Files - Page 63 of 66 - OCCA Opinions

F-2001-49

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

In OCCA case No. F-2001-49, John Henry Throckmorton appealed his conviction for manufacturing and unlawful possession of methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine but reversed the conviction for unlawful possession. One judge dissented. Throckmorton was found guilty by a jury for two counts related to methamphetamine. He was sentenced to 20 years for manufacturing and 10 years for possession. However, Throckmorton argued that being convicted of both offenses was unfair because the laws say a person cannot be punished twice for the same action. The court agreed with him about the possession charge, stating that since the evidence for both charges was the same, it was wrong to convict him for both. As a result, they dismissed the possession conviction while keeping the manufacturing conviction.

RE-2000-1209

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 7, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1209, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including kidnapping and rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty to several serious charges in 1992, including kidnapping and rape, and received suspended sentences, meaning he wouldn't serve time in prison as long as he followed certain rules. Later, a protective order was issued against him due to concerns from another person. Over the years, he faced more legal issues, including a new conviction in 1997. In 2000, the state asked the court to revoke his suspended sentences, claiming he violated the protective order. After a hearing, the court revoked all his suspended sentences. The appellant disagreed with this decision and pointed out four main problems with how his case was handled. He argued that his new sentence was too long, that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he broke the protective order, that the revocation was unfair, and that he didn’t properly receive notice about the charges. The court reviewed his claims and found that there was enough evidence to support the revocation of his sentences and that the trial court made a reasonable decision. However, the court also agreed with the appellant that his sentence for one charge was incorrectly stated as nine years when it should have been seven years. In the end, the court upheld the revocation of his suspended sentences but changed his sentence for the kidnapping charge to the correct length.

F 2000-1543

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

In OCCA case No. F 2000-1543, James Rickey Ezell, III appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, Resisting an Officer, and Public Drunk. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Resisting an Officer and Public Drunk but modified the sentence for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs from seventy years to forty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Ezell was convicted after a jury trial where he faced three charges. The jury decided on tough punishments, including a long 70-year sentence for the drug charge. Ezell argued that his arrest was illegal and that various legal mistakes were made during the trial, including issues with how the jury was selected and his lawyer's performance. The court reviewed these points carefully. They found that Ezell's arrest was legal and that the jury selection did not violate his rights. The law under which he was charged for drug trafficking was also upheld as valid. However, the court agreed that his defense lawyer didn't do enough to investigate previous convictions that were used against Ezell during sentencing. Because of this lack of investigation, the court reduced his long sentence for drug trafficking but kept the other convictions intact. In the end, Ezell's hard punishment for drug trafficking was changed, but he still faced serious time for his actions.

F-2000-998

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 21, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-998, Gene Doyle Smothermon appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine With Intent To Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction while modifying the sentence to 30 years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Gene Doyle Smothermon was found guilty of having methamphetamine and was sentenced to serve a long time in prison. The jury first suggested he should go to prison for 75 years, but the judge decided he would serve 30 years instead. Smothermon appealed because he believed there were many mistakes made during his trial. Smothermon raised several issues during his appeal: 1. He argued that some evidence used in the trial was unfair and weak. 2. He said the trial court should have allowed his investigator to testify, claiming this took away his right to present his defense. 3. He felt the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove he was guilty. 4. He claimed the prosecutor made improper statements during the trial. 5. He thought his punishment was too harsh. 6. He believed that many errors added up to cause unfairness in his case. 7. Lastly, he asked the court to fix mistakes in the records about his guilty pleas for less serious charges. The court carefully looked over all the information from the trial, including evidence and arguments. They found that the trial did not make serious mistakes. They agreed that the evidence, including a dog alerting to drugs found in Smothermon's car, was relevant and did connect him to the case. They also ruled that not allowing the defense investigator to testify was reasonable since the investigator was disclosed too late in the trial process. They noted that while the prosecutor made some mistakes in his closing arguments, they were not serious enough to make the trial unfair. The most important point was that the judge was right to lower the original sentence from 75 years to 30 years, which they believed was more appropriate for the crime. In the end, the court confirmed Smothermon's conviction and changed his sentence to 30 years. They also decided that the trial court should correct the records to show the true details of his guilty plea for lesser charges. One judge did not agree with this decision.

