Files - Page 62 of 66 - OCCA Opinions

F-2001-352

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

In OCCA case No. F-2001-352, Virgil Clayton Rose appealed his conviction for several crimes, including the manufacture and possession of methamphetamine, possession of a precursor substance, possession of a firearm while committing a felony, and concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court found that some of these convictions violated rules against being punished twice for the same crime. The court agreed with the appeal and reversed the convictions for possession of methamphetamine and the precursor substance. The court modified the sentence for possession of a firearm while committing a felony to five years. One judge disagreed with the decision on certain points but agreed with the overall outcome.

F-2001-230

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 27, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-230, Shihee Hason Daughrity appealed his conviction for two counts of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon and one count of False Personation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions on the robbery counts but reversed the conviction for False Personation. One judge dissented. Daughrity was tried along with another person and was found guilty of robbing someone while using a dangerous weapon and falsely claiming to be someone else. The judge sentenced him to a long time in prison and also made him pay fines. Daughrity thought the trial was unfair and wanted to appeal. The court looked at the reasons Daughrity gave for why he thought he should win his appeal. He questioned whether there was enough proof for the False Personation charge because there wasn't clear evidence that he impersonated an actual person. The court reviewed previous cases to understand what counts as False Personation. They found that in this case, there wasn’t enough proof to show he impersonated someone who could be harmed by his actions. While the evidence seemed to show he used a fake name to escape responsibility for his actions, the instructions given to the jury were incomplete. Because of this, Daughrity's conviction for False Personation was reversed, which means he shouldn’t have been found guilty of that charge based on how the jury was instructed. However, they kept his convictions for robbery since they were clear and backed by enough evidence. In conclusion, while Daughrity's robbery convictions stayed, he won on the False Personation count. The judges made sure that the right procedures were followed, highlighting how important it is for juries to have complete and clear instructions when they are deciding on guilt.

F-2001-210

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 26, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-210, Gary Wesley Tucker appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence and Driving Under Revocation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Driving Under the Influence and remand for a new trial. The conviction for Driving Under Revocation was affirmed. One judge dissented. Tucker was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to ten years in prison for Driving Under the Influence and one year for Driving Under Revocation, with the sentences to be served one after the other. Tucker argued that there were several mistakes made during the trial. The court agreed with Tucker that the trial court made errors, especially when it failed to give important instructions to the jury about how to consider his charges. One key mistake was not letting the jury know they didn’t need to agree on the greater crime to look at the simpler one. This caused confusion for the jury, which was shown in a note they sent to the judge asking for clarification. The judge’s response didn’t help them understand, which was a big problem. Since the jury wasn’t properly informed, the court decided that Tucker's conviction for Driving Under the Influence should be reversed and he should get a new trial. However, the court affirmed his conviction for Driving Under Revocation because there were no issues raised concerning that charge. In summary, the court found there were enough errors to make Tucker's DUI conviction unfair, leading them to send the case back for a new trial on that charge while keeping the other conviction intact.

F-2001-283

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 26, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-283, Timothy Dewayne Kliven appealed his conviction for Conspiracy to Manufacture a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Kliven's conviction with instructions to dismiss. Kliven's co-appellant, Tony Wayne Jones, also had his conviction reversed. One justice dissented. The case involved both men being found guilty of planning to make methamphetamine, but the evidence against them was not strong enough to show that they had agreed to do this crime. The evidence was mainly based on circumstantial facts, which means it didn't directly show their involvement in a conspiracy. Since there wasn't enough proof, the court ruled that their convictions should not stand.

