said they believed the child involved was telling the truth, which was a problem. These statements could influence how the jury viewed the witness's honesty. The law says that it is up to the jury to decide if someone is telling the truth, and when someone who is not a trial expert vouches for a witness's truthfulness, it can lead to unfairness in the trial. Another issue was related to what happened during questioning. The prosecutor brought up that Brian, after being arrested, didn't speak to police. This should not have happened because it could make people think less of him for not speaking up right away. The law protects people from being judged negatively for choosing to stay silent after being arrested. Brian's silence was used against him repeatedly in questions by the prosecutor and was mentioned again in final remarks. The court found that these two problems together made it impossible for Brian to have a fair trial. They believed that the errors were serious enough to reverse the guilty decision and send the case back for a new trial where these mistakes wouldn't happen again. In conclusion, Brian Wheatley Fire's conviction was overturned, and his case was sent back for a new trial because the errors during his first trial compromised his right to a fair trial.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-772, Joseph Alexander Simrak appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Possession of a Firearm after a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was arrested. He was found with methamphetamine and a firearm, which he challenged in court, arguing that the arrest was not lawful. The appellant claimed that because his arrest was unlawful, all the evidence found during the arrest should not have been used against him in court. The court agreed with the appellant and found that the information used to justify his arrest was not reliable. Therefore, the evidence from the unlawful arrest should not have been included in the trial. The jury had previously decided that the appellant should go to prison for ten years for each charge, and those sentences were to be served one after the other. However, since the court found the arrest illegal, both convictions were reversed. The remaining issues raised by the appellant were not considered because the ruling on the arrest was significant enough to change the outcome of the case. Ultimately, the court stated that the appellant would not be punished for these convictions due to the way the evidence was obtained.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-869, Bennie Jay Edwards, Jr., appealed his conviction for Concealing Stolen Property and Breaking and Entering. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for Concealing Stolen Property to ten years imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. Bennie Jay Edwards, Jr. was found guilty in a trial that took place in May 2002. The jury decided he should go to prison for 30 years for the first crime, which was concealing stolen property, and one year for the second crime, which was breaking and entering. These sentences were set to happen at the same time, meaning he would serve the longest one. After the trial, Edwards appealed, saying that there were mistakes during the trial and that he did not get a fair chance to defend himself. His lawyers said the jury was told the wrong information about how long he could be sentenced for his crime of concealing stolen property. The proper punishment should have been four years to life in prison, but the jury was told it could be no less than 20 years. After looking into the issues raised by Edwards, the court decided that he did not lose his chance for a fair trial because of the mistakes that were made about the instructions. However, they agreed that the jury was given the wrong information about the punishment for his first conviction. Because of this error, the court changed the sentence for his first conviction from 30 years to 10 years. The second conviction remained the same. The court explained that even though there were some mistakes, they did not think those mistakes were serious enough to change the conviction itself, just the sentence. In the end, the court found Edwards guilty but reduced his punishment for one of the crimes due to the trial mistakes related to jury instructions.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-858, Esther Servin appealed her conviction for Child Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her petition to withdraw her guilty plea based on the interests of justice. One judge dissented. Servin had pled guilty to two counts of Child Neglect, which means she was charged with not taking care of her child. A judge sentenced her to a long time in prison—37 years for one count and 10 years for the other. This punishment would mean she had to serve those two sentences one after the other, making a total of 47 years. After the sentencing, Servin tried to take back her guilty plea because she thought she didn’t understand what was happening during her trial. Her request was denied at first, but later, the court allowed her to appeal. In her appeal, Servin said two main things: First, she believed she didn’t enter her guilty plea in a way that was fair and understood. Second, she thought her lawyer did not help her well enough. The court looked at all the information, including the questions asked in court and the answers Servin gave. They concluded that it was right to let her withdraw her plea because it would be fair to do so. The dissenting judge disagreed. This judge believed that Servin’s plea was valid and that everything in court was handled well. The dissenting judge thought the sentence, even though it was long, should be kept as is because Servin had made her choices and understood her situation at the time. In summary, the court allowed Servin to withdraw her guilty plea based on fairness, while one judge felt the original plea should stand.
In OCCA case No. C-2002-1136, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for Possession of a Stolen Vehicle and Eluding a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition in part, vacating the trial court's order regarding restitution and remanding for a restitution hearing. One Judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-899, Edward John VanWoundenberg appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence (DUI) after having two or more previous convictions. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. VanWoundenberg was found guilty of DUI in a trial where a jury sentenced him to twenty years in prison. He raised several arguments in his appeal. He argued there were mistakes in the jury instructions, his sentence should be changed, a clerical error needed to be fixed, and that the combined effect of all the mistakes denied him a fair trial. The court reviewed all the information from the trial. It decided that VanWoundenberg’s case did not need to be reversed or changed, but there was a clerical mistake in the court documents that had to be corrected. The court found that the evidence did not support giving the jury instructions about lesser charges, and so the trial court acted correctly by not providing those instructions. VanWoundenberg also argued that his felony DUI sentence should not have been increased under a general law since it had already been raised under a specific DUI law due to his previous offenses. The court explained that it was legal to enhance (or increase) his sentence using a general law because he had many previous different felony convictions within the required time. The court pointed out that one of VanWoundenberg's arguments was mistaken; the rules allowed for both the specific and general laws to apply in his case. Finally, the court amended the total costs listed in the original court documents to a lesser amount due to a fee that should not have been included. In the end, the court confirmed VanWoundenberg's conviction and corrected the clerical error, but found no other issues that needed to change the outcome of the case.