F-2000-1634

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 20, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1634, Edgar Lee Rucker, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the fine imposed. One judge dissented. Rucker was found guilty by a jury for selling methamphetamine and was sentenced to twelve years in prison along with a $10,000 fine. He was acquitted of another charge related to marijuana possession. Rucker argued several points in his appeal, claiming violations of his rights during the trial. The first point raised was that it was wrong for both the drug offense and habitual offender statutes to be used in his sentencing. The court acknowledged this as an error but stated that it only affected the fine; they reduced the fine to $2,500 since it was incorrectly calculated originally. Rucker also argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was a habitual offender. However, the court found that the State provided enough evidence regarding his past convictions. He claimed that evidence about his previous bad behavior should not have been allowed in the trial, but the court determined it was relevant for understanding the case. Rucker believed that there was a mismatch between the charges and the evidence, but the court concluded the evidence was consistent with the allegations. Another argument was that his lawyer didn’t do a good job representing him. They noted that while the lawyer should have objected more, it didn’t significantly impact the outcome of the trial. Rucker contended that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial, but the court found that any mistakes made were corrected and did not deny him a fair trial. Finally, Rucker argued that all the errors combined made the trial unfair, but the court decided that the only significant error was the fine and adjusted it accordingly. In summary, the court upheld Rucker’s prison sentence but modified the fine.

F 2000-862

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 19, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-862, Taress Lamont Owens appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the $11,000 fine. One judge dissented. Taress Lamont Owens was found guilty by a jury in a case related to illegal drug possession. He was sentenced to 60 years in prison and a fine of $11,000. Taress believed there were several reasons why his conviction should be overturned or the fine changed, so he appealed the decision. First, he argued that the evidence against him should not have been allowed in court because it was obtained in violation of his rights. However, the judges felt that the search was legal because it was done with consent. They confirmed that the evidence was strong enough to convict him based on the facts of the case. Taress also thought that the evidence presented against him was not enough for a conviction. But the judges disagreed, saying there was sufficient proof that he intended to sell the drugs. He mentioned that some evidence was not relevant to the case, but the judges found the officer’s testimony useful to show the intention behind his actions. Taress raised issues about his rights being violated and that he did not receive proper help from his lawyer during the trial. The judges looked at these claims and stated that there was no proof that he had been poorly represented in court. Finally, while the judges agreed on most points, they all felt that the fine imposed by the jury was too high according to the law. They decided to cancel the fine because the jury's instructions were incorrect regarding whether the fine should be mandatory. In conclusion, the court upheld Taress Lamont Owens' conviction but nullified the excessive fine, allowing him some relief from the financial penalty imposed during the trial.

RE-2000-1429

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 14, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1429, Walker John Myers appealed his conviction for attempting to elude a police officer and resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered that the district court clarify the order. One judge dissented. Myers had originally received a sentence of one year in jail for each of the charges, with some time suspended. After an investigation, the court found he had violated the terms of his probation. The appeal focused on whether there was enough evidence for this decision, and on the clarity of the revocation order. The court found that Myers had previously admitted to violating his probation, which meant that the revocation was supported by evidence. However, it also noted that the order was unclear about how much of his remaining sentence was actually being revoked, leading to the requirement for a clearer explanation from the district court.

F-2000-1262

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 13, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1262, Robert Anthony Lamar appealed his conviction for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Robert Anthony Lamar was found guilty by a jury of taking a U-Haul truck without permission. He claimed he only wanted to drive the truck to see what it felt like and intended to return it right after. The jury believed that he did not intend to keep the truck permanently, but the trial court did not let the jury consider a possible lesser charge of joyriding. Lamar raised several points in his appeal. He argued that it was unfair for the court to give the instructions it did without his request and that there wasn’t enough proof to show he meant to keep the truck. But the main issue was that he should have been able to have a chance to be judged on the lesser offense of joyriding, since his actions matched that claim too. The court found that joyriding was indeed a valid option for the jury to consider, and since the jury’s decision did not support the idea of him wanting to permanently take the truck, he deserved a fair chance to contest the lesser charge. Because of this, the court ruled that the prior judgment was reversed, and a new trial was ordered.