M-2001-174

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 26, 2002
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2001-174, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of paraphernalia (a crack pipe). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. Two judges dissented. The case began when the appellant was found guilty after a jury trial in Tulsa County. The judge sentenced him to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine, which was the maximum for this crime. The appellant raised several points of error in his appeal, including claims that his rights to represent himself were violated, and that the evidence against him was insufficient. During the trial process, the appellant continuously expressed his desire to represent himself. However, several judges denied his requests, primarily because they believed he might be at a disadvantage without a lawyer. The court ultimately found that the denial of the right to self-representation is a serious issue, which could result in an automatic reversal of a conviction. In examining the evidence, the court noted that while the appellant was in a motel room where the crack pipe was found, it wasn’t enough to support the conviction. The main issues that prompted the reversal were related to the appellant's right to represent himself. The court ruled that the previous decisions denying this right were not valid grounds. The absence of a warning about self-representation conduct and the lack of clarity about the rights involved led the court to conclude that the appellant's conviction could not stand. Therefore, the court ordered a new trial, allowing the appellant the chance to properly represent himself if he chose to.

F 2000-1653

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

In OCCA case No. F 2000-1653, Linda Kaye Corder appealed her conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Manufacturing a Precursor Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Manufacturing a Precursor Substance and remand with instructions to dismiss that charge. The court found that the appellant was punished twice for the same offense of manufacturing methamphetamine, which violated the law. One judge dissented on the issue of the drug clean-up fine, believing it should not have been vacated. The court affirmed the conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance and found the punishment appropriate.

C-2001-537

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 20, 2002
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2001-537, a person appealed his conviction for possession of controlled substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of the counts while keeping the other counts affirmed. One judge dissented. The case began when the individual pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. The plea agreement allowed for a one-year suspended sentence if he completed a drug court program. However, he later violated the terms of this agreement by using drugs again and not attending the required sessions, leading to a longer sentence. After the court sentenced him to a total of 21 years in prison for the remaining counts, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea. He argued he did not fully understand what he was agreeing to, specifically the length of his sentences and various conditions. In reviewing the case, the court found a significant issue with the individual's dual convictions for possessing two kinds of drugs at the same time, which they ruled could violate double jeopardy rules. They agreed with part of his appeal and reversed the conviction for possession of marijuana, while affirming the other two convictions.

C-2001-665

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 20, 2002
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2001-665, the petitioner appealed his conviction for indecent exposure. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner the ability to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his conviction. One judge dissented. The petitioner, who had been originally charged with three counts of sexual abuse of a minor child, reached a plea agreement where the charges were reduced. He pled guilty to the lesser offense of indecent exposure and received a 20-year prison sentence, which was the minimum possible. Later, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that he had been misled about the prison time he would actually serve. He argued that he was incorrectly informed he would have to serve 85% of his sentence if he went to trial, which was not true for his case. The court found that the misinformation affected his decision to plead guilty even though he had also given contradictory statements during the hearings. The court ultimately ruled that because he was misinformed, his guilty plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily. As a result, his conviction was vacated, and he was allowed to withdraw his plea.

F-2001-211

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

In OCCA case No. F-2001-211, Sherl D. Batise appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence, meaning Batise will continue to serve his time in prison. One judge dissented. Batise was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison. He argued in his appeal that he did not have good legal help during his trial, that his punishment was too harsh, and that the court did not properly decide how much money he should pay in restitution to the victim. The court looked closely at Batise's claims. They found that he could not prove that having better legal help would have changed the outcome of his trial. They also thought that a thirty-five-year sentence was appropriate, especially since Batise had prior felony convictions, including serious crimes. The court explained that a long sentence was justified given the severity of his actions, which involved attacking someone with a machete. Regarding the restitution, the court agreed with Batise that the trial judge did not follow the right steps when deciding how much money he should pay to the victim. The judge was supposed to take into account whether Batise could afford to make those payments without causing serious hardship to him or his family, and he also needed clear evidence of how much the victim lost. Since this was not done correctly, the court decided to vacate the restitution order and sent the case back to the trial court for further review. In summary, Batise’s conviction was upheld, meaning he remains in prison, but the order about how much he should pay the victim was canceled, and that will be re-evaluated by the trial court.