In OCCA case No. M-2002-1146, Michael Lee Vickery appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, and driving under suspension. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to three months of incarceration, giving credit for time served. One judge dissented regarding the modification.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-321, Lourinda (Givens) Leggett appealed her conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Lourinda (Givens) Leggett was found guilty of First Degree Manslaughter by a jury. She was given a 28-year prison sentence, with 15 years suspended. Afterward, she filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. On appeal, she raised two main errors. First, she argued that her lawyer should have presented evidence about battered woman syndrome, which could have helped her defense. Second, she claimed that the jury received confusing instructions regarding different defenses, which affected the trial's fairness. The court looked carefully at the case, including records and arguments from both sides. They agreed with Lourinda that her lawyer’s decision not to call an expert on battered woman syndrome was not a good choice and had negatively affected her defense. They believed that this choice made it hard to trust the jury's decision. Therefore, they reversed the trial court's decision and ordered a new trial. Since the court found merit in the first point raised by Lourinda, they didn't need to address the second error she mentioned. The court’s decision meant that Lourinda would get another chance in court to present her case.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-808, Milton Veran Williams appealed his conviction for distribution and possession of crack cocaine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that his convictions for possession with intent to distribute and maintaining a place for selling drugs were reversed and dismissed, but his conviction for distribution was affirmed with a reduced fine. One judge dissented, believing the entry into Williams' home was justified under exigent circumstances.
In OCCA case No. C-2002-1188, the petitioner appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions and sentences but reversed one specific conviction for maintaining a vehicle used for illegal activities. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively. The petitioner had pled guilty to various charges in three different cases. These included serious charges like possession of drugs with the intent to distribute, gun-related offenses, and other crimes. After he was sentenced, he sought to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that he did not understand what he was doing when he pled guilty. The court held a hearing to consider this request but denied it. The sentences the petitioner received added up to a very long total of 223 years, meaning he would serve them one after another. During the appeal, the petitioner presented several reasons he felt the court made mistakes. First, he argued that there wasn't enough evidence for some of his guilty pleas to be accepted. After looking into the facts, the court disagreed on some counts, saying there was enough evidence for certain guilty pleas, but accepted the petitioner’s claim that he should not have been convicted for maintaining a vehicle for drug activities. In another part of his argument, the petitioner claimed that his punishments were too much and that he did not understand his pleas. The court found that he did understand what he was doing and therefore, his guilty pleas were valid. Overall, the court upheld most of the judgments but agreed with the petitioner on one specific charge, reversing that conviction. The court ordered the case to go back for further actions that align with its decision. One judge thought sentences should be served together instead of separately, showing that there were different opinions even in the court's decision.
In OCCA case No. C-2002-1188, the petitioner appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including possession of controlled substances and shooting with intent to kill. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed the conviction for maintaining a vehicle used for the keeping or selling of controlled substances, due to insufficient evidence. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively.
In OCCA case No. C-2002-1188, the petitioner appealed his conviction for various crimes related to drug possession and firearm offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one conviction for maintaining a vehicle used for selling drugs. One judge dissented and suggested that the sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively.
In OCCA case No. C 2002-1460, Skinner appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to partially grant his appeal. The court found that the pleas of guilty to some charges were not entered knowingly and voluntarily. Skinner was not properly advised about the punishment he could face, and the fines he received were too high according to the law. Therefore, the court allowed him to withdraw his guilty pleas for certain counts and changed the fine on one of the counts to a correct amount. The court upheld the punishment for one count but denied the appeal for another. A judge dissented on some aspects of the case.
In OCCA case No. C-2002-946, Christopher Dwayne McGee appealed his conviction for distributing controlled substances and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that McGee should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. McGee was originally charged with several counts related to drug distribution in Stephens County. He pleaded guilty to all the charges and received a 30-year prison sentence with fines. After his plea, McGee argued that he did not receive good legal help and that he did not understand what he was agreeing to when he pleaded guilty. He also claimed that he should not be punished twice for the same crime. The main issue was about an agreement he had with the State regarding his plea. McGee believed that the charges would not be enhanced because the State agreed to drop certain parts of his case. However, he was later sentenced with enhancements due to prior felony convictions, which he felt was unfair. The State admitted that McGee's plea was based on a misunderstanding about the charges and enhancements. They suggested that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea, and the court agreed. As a result, the court decided that McGee could go back to the District Court to change his guilty plea.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-233, Stephen Eldridge Melonakis appealed his conviction for falsely personating another. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to reflect credit for time served awaiting trial. One judge dissented, arguing that the trial court's decision should have been upheld without modification.