Abuse of Discretion

F 2004-577

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-577, Marion Lewis appealed his conviction for multiple counts of serious crimes, including First Degree Rape and Forcible Oral Sodomy, following a jury trial in Oklahoma County. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Marion Lewis was found guilty of several serious charges after a trial where he represented himself. He went to trial and was sentenced to life without the chance for parole for most counts and twenty years for another. He believed the court did not properly warn him about the risks of representing himself and raised concerns about his mental ability to stand trial. He also argued that the trial court did not allow him enough time to prepare his defense, which he felt hurt his case. The court found that the trial judge did not give Lewis enough time after he was allowed to represent himself just a few days before the trial started. This lack of time made it hard for him to gather witnesses and evidence that he thought were important for his defense. The court decided the denial of his request for more time was unfair and violated his rights. In the end, the court reversed Lewis's convictions and ordered a new trial, agreeing that the trial process had not been fair. However, one judge disagreed, believing that the trial court acted correctly in denying the request for more time, stating that Lewis had not shown he would have been able to present a strong defense even if he had been given more time.

Continue ReadingF 2004-577

F 2004-577

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-577, Marion Lewis appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Forcible Oral Sodomy, and Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Mr. Lewis was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County for serious crimes against a child. The jury decided that he should serve life in prison without parole for the majority of the counts and 20 years for one count. He then appealed this decision, raising three main problems he believed were wrong in his trial. First, he argued that he wasn't properly warned about the risks of representing himself in court, which meant he didn't fully understand what he was giving up by choosing to do so. This was important because it related to his rights as a citizen, protected under the Sixth Amendment. Second, he claimed that the trial court didn't look carefully at whether he was capable of standing trial. He thought there were signs that suggested he wasn't mentally fit for the trial, which might have violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Third, he complained that the trial court wouldn't allow him to delay the trial, which prevented him from calling witnesses and putting forth a strong defense. He believed this decision also violated his rights. The court noted that Mr. Lewis had been asking to represent himself for a long time before the trial. However, he only received permission to do so a few days before his trial began. The trial court denied his request for more time to prepare and to gather witnesses that he wanted to bring to help his case. The judges noted that having enough time to prepare is important for someone defending themselves in court, especially when they have only just been allowed to do so. The court found that denying him more time was unfair and hurt his chances for a fair trial. As a result, the court agreed that his right to present a defense had been violated when the trial court wouldn’t allow a continuance. This led them to reverse his convictions and order a new trial, meaning he would have another chance to fight the accusations against him. The other issues he raised about warnings and competency were not necessary to discuss because they were overshadowed by the first issue. In conclusion, the court decided that Mr. Lewis's convictions were unfair, and he will get a chance to have a new trial. One judge disagreed with this outcome, feeling that the trial court made the right decision in denying a continuance and that Mr. Lewis had not shown how he was harmed by that decision.

Continue ReadingF 2004-577

C-2004-1017

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2004-1017, Libera appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Libera's petition to withdraw his guilty plea and remand for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Stephen Mark Libera was charged for concealing stolen property in Tulsa County. He chose to waive a preliminary hearing and entered a guilty plea. During the plea, there was some confusion about what the consequences would be. Although there was mention of a possible deferred sentence (which would mean he might not have to serve time), Libera felt he was not given clear advice about what this plea meant for him. When he was sentenced, the court did not follow what a previous report suggested, which was to give him probation instead of prison time. Libera believed that if the recommendation by the pre-sentencing investigation (PSI) was not followed, he should be allowed to change his guilty plea. He felt he had been led to believe that probation would be granted, and when it wasn't, he wanted to withdraw his plea. The court agreed that he should have been given a chance to do so. Thus, they decided in favor of Libera, allowing him to withdraw his plea and sending the case back for further actions consistent with the new decision. One judge did not agree with this outcome.