M 2001-0393

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 20, 2002
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2001-0393, Albino Rosendo Soto appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reduced the victim's compensation assessment from $25.00 to $20.00. One judge dissented.

F 2000-1652

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

In OCCA case No. F 2000-1652, Shaun Scott Sprowls appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Manufacturing a Precursor Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance but reversed and dismissed the count for Manufacturing a Precursor Substance. One judge dissented. The case began when authorities found evidence suggesting Sprowls was making illegal drugs, which led to his trial. The jury found him guilty and recommended a long prison sentence along with fines. Sprowls argued that this evidence should not have been used because it was collected without a proper search warrant. He also claimed that he was unfairly punished multiple times for the same act, which violated his rights. After reviewing the case, the court agreed that Sprowls was punished twice for the same crime, so they reversed the second conviction and removed the fine associated with it. However, they determined that the evidence for the first charge was enough to support the jury's decision and that his sentence was fair. Ultimately, the court affirmed part of the decision but corrected what they saw as an error in punishing him.

F-2001-313

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 13, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-01-313, *Steven Wayne Robertson* appealed his conviction for *Attempted Burglary in the First Degree* and *Assault with a Dangerous Weapon*. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to run concurrently. One judge dissented. Robertson was found guilty by a jury for two crimes. He was accused of trying to break into a house (attempted burglary) and attacking someone with a weapon (assault). The jury decided to give him a ten-year prison sentence for each crime, which would usually mean he would spend twenty years in prison, but the court later decided he would serve both sentences at the same time, totaling ten years. Robertson claimed that it was unfair to punish him twice for what he said was one event. However, the court concluded that the two charges were based on different actions and that he could be punished for both. They looked at the evidence, like a witness who saw him with an axe, showing he was dangerous. He also said he should have had the chance to argue that he only caused damage to property instead of trying to break in, but the court found that this was not needed based on the facts of the case. Finally, Robertson thought he did not get a fair trial because of some things the prosecutor said during the trial. The court agreed that there were improper comments but still decided to keep the guilty verdicts and just change the sentences so that he would serve ten years instead of twenty.

RE 2001-0540

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 13, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0540, Eddie Craig Monarch appealed his conviction for a suspended sentence violation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the additional imposition of community service. One judge dissented. In this case, Monarch had initially pled guilty to Driving While Under the Influence and Driving Under Suspension. He received a five-year suspended sentence for the first charge and a short jail time for the second, along with some fines and requirements like community service and using an interlock device on his vehicle. Later, Monarch did not meet the conditions he agreed to, such as paying probation fees and using the interlock device, which led the State to ask for a revocation of his suspended sentence. After a hearing, the judge found that he had indeed violated these terms and revoked two years of his suspended sentence. Monarch appealed this decision, stating that the evidence against him wasn't strong enough and that he didn't have the means to pay the fees or participate in the programs. The court noted that only a preponderance of evidence was needed to prove a violation and found that there was enough evidence to support the judge's decision to revoke his sentence. However, the court agreed with Monarch that the judge did not have the authority to impose extra community service hours since it was not part of the original punishment. So, they confirmed the revocation of his suspended sentence but removed the extra community service requirement.

