In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0850, Chief Allen Weston appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Choking. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered the district court to modify the sentence to give Weston credit for the ninety days he had already served in jail during his probation period. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-694, Fred A. Green, Ronald Krushe, and Christopher Thornburg appealed their conviction for kidnapping and first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against them. One judge dissented. The case began when the three men, who were bail bondsmen, went to a home to arrest two individuals, Billy and Pam Jones, who were staying there. They knocked on the door, entered the home, and handcuffed the Joneses to take them into custody. The homeowner, Patrick Wills, and his wife were not happy about this and called the police. While Green and his employees thought they were legally allowed to arrest the Joneses because they had a valid bond, the State of Oklahoma disagreed and charged them with burglary and kidnapping. The trial court disagreed, stating that the bondsmen did have the right to make the arrests. The State argued that the men acted unlawfully because of certain statements made during the incident, but the court found that they were working within their rights as bail bondsmen. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision to dismiss the charges, stating there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in concluding that the bondsmen were acting legally.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-559, Henry James, Jr. appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of cocaine and marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana but affirmed his convictions for unlawful possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. One judge dissented. Henry James was charged with having drugs, specifically cocaine and marijuana, and drug paraphernalia in Tulsa County. The charging document combined the possession charges into one count but listed two theories: possession of cocaine (a felony) and possession of marijuana (a misdemeanor). During the trial, the judge split these theories into separate charges for the jury to consider, leading to a verdict of guilty for both. As a result, James received sentences for both charges but they would run at the same time, so he didn't serve extra time. James felt it was unfair that he was found guilty of two crimes from what started as one charge. The court agreed that it was wrong to give him two convictions based on a single charge since the state didn't give him notice that he could face more than one conviction. They noted that James was not properly informed that he could be punished for both drugs, which could lead to confusion. The court decided to dismiss the conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana because of this error. However, they believed his sentence for unlawful possession of cocaine was fair and appropriate, so they did not change that. James also argued that admitting certain information could have negatively affected his case, but the court disagreed and found no significant error from that. Overall, James's judgment for unlawful possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia was confirmed, but the marijuana conviction was overturned.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-326, Maurice Cortez Washington, Jr. appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol, and Transporting an Open Container of Beer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Washington's conviction but modified his sentence to fifteen years imprisonment for the first count. One member dissented, arguing that the trial counsel's comments were a reasonable strategic decision.
In OCCA case No. S-2012-1012, Barry Lee Brown appealed his conviction for a traffic offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling to suppress evidence and dismiss the prosecution. One judge dissented. The case began when a police officer claimed to have seen a traffic violation, which led to a stop of Barry Lee Brown's vehicle. After stopping him, the officer suspected that Brown might be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. A second officer was called to the scene to perform sobriety tests. Before the trial, Barry Lee Brown argued that the stop was not legal and asked the court to throw out any evidence from the stop. During the hearing, the officer who stopped Brown had trouble remembering exactly what happened. He referred to a report written by the second officer, but that officer had not witnessed the stop himself. Initially, the trial court thought there was enough evidence to say the stop was legal, but later changed its mind. The court reviewed different points raised by the state about why the trial court’s decision should be changed. The state argued that the trial court made mistakes in its decision to suppress the evidence. However, the Appeals Court looked carefully at the facts and decided that the trial court had a good reason to change its decision. They noted that the officer who stopped Brown did not have a clear memory and his testimony was mainly based on what was written in another officer's report. The Appeals Court stated it respects the findings of the trial court unless they are clearly wrong or not supported by the evidence. After reviewing everything, they agreed with the trial court's ruling because it was based on the officer's inability to reliably remember the details of the stop. The Appeals Court also addressed the state’s claim that the trial court should not have been allowed to change its previous ruling. They found that the state did not provide enough legal backing for this claim, so they didn't consider it further. Finally, the court looked at whether the first officer could accurately use the report to refresh his memory about the stop. They concluded that just because he accepted the report as true did not mean it helped him remember the stop accurately. In the end, the court affirmed the decision to suppress the evidence that led to the conviction and agreed to dismiss the case.