85% Rule Archives - OCCA Opinions

F-2018-940

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 19, 2019
Post category:F

In the case of LeJeanna Sue Chronister v. State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed several appeals raised by the appellant following her conviction for Aggravated Manufacture of a Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine) and her subsequent sentencing to twenty years in prison. The appellant raised three primary propositions of error: 1. **Violation of Rights Regarding the 85% Rule**: The appellant contended that her sentence was unconstitutional because she was not informed that the 85% Rule (requiring her to serve 85% of her sentence before becoming eligible for parole) applied to her case. The court concluded that this argument did not hold merit in a non-jury trial setting, stating that the judge, not a jury, was responsible for sentencing and presumed to know the law. The court found no plain error as the sentence was within the statutory range and was the minimum allowed. 2. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: The appellant claimed her counsel was ineffective for not informing her about the 85% Rule, impacting her decision-making during her trial. The court applied the Strickland standard to evaluate the ineffectiveness claim, concluding that the appellant did not demonstrate how the alleged deficiency in counsel's performance prejudiced her case or altered the outcome. 3. **Cumulative Error**: The appellant argued that the combination of errors denied her a fair trial. The court determined that since none of the individual claims of error warranted relief, the cumulative error argument also lacked merit. Ultimately, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court of LeFlore County, stating that the appellant had not demonstrated any error that would necessitate modifying the sentence or overturning the conviction. The ruling emphasizes the distinction between non-jury trials and jury trials concerning informing defendants about parole-related laws and the importance of counsel's performance under the criteria established by the Strickland case.

C-2018-372

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 29, 2019
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **LAVONTE ANTONIO JOHNSON,** **Petitioner,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-372** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI** **Filed May 39, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Lavonte Antonio Johnson, Petitioner, pled guilty to using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a firearm, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 652(B), in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2014-2033. The Honorable Susan K. Johnson, Special Judge, accepted the plea and deferred judgment for five (5) years, subject to rules and conditions of probation. The State later moved to accelerate the judgment, alleging that Petitioner violated the rules and conditions of probation by possessing a firearm and jumping bail. The Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, accelerated judgment and sentenced Petitioner to twenty-seven (27) years imprisonment. Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied. Petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari based on the following propositions of error: 1. Petitioner did not knowingly and voluntarily enter his plea of guilty, and the district court erred when it denied his application to withdraw the plea. 2. Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article II, §§ 7 and 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution. 3. Petitioner’s 27-year sentence is excessive under the Eighth Amendment and shocks the conscience. Certiorari review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently before a court of competent jurisdiction, whether the sentence is excessive, whether counsel was effective at either the plea hearing or the withdrawal hearing, and whether the State has the power to prosecute the defendant. ### Proposition One In this proposition, Petitioner claims that the record shows he did not voluntarily enter his plea, due to a notational error by his counsel regarding the 85% rule applicable to his sentence. The court points out that a valid plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among alternatives. The ruling on a motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The trial court concluded that despite the error, Petitioner was properly informed about the 85% crime classification, denying this proposition. ### Proposition Two Petitioner argues that his counsel failed to adequately advise him regarding the ramifications of the 85% rule, thus rendering his plea involuntary. The court reviews this claim under the two-pronged Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that Petitioner did not show that counsel's performance was deficient or that it prejudiced him, denying this proposition. ### Proposition Three Petitioner argues that his sentence is excessive. The court notes that a sentence within the statutory range will not be modified unless it shocks the court's conscience. Given that Petitioner violated probation for a violent felony by possessing a firearm and jumping bail, the court finds that the sentence does not shock the conscience, thus denying this proposition. ### Decision The petition for the writ of certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. **APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** ### APPEARANCES AT TRIAL **TONY COLEMAN** **ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER** ### APPEARANCES ON APPEAL **ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER** **ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER** **LORENZO BANKS** **THOMAS HURLEY** **ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT** **DANIEL POND** **ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE** **OPINION BY: LEWIS, P.J.** **KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur** **LUMPKIN, J.: Concur** **HUDSON, J.: Concur** **ROWLAND, J.: Concur** [**Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-372_1734105356.pdf)