RE 2001-0383

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 12, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0383, Benton appealed his conviction for indecent or lewd acts with a child under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Benton pleaded guilty to three counts of indecent or lewd acts with a child in 1996. He was sentenced to seventeen years for each count, but the last ten years of his sentences were suspended, meaning he wouldn't have to serve that time in prison if he followed certain rules and conditions, like going to counseling and keeping the court informed of his address. In February 2000, the state filed a request to take back his suspended sentence because they claimed Benton violated his probation. They said he didn’t report his change of address to the authorities, didn’t check in regularly, and didn’t attend counseling. However, the hearing regarding his probation violation was postponed until March 2001, almost two years after the request was made. During the hearing, the judge found that Benton had indeed failed to report, change his address, and attend the required counseling. As a result, the judge decided to revoke his suspended sentences, which meant Benton would have to serve ten years for each count in prison. Benton appealed this decision, arguing that the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove that he had violated the terms of his probation. The court acknowledged that the state's witness did not have sufficient information about Benton’s case since she had just started working on it and had never met him. The probation officer who had worked with Benton was no longer at the office and did not testify. Additionally, it was mentioned that Benton might not have reported or informed the authorities of his new address because he was mentally incompetent and was in a hospital at the time. It seemed he could not attend counseling sessions because he was referred to other types of treatment. The court found that there was not enough evidence to show that Benton willingly broke the probation rules. They decided to reverse the order revoking his sentences and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. Overall, the court said that the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Benton violated his probation, leading to the reversal of his sentence.

F-2001-1028

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 2, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1028, Terry Wayne Jennings appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and dismissed the case. One judge dissented. Terry Wayne Jennings was found guilty by a jury in Kiowa County. The jury recommended he be sentenced to eighteen years in prison, and the judge also added a fine of $25,000, even though the jury did not suggest it. Jennings appealed his sentence, raising several issues. One of the main points in his appeal was about the search warrant used to collect evidence against him. Jennings argued that the warrant was based on a weak affidavit, which is a written statement used to get permission from a judge to search a place. He claimed that his rights were violated because this affidavit did not provide enough information to believe there was a good reason to search his property. The court reviewed the details of how the warrant was issued and the information given to the judge who approved it. They said that in deciding whether there was probable cause for a search, the judge needed to believe there was a fair chance that the information was true. Important details like whether the informing person was credible or if their information offered any independent confirmation were necessary. In this case, the specific informant's information was not well-supported. The court noted that there was no past history of the informant giving reliable information to the police. They compared this case to a previous case where a similar situation led to the suppression of evidence. After looking carefully at the affidavit, the court felt there was not enough solid information for the judge who issued the warrant to conclude that there were true grounds for the search. As a result, the court decided that Jennings’ conviction was based on evidence that should not have been allowed, reversing his conviction and ordering that the case be dismissed. In conclusion, the decision from the court meant that Jennings was no longer considered guilty based on how the evidence was collected. The court stressed that following proper legal procedures is important to protect everyone's rights, especially in criminal cases.

F-2000-1078

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 1, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1078, Samuel Leroy Muzny appealed his conviction for Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case. One judge dissented. Muzny was charged and tried in the District Court of Lincoln County. He was found guilty of growing marijuana on his own property and was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, with eight years suspended, and a $5000 fine. Muzny raised several arguments in his appeal. He stated that agents from the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics should not have entered his fenced property without a warrant to check for marijuana plants. He claimed this violated his right to privacy and was against both state and federal laws. The court examined these arguments closely. The majority found that because the agents entered a posted and fenced area without a warrant, this violated Muzny’s constitutional rights. They referred to a previous case to support their conclusion that the warrants are necessary for such searches. Therefore, they reversed Muzny's conviction. One judge disagreed with this decision and wrote a dissent. He believed the court was changing established laws on search and seizure, which could create confusion for future cases. He argued that the law should remain consistent to ensure fairness and clarity in the legal system. In summary, the court’s decision led to Muzny’s conviction being overturned due to the lack of a warrant for the search, while a dissenting judge believed this ruling undermined the established legal framework.

