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.
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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence and send the case back for further proceedings.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.
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.
In OCCA case No. RE 2000-1170, the appellant appealed his conviction for revocation of suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence in one case and to reverse and dismiss the revocation in another case. One judge dissented. In this case, the appellant had previously pleaded guilty to two crimes and received suspended sentences, which means he would not have to serve time in prison if he followed the law and met certain conditions. However, the State (the lawyers representing the government) wanted to revoke these sentences, claiming the appellant did not follow the rules. At a hearing, the judge revoked the appellant’s suspended sentences. Later, the appellant appealed the decision, arguing that the State was too late to revoke one of his suspended sentences because the time to do so had expired. The State agreed with the appellant that they did not have the right to revoke the sentence for one of the cases. After considering the arguments, the court decided to keep the revocation for one case but to reverse the revocation for the other case, meaning the appellant would not have to serve time for the second case. The court also canceled a scheduled oral argument, stating it was not needed.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-617, Bernard Eugene Laster, Jr. appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the order of acceleration of Laster's sentences for the first two offenses but vacated the judgment for the third offense related to a tax stamp. There was no dissent.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-318, the appellant appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence but found that he should be allowed to earn good-time credits. One judge dissented regarding the way the case was handled concerning incarceration costs. The case started when the appellant entered a plea and had his sentence deferred for three years. Later, his sentence was accelerated, and he was sentenced to seven years with two years suspended. After a while, the State requested to revoke his sentence, which led to a court hearing. The judge revoked the suspended sentence and ordered the appellant to serve 120 days in jail without earning good-time credits and to pay for his incarceration. During the appeal, the appellant argued two main points. He claimed that the court did not have the authority to deny him the ability to earn good-time credits and that it violated his rights by not reviewing the actual costs of his incarceration. The appellate court agreed that the lower court had exceeded its authority by not allowing the appellant to earn credits and ruled that the case needed further review regarding the incarceration costs. In summary, the appellate court confirmed the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence but changed the decision about good-time credits and required a new review of incarceration costs to ensure fairness.
In OCCA case No. RE 2000-0688, the individual appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the decision by the lower court and send the case back for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: The person had a suspended sentence because he had pleaded to a crime in 1997. His sentence meant that he would not go to jail right away, but he had to follow certain rules. If he broke those rules, the court could revoke his suspended sentence and send him to jail. In April 2000, the state filed to revoke his suspended sentence. The hearing to decide this was supposed to happen soon, but due to scheduling issues, the hearing was delayed. The court did not hold the hearing within the required 20 days after the plea was entered. Because of this delay, the court found that they lost the authority to revoke the sentence. The appellate court reviewed the case and made the decision to reverse the lower court's ruling. They pointed out that the law clearly states the timeline for revocation hearings and that this timeline was not followed in this case. Thus, they sent the matter back to the lower court for further action.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-0310, Buckley appealed his conviction for Burglary Second Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of his deferred sentence but modified it to run concurrently with another sentence. None dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1010, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, failure to affix a tax stamp, unlawful possession of marijuana, unlawful use of a police radio, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences but also ordered that the sentences for two specific charges be modified to ensure they were within the legal limits set by statute. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-920, Robert Lerone Mims appealed his conviction for violating probation terms. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of three years of Appellant's suspended sentence and remand the case back to the District Court for further actions. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-252, Kenneth Bristol appealed his conviction for Grand Larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. No one dissented. Kenneth Bristol was sentenced to serve five years, with a part of the sentence suspended while he followed rules of probation. He had a tough time fulfilling the probation conditions. The state claimed he did not show up for appointments and failed to pay restitution. This led to an application to revoke his suspended sentence. When Bristol was arrested, the court held several hearings but did not finalize his case right away. There were discussions about his appeal, but it wasn’t clear whether it was processed correctly. The court noted that Bristol was not given a fair chance to appeal the earlier decision to reject his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The higher court found that there was not enough evidence to show his suspended sentence was revoked properly. They reversed the lower court's decision and told them to look into the case again, allowing Bristol another chance to appeal his previous decision.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1034, an individual appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana in the presence of a minor child. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold the decision to revoke part of the individual’s suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when the individual was given a ten-year suspended sentence after pleading guilty in 1996. However, in 2000, the court found that he had violated the terms of his probation. The judge determined that the individual had committed offenses, including driving with a suspended license, and had also failed to make required payments for fines and costs. The individual argued that the court based its decision on prior allegations that the state had withdrawn. However, the court found that the individual did not provide sufficient legal reasons why those prior allegations couldn’t be used again. It also noted that the individual had not made required payments for his fines, having made less than one payment each year during the probation period. The judge emphasized that the individual had signed agreements for payment plans based on his ability to pay. Because he failed to follow through with these payments and was found to have violated other terms of his probation, the judge concluded there was enough reason to find that the individual had intentionally failed to comply. In the final decision, the court affirmed the revocation of a part of the individual’s sentence. However, it noted that the judge had improperly issued a new sentence instead of just executing the previous one. Therefore, while the revocation stood, the court ordered the lower court to correct this issue by properly recording the revocation without imposing a new judgment.
In OCCA case No. RE 2000-0392, the accused appealed his conviction for lewd molestation and rape by force and fear. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the accused's suspended sentences, but modified the sentences for lewd molestation from thirty years to twenty years. One judge dissented from the decision regarding the modification of the sentence.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-251, Appellant appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of Appellant's sentence to eight years rather than upholding the full revocation. Three judges dissented on the modification. Initially, the Appellant was given a deferred sentence and placed on probation with the requirement of attending sexual abuse counseling. After some time, his probation was revoked due to not following these rules. The court felt there was enough evidence to show he violated his probation rules. However, they believed the full revocation of his sentence was too harsh and modified it to only eight years, while still requiring him to follow the same probation rules set previously.
In OCCA case No. RE-1999-1556, an individual appealed his conviction for Injury to a Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence but modified it to time served, including the satisfaction of all fines, fees, and costs. No judges dissented.
In OCCA case No. M-2000-115, the person appealed his conviction for assault and battery, assault upon a peace officer, and malicious injury to property, along with two counts of domestic abuse - assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions except for one count of domestic abuse, which was reversed with instructions to dismiss. One member of the court dissented. The case took place in the District Court of Seminole County, where the appellant was found guilty after a non-jury trial. He was sentenced to time in jail and fines for his crimes, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. During the appeal, the appellant raised two main arguments. First, he claimed that two counts of assault and battery were unfair because they stemmed from the same incident. Second, he argued there was not enough evidence to prove he intended to assault a police officer. After reviewing the case, the court agreed that the two counts of domestic abuse arose from one incident and that the state had not properly informed the appellant about these charges, so the conviction for that count was reversed. However, the court found there was enough evidence to support the other convictions. In summary, except for one count of domestic abuse that was reversed, the court upheld the other convictions.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-630, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled drug. In a published decision, the court decided that it was an error for the lower court to revoke the appellant's suspended sentence because the original case had been dismissed. The court found that the trial court did not have the authority to accept a plea or impose a sentence in the dismissed case, which meant the lower court had no jurisdiction. Therefore, the order revoking the suspended sentence was vacated. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. M-2000-230, Frank Ford appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the sentence and order that it be aligned with the jury's verdict. One judge dissented.