F-2017-1191

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 25, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1191, Leroy Edward Gilbert, Jr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One justice dissented. The case involved the murder of Erma Jean Goodou, who was killed in 1994. For many years, the murderer remained unknown. Goodou was found dead in her home, showing signs of a violent struggle. There were indications that someone entered through a window, attacked her, and fled. Despite extensive investigation, her murder stayed unsolved for almost twenty years. In 2013, some of the evidence was retested, which produced DNA that identified Gilbert as the suspect. He had previously denied knowing Goodou despite having been a high school acquaintance. His fingerprints were also found at the crime scene. During the trial, Gilbert testified, claiming they had a secret relationship and tried to explain the presence of his DNA and prints, but the evidence was compelling against him. Appellant's arguments in the appeal included claims of improper jury instructions regarding the 85% Rule, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that while there were errors in jury instructions, specifically about the 85% Rule not being applicable to his case, these did not affect his substantial rights or the outcome. The comments made by the prosecutor during the trial were also deemed not to have harmed Gilbert's defense. Ultimately, despite a dissenting opinion regarding the impact of those errors, the court upheld the trial's decision, maintaining Gilbert's conviction for First Degree Murder and sentencing him to life without the possibility of parole.

C-2016-778

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 11, 2017
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-778, Donald Garra Patterson appealed his conviction for Abuse by Caretaker, Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body, and Obtaining a Controlled Substance by Forgery/Fraud. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions on most counts but modified the sentence for Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body due to it being greater than allowed by law. One judge dissented. Patterson had entered a plea of guilty to various charges and was sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment, including ten years for Abuse by Caretaker and seven years for each of the other charges. Afterward, he wanted to withdraw his plea, claiming he did not fully understand what he was pleading guilty to and felt his lawyer had not helped him properly. The main issues raised included whether his plea was made knowingly and if his lawyer had conflicts of interest or failed to give him correct information. The court found that Patterson didn't support his claims about not understanding the plea and concluded his sentence for the crime of Unlawful Removal had to be changed because it was wrongly set longer than the law allowed. The court also confirmed that the mistakes in advising Patterson were not enough to prove he was treated unfairly by his lawyer. Ultimately, the court decided to lower his sentence for Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body to the correct maximum of five years and instructed the lower court to fix some record-keeping errors regarding fees.

RE-2016-135

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 7, 2016
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2016-135, Michael Brian Harrington appealed his conviction for violating probation. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the State's motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. The State had argued that Harrington's new ten-year sentence for a different crime made his revocation appeal unnecessary. However, the court found that his prior sentences could still affect how long he remains in prison, so the appeal matters.

F-2010-267

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 19, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-267, James Lyman Mahaffey appealed his conviction for Assault & Battery with a Deadly Weapon, Kidnapping, and Possession of Firearm After Conviction. In a published decision, the court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences to be served concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Mahaffey was accused and found guilty of serious crimes against his wife, including assault and kidnapping. The trial took place in the District Court of Grady County. After the jury convicted him, the judge sentenced him to life in prison for the assault, 10 years for the kidnapping, and 6 years for possession of a firearm, all lined up to be served one after the other, or consecutively. Mahaffey asked to represent himself during the trial, which means he wanted to defend himself without a lawyer. He argued that the court should not have allowed him to do this because he didn't clearly understand the risks involved in self-representation. However, the court decided that he was competent to represent himself and had made an informed decision. They had warned him that representing himself could be risky and could lead to mistakes that might change the outcome of the trial. During the trial, Mahaffey raised some claims against the prosecutor's behavior. He argued that the prosecutor acted unfairly by making comments that may have influenced the jury. For instance, Mahaffey claimed the prosecutor misrepresented the meaning of a life sentence and made other comments that distracted from the trial's fairness. However, the court concluded that while there were some mistakes made by the prosecutor, they were not serious enough to change the outcome of the case concerning his guilt. Despite this, the court found that the conduct during sentencing raised concerns about the fairness of the sentencing itself. The jury specifically asked about how the sentences would be served, indicating they were worried about the total time Mahaffey would spend in prison. Because of this, although Mahaffey’s convictions were upheld, the court changed the sentences to allow them to be served concurrently, meaning all the prison time would be served at the same time rather than one after the other. Ultimately, the court's decision meant Mahaffey would still have to serve his time, but the way his sentences were structured was altered to be less severe. The case was sent back to the lower court to fix the official documents to reflect that change in sentencing.