Continue ReadingC-2004-1017

RE-2004-614

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-614, the appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree rape by instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty to second-degree rape and was sentenced to a total of 10 years and 6 months of imprisonment. However, the judge suspended all but the first 6 months, allowing the appellant to serve that time in prison and then go on probation with specific rules. One of these rules, known as Rule 9, prohibited the appellant from using pornography or visiting places like adult bookstores and massage parlors. Later, the state accused the appellant of violating this rule. They claimed that he participated in a live sex show on the Internet, which was viewed by an undercover police officer. The officer discovered the show after receiving a tip about the appellant's activities. Following a hearing, the judge ruled that the appellant did indeed violate the conditions of his probation and revoked the remaining part of the suspended sentence. The appellant brought forth three main arguments in his appeal. First, he claimed that his right to a fair attorney was compromised because his lawyer had previously worked as a prosecutor in his original rape case. The court found that although an attorney representing both sides creates concerns, in this case, the attorney was no longer working for the prosecution at the time of the revocation hearing. Therefore, the court did not find this to be a reversible error. Second, the appellant argued that the state had not given him enough notice about the specific allegations against him. The court agreed that the notice was lacking but noted that the appellant had actual knowledge of the issues at hand and did not show any harm from the lack of notice. Lastly, the appellant asserted that revoking his entire suspended sentence was too harsh. The court recognized that the appellant had shown good behavior while on probation and that he had been actively working on his rehabilitation. The judge noted that the probation officer and treatment providers believed that a lesser sanction would have been appropriate instead of total revocation. Thus, the court decided to modify the revocation order so that the appellant would only serve the time he had already spent in confinement and would be returned to probation. The revised decision was a mix of affirming some parts of the original ruling while changing the overall outcome regarding the revocation of probation.

Continue ReadingRE-2004-614

RE-2004-584

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-584, Sarah Mae Jones appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence but modified it to reflect two years and ten months instead of the full sentence. One dissenting opinion was noted. Sarah Mae Jones had initially entered a guilty plea on October 18, 2001, for possession of cocaine and was sentenced to three years in prison, which was suspended. This meant she wouldn't have to serve time in jail if she followed certain rules. However, after violating her probation, she had parts of her suspended sentence revoked on two different occasions. The first revocation happened because she did not meet some requirements like reporting in person, maintaining a job, and avoiding illegal drugs. This led to a 60-day revocation. The second time, in March 2004, the state argued that she had again broken the rules of her probation. The court held another hearing where the judge decided to revoke her entire suspended sentence. On appeal, Jones claimed there wasn't enough evidence to support the complete revocation of her sentence. However, the court found that her own admissions during the hearing showed she had indeed violated her probation terms, which justified the judge’s decision. They explained that proving a violation only needs to show that it was likely she broke the rules, not to have a witness directly see it happen. In her second argument, Jones said the decision to revoke her entire suspended sentence without giving her credit for time already served was too harsh. The state agreed with her on this point, and upon reviewing her case, the court modified the revocation to two years and ten months, accounting for the time she had already spent under the suspended sentence. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to revoke her suspended sentence but adjusted the length of that sentence to better reflect the circumstances.