F-2000-483

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 3, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-483, Debra Gorrell appealed her conviction for several drug-related crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse one of Gorrell's convictions but affirmed the others. One judge dissented. Debra Gorrell was found guilty of crimes including unlawful possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and other drug-related charges. She was sentenced to a total of many years in prison. During her appeal, Gorrell raised several arguments against her convictions. Gorrell argued that the court shouldn't have allowed evidence about her past crimes. She also said she was punished too many times for the same actions and claimed that part of the law used against her was unfair. She disputed the evidence stating she had methamphetamine in front of a child, claimed the testimonies used against her weren't reliable, and said the jury wasn't properly instructed about the crimes. The court reviewed all arguments and found that most of Gorrell's claims did not hold up. They decided that the evidence against her was strong enough for the other convictions. However, they found that Gorrell's conviction for maintaining a dwelling for drug use was not fair, and this conviction was reversed. In the end, the court upheld her other convictions but ordered a new trial for the one related to maintaining a dwelling for drug use.

F-2001-319

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 29, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-319, Jan V. Stout appealed her conviction for Grand Larceny. In a published decision, the court reversed her conviction and remanded the case. One judge dissented. Stout was charged with Grand Larceny in Pawnee County. She was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine. However, the judge put her on probation instead of sending her to prison right away. Stout had to pay back $8,500, cover court costs, and spend 90 days in jail. Stout argued that the evidence against her was not good enough. She felt that the testimony from her accomplice, Jacqueline Thompson, was questionable and claimed that she was unfairly treated during the trial. Stout believed that the statements made by the prosecutor misled the jury about Thompson’s guilty plea deal, which affected her right to a fair trial. The court found that there was some evidence linking Stout to the crime, particularly the discovery of stolen items in her office. However, concerns were raised about Thompson’s credibility because the prosecutor had made incorrect statements about her plea deal during the trial. The prosecutor repeatedly said that Thompson's sentence was longer than it actually was, which could lead the jury to doubt Thompson's truthfulness. The judges agreed that the prosecutor's misleading statements about the plea deal were a serious problem. Because Thompson's testimony was crucial to Stout's case, and the jury might have viewed her differently if they had understood the deal correctly, the court determined that Stout's trial was unfair. In conclusion, Stout's conviction for Grand Larceny was reversed, meaning she would not serve time for that crime, and the case was sent back to the lower court for another trial.

RE-2000-1470

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 27, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1470, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided that while the appellant's suspended sentence was properly revoked, the trial court should have clarified whether the sentence was to be served at the same time as other offenses or one after the other. One judge dissented.

M-2000-1482

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 21, 2001
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2000-1482, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful transportation of an opened container of alcoholic beverage. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The appellant was found guilty by a jury in Beckham County, where he was sentenced to six months in the county jail and had to pay more than $1,000 in court costs and fees. The case went through an accelerated process because of its nature. The main issue in the appeal was whether there was enough evidence to support the conviction. The appellant argued that the evidence did not show he had transported an opened alcoholic beverage on a public roadway, street, or alley as required by law. After reviewing the evidence and the details of the case, the court agreed with the appellant and found that there was indeed insufficient evidence to prove he had broken the law in this way. Thus, the higher court decided to reverse the original judgment and told the lower court to dismiss the case. The decision did not go without a disagreement; one judge believed that the conviction should stand.

F-2001-10

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 13, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-10, Todd O'Shay Coburn appealed his conviction for Shooting With Intent to Kill and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the trial court but modified the sentences to thirty-five years on each count to be served consecutively. One judge dissented.