C-2010-322

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 22, 2011
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-322, Silvon Dane Kinter appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Kinter's request to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his conviction. One judge dissented. Kinter was charged in 2009 and could not afford his attorney, who then moved to withdraw. Kinter wanted to switch to a public defender but was denied. He eventually pleaded guilty to the charges after being pressured by the court, not fully understanding his situation. The court later recognized that he was indigent but did so after Kinter had already entered his guilty plea. The appeals court found that Kinter’s rights were violated when he wasn't properly provided with conflict-free counsel or a chance to adequately present his case, leading to an involuntary plea. Thus, they instructed for further proceedings based on their opinion.

F-2008-434

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 4, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-434, Dusty Ray McGee appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Dusty Ray McGee was found guilty of murdering a homeless man named John Seeley after a brutal attack. The attack happened when McGee and others returned to an abandoned apartment complex where Seeley was staying. They confronted him because they were stealing metal from the site. During this attack, McGee, along with his accomplices, kicked and hit Seeley multiple times with different objects. After the assault, they took pictures of the injured Seeley, who was still alive at that time. McGee was arrested a few days later and admitted to being part of the attack but claimed he didn't intend to kill Seeley. He mentioned that he wanted to call an ambulance afterward but was threatened by one of his accomplices. During McGee's trial, there were several issues. The jury asked many questions that showed they were confused about what made a crime first or second-degree murder and how sentencing worked. The judge didn’t handle these questions properly and didn’t bring the jurors back to discuss their worries in front of everyone. This made it hard for the jury to understand everything they needed to know to make a fair decision. The court acknowledged that the improper handling of the jury's questions likely impacted McGee's rights to a fair trial. Because of these errors, the court reversed McGee's conviction and ordered a new trial, suggesting that the previous trial did not follow the required legal procedures properly.

C-2009-865

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 22, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-865, Floyd Reid appealed his conviction for Robbery With a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling, meaning they agreed with the trial court's decision not to let Reid withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented.

F-2007-543

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 22, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-543, Sean Ray Smith appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from 100 years to 45 years imprisonment. One judge dissented, opposing the modification and suggesting the case should be sent back for resentencing with proper jury instructions. Sean Ray Smith was found guilty of a serious crime after a jury trial. The jury's verdict led to a very long sentence of 100 years. Smith said there were three mistakes made during the trial. These mistakes included the judge and prosecutor calling the victim a victim, which he argued took away his rights, incorrect information given to the jury about sentencing, and that the 100-year sentence was too harsh. Upon reviewing the case and the evidence presented, the court agreed that one of Smith's claims about the jury instructions was valid. The jury received the wrong instruction regarding how long he would have to serve in prison before being considered for parole. The jurors were confused and asked how many years make up a life sentence, which increased concerns about how they understood the law related to his sentence. The court decided that while there were indeed errors, Smith would not get a new trial. Instead, it reduced his sentence to 45 years, which was deemed more appropriate given the circumstances, including Smith's history and the nature of the crime. The decision made by the court was to uphold the conviction but change the sentence to a lesser punishment. One judge disagreed with this change, believing that the jury should properly decide the length of the sentence without this modification. The strategy suggested by the dissenting judge was to keep the conviction and have the case sent back for proper sentencing instructions.