F-2002-324

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 28, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-324, Michael Lee Barry appealed his conviction for multiple counts related to burglary and theft. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Barry's felony convictions but modified his misdemeanor sentence for petit larceny to comply with legal limits. One judge dissented. Barry had entered a guilty plea for three felony counts of burglary and one count of petit larceny. As part of a deal, he was accepted into a Drug Court program, which provided him a chance to avoid a lengthy prison sentence if he successfully completed the program. However, if he did not finish the program, he would face significant prison time. During his time in Drug Court, Barry struggled with multiple violations, including testing positive for drug use and not cooperating with the Drug Court rules. Eventually, the state filed to terminate his participation in Drug Court, citing many infractions. After a hearing, Barry was removed from the program and sentenced to substantial prison time. Barry’s appeal pointed out several arguments: he claimed the court had no authority to act because the motion to terminate him from Drug Court was not correctly filed; he argued that being removed for offenses that he had already been punished for was unfair; he asserted that the evidence wasn’t enough to justify his removal; and he stated that his sentence for petit larceny was too long according to the law. The court found that Barry did have proper notice about the termination and that the Drug Court acted correctly. They ruled that multiple violations over time justified his termination from the program. However, they acknowledged that his sentence for petit larceny exceeded what was legally allowed, and they made the necessary modification. In summary, while the court upheld the serious consequences of his actions leading to his removal from the Drug Court, they also corrected the sentencing error for the lesser offense, ensuring the judgment aligned with the laws governing such cases.

F-2005-392

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

In OCCA case No. F-2000-638, Ray Lamont Hubbard appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided that the assessment of incarceration costs against him needed further review because the process used to determine those costs was not followed properly. The opinion noted that Hubbard's ability to pay was considered, but remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to correctly calculate the incarceration costs. In OCCA case No. F-2000-194, Troy Don Cape also appealed the assessment of incarceration costs after pleading guilty to Driving While Intoxicated. The court similarly decided to vacate the amount of costs assessed against him because the required procedure for determining the costs was not adequately followed. Both cases were sent back for hearings to determine appropriate incarceration costs. One judge dissented on the decision to vacate and remand, believing that the assessments were already supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial courts had acted within their discretion.

RE 2001-0663

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 11, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0663, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In a published decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. In this case, the Appellant had previously pled guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, possession of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. As a result, the Appellant was given a suspended sentence of five years for the first two counts and a one-year suspended sentence for the third count. A suspended sentence means that the person does not have to serve time in jail unless they break the rules. Later, the State wanted to take back the suspended sentences because they believed the Appellant broke the rules. They filed an application for revocation, and a hearing was held. The judge decided to revoke the five-year suspended sentences for the first two counts but found that the one-year sentence for the third count had already expired. The judge also ordered that the new sentences would run consecutively with any new cases the Appellant might have. This means that the Appellant would serve time for the revocation and also for any new offenses afterward without merging those sentences. However, the Appellant appealed this decision, arguing that the judge did not have the authority to order the five-year sentences to run consecutively with new cases. The higher court agreed with the Appellant's argument and said the judge made a mistake in this part of the decision. The court affirmed the revocation of the Appellant's suspended sentences but modified the sentence to remove the part about running consecutively. This means the Appellant would still be punished for breaking the rules, but they wouldn't have to serve their new sentences one after the other in this case. The court instructed the lower court to update the judgment to reflect this change. In summary, while the Appellant's suspended sentences were revoked, the way the new sentences were to be served was changed. The final decision supported the revocation, but clarified the terms of the punishment.

J 2001-878

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 8, 2002
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2001-878, G.S. appealed his conviction for petit larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's decision and send the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented. G.S. was found to be a delinquent child for committing a crime that would be a crime for an adult, called petit larceny. This meant that he was taken to court to see if he really did what he was accused of. After the trial, a judge decided that G.S. should be placed in a special care program for children and that he should pay for court costs and fees for his lawyer. G.S. was unhappy with this decision and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to look at his case again. He brought up three main problems with his case: 1. He argued that there wasn’t enough of a record for the higher court to review, so his conviction should be changed. 2. He thought that his lawyer didn’t give enough information to the higher court, which meant he didn’t get the help he needed. 3. He also said that there was no evidence showing he agreed to give up his right to a jury trial, which he thought was wrong. The court looked closely at everything, including the records and the written arguments from both sides. They decided that G.S. was right about not having proof he gave up his right to a jury trial. Because of this, they thought the trial court's decision should be reversed, meaning G.S. would get another chance to have his case heard. The judges agreed that the original trial didn’t follow the right rules. A big part of this situation was that when a child is accused of something serious, like stealing, they have rights, including having a jury to listen to their case. In G.S.’s case, there was no paperwork or proof showing he understood and agreed to give up that right. So, the court decided that G.S. should have a new trial to give him a fair chance to defend himself. The decision made by the original trial court was erased, and the case was sent back so it could be done again properly.