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-167, Bryan Decheveria Aragon appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, conspiracy to commit a felony, burglary in the first degree, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some of Aragon's convictions but reversed others. One judge dissented. Aragon was found guilty of several serious charges, including robbery, assault, and kidnapping, after a jury trial in the District Court of Cleveland County. The jury handed down various sentences, adding up to a long term in prison. Aragon argued that errors occurred during his trial, including the prosecution calling co-defendants who refused to testify, which he claimed violated his rights. He also pointed out concerns about the prosecutor’s conduct and whether he faced multiple punishments for the same criminal act. The court found that the prosecutor’s decision to call the co-defendants did not require a reversal. Even though the co-defendants didn’t answer every question, they provided some responses and were available for cross-examination. Therefore, this did not infringe upon Aragon’s rights. The court also ruled that any claims regarding prosecutorial misconduct did not significantly impact Aragon's fair trial. However, the court acknowledged that Aragon’s conviction for possessing a firearm during a felony had to be dismissed, as it did not comply with legal standards. The kidnapping charge was also reversed because it arose from the same act as the robbery, which meant that it violated rules against double punishment. On the other hand, the charges for robbery and assault were allowed to stand since they were considered separate actions. In summary, the decision affirmed most of the judgment and sentences but reversed those related to kidnapping and possession of a firearm.
In OCCA case No. S-2011-774, the State of Oklahoma appealed the decision regarding the conviction of DeJear. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the previous ruling, which found there was not enough evidence to prove that DeJear was under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, making the charges not applicable. One judge dissented from this opinion.
In OCCA case No. S 2011-0024, Joel Christion Aranda appealed his conviction for multiple charges including Use of a Vehicle in Discharge of a Weapon and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which had dismissed several counts against Aranda. One judge dissented, believing there was enough evidence to proceed with some of the charges.
In OCCA case No. S 2011-0023, David Franco appealed his conviction for several charges related to using a vehicle in the discharge of a weapon, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, feloniously pointing a firearm, and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling that dismissed some of the charges against him. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. J-2011-514, J.F. appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts With a Child Under Sixteen. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the motion for certification as a juvenile. One judge dissented. The case began when the State of Oklahoma charged J.F. on March 7, 2011, for actions that allegedly happened when he was 15 years old. J.F. filed a motion to be treated as a juvenile instead of facing adult charges. A hearing was held where evidence was presented. The court had a specialist provide testimony, and several documents were submitted to support J.F.'s request for juvenile status. The State argued that the court should not have allowed J.F. to be certified as a juvenile, stating that he had not shown enough proof. The court, however, did not find any mistakes in the decisions made by the trial judge and agreed that J.F. should be treated as a juvenile. In the end, the court upheld the earlier decision, allowing J.F. to proceed in the juvenile system.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-749, Waymond George Morrison appealed his conviction for multiple offenses, including Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS) with Intent to Distribute, Driving a Motor Vehicle Without a License, Distribution of CDS, and Possession of Proceeds from drug-related activities. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for three counts while reversing one count related to possession of proceeds, ordering that it be dismissed. One justice dissented. Morrison faced several serious charges related to drugs and was sentenced to a total of 100 years in prison for the most severe charges, along with some fines. During his trial, he argued that his rights to due process were violated, that there was an improper handling of testimony, and that he faced double punishment for his actions. The court evaluated his claims: 1. The first issue was whether Morrison’s rights were violated when the court didn’t allow certain testimony. The court decided that the excluded testimony wasn't relevant to the case, so his rights were not infringed upon. 2. The second concern was about the trial being split into two parts (bifurcated). The court ruled that this was a correct decision and that it did not abuse its discretion. 3. Morrison also contended that testimony from a rebuttal witness should not have been permitted. The court found that this was appropriate because the rebuttal witness provided necessary clarifications to previous testimonies. 4. Regarding the issue of double punishment, the court explained that Morrison’s possession and distribution charges were based on separate actions—one for having cocaine and one for selling it. However, his conviction for possession of proceeds was tied to the same act of selling cocaine, so that particular conviction was reversed. 