Files - Page 59 of 66 - OCCA Opinions

C-2002-633

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 26, 2003
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2002-633, Russell Snoe appealed his conviction for lewd and indecent proposal to a child and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Snoe's petition for a writ of certiorari and reverse the judgment and sentence of the trial court. One judge dissented. Snoe had entered a guilty plea in the District Court of Muskogee County, where he was sentenced to five years for one charge and one year for the other, with the sentences to be served at the same time if he completed a certain program. Later, Snoe wanted to take back his guilty plea and sent a letter to the court. The court held a hearing but did not allow him to withdraw his plea. Snoe argued that he did not have a fair chance because his lawyer did not help him correctly and that he was not given the right information about what the punishment could be. The court reviewed Snoe's case and agreed that he had not been clearly informed about his potential punishment. This mistake made his plea not valid. Since he had taken the plea thinking he faced a worse punishment than he actually could have, the court decided he needed another chance. As a result, the court reversed his earlier decision and allowed him to withdraw his plea.

F-2002-356

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 26, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-356, Heidi Renee Pitt appealed her conviction for Unlawful Possession of Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction. One judge dissented. Heidi Pitt was found guilty by a jury of having methamphetamine. The event took place in Pushmataha County, where she had been sentenced to two years in prison, with the first six months to be served. However, she appealed this decision, arguing that there wasn't enough evidence to prove she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. During the trial, the state did not provide any proof that Heidi knew about the drugs or had control over them. The drugs were actually discovered when her co-defendant threw them on the ground during his arrest. Because there was no indication that Heidi had any knowledge of or control over the drugs, the court found that the evidence was not enough to support her conviction. After looking at all the evidence, the court decided that Heidi's conviction should be overturned and sent back to the lower court with instructions to dismiss the case. One judge disagreed and felt there was enough evidence to support Heidi's conviction.

RE 2002-0387

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 20, 2003
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2002-0387, a person appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty to robbery with a dangerous weapon on October 5, 2000, and received a six-year suspended sentence along with a $1,500 fine. He was also given rules to follow while on probation. A little over a year later, on January 1, 2002, the state filed a petition to revoke the appellant's suspended sentence. This meant they wanted to take away his suspended sentence because they believed he broke the rules. The hearing took place on February 27, 2002. The judge found that the appellant had violated some conditions of his probation, which led to three years being taken away from his suspended sentence. The appellant was only fifteen when he committed the crime and was still just seventeen at the time of the hearing. During the appeal, the appellant argued that the evidence the state provided was not good enough to prove he violated his probation. He also said that taking away three years of his suspended sentence was too harsh, especially since there were reasons that might lessen his punishment. The case included the fact that the appellant had not finished high school, and he had a lot of rules to follow without any support or treatment. One specific rule was that he could not hang out with people who had criminal records. The state claimed that he broke this rule by being around a certain person who had a felony conviction. However, during a trial, the appellant explained that being in a large group did not mean he was talking to or hanging out with that person. The state argued that they had enough evidence since the transcripts from another trial included the appellant's testimony. However, these transcripts were not available for the court to review in this case. In the end, the court agreed with the appellant that the evidence was not strong enough to prove he had violated the probation rules. Because of this lack of evidence, the court reversed the decision made to revoke the suspended sentence and ordered it to be dismissed.

F 2002-175

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 19, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-175, James Dale Vaughn appealed his conviction for Trafficking Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for one of the counts. One judge dissented. Vaughn was found guilty of several charges after a police search of his home revealed drugs and a firearm. The police had a search warrant based on information from a confidential informant who claimed Vaughn was selling methamphetamine. During the search, officers discovered methamphetamine in various amounts, drug paraphernalia, and a firearm. Vaughn argued that the search warrant was improperly issued because it relied on hearsay from the informant that was not verified. The court found that there was enough information to justify the warrant and allowed the evidence found during the search to be admitted in court. Additionally, Vaughn claimed the trial court should have required the state to reveal the informant's identity. However, the court decided that the informant's identity was not relevant to Vaughn's defense, and so did not need to be disclosed. Finally, Vaughn argued that the jury was not properly instructed on the possible punishment for one of his charges. The court agreed that the instruction was incorrect and reduced the sentence for that particular charge, while upholding the convictions for the other charges. Thus, the overall decision allowed the convictions to stand, but changed the punishment for one count.