Continue ReadingRE-2004-584

J-2004-1117

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2004-1117, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and three counts of Assault with Intent to Kill. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the denial of the appellant's request to be certified as a Youthful Offender but reversed the decision regarding the Assault charges, allowing those to be tried as a Youthful Offender. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was charged as an adult with serious crimes, including murder. The appellant wanted to be treated as a Youthful Offender, which would mean he could receive rehabilitation instead of severe punishment. A special judge conducted hearings to decide if the appellant could be certified as a Youthful Offender, meaning he would be tried in a different system designed for young people. During the hearings, expert witnesses gave differing opinions about whether the appellant could be helped and rehabilitated if treated as a Youthful Offender. One expert believed the chances were good, while others thought the appellant needed more time to be rehabilitated. Based on all the information and expert opinions, the judge decided not to certify the appellant as a Youthful Offender and instead required him to be tried as an adult for the murder charge. On appeal, the appellant argued three main points: first, that the judge made a mistake by not certifying him as a Youthful Offender, second, that the judge should have removed himself from the case, and third, that he should not have been charged as an adult for the Assault with Intent to Kill counts since those should be treated as Youthful Offender crimes. The court looked at the evidence presented in the trial, including testimonies from experts and details of the appellant's life. The conclusion was that the judge did not abuse his discretion in deciding the appellant should be tried as an adult for the murder charge. However, the court did agree with the appellant concerning the Assault with Intent to Kill charges; since he was between 15 and 17 and those charges are typically handled differently, the court ordered that he be processed as a Youthful Offender for those counts. In the end, the court upheld the decision regarding the murder charge but reversed the decision on the Assault with Intent to Kill charges, indicating that the appropriate course was for those to be treated under the Youthful Offender system.

Continue ReadingJ-2004-1117

C 2004-69

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2004-69, McCarroll appealed his conviction for unlawful distribution of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) and possession of CDS in the presence of a child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant McCarroll's petition for a writ of certiorari. One judge dissented. The case involved Corey Dion McCarroll, who pleaded guilty to multiple charges, which included selling drugs near a daycare center and having drugs while a child was present. McCarroll was sentenced to a total of 60 years in prison, with some hefty fines. After feeling that he didn't get a fair trial and claiming he was innocent, McCarroll asked the judge to let him change his plea. McCarroll raised several reasons for his appeal. He argued that the charges for selling drugs near a daycare didn't apply because the law was not in effect at the time of his actions. He believed that his guilty pleas were not entered knowingly, and he felt the judge was unfair in giving him consecutive sentences, which made them seem too harsh. McCarroll also claimed that his lawyer didn't represent him properly. The court reviewed all the details of the case and decided favorably for McCarroll. They found that the law didn't fully apply to his situation when he was charged with the first two counts. Therefore, the court changed these charges to a different type of drug offense that was valid at that time. They also modified the sentences, stating that some of them should run at the same time (concurrently) rather than one after the other (consecutively). Overall, while the court granted McCarroll some relief in his appeal by changing the charges and modifying the sentences, they did not agree that his lawyer's help was inadequate enough for his plea to be withdrawn. Thus, the decisions were adjusted to ensure fairness while still holding McCarroll accountable.

Continue ReadingC 2004-69

RE-2003-1203

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2003-1203, Floyd Andrew Morris appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence and remand the case for correction of the length of the sentence. One judge dissented. Floyd Andrew Morris had a suspended sentence for growing and having marijuana after he pleaded guilty. Initially, he was supposed to serve ten years for one charge and one year for another, but both sentences were put on hold. Later, the state argued that he broke the rules of his probation by not following the drug court program instructions and testing positive for drugs. After some hearings, the judge decided to revoke his suspended sentence. However, there was confusion about how much of that sentence should actually be carried out. The appeal pointed out that the written order didn’t match what the judge had said before and that the time he was supposed to serve was excessive based on what he had done. The court found that the way the sentence was ordered needed to be corrected to show that Morris should serve ten years minus the thirty days he had already served. They decided not to change the decision to revoke the entire suspended sentence, as they believed it was not an unreasonable choice given the situation.

Continue ReadingRE-2003-1203

J-2004-305

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2004-305, D.H.D. appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the denial of D.H.D.'s motion for certification as a juvenile but reversed the denial for certification as a youthful offender, meaning D.H.D. would be tried in a system that focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingJ-2004-305

SR-2003-276

  • Post author:
  • Post category:SR

In OCCA case No. SR-2003-276, Stephen Lee Terry appealed his conviction for indecent or lewd acts with a child under sixteen. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that dismissed the charges against him. One judge dissented. The case started when Terry was caught secretly videotaping young girls, aged eight to twelve, at a public place. He admitted that he watched these videos for sexual gratification. The court had to decide if his actions were considered a crime under the law. For the law to apply, it needed to be proven that he looked at the body or private parts of the girls, which is one of the elements that must be shown in such cases. The trial court ruled in Terry's favor, stating that simply filming clothed girls in a public space did not meet the legal definition required for the charge against him. While Terry's actions might be seen as inappropriate or offensive, the court concluded that what he did did not violate the law according to the specific requirements set out. Thus, they confirmed the trial court's decision.