5. The sufficiency of the evidence against him was also questioned. The court found that there was enough evidence for the jury to reasonably convict Morrison of intent to distribute due to the drugs found in his car shortly after a sale. 6. Lastly, Morrison felt his sentence was excessively harsh. The court did not agree, noting that due to his previous criminal record, the sentence was justifiable. In conclusion, the court upheld the majority of Morrison's convictions and sentences, significantly addressing various legal arguments made by him during the appeal process.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-149, Kenneth Clark Knox appealed his conviction for Sexual Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the three years of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. The case began when Kenneth Knox was tried by a jury and found guilty of Sexual Battery after having previously been convicted of more than two felonies. The jury recommended a punishment of four years in prison, which the trial court imposed, along with three years of supervision after prison. Knox appealed for several reasons. First, he argued that the evidence presented by the State was not strong enough to prove that he committed sexual battery. He believed that the conviction should be overturned and the charges dismissed. However, the court found that, when looking at the evidence favorably for the State, there was enough proof for a reasonable jury to conclude that Knox touched the victim inappropriately. Second, Knox claimed that the law regarding post-imprisonment supervision was not in effect when he committed the crime, so the three years of supervision imposed by the court should be canceled. The court agreed, explaining that the law was only effective after the crime took place, meaning Knox should not have been sentenced to post-prison supervision under that law. Lastly, Knox suggested that if the court did not agree with his other points, they should fix the written judgment to match what the judge said during sentencing. The court decided that they would vacate the supervision requirement and instructed the lower court to correct the judgment to show that Knox's sentence was only four years in prison. In conclusion, while Knox's conviction remained, the court removed the extra three years of supervision from his sentence. The case has been sent back to the lower court to make the necessary changes to the judgment.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-223, Travis Ray Tiger appealed his conviction for two counts of Assault and Battery With a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences but vacated the restitution order, ordering the trial court to determine a proper amount of restitution. One judge dissented. Travis Ray Tiger was found guilty in a non-jury trial for attacking two victims with a utility knife, inflicting serious injuries. The trial judge sentenced him to 32 years in prison for each count, with additional fees and a large restitution amount. Tiger argued that he acted in self-defense, but the court found that he was the aggressor and had provoked the fight. The evidence presented showed he used deadly force against unarmed victims, which did not justify his actions. Regarding his sentences, Tiger claimed they were too harsh. However, the court ruled that the sentences were within the law's limits and appropriate for the crimes committed. Tiger also challenged the restitution amount, asserting that the trial court did not follow proper procedures. While some evidence of the victims' medical expenses was presented, the court noted that there were gaps in the financial details regarding compensation received from other sources. Therefore, the court vacated the restitution order for a new determination of the amount owed to the victims. In summary, while Travis Ray Tiger's assault conviction was upheld, the court found issues with the restitution process that needed to be resolved, leading to the order for a new hearing on the restitution amount.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-398, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance (Phencyclidine) with Intent to Distribute and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance (Marijuana) with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for the first count and reverse the conviction for the second count, with instructions to dismiss it. One justice dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-77, Markeese Kreashawmn Ward appealed his conviction for Trafficking CDS and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his petition for a writ of certiorari and affirmed the trial court's order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Markeese Kreashawmn Ward was in court for committing serious crimes. On December 19, 2007, he said he was guilty to two charges: Trafficking in Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS) and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. Because he was a young adult, the judge decided he could join a special program called the Delayed Sentencing Program for Young Adults. This program was supposed to give him a second chance, and his sentencing was scheduled for a year later, on December 19, 2008. When that day came, the judge decided that Markeese had not done well in the program, so he was punished with five months in jail. After his jail time, he was supposed to go into another program designed to help him. Later, on November 13, 2009, the judge sentenced him to 45 years in prison for Trafficking and 5 years for unauthorized vehicle use, with both sentences running at the same time. Markeese didn't like the sentences he received and wanted to change his mind about pleading guilty. He filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, but the court held a hearing and decided not to allow him to withdraw his plea. Markeese believed there were two main reasons why he should be allowed to change his plea: 1. He claimed that some conditions added by the judge to his plea agreement were unfair because he didn’t agree to them. He thought this broke the rules about how judges and other branches of government should work separately. 