F-2001-46

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

In OCCA case No. F-2001-46, Harold Edward McHam appealed his conviction for Kidnapping and Indecent Proposal. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Kidnapping and affirm the conviction for Indecent Proposal. One judge dissented regarding the Kidnapping conviction. Harold McHam was found guilty in a trial that took place from October 10 to October 12, 2000, in Choctaw County District Court. He was convicted of two charges: Kidnapping and Indecent Proposal. The jury sentenced him to one year in prison for each count, and the sentences were set to be served one after the other. The judge also ordered McHam to pay $1,000 in incarceration fees for his time spent in jail. McHam raised several concerns during his appeal. First, he argued that the incarceration fees imposed on him violated his rights because they were not calculated according to the law. The court found that the trial judge did not show how the $1,000 fee was determined, and whether it would create hardship for McHam and his family. Thus, the fees were removed and the case was sent back to the district court to handle the fees properly. Second, McHam claimed there was not enough evidence to prove he kidnapped anyone. The court agreed, stating that a key part of the kidnapping charge was not supported by enough proof. The court saw that the evidence didn’t clearly show that McHam meant to secretly keep anyone confined against their will. Therefore, his Kidnapping conviction was overturned. Finally, McHam also argued that the punishment he received was too harsh. However, this point did not need to be discussed because the Kidnapping conviction was already reversed. On the other hand, the court upheld the conviction for Indecent Proposal, stating that there was enough evidence for that charge. In summary, the court decided to dismiss the Kidnapping charge, keep the Indecent Proposal charge, and take another look at the fees McHam was ordered to pay.

RE 2001-0351

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 25, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0351, the appellant appealed his conviction for violating probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided in favor of the appellant, agreeing that the trial court made a mistake in ordering sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently. One judge dissented.

F-2000-1339

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

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1339, Harold Lee Cooper, Jr. appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court affirmed his conviction for possession of cocaine but reversed and dismissed the conviction for possession of marijuana. One judge dissented.

C-2001-341

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 16, 2002
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2001-341, Terrell Dwayne Gurley appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including robbery with a firearm, kidnapping, burglary, larceny of an automobile, possession of a firearm after felony conviction, forcible entry, and attempting to intimidate a witness. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Gurley's conviction for one of the charges, burglary in the first degree, and ordered that this count be dismissed. The court upheld the remaining convictions and found Gurley's sentences were not excessive. One judge dissented, arguing that the laws applied in the case should be reconsidered regarding the relationship between the crimes committed.

RE-2001-180

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 9, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2001-180, Jason Lee Hunt appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Hunt's suspended sentence. One member of the court dissented. Jason Lee Hunt had originally been convicted for unlawfully possessing marijuana and had received a suspended sentence, which means he did not have to serve time in jail as long as he followed certain rules. However, he got in trouble again when he did not report to his probation officer, did not tell the officer when he moved, and missed payments he was supposed to make as part of his probation. The court held a hearing to discuss these issues. The judge determined that Hunt had clearly violated the terms of his probation and decided to revoke his entire suspended sentence. Hunt appealed this decision, arguing that the judge made some mistakes, like not properly checking if he could afford to make the payments and not giving him a fair chance to defend himself. After reviewing the case, the court found that there was enough proof that Hunt had not followed the rules of his probation. They agreed with the judge's decision to revoke his sentence but disagreed with the part where he was asked to pay for jail expenses. The court decided to remove those payment orders.