Continue ReadingSR-2003-276

RE-2003-86 and RE-2003-87

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2003-86 and RE-2003-87, Christi Marie Farris appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but remanded the case to the district court to order that the sentences be served concurrently. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2003-86 and RE-2003-87

F-2002-1428

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1428, Henry C. Flowers, Jr. appealed his conviction for False Declaration of Ownership to a Pawnbroker, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Flowers' conviction but remand the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Flowers was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to twenty years in prison. His appeal included two main points of error. The first point was that he believed there wasn't enough proof that he made a false declaration to a licensed pawnbroker. He argued that since the employee who helped him at the pawnshop was not a licensed pawnbroker, his actions should not count as a crime. However, the court explained that the law only requires the pawnshop owner to be licensed, not every employee. Therefore, the court felt there was enough evidence for the jury to decide that Flowers committed the crime. The second point raised by Flowers was about how the judge handled his sentence. The judge seemed unsure whether he could make Flowers' twenty-year sentence run at the same time as another sentence he already had. The court explained that judges do have the authority to run sentences concurrently and that not knowing this could be an abuse of discretion. Because of this, the case was sent back to the lower court for the judge to review the sentencing again. Overall, the court upheld Flowers' conviction but said the judge needs to reassess how to handle the sentences.

Continue ReadingF-2002-1428

C-2003-1342

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-1342, Clifford Feaster appealed his conviction for robbery and other crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Feaster could not withdraw his guilty pleas, but they modified the judgment in one case. One judge dissented. Feaster had pleaded guilty in 1998 to several serious crimes, including robbery. After being sentenced to 45 years in prison, he tried to change his mind about the plea. The trial court initially did not allow him to withdraw it. The appeals court looked at Feaster's reasons for wanting to change his plea and held a hearing to examine the situation. Feaster argued that the trial judge did not provide enough information (a factual basis) for the guilty pleas and that he had not entered the pleas knowingly and voluntarily. However, the appeals court found that there was enough justification for his pleas and that he understood what he was doing when he agreed to plead guilty. In the final decision, the appeals court allowed a small change to the original judgment to make sure it correctly reflected what happened in the case, specifically concerning counts that were dropped. Overall, the appeals court did not find enough reason to let Feaster withdraw his guilty pleas.

Continue ReadingC-2003-1342

F-2002-855

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-855, Brandon Grimland appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence from one hundred years to twenty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented, believing the case should be sent back for re-sentencing. Grimland was found guilty of causing the death of another person through a beating that led to severe injuries. The trial jury recommended a very long sentence of one hundred years, but there were concerns about how the prosecutor talked about parole, which might have influenced the jury's decision. The court agreed that the way the prosecutor approached the topic was not right and decided to reduce the sentence to a more reasonable twenty-five years. While the conviction stood, the judges thought it was important to correct the sentence based on how the trial was conducted.