F-2006-191

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 10, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-191, Hurst appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Hurst's sentence and remand the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Hurst was found guilty of a crime involving inappropriate touching, which led to a sentence of 13 years in prison. Hurst raised four main arguments for his appeal: 1. He claimed the trial court did not give proper instructions to the jury, which made it unfair for him. 2. He argued that some evidence used against him in court was obtained in an illegal way, violating his rights. 3. He said that his attorney was not allowed to talk about certain things during closing arguments, which hurt his defense. 4. He believed that all these errors combined made his trial unfair. The court looked closely at all parts of the case, including the trial records and evidence. They found that Hurst deserved to have a new sentence because the jury had not been properly instructed, particularly about how much time they could decide to give him. This was his first offense and he should have been warned about the sentencing rules. The jury had asked for help with the sentencing, which meant they might have been confused. As for the other arguments, the court decided there weren’t any mistakes that would change the result of the case, like the refusal to give instruction on eyewitness identification or the claims about the way evidence was gathered. The court also agreed that the trial judge was right in limiting what Hurst's attorney could say during closing arguments. In summary, the court affirmed the guilty verdict but reversed the sentence and sent the case back for a new sentencing hearing where the jury would be properly instructed.

F-2006-408

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 7, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-408, Johnny Lee Whitworth appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Whitworth was found guilty of killing someone, but the jury believed he was too drunk to intend to kill, so they convicted him of the lesser charge of manslaughter instead of murder. The jury gave him a sentence of 100 years in prison. Whitworth raised several arguments in his appeal: 1. He argued that the jury instructions didn't mention self-defense as a possible defense to manslaughter. 2. He claimed the evidence was not enough to prove he did not act in self-defense. 3. He complained that the jury was not informed about the 85% Rule, which means a person must serve only a portion of their sentence before becoming eligible for parole. 4. He thought his sentence was too harsh. The court found that the jury instructions were overall fair and included necessary information about his defenses. They also concluded that there was enough evidence for the jury to decide against his claim of self-defense. However, the court noted an error regarding the jury not being informed about the 85% Rule when they asked about the actual time Whitworth would serve. This was an important mistake because it might have led the jury to give a longer sentence than they would have if they had understood how the 85% Rule worked. Given that this error occurred and that Whitworth did not have a criminal record, the court decided to reduce his sentence from 100 years to 50 years. In summary, while the court upheld the conviction, they felt it was fair to change Whitworth's sentence to lesser punishment due to the lack of information given to the jury about his potential time in prison.

C-2006-649

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 21, 2007
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-649, Robert Earl Richardson appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Richardson's request to withdraw his guilty plea, which means he will get another chance for a trial. One judge disagreed with this decision. Richardson had originally pleaded guilty to a crime and was sentenced to twenty years in prison. After his sentencing, he wanted to change his mind about the guilty plea and asked to withdraw it. However, there were delays in hearing his request. Nearly four years after he first asked, a different judge finally listened to his case but did not allow him to withdraw his plea. Richardson argued that he didn’t fully understand what he was agreeing to when he pleaded guilty. Specifically, he claimed he was not informed that he would need to serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole, which is known as the 85% Rule. This is important because it means a person might spend a long time in prison before they could have a chance to be released early. During the hearing about his request, Richardson’s lawyer said he usually informs clients about this rule but could not remember if he did so with Richardson. Since there was no clear proof that Richardson was informed about it, the court ruled that he could withdraw his guilty plea. The decision was to reverse the lower court's ruling, allowing Richardson to try again and have a fair trial where he can present his side of the story.

F-2006-63

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 11, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-63, Beverly Michelle Moore appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Moore's sentence to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Two judges dissented. To explain, Beverly Moore was found guilty of killing two-year-old Avery Snyder. Avery had severe head injuries that doctors said were caused by violent shaking, known as shaken baby syndrome. The trial focused on whether Moore or Todd Snyder, Avery's father, caused the injuries. Moore admitted to giving a confession to the police but later recanted, claiming she did not harm the child. During the trial, the jury determined that Moore was responsible for Avery's injuries, leading to her conviction. The jury decided on life imprisonment without parole. However, the decision included a mistake regarding jury instructions about the 85% Rule, which means that for certain crimes, a person must serve 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole. The court found it was necessary for the jury to understand this rule to make an informed sentencing decision. Moore's trial did not provide the jury with clear information about the 85% Rule, which was important after the jury inquired about it during their discussions. This omission was deemed a significant error that likely influenced the jury's decision to impose a harsher sentence. The court ultimately affirmed Moore's conviction for First Degree Murder but ordered that her sentence be modified to allow for the possibility of parole, reflecting the guidelines that should have been communicated to the jury during the sentencing phase. The dissenting judges believed the original sentence should not have been modified, arguing that the trial followed the laws that were in place at that time and no objections had been made during the trial.