RE 2000-1512

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 30, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-1512, the appellant appealed her conviction for Omission to Provide for a Minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence and send the case back for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, in 1998, pled guilty to not providing for a minor. Instead of going to jail, she was given a chance to prove herself with what is called a deferred sentence. This means that if she followed the rules for a certain period, she wouldn’t have to serve time. However, in July 1999, the state decided to put her on a faster track to face her punishment due to some issues that had come up. In February 2000, the court decided to give her a suspended sentence of four years. This meant she wouldn’t go to jail but would have to follow certain rules. In September 2000, the state complained that she wasn’t following those rules, so they filed a motion to revoke her suspended sentence. The court held a hearing about this in November 2000 and decided to take away her suspended sentence entirely. The appellant then appealed this decision, meaning she wanted a higher court to look at whether the lower court made mistakes. She argued three main points in her appeal: 1. She claimed that the court made a big mistake by revoking her sentence with a lawyer who had conflicts of interest. This was important because having a lawyer who could represent her well was her right. 2. She said that the evidence used to take away her sentence was not good enough. In her view, the state did not prove that she had truly broken the rules. 3. She also believed that the revocation of her sentence was too harsh, especially because of the lack of strong evidence against her. During the hearing, it became clear that the lawyer who represented her in both her first plea and during the revocation hearing had ties to the state. This was considered a conflict of interest, which the court emphasized is not acceptable. In the end, the court found that the appellant was right about the conflict of interest and that this issue was serious enough to reverse the decision made by the lower court. The case was sent back for further proceedings where these problems with her representation could be addressed.

F-2000-1308

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 26, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1308, Recil Gravitt appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Maintaining a Dwelling for Drugs, and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in the Presence of a Minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions, but modified the fine on Count I to $10,000. One judge dissented.

J 2001-616

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 24, 2001
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2001-616, J.J.A. appealed his conviction for three counts of Burglary of an Automobile. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify it to reflect only two counts of Burglary of an Automobile. One member of the court dissented. The case began when a petition was filed against J.J.A. claiming he was a delinquent child due to the alleged burglaries. An adjudication hearing was held where the evidence was presented. J.J.A. argued that his rights were violated because statements made by a co-defendant who did not testify against him were used, and this went against his right to confront witnesses as established in a past case. After reviewing the details, the court found that although the trial court did not consider any statements that directly implicated J.J.A., two other codefendants did testify against him regarding two of the burglaries. As a result, the court decided to modify the adjudication to show that he committed only two counts instead of three. Overall, the decision confirmed the conviction but adjusted the count to ensure it aligned with the evidence presented.

F-2000-805

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 18, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-805, Dustin Loy Wells appealed his conviction for several crimes, including Shooting with Intent to Kill and Possession of a Stolen Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one conviction related to assault. One judge dissented on the decision to reverse that conviction. Dustin Loy Wells was tried in a jury trial and found guilty of multiple charges. The trial court then sentenced him to a total of forty-five years in prison and imposed several fines. Wells believed he was unfairly convicted and claimed there were mistakes made during his trial. He raised several points of error on appeal. First, he argued that the trial court should have separated (or severed) his different charges for trial, but the court found that joining them was appropriate. Second, he said there was a mistake when certain identification evidence was allowed. While the court agreed this was an error, it was considered harmless because there was strong other evidence against him. Third, Wells argued that there was not enough evidence to support one of his assault convictions and the court agreed, reversing that specific conviction. Further, he contended that some evidence should not have been admitted at all, but the court found that the trial court had made the right decision. Wells also claimed there was not enough proof that he intended to kill when he shot someone, but the court concluded there was sufficient evidence for the jury to reach that conclusion. Wells pointed to what he believed was prosecutorial misconduct, claiming he did not get a fair trial because the prosecutor had made improper statements about him. However, the court decided that these actions did not change the outcome of the trial. Finally, he claimed that the combined errors were serious enough to warrant a new trial, but the court found that only one conviction needed to be reversed. In summary, while the court upheld most of Wells’s conviction and sentence, it found that one of the assault convictions should be dismissed. One judge disagreed with this part of the decision.