2. He argued that the judge didn’t sentence him within the year required by law, making the sentence illegal. As the court reviewed these claims, they decided that the judge had done everything by the rules. First, they found that the judge's notes did not change the original agreement Markeese had made when he pleaded guilty, and he could have refused to accept the new conditions if he wanted. Therefore, his plea was still valid. For the second point, the court noted that even though Markeese thought the judge’s actions were a delay in sentencing, they were not. Instead, the judge was just giving him another chance to succeed in the program. The court pointed out that the judge was following the law properly by looking at Markeese's progress and determining if he deserved to have his sentence delayed further. Eventually, the court realized that the judge’s actions had led to a misunderstanding. To account for it properly, the court determined that Markeese had already been treated as if he had been given a part of his sentence when he was sanctioned to jail time and sent to the aftercare program. However, since Markeese had also been sentenced again later, it was like giving him two different sentences for the same crime, which is not allowed. In summary, the court decided to keep the original decision to deny Markeese's request to withdraw his plea but corrected what would happen next. They asked that his official record reflect that the sentence imposed during the sanction in December 2008 was what he needed to serve, and they mentioned that he should be released from custody. The result was that Markeese's case was somewhat settled, and his future would look different than it may have before, with the court noting a mistake that needed fixing without adding more time to his punishment.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-236, James Lee Copeland, Jr. appealed his conviction for Attempted Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but ordered the district court to correct the official record to properly reflect the conviction and remove an incorrect statement about parole eligibility. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. S-2009-667, the State of Oklahoma appealed its conviction concerning Christy Anne Selders. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the decision of the District Court of Tulsa County, which dismissed one of the charges against Selders. One judge dissented. The case began when Selders was charged with trying to make illegal drugs and also for defrauding a hotel. During the preliminary hearing, the judge had to decide if the police had a good reason to search Selders' hotel room and if they could use the evidence found there. After the State presented its case, Selders argued that the police search was not legal because they didn't have the right to enter the hotel room without proper permission. The judge agreed with Selders and decided to dismiss the charge related to manufacturing drugs, saying that the evidence was not strong enough to link Selders to the crime. The State didn't agree with this decision and decided to appeal, saying the judge made mistakes. They believed that Selders had given permission for the search and that there was enough evidence to try her. Another judge reviewed the case and eventually decided to uphold the original judge's decision. This judge agreed that the police may have thought they had permission to search, but still, they couldn’t prove that Selders was connected to any illegal activity in the hotel room. After reviewing everything, the court decided not to change the first ruling. They said that the dismissal of the charge was correct and that there was no abuse of discretion by the judges involved in the case. In the end, the court confirmed that the order to dismiss the charge against Selders was valid, meaning she would not face trial for that particular accusation.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-824, Allen James Taylor appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including conspiracy and burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his termination from Drug Court but ordered that his sentences should be served concurrently rather than consecutively. One judge dissented. In this case, the appellant had agreed to plead guilty and was initially sentenced with his sentences suspended, meaning he would not serve time in prison right away but had to follow conditions of probation. Later, the appellant breached the terms of his probation, leading to the state applying to revoke his suspended sentences. He then participated in a Drug Court program, which was intended to help him with substance abuse issues. However, after a while, he was terminated from this program due to more violations. When he was removed from Drug Court, the court ended up ordering him to serve his sentences one after the other instead of at the same time, which was against what was originally agreed upon. The court felt that this was not right and decided that the sentences should indeed run at the same time, completing the original terms set forth at the beginning. The appellant argued that he was not correctly represented by his lawyer when he entered Drug Court and that his original guilty plea should not be valid. However, the court noted these concerns were not the focus of this specific appeal regarding the Drug Court termination. In the end, the court confirmed the appellant’s Drug Court termination but corrected how his sentences were to be served, stating they should be concurrent rather than consecutive. This concluded the key aspects of the case.