C-2003-298

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 14, 2003
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-298, Edward Charles Scott appealed his conviction for Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance and Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the denial of the motion to withdraw guilty pleas and remand the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Edward Charles Scott was charged with two counts of distributing drugs and one count of conspiring to distribute drugs in Stephens County. On November 19, 2001, he pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced to 40 years in prison for each count, with the sentences running at the same time, and he was also fined $2,500 for each count. Scott later filed a Motion to Withdraw the Plea, claiming that his lawyer did not help him properly. He had a hearing on this motion, but the court refused his request. Scott also filed other motions seeking to remove his guilty pleas and sought help for an appeal later on. The court allowed him an appeal out of time after concluding that his lawyer had not filed the appeal correctly. Scott raised several points in his appeal. He argued that the trial court should have given him a new lawyer when he claimed his lawyer wasn’t doing a good job. He also believed he should be allowed to take back his guilty pleas because he didn’t understand everything. He felt his prison sentence was too long and suggested the trial court did not check if he was really able to understand what he was pleading guilty to. Lastly, he argued that there was not enough proof that he was guilty of conspiracy. After reviewing everything, the court decided Scott did not show that his lawyer had a real conflict of interest. There was no evidence that Scott did not understand what he was doing when he pleaded guilty, as he admitted his guilt during the processes. The court noted that being unhappy with the length of his sentence was not a valid reason to withdraw a guilty plea. The court found some mixed statements about whether Scott was sentenced as a repeat offender or a first-time offender. These inconsistencies meant the case needed to go back to the lower court for a new sentencing. While the court thought the original inquiry into Scott’s mental competence could have been better, the records showed he was capable of understanding his charges and the guilty pleas he entered. The court also confirmed that there was a sufficient factual basis for the conspiracy plea. In the end, the court agreed with some points but decided Scott's case needed to return for resentencing due to the unclear basis for his sentence, even as they upheld the rejection of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.

F 2002-101

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 23, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-101, Danny Joe Boomershine appealed his conviction for Forcible Sodomy and Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentences should be modified to life.

F-2002-470

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 16, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-470, Dearel Oglesby appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence to 20 years in prison with a $20,000 fine. One judge dissented. Dearel Oglesby was found guilty by a jury of selling methamphetamine. He was sentenced to life in prison, which he believed was too harsh. Oglesby raised four main issues in his appeal. First, he claimed that the trial allowed some evidence that should not have been included according to the state’s rules. The court found that even though one lab report was late, it was not a major issue since it didn't harm Oglesby’s case. Second, Oglesby argued that he did not get his right to a preliminary hearing, but the court found there was enough evidence to prove there might have been a crime. Third, he was concerned that the jury saw evidence about other drug sales he allegedly made, which he thought was unfair. The court noted that while some of this evidence was not really necessary, the prosecutor did not act on it inappropriately. Finally, Oglesby spoke about a witness being added during the trial, but the court felt that was handled correctly since it wasn’t a key part of the case. The judges found that Oglesby’s punishment was extreme considering the small amount of drugs involved, so they decided to reduce his sentence instead of just keeping the life sentence. This decision was met with some disagreement from one judge, who thought the evidence was relevant and that the original sentence should stay as is.

F-2001-1372

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 10, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1372, #Welch appealed his conviction for #First Degree Burglary and Peeping Tom. In an (unpublished) decision, the court decided #to affirm the conviction but vacate the fine imposed. #No one dissented. Tony Wayne Welch was found guilty of breaking and entering a building and also for being a Peeping Tom. The court sentenced him to thirty years in prison for burglary and one year in jail for the Peeping Tom charge, which would be served at the same time. Welch challenged several things about his trial. First, he said the jury should have been told they could consider a lesser charge of breaking and entering, but the court said that was not appropriate. Then, he argued that the prosecution misled the jury, but the court disagreed, stating that the prosecution's remarks did not unfairly influence the jury. Welch also claimed his lawyer did not represent him well, but the court found no evidence that this hurt his case. The court did determine, however, that there was a mistake in how the punishment for Peeping Tom was explained to the jury, which was considered a serious error. Since Welch had already served his jail time since the trial, there wasn’t much that could be done about it. The court decided to take away the $500 fine from the Peeping Tom charge. Lastly, the court found that it was not required to inform the jury about how much time Welch would have to serve before he could be released on parole. They decided that his overall sentence was fair, and nothing about the trial significantly harmed his chances for a fair outcome. In the end, the court upheld the verdict of the jury but removed the fine, stating that despite some issues during the trial, they did not impact the fairness of his conviction.