F-2005-718

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 24, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-718, Sylvia Coronado Frias appealed her conviction for Trafficking Methamphetamine and Maintaining a Vehicle Used for a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction on both counts but instructed the district court to correct her sentence to match the jury's recommendation. One judge dissented. Frias was found guilty by a jury and received a 20-year prison sentence and a $50,000 fine for Trafficking Methamphetamine, along with a five-year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine for the other charge. However, the judge sentenced her to 25 years without fully explaining why he deviated from the jury's recommendation. The court examined several issues from Frias's appeal, including whether the trial court made mistakes by allowing certain evidence, if juror misconduct occurred, whether Frias had effective legal help, and if the jury was properly instructed regarding her sentence. 1. The court found that admitting the videotape of Frias and another person was done correctly since it was relevant evidence and didn't unfairly hurt her case. 2. The court could not consider claims related to juror misconduct because Frias didn't properly submit evidence to support her statements about it. 3. Frias's claim that her counsel was ineffective also failed because she didn't follow the rules to request further hearings to develop evidence for that claim. 4. The court stated that the trial court was not required to tell the jury about specific sentence limitations concerning trafficking cases. Finally, the court decided that while they agreed with much of the trial court’s findings, the sentence for trafficking had to be corrected to align with the jury's earlier decision of 20 years. The fine would also need to be reviewed.

F-2006-352

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 7, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-352, Jerome Monroe appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but reversed the sentence and sent the case back for resentencing. One judge dissented. Jerome Monroe was found guilty of killing his girlfriend, Ronda Doyle, on December 24, 2004. He shot her in the face while they were at home. Monroe claimed that the gun went off by accident while he was trying to unload it. After the shooting, he tried to hide the body and lied to family members about Doyle's whereabouts. The jury had the option to sentence Monroe to life in prison or life without the possibility of parole. He argued that the court should have instructed the jury about the rules regarding parole eligibility. The court later decided that such instructions should be given in these cases, making Monroe eligible for this benefit. Monroe also believed he should have received instructions on a lesser charge of second-degree manslaughter. The court found that while the evidence might support some form of manslaughter, Monroe had admitted to trying to handle the gun while intoxicated, which did not warrant a lesser charge. Regarding Monroe's actions after the shooting, the court explained that his attempts to cover up the crime could be seen as evidence of guilt. Although he wanted his lawyer to object to certain evidence, the court concluded there was no harm since the jury could rightly consider such actions. Monroe argued that his lawyer was not effective, claiming that the lawyer didn't use important information about a witness’s statement. However, the court found that even without the alleged mistakes, Monroe could not show that he was harmed by any of the lawyer's actions. Overall, the court concluded that the main issue in the case was the jury's instructions about the possibility of parole. They determined that the absence of instructions about the 85% rule could have affected the outcome and thus decided the case should be sent back for resentencing.

F-2005-1161

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 15, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1161, Isaac Gardner appealed his conviction for Forcible Oral Sodomy and Attempted Sexual Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Gardner's conviction but modified his sentence from twenty years to fifteen years imprisonment. One judge dissented. During the trial, Gardner was found guilty of Forcible Oral Sodomy and the jury recommended a lengthy prison sentence based on evidence presented, including Gardner's past admissions about similar actions. Although the judge allowed some evidence regarding Gardner's past, they did not believe it overly impacted the trial since the jury ultimately acquitted him of the Attempted Sexual Battery charge. Gardner argued that he did not receive a fair trial due to this evidence, but the court disagreed, noting that he had been warned about what evidence would be used against him. They also highlighted that his conviction was upheld because the jury was able to examine the evidence properly. Additionally, Gardner claimed that he should have been informed about parole eligibility under the 85% Rule, which says he would need to serve most of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The court acknowledged this misstep and reduced his sentence accordingly. In summary, the court confirmed that while Gardner’s initial trial and conviction stood, his sentence was adjusted to reflect what he had rightfully requested before the trial began.