Continue ReadingF-2002-855

C-2002-1136

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2002-1136, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for Possession of a Stolen Vehicle and Eluding a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition in part, vacating the trial court's order regarding restitution and remanding for a restitution hearing. One Judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2002-1136

F-2002-201

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-201, Robert Mark Stephens appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery and Attempted Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified his sentences to run concurrently. One judge dissented. Stephens was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County and was sentenced to fifteen years for robbery and one year for attempted kidnapping, with the sentences to run one after the other. He raised several issues for appeal. First, he argued that his right to due process was violated because the court did not order a professional examination to check if he was competent to stand trial. However, the court concluded that there were not enough facts to raise a doubt about his competency. Second, Stephens claimed the trial court abused its power by not allowing him to use a mental illness defense. The court found no error in this as Oklahoma law does not allow for a defense of diminished capacity in non-capital cases. Third, he said he did not get a fair trial because the judge did not permit jury instructions on his mental capacity, which he believed was necessary to explain his intent during the crime. The court agreed with the trial court's ruling, saying that there is no provision for mitigating evidence in such trials. Stephens also believed he had ineffective help from his lawyer, but the court found he did not prove this claim. Finally, he said the trial judge wrongly refused to consider concurrent sentences, which led to an abuse of discretion. The court acknowledged this point and modified his sentences so they would run at the same time. In summary, the court upheld the convictions but changed the way the sentences would be served, allowing Stephens to serve his time for both crimes together instead of separately.

Continue ReadingF-2002-201

F 2001-1348

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF 2001-1348

RE-2001-1375

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

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

Continue ReadingRE-2001-1375

F 2001-999

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-999, Eric Jackson Davis appealed his conviction for multiple sexual offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of his convictions but reversed one of them due to lack of sufficient evidence. One member of the court dissented regarding the decision on sentencing. Davis was found guilty by a jury of five counts of First Degree Rape, two counts of Lewd Molestation, and one count of Forcible Oral Sodomy. The trial took place over three days, and the jury decided on punishments ranging from ten to fifty years for the various counts. The judge announced that Davis's sentences would be served one after the other, known as consecutive sentences. Davis raised three main issues on appeal. First, he argued that there was no evidence proving that a sexual act occurred in the case of the Forcible Oral Sodomy charge, and therefore he asked for that conviction to be overturned. Second, he claimed that there was insufficient evidence for one of the rape counts and wanted it dismissed as well. Lastly, he argued that receiving a total of two hundred forty years in prison was too severe. After looking at the facts and evidence from the trial, the court found that most of the convictions were supported by enough evidence. However, they agreed that one rape conviction should be reversed because the prosecution did not present enough proof to support that specific charge. The court did not find merit in the argument about the Forcible Oral Sodomy conviction. Regarding the sentence, the court acknowledged that different factors should be considered when deciding if a sentence is too harsh. While they found the trial judge's refusal to consider running the sentences at the same time was wrong, they stated that the judge's personal views about sex crimes against children influenced that decision. Therefore, the case was sent back to the lower court for resentencing, but the main convictions were upheld. In summary, the court upheld the majority of Davis's convictions and ordered the court below to reconsider how the sentences were issued, while they reversed one specific conviction due to a lack of evidence. One judge disagreed with the need for a new sentencing hearing, believing that the consequences should remain as they are given the serious nature of the crimes.

Continue ReadingF 2001-999

F-2001-637

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-637, James Ricky Ezell, III appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery, False Impersonation, and Eluding a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Ezell's judgment but ordered the case to be sent back for resentencing. One judge dissented. Ezell was found guilty by a jury of robbing a convenience store and other crimes. The jury gave him long sentences for each crime, which the trial court ordered to be served one after the other. Ezell argued that his right to a fair trial was hurt because an African-American was removed from the jury, that the judge’s policy of always giving consecutive sentences was wrong, and that his sentences were too harsh. The court decided that the prosecutor had a good reason for removing the juror, so there was no unfair trial. However, it agreed that the judge's strict policy against considering running sentences together was a mistake. The court found that while sentences usually should run consecutively, judges must look at all options, including the chance to run sentences together, especially if a defendant has prior convictions. In conclusion, while Ezell's conviction was upheld, the court said the sentencing decision was not fully considered and sent the case back for the judge to look at this again. One judge disagreed with the decision to send the case back for resentencing, believing that the original sentences were justified given the nature of Ezell's crimes.