F-2001-1488

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 8, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1488, Robert Wesley Choate appealed his conviction for manufacturing a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a precursor, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the conviction for manufacturing but reversed the conviction for possession of a precursor, which means that his punishment for that charge was dismissed. One member of the court dissented from this decision.

F-2001-1048

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 23, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1048, Wendy Leann Underwood appealed her conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Here’s a simple summary of the case: Wendy Leann Underwood was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine after she had committed other crimes before. The jury decided she should go to prison for 40 years. However, Wendy thought there were problems with how her case was handled, so she asked a higher court to review it. Wendy raised several points for why she believed her conviction and sentence should be changed: 1. She argued that the police search which found the drugs was not done properly, so the drugs should not have been used against her in court. She also said her lawyer did not fight this issue well enough. 2. She thought the trial did not properly explain to the jury that a person who testified against her was an accomplice and that there should have been supporting evidence for what that person said. 3. Wendy pointed out that many of her past criminal cases were actually part of the same situation, so they should not count as multiple offenses. 4. She believed her punishment should have been based on specific drug laws instead of general laws for repeat offenders. 5. Wendy thought she should get a lighter sentence because of new laws that help non-violent offenders. After looking carefully at everything, the court found that the police search was legal and that Wendy's lawyer did not make a mistake by not challenging it. They also decided that the person who testified against Wendy was not someone who required additional proof, so that was fine too. However, the court agreed that too many of Wendy's past convictions were counted, since many of them happened during the same event. Therefore, they decided to change her sentence from 40 years to 30 years. They felt that was fair based on the laws. Regarding the other issues raised by Wendy, the court determined that the punishment was appropriately based on the laws and that the new laws did not apply to her case. Thus, they kept her conviction but made her time in prison shorter. In conclusion, her conviction stood, but her time in prison was reduced to 30 years, with one judge thinking it should be even less.

F-2001-1243

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 20, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1243, Michael Gerald Turner appealed his conviction for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm some of Turner's convictions and dismiss others. Specifically, the court upheld his convictions for Assault and Battery Upon a Police Officer, Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, Possession of a Controlled Substance, Driving While Impaired, and Attempted Escape, but reversed and dismissed his convictions for Personal Injury DUI and DUI due to issues with evidence and double jeopardy. One member of the court dissented.

F-2003-22

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 12, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-22, Desean Terrell Poore appealed his conviction for Accessory After the Fact to First Degree Murder and Accessory After the Fact to First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the conviction for Accessory After the Fact to First Degree Manslaughter should be reversed and dismissed, as it was found to be double punishment for a single action. The court also ordered corrections to the judgment's wording concerning the prior felony conviction.

F-2001-528

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 21, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-528, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence, granting a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved the appellant, who was convicted of a serious offense and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. The appellant argued that he did not receive proper help from his lawyer during the trial. He claimed three main errors: first, that his lawyer did not do enough research on the case; second, that he was not allowed to question a witness about a sexual encounter; and third, that his lawyer had a conflict of interest. Upon reviewing the case, the court found that the lawyer's help was indeed lacking. Specifically, the lawyer did not know important details about two witnesses that could have helped the appellant's defense. This failure to prepare affected the case negatively, indicating that the defense was not done well enough. The court also concluded that the trial judge made a mistake by not allowing the appellant to explore certain evidence regarding the witness. However, since the lawyer did not raise the issue correctly, it did not automatically mean there was a problem. In the end, because of the arguments about the lawyer's effectiveness and the problems with how evidence was handled, the court decided that a new trial was necessary. One judge believed that the trial judge had made the right decisions and that everything should remain as it was. The overall outcome was that the original conviction was overturned, and the case was sent back for a new trial so the appellant could have another chance to defend himself.