RE 2000-1257

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 16, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-1257, the appellant appealed her conviction for furnishing beer to a person under twenty-one years of age. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of her suspended sentence and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty and was sentenced to one year, which was suspended, meaning she would not have to serve time right away as long as she followed certain rules. However, later, the state said she had broken those rules and asked the court to revoke her suspended sentence. After a hearing, the judge decided she had violated her probation and sentenced her to one year in jail with a part of that sentence suspended. The appellant appealed this decision, saying the court did not have the right to change her original sentence and that there wasn't enough proof of her violation. She also argued that she didn't receive proper notice about the reasons for her revocation, which is important for due process. The court agreed with her on the fact that the state did not provide enough evidence to support the revocation of her sentence. Due to this, the court decided to reverse the previous decision and instructed the lower court to dismiss the revocation order.

F 2000-1157

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 12, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-1157, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case was about a man named Robert G. Kirkpatrick, who was found guilty by a jury. He was working as a security guard when the incident happened. The jury decided he was guilty, but he thought he didn’t do anything wrong. He believed that he was just trying to keep the peace at a dance event, and he said he was acting in self-defense. Kirkpatrick asked the court to review two main points. First, he said that the judge should have explained what a dangerous weapon is and should have told the jury about a less serious crime they could consider. Second, he argued that the judge did not allow the jury to hear about self-defense. After looking carefully at the case, the court agreed that the second point was important. They believed that if the jury had been given the correct information about self-defense, they might not have found Kirkpatrick guilty. The judges explained that Kirkpatrick had the right to use reasonable force to do his job as a security guard, which included keeping people safe and protecting property. The law says that anyone, including security guards, can help maintain law and order. Because of this, the court decided that Kirkpatrick should not have been found guilty. They reversed the decision of the lower court and said the case should be dismissed. However, one judge disagreed with the dismissal. This judge thought that there was enough evidence to suggest that Kirkpatrick might have been acting in self-defense. They believed that the case should go back to court for a new trial where the jury could hear about self-defense properly. So, the main outcome was that Kirkpatrick's conviction was reversed. The case was sent back to the lower court with orders to dismiss the charges. The decision showed that proper instructions and understanding of the law are very important in a trial.

F-1999-1422

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 11, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-99-1422, Crider appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Crider was found guilty of killing his 12-year-old stepdaughter, Crystal Dittmeyer, after she went missing in 1996. In trial, the evidence against him included blood found in their home and in his car, as well as a patterned injury on Crider's arm that was argued to be a bite mark from Crystal. The prosecution claimed Crider transported her body in a garment bag and disposed of it. Crider raised several issues in his appeal, including concerns about the reliability of expert testimony that suggested the bite mark on his arm could have come from Crystal. The court found that the expert methods used were not scientifically reliable and did not help the jury understand the evidence. This issue alone warranted a reversal of the conviction. Additionally, the court identified errors in admitting evidence related to luminol tests, which suggested the presence of blood in Crider's car but later tests were inconclusive. The admission of testimony related to a rural area where Crystal's body was not found was also seen as prejudicial and misleading. Overall, the court determined that the combination of these errors negatively impacted Crider's right to a fair trial. The ruling emphasized the need for reliable and helpful expert evidence in criminal trials, especially in cases involving serious allegations like murder. The court called for a new trial to ensure Crider received a fair hearing.

F-2000-1304

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 10, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1304, Michael Renee Powell appealed her conviction for manufacturing controlled dangerous substances (CDS), unlawful possession of methamphetamine, maintaining a place for keeping and selling drugs, and unlawful possession of paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss the conviction for manufacturing CDS due to insufficient evidence. It noted that the conviction for maintaining a place for keeping and selling drugs would be modified to a misdemeanor instead of a felony. The court affirmed the convictions for the other counts. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the manufacturing charge, believing there was enough evidence to uphold that conviction.

F 2000-1241

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 3, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-1241, McCandless appealed her conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that two of her three convictions were unfair and should not stand because they violated laws against being punished twice for the same action. McCandless claimed that finding different types of drugs in her home should only count as one offense. The court agreed with her on that point and reversed two of the convictions. However, the court found sufficient evidence to keep the other two convictions. One member of the court disagreed with this decision.