Continue ReadingF-2001-637

F-2001-649

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. RE-2001-649 and RE-2001-650, the appellant appealed his conviction for violating probation conditions. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence; however, it instructed the lower court to make a correction regarding the time remaining on one of the sentences. One judge dissented. The case started back in 1996 when the appellant took a plea deal for a charge related to pointing a firearm and was given a ten-year sentence that was suspended while he was on probation. However, by 1996, five years of this probation was revoked due to several violations. In 2000, the state accused the appellant of more violations, including failing to report to his probation officer, moving without notice, and using marijuana. The court initially delayed proceedings, offering a chance for the appellant to meet specific conditions like paying fees and performing community service, which if completed, would see the revocation dismissed. Later in June 2000, the appellant pleaded guilty to another charge related to neglecting to provide for a child, receiving another suspended sentence. Following this, the state claimed he violated his probation again by committing new offenses. In February 2001, further violations were noted which included again not paying fees or attending required programs. A hearing took place where the court ultimately decided to revoke all of the appellant's suspended sentences. The appellant argued that the court was wrong to revoke his entire sentence given the circumstances, but the court found sufficient evidence that he violated probation rules. The appeal confirmed that the appellant had multiple opportunities to meet the probation requirements but did not follow through. While the court affirmed the revocation, it recognized that the appellant’s remaining time on one of the sentences was less than what the trial court indicated and ordered a correction about it.

Continue ReadingF-2001-649

RE-2001-650

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2001-649, RE-2001-650, the appellant appealed his conviction for revoking a suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold the revocation of the suspended sentences but instructed the lower court to correct the time remaining on one of the sentences. One judge dissented. The case involved an individual who had previously been convicted of pointing a firearm and was given a ten-year sentence that was suspended, meaning he did not have to go to jail right away if he followed the rules set by the court. Unfortunately, the appellant broke several of these rules, which led to the first part of his suspended sentence being revoked after five years. Later, he committed new offenses while still on probation, including not reporting to his probation officer and testing positive for drugs. Because of these additional violations, the state filed applications to revoke the remainder of his suspended sentence. In court hearings, the appellant was given chances to show he could follow the rules, but he did not meet the requirements set by the court, leading to the revocation of both suspended sentences. The court found there was enough evidence to show he had violated his probation. However, the appellant argued that the court made a mistake by sentencing him to serve a full five years in one part of his case when he had less than five years left. The state agreed with this point, and the appeals court ruled to correct the time he should actually serve. Overall, the court decided that the revocation was justified due to multiple violations. The case shows the importance of following court rules after a suspended sentence is given.

Continue ReadingRE-2001-650

RE-2000-1209

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingRE-2000-1209

F-2000-991

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingF-2000-991

F-2000-1156

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1156, Randy Scott Bucsok appealed his conviction for lewd molestation and rape by instrumentation. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the lower court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Bucsok was found guilty of multiple charges, including lewd molestation and rape by instrumentation. The jury sentenced him to a total of 60 years in prison, with some sentences running consecutively while others were partially suspended. Following his conviction, Bucsok raised several arguments in his appeal regarding mistakes made during the trial. First, he argued that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing two witnesses, Shell and Kemble, to testify. The court found this was a serious error because their testimony could have been important to Bucsok's defense. The judges believed that excluding this evidence hurt Bucsok's chance for a fair trial. Bucsok also claimed that the trial court wrongly allowed hearsay testimony from other witnesses. However, the court decided that this part of the trial was handled correctly and that the testimony was admissible. Additionally, Bucsok expressed concern about unfair evidence being presented to the jury regarding uncharged crimes, but the court determined that there was no plain error in how this evidence was managed. Finally, he disagreed with the trial court’s decision to bar testimony about the victim's behavior that could explain injuries. In conclusion, the court found that the trial court had made critical mistakes, particularly in not allowing key witnesses to testify, which warranted a new trial for Bucsok.

Continue ReadingF-2000-1156