F 2001-1348

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 20, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-1348, Holly Ann Glasgow appealed her conviction for two counts of Robbery by Force and Fear. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction on Count One and remand it to the district court to change the charge to Receiving Stolen Property with a reduced sentence. The conviction on Count Two was affirmed. One judge dissented.

F-2002-9

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 19, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-9, Amy Michelle Green appealed her conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and modify the sentence. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. Amy was found guilty after a trial where the jury decided that she was guilty of having illegal drugs and drug-related items. The jury decided her punishment should be ten years in prison for the drugs and one year for the drug paraphernalia. The judge in the trial court ordered that she serve these sentences one after the other, making it a total of eleven years. Amy argued that there were mistakes made during her trial that made her punishment too severe. One big issue was that a day planner with a graphic photo of her was accepted as evidence, even though it was meant to prove she controlled the hotel room where it was found. She argued that the planner was unfair and should not have been used against her since other personal items also proved her control over the room. The court agreed that the day planner shouldn't have been used to influence the jury because it could lead to unfair judgment against her. They believed that the mistakes in her trial did affect the outcome, leading to an excessive sentence. Therefore, they changed her sentence to six years for the controlled substance charge to be served at the same time as her one-year sentence for the paraphernalia. Overall, the court kept her conviction but lessened the time she had to serve in prison.

F-2002-106

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 19, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-106, Christian Satterfield appealed his conviction for Attempted Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Count I), Possession of a Precursor (Count II), and Possession of a Firearm While Committing a Felony (Count III). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Counts I and III and reverse Count II with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Satterfield was found guilty of attempting to make a dangerous drug and also having items that could be used to make that drug. During the trial, Satterfield's jury said he should be in prison for a total of forty-two years. The court also decided he should pay a big fine. Satterfield's lawyers argued that he shouldn’t be punished for both attempting to make a drug and having items to help make that drug because it was unfair to be punished twice for similar actions. The court agreed and decided that the conviction for having those items should be reversed. They also looked at whether some rules were followed in Satterfield's trial. They decided that even though the lawyers from the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics had a big role in the case, it didn’t mean Satterfield didn’t get a fair trial. They said the jury had the right instructions about punishments, despite the defense’s claims. The court found evidence used in the trial was okay and supported Satterfield's conviction for using a gun while committing a felony. In the end, Satterfield's sentences for the first and last counts of his conviction were kept, but they reversed the second count, which meant the charges for possession of a precursor were dropped. The judges all agreed on most parts of the decision, but one judge felt that the way the jury was told about the punishment wasn’t right and thought Satterfield should have received a shorter sentence based on newer laws.

F 2001-1506

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 18, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-1506, Jose Fajardo appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation and Indecent Proposal to a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Fajardo was found guilty in a trial held in July 2001, where the jury decided he should go to prison for five years for Lewd Molestation and fifteen years for Indecent Proposal, with the sentences to be served one after the other. He appealed these decisions. Fajardo argued nine different reasons why his trial was unfair. He thought the court made mistakes, like not allowing his lawyer to question a juror properly, which he said made it hard for him to get a fair trial. He also said his lawyer didn’t do a good job because important witnesses were not there during the trial. Another point he made was that charging him with two separate crimes instead of one was unfair. After looking at everything, the court decided that one specific mistake was serious enough to warrant a new trial. The court found that a special advocate, who was allowed to help the victim during the trial, should not have been there because there was no law allowing that in this type of case. The special advocate acted in a very active role and helped the prosecution, which made the trial feel unfair to Fajardo. Because this was a big mistake that affected the fairness of the trial, the court ordered a new trial. The other arguments made by Fajardo did not need to be looked at since this one reason was enough to lead to a new trial.