F-2005-649

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 7, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-649, Alfred Gene Ryan appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented in part. Ryan was found guilty in the District Court of Kay County, where a jury sentenced him to 20 years in prison for the rape charge and 10 years for the molestation charge, along with fines for both counts. The key points of his appeal focused on several alleged errors during his trial, including issues related to custody status during police questioning, hearsay testimony, the trial court’s handling of jury instructions, the admission of other crimes evidence, and claims of ineffective counsel. The court reviewed all the claims made by Ryan, including whether the trial court made mistakes by allowing certain evidence or testimony, and whether he received a fair trial. After considering the arguments and the entire record, the court did not find any major errors that would require a reversal of his conviction. The court stated that Ryan was not in custody when he spoke to law enforcement, which meant that his statements to them were properly admitted. They also ruled that the hearsay testimony from child victims was allowable and did not violate Ryan’s rights. The court acknowledged that there were instances of improper evidence admitted concerning other crimes but determined that these did not significantly impact the verdict concerning his guilt. Regarding jury instructions, the court agreed that Ryan should have been informed about the 85% rule, which might have affected the length of time he would serve. Therefore, they modified his sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively, leading to a total time served being lessened. Overall, while the court affirmed the convictions, it recognized certain shortcomings in how the trial was conducted which justified modifying how the sentences were structured.

F-2005-1282

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 6, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1282, Earl Andrew Dahl, Jr., appealed his conviction for multiple sexual offenses including Rape by Instrumentation, Forcible Oral Sodomy, and Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments of the trial court but remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Dahl was found guilty on fifty counts related to these serious crimes, and the jury recommended various sentences for these counts, which were to be served one after another (consecutively). Dahl argued several points in his appeal, including that the evidence was not strong enough to support his convictions and that the sentences were excessive. He also claimed that the prosecutor asked unfair questions during the trial and that the trial court made errors by not giving certain instructions related to the law. After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that there was enough proof to uphold Dahl's convictions, as the victim's testimony was clear and trustworthy. They also noted that there were certain errors in how the trial was conducted, particularly the failure to provide an important instruction known as the 85% Rule, which affected how the jury decided on the sentencing. Because of this, the court ordered a new sentencing hearing to correct this mistake. Overall, while the convictions were upheld, the court acknowledged that the trial process had flaws, which led to their decision to allow for resentencing for Dahl.

F-2005-529

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 18, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-529, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter and Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for First Degree Manslaughter from fifty years to thirty years. One judge dissented.

F-2005-901

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 8, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-901, Robert Glenn Davis appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm and Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for the robbery but modified the sentence for possession to five years. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentence for robbery should also be reduced. Davis was found guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County for robbing someone with a gun and for having a firearm when he was not allowed to do so because of past felony convictions. The jury decided on the punishments: thirty years for the robbery and ten years for the firearm possession, which meant he would serve those sentences one after the other. Davis's appeal included several points of error. He claimed that the prosecutor asked him wrong questions about staying silent after his arrest. The court found this was a mistake but also decided that it didn’t change the outcome of the trial. Another point he raised was about how a police officer's testimony was used, but because there was no complaint at the time, it didn't affect his fair trial rights. Davis also argued that he shouldn't have been convicted of both robbery and possession of a firearm, but the court found these were separate actions. He mentioned that the instructions on evidence were wrong, but again the court ruled that they were correct. Regarding a specific rule about how long someone has to serve, the court agreed that they should have mentioned it, leading to some change in sentencing. After looking at everything, the court decided that Davis's conviction for robbery would stay, but the time he had to serve for the firearm possession was cut down to five years. The sentences would still run one after the other. There were different opinions among the judges, with some agreeing entirely with the decision while another thought the robbery sentence should also be lesser.