F-2000-991

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 2, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-991, Tammy Renee Baldwin appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled and dangerous substance (methamphetamine) and possession of a controlled and dangerous substance (marijuana). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for the marijuana charge and affirmed the conviction for methamphetamine. One judge dissented. Tammy Baldwin was found guilty of possessing both methamphetamine and marijuana in Oklahoma. The jury sentenced her to 20 years in prison for methamphetamine and 1 year in jail for marijuana, and the sentences were to be served one after the other. Baldwin raised several points in her appeal. First, she argued that her two convictions violated the double jeopardy rule, which means you can’t be punished more than once for the same offense. She believed that because both drugs were found in the same place, it should be treated as one act. Second, she claimed her rights were violated because the judge had already decided to give her consecutive sentences if she was found guilty, which she felt was unfair. Third, Baldwin thought the judge made a mistake by not letting the jury hear her side of the story, specifically by refusing to give instructions about circumstantial evidence. Fourth, she argued that the evidence obtained from her purse should not have been allowed in the trial because it violated her rights against illegal searches. Lastly, she felt that all these errors combined made the trial unfair, which denied her due process. After looking closely at Baldwin’s case, the court agreed that the two convictions for possession were wrong because they were based on the same act of possession. The court decided that having both drugs in one place meant she could only be charged with one count of possession, not two. Due to this, they reversed the marijuana conviction but kept the methamphetamine conviction and the 20-year prison sentence. The judge's other points were either not decided or did not matter because of this main decision about the double jeopardy issue. The final outcome was that Baldwin's sentence for methamphetamine stayed, but the marijuana charge was dismissed, meaning she didn’t have to serve time for that. One judge disagreed with the majority decision.

J-2001-57

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 2, 2001
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2001-57, J.L.H. appealed her conviction for Public Drunk. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the adjudication of delinquency and disposition of the District Court while modifying the victim compensation assessment. One judge dissented. J.L.H. was found delinquent because she did something that, if she were an adult, would be considered being publicly drunk. This happened in the District Court of Grady County. After the court made its decision, J.L.H. was placed under the care of the Office of Juvenile Affairs and was to live with her grandmother. J.L.H. had three main reasons for her appeal. First, she believed that the court's decision did not match the evidence presented and the court's own conclusions. Second, she thought it was wrong that her treatment plan was not filed on time, as the rule says it should be done in thirty days. Third, she argued that the court should not have made her pay a victim compensation fee because it did not apply to her case. After looking closely at the records, the court found that there was enough proof during the hearing to support the decision made about J.L.H. They decided that the way she was placed with her grandmother was in her best interest and fit with the law's requirements. The court also determined that not filing the treatment plan on time did not harm J.L.H. However, the court agreed with J.L.H. on the issue of the victim compensation fee. They said that the court could not charge her this fee because there was no evidence to support it in her case. So, they decided to cancel the $25 fee. Overall, the court upheld the main decision about J.L.H.'s delinquency and how she would be treated, but they removed the charge for the victim compensation fee.

F-2000-1163

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 27, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1163, Byrin Carr appealed his conviction for unlawful delivery of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine base). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Carr's convictions. One judge dissented. Byrin Carr was found guilty by a jury of two counts related to selling cocaine near a school and public housing. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison for each count, plus fines. However, Carr argued that the court made mistakes during his trial. One of the key points was that Carr wanted the jury to hear about entrapment. This means he believed he was tricked into committing the crime by police. The court agreed that this important point should have been shared with the jury. Because of this mistake, the court changed Carr's convictions. Now, instead of being convicted of delivery, Carr was found guilty of possessing cocaine near a school and just possession of cocaine in general. His new sentence was reduced to five years for each conviction, to be served one after the other. While most of the judges agreed with this decision, one judge dissented. This dissenting judge believed that instead of changing the convictions, the case should be sent back for a new trial to address the mistakes made. Overall, the case highlighted the importance of fair instructions to the jury and how mistakes in court can lead to changes in sentences or corrections in charges.