F-2001-1165

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 14, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1165, Shawn R. Chapman appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to modify some of his sentences. One judge dissented. Chapman was found guilty of several serious charges, including first-degree rape, rape by instrumentation, kidnapping, and drug-related offenses in Logan County. He was given lengthy prison sentences, amounting to a total of 480 years. Chapman raised many reasons to challenge his convictions and sentences. He argued that the evidence presented against him was unfairly prejudicial, and he claimed that his lawyer's comments during the trial hurt his case. Chapman also thought that the jury's verdicts for some of the sexual crimes were not allowed under the law because they were too similar. He felt that the trial court did not allow enough time for his lawyer to prepare and that his sentences were too harsh. The court examined all the evidence and arguments. They found no reason to overturn the convictions but decided that some of the sentences should be changed. The judges agreed that the evidence from other crimes was relevant and that it did not unfairly influence the jury. They believed that the sentences for the rape charges were too long and changed them to life imprisonment, while still upholding the other sentences. The court concluded that there were no overall errors that would change the outcome of the trial, and they affirmed most of the decisions made by the lower court. However, one judge disagreed with the modification of the sentences, believing that the jury's decisions on the punishments were justified given the severity of the crimes Chapman committed.

F 2001-668

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 7, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. FT 2001-668, Richard James Cordon appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Richard Cordon was found guilty of Second Degree Murder after a trial. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Cordon believed he did not get a fair trial because the court refused to give certain jury instructions. These instructions were about statements he made that could show he was innocent, as well as instructions on different types of manslaughter, voluntary intoxication, and self-defense using non-deadly force. After looking carefully at all the evidence and arguments, the court agreed that Cordon’s conviction should be reversed. They felt the trial court made a mistake by not allowing the jury to consider his exculpatory statement, which means a statement that could help prove he was not guilty. The court believed that if the jury had heard this statement, they might have decided Cordon was innocent. The court did not agree with all of Cordon's claims, particularly those about the other types of defenses and instructions he wanted, but they found that the lack of an instruction on his exculpatory statement influenced the trial's fairness. Therefore, the case was sent back for a new trial.

RE-2002-174

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 6, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2002-174, the appellant appealed her conviction for various crimes related to embezzlement and forgery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began in 1995 when the appellant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment, which was suspended, meaning she would not go to prison immediately if she followed certain conditions. These conditions included paying back over $35,000 to the victim of her crimes as restitution, reporting to a probation officer, and not changing her residence without permission. In 1997, the state said the appellant broke the rules of her probation by failing to report to her probation officer, changing her residence without permission, and not paying her restitution as required. A judge found that she did violate her probation, but there were multiple delays in resolving her punishment, which lasted about four and a half years. In 2001, the appellant missed a court hearing, and the court issued a warrant for her arrest. After her arrest in January 2002, a final hearing took place where the judge ordered her to serve the full five years of her sentences and added extra fees for sheriff's costs. The appellant then appealed this decision, proposing several arguments against the court's order: 1. She argued that the sheriff's fees were imposed unlawfully and violated her rights. 2. She claimed the restitution amount was uncertain and should not be required. 3. She believed the court could not revoke her suspended sentence after such a long time. 4. She felt her due process rights were violated because the imposed punishment was excessive. After reviewing the case, the court agreed with some of the appellant's points. It decided that the sheriff's fees were not legally appropriate because they cannot be added after a sentence has been given. They also found that appellant’s arguments about the restitution were too late because those challenges should have been made back in 1995 when the restitution was set. However, the court did agree with the appellant that it was too long between when she was sentenced and when her probation was revoked; thus, they ordered that her two five-year sentences should run at the same time (concurrently) instead of one after the other (consecutively). In conclusion, the court modified the earlier order by removing the sheriff's fees and adjusted how long the appellant would be imprisoned.

F-2001-1445

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 5, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1445, John Wesley Dickson appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, After Former Conviction of a Felony. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the trial court but modified his sentence to twenty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. John Wesley Dickson was found guilty by a jury for having illegal drugs after he had been convicted of a crime before. The jury decided that he should go to prison for forty years. Dickson thought this was too harsh and took his case to a higher court for a review. The higher court looked at all the evidence, including what happened in the original trial. The judges found that while the forty-year sentence was lawful, the remarks made by the prosecutor during the sentencing could have influenced the jury too much. The prosecutor's comments on what they thought was an appropriate punishment were seen as quite problematic. The court believed that the sentence given shocked their sense of fairness, which is a key reason for modifying sentences. Despite being allowed to recommend sentences, the prosecutor should have kept personal views out of their statements to avoid bias in the jury's decisions. Finally, the court decided to change the sentence from forty years to twenty years. They pointed out that the rules at the time of the crime did not allow applying changes in law retroactively to make the punishment lighter. Thus, only the laws that were in place when Dickson committed the crime could be applied to him. In conclusion, the court confirmed Dickson’s conviction but found the original sentence too severe, leading to a new sentence of twenty years in prison. One judge disagreed with the change in sentence, feeling that the jury's and prosecutor’s actions were acceptable.

