Actual Economic Loss Archives

F-2014-698

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 28, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-698, Weimer appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder (Child Abuse). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence but vacated the order of restitution. One judge dissented. Weimer was found guilty after a jury trial in Comanche County and was sentenced to life in prison. He also had to pay restitution of $6,395. During his appeal, Weimer claimed several issues. He argued that evidence from the Medical Examiner's office was not valid because the office was not accredited. He also said that he could not present his defense properly and that he could not confront the witnesses effectively. Another issue was his complaints about gruesome photos shown during the trial, saying they made the trial unfair. Weimer's defense team also argued that not letting the jury visit the crime scene was unfair and that the restitution amount was not backed by real evidence. Lastly, he expressed that the total mistakes during the trial made the whole process unfair. The court reviewed each of Weimer's points. They decided that even though the Medical Examiner's office was not accredited, it did not make the evidence inadmissible. They also ruled that Weimer was able to defend himself properly and that he was not unfairly restricted in doing so. The court allowed the autopsy photos because they were relevant to the case. Regarding the jury's visit to the crime scene, the court agreed with the trial judge that it was not necessary. On restitution, the court found the trial judge had not given a clear basis for the restitution amount, which led to the decision to vacate the order and send it back to the lower court for further evaluation of the actual loss. In the end, the court found no errors in the trial that would require a new trial. Therefore, they affirmed Weimer's conviction but sent the case back for more work on the restitution amount because there wasn't enough evidence to support it. One judge disagreed with part of the ruling about the Medical Examiner’s office not being accredited but agreed with the final result of the decision.

RE-2001-887

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 30, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. F-2001-687, the appellant appealed her conviction for Uttering Two or More Bogus Checks Exceeding $50.00. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the matter for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. One judge dissented. The case began in 1995 when the appellant entered a plea of Nolo Contendere, which means she did not admit guilt but accepted the punishment for the crime. She was found guilty of writing bad checks to a grocery store, and her sentence was put on hold for five years, during which she had to pay restitution and other costs. However, she violated her probation by not making payments or reporting to her probation officer, leading to the state requesting her sentence be enforced in 1999. On May 23, 2001, the court found the appellant had violated her probation and sentenced her to one year in jail. She was also ordered to pay restitution for her bad checks, but the total amount was very high compared to the checks she admitted writing. The appellant argued that she should not have to pay such a large amount of restitution because she was not convicted of all the other related checks that contributed to that total. There were many checks between different years, and she felt the court had made an error by imposing restitution for checks she never had to answer for in court. Additionally, the appellant felt that the court had not looked into whether she could afford to pay the restitution without hardship to herself or her family. The court had different amounts recorded for restitution over time, which contributed to her confusion regarding what she owed. Also, when she was jailed, the appellant thought the fees for her time in jail were unfair and more than the actual cost of her incarceration. She claimed that the costs were not justified by evidence and that no one checked if paying these fees would create a financial burden for her. The court recognized the problems she raised about her case, particularly regarding her obligation to pay the reported costs and restitution without proof they were correct or fair. They decided that the lower court needed to review everything again: why the appellant was ordered certain restitution, if she could afford to pay it, and what the correct amounts should be. In summary, the court referred the case back to the lower court to have them investigate these issues further. The goal was to ensure that the appellant's rights were protected and that the law was being correctly applied.