F-2005-829

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 17, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-829, Clarence Andre Gatewood appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Gatewood's conviction but remand for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Gatewood was found guilty by a jury of Second Degree Murder after initially being charged with First Degree Murder. He was sentenced to life in prison. During the appeal, he raised several issues, including that the trial court didn't notify his lawyer about a jury note, denied his request for a specific sentencing instruction, and allowed an involuntary confession to be used against him. The court examined these claims. It determined that Gatewood's confession was voluntary since he was aware of his rights, was sober, and spoke to the police without any threats or promises. Therefore, this part of his appeal was denied. However, the court found that Gatewood should have received instructions about parole eligibility, based on a previous case ruling. Since the jury had even asked a question related to the meaning of a life sentence with the possibility of parole, the court felt that this instruction was necessary. Consequently, while Gatewood's conviction stands, his sentence was overturned, and the case was sent back to lower court to determine a new sentence. The court did not consider his claim about the severity of his sentence because the other findings made it unnecessary to address.

F-2005-684

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 16, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-684, Aaron Christopher Marks appealed his conviction for shooting with intent to kill, robbery with a firearm, and possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for shooting with intent to kill to forty-five years in prison but upheld the conviction. One judge dissented, arguing that there was no need for sentence modification since the jury likely did not need instruction on parole eligibility and the original sentence was justified based on the evidence presented.

F-2005-737

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 26, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-737, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from forty-five years to thirty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Lawrence Lugineus Mayes was found guilty by a jury for committing robbery with a gun. After the trial, he was sentenced to forty-five years in prison. However, he thought there were problems with how the trial was handled. He believed the jury should have been told that robbery with firearms is an 85% crime, and that they needed to know how long he would actually serve before he could get out on parole. During the jury's discussions about the sentence, they asked how many years they had to serve before someone could be eligible for parole if they were given a twenty-year sentence. The judge told them that was not something for them to think about. This answer made the jury decide on a longer sentence because they weren’t given clear information about parole eligibility. The court looked at the case and decided that the jury's misunderstanding about parole could have led them to give a harsher sentence than what might have been fair. So, instead of letting the forty-five-year sentence stand, they changed it to thirty-five years. However, they did not believe that the other arguments about the trial and sentencing needed any further changes. In conclusion, the court modified the sentence to thirty-five years but agreed with everything else from the trial. One judge did not agree with this decision.

F-2005-252

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 30, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-252, Charles Earl Lindsay appealed his conviction for robbery with an imitation firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his conviction. One judge dissented. Charles Earl Lindsay was tried in Cleveland County and found guilty of robbery with an imitation firearm. The jury decided he should be sentenced to 40 years in prison. Lindsay did not agree with this decision and argued several points in his appeal. First, he claimed that there was not enough evidence to prove he committed robbery using an imitation firearm. The court agreed that while the state proved most parts of the robbery, they did not prove that Lindsay threatened the victim with the imitation firearm since she never actually saw it during the crime. Because of this, the court thought it was fair to change his conviction to first-degree robbery, saying he unnecessarily hurt the victim and scared her. Lindsay also argued that the prosecution had made mistakes during the trial, including allowing a police officer to testify about the victim identifying him. Although the court noted this was not a good practice, they felt it did not change the outcome of the trial since Lindsay’s attorney had challenged the identification in other ways. Another point Lindsay raised was that his lawyer did not help him properly. The court decided that the lawyer’s actions did not break any laws protecting his rights, so this argument did not succeed. Lindsay further stated he had an unfair trial because he was brought into the courtroom in handcuffs in front of the jury. The court acknowledged this was an error but said that this alone did not warrant a different outcome. Lindsay’s attorney also did not ask for the jury to consider any lesser charges of robbery, but the court found this was appropriate since Lindsay claimed he was innocent. Regarding closing arguments by the prosecutor, the court found that a fair trial was still upheld. However, the court did recognize there were mistakes regarding Lindsay's sentencing, particularly not informing the jury about some rules related to sentencing. In the end, the court reversed Lindsay's original conviction and instead convicted him of first-degree robbery. They also decided to reduce his sentence to 20 years in prison, taking into account all the discussed errors. The case was sent back to the lower court to correct the judgment and sentence based on these decisions.