C-2001-514

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 4, 2002
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2001-514, the petitioner appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder (by permitting child abuse). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from life imprisonment without the possibility of parole to a life sentence with the possibility of parole. One judge dissented.

F-2001-991

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 31, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-991, Clayton Armstead appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Drug (Cocaine Base) with Intent to Distribute, Second or Subsequent Offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction, but modify his sentence. One judge dissented on the modification of the sentence. Armstead faced serious charges after a jury found him guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to 30 years in prison and a hefty fine. He raised several issues in his appeal, arguing that the jury was given wrong information about his sentence, that he should have been allowed to argue for a lesser charge, that he faced double punishment for the same act, and that his lawyer didn’t provide adequate defense. He also claimed his punishment was too harsh. The court carefully reviewed everything from the trial and found that there was indeed a mistake in how the jury was instructed about the possible punishments for his crime. The law stated he could have faced a different range of punishment, and since this legal error was recognized, the court decided to change his sentence to 10 years in prison and a lower fine. While one part of the court agreed with this decision, another judge noted that the jury should have considered a different minimum sentence, and believed that a 24-year sentence would have been more appropriate instead of changing it to 10 years. In conclusion, Armstead kept his conviction, but his sentence was changed to be less severe than what the jury initially decided.

RE-2001-1375

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 29, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2001-1375, the individual appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Theft of a Debit Card, Grand Larceny, Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, and others. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but modified the sentence for Grand Larceny in one count due to an error. One member of the court dissented. The case began when the individual pled guilty to several offenses on December 5, 2000. He was given sentences that were mostly suspended, meaning he would not have to serve time unless he broke the rules of his probation. However, on September 25, 2001, the State of Oklahoma said he violated those rules by not reporting to his probation officer and committing another crime, which led to a hearing. During the hearing, the judge decided to revoke his suspended sentences. The appellant argued that his punishment for Grand Larceny was too harsh since it violated the rules for sentencing that say he should not have gotten more than a year in jail for that specific crime. The court agreed that the original sentence was incorrect but also ruled that it did not harm the individual too much since his other sentences were still valid. The individual also claimed that he was unfairly required to pay for restitution he believed he should not have been responsible for, but the court found he did not follow the proper steps to challenge that. Lastly, he argued that his overall sentences were excessive, but the court determined that since the sentences were within a reasonable range and he had indeed violated his probation, there was no unfairness in the judge's decisions. So, the court affirmed most of his sentences and ordered a correction for the incorrect Grand Larceny sentence, which should only require one year of confinement.

F-2001-1517

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 24, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1517, Paul Nathan Johnson appealed his conviction for multiple counts related to drug offenses, including Attempt to Manufacture Methamphetamine and Possession of Methamphetamine Within 1000 Feet of a School. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Johnson's convictions and sentences but vacated the fine imposed for one of the charges. One judge dissented. The case involved Johnson being found guilty of trying to make methamphetamine and having it near a school. He was also charged with having a gun while committing these crimes and having tools used for drug-making. The trial judge gave Johnson a long sentence and hefty fines based on the jury's recommendations. Johnson raised several complaints in his appeal. First, he argued that being convicted for both trying to make meth and having it near a school was unfair. The court decided that both charges were different enough that he could be found guilty of both without it being double punishment. Next, Johnson claimed there wasn't enough proof that he had a gun ready to use while making drugs. However, the court found that there was enough evidence showing he had the gun where he could easily get to it. Johnson also argued that he didn't really start making meth yet. The court disagreed and stated that the evidence showed he was past just planning and was actively attempting to make the drug. Finally, Johnson felt that his sentences were too harsh. The court decided that the judge acted within their rights in giving Johnson the sentences and fines, except for one fine, which they deemed not allowed by the law. In the end, the court confirmed most of Johnson's convictions and sentences but removed the extra fine related to one of the charges.