In OCCA case No. RE-2008-753, the Appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana and driving while privilege revoked. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the Appellant's suspended sentences for most counts, but vacated the revocation of the suspended sentence for one count because the Appellant had already served that sentence. One member of the court dissented. Here's what happened: The Appellant had entered guilty pleas for multiple charges, including possession of drugs and driving offenses, and was given suspended sentences, meaning he would not serve time in jail as long as he followed the rules of his probation. Later, the state accused the Appellant of breaking the rules of his probation. After a hearing, the judge ruled to revoke all of his suspended sentences. The Appellant appealed, arguing that one part of the judge's decision was incorrect because he had already finished serving that part of his sentence. The court agreed and decided to remove the part of the revocation related to that count. However, the court did not find that the judge acted unfairly or excessively in revoking the other suspended sentences, as the Appellant did not comply with the probation requirements despite being given a second chance. In summary, while the Appellant lost the chance to keep those suspended sentences, one mistake in the original order was corrected.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-15, Alfred Burke, Jr. appealed his conviction for Kidnapping and Forcible Oral Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Burke was found guilty in Oklahoma County and received a very long sentence of 273 years for each crime, to be served one after the other. This was due to previous convictions he had. Burke disagreed with his punishment and claimed there were several mistakes made during his trial. He argued that a law he was judged under was unfair and went against his rights. He also said that evidence from a previous case should not have been shown in court. He thought his sentence was too harsh and believed that evidence from other crimes made the trial unfair. Finally, he believed that all the errors combined made it impossible for him to have a fair trial. The court looked closely at all of Burke's arguments. They found that the law he challenged was not unconstitutional. Most of the evidence against him was strong, especially the testimony from the person he victimized and DNA proof of his actions. However, the court agreed that showing evidence of his past crime likely impacted the jury's choice on punishment more than it should have. As a result, they changed his punishment to life imprisonment for both crimes, but now those sentences would be served at the same time instead of one after the other. The judges concluded that while there were some mistakes, they did not think these mistakes were enough to change his convictions. One judge did not agree with changing the sentences at all, believing the previous evidence was important for the case.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-1014, Marcus Durell Hooks appealed his conviction for trafficking in controlled substances, possession of an offensive weapon in the commission of a felony, and eluding a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but remand the case for correction of the Judgment and Sentence. One judge dissented. Marcus was found guilty by a jury on three counts. His main issues on appeal included claims of improper evidence use, insufficient evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, excessive sentencing, prosecutorial misconduct, and errors related to jury instructions and sentencing fees. The court reviewed the propositions raised by Marcus and concluded that the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion regarding the police checkpoint situation since the evidence causing the convictions was not a result of the checkpoint. The evidence showed that Marcus had joint control over the drugs and firearms involved in the case. About counsel's performance, the court found no effectiveness issues because the alleged errors did not affect the trial's outcome, nor did the sentencing appear excessively severe. The prosecutor's statements during the trial were also determined not to have harmed Marcus's case. Additionally, the court agreed with Marcus about some fees being improperly assessed but decided that overall, any errors did not combine to deny him a fair trial. Thus, while most of Marcus's complaints were rejected, the court ordered corrections related to the sentencing paperwork.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-579, Thomas Clinton Ledgerwood appealed his conviction for Maiming, Domestic Abuse Involving Great Bodily Injury, and Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Ledgerwood's conviction for Kidnapping and affirm the other convictions. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. S-2008-953, the State of Oklahoma appealed the decision regarding the conviction of James Lee Sharrock for Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which had found that the child's out-of-court statements were inadmissible. The majority of the court agreed, while one member dissented. The case started when Sharrock was charged with two counts of Child Sexual Abuse. At a preliminary hearing, the judge decided that there was not enough evidence to proceed with one of the counts. This was because the statements made by a four-year-old child could not be used, as the child was not present to testify, which made those statements hearsay. The State argued that the judge made a mistake by not allowing the testimony of two adults who had interacted with the child. These adults wanted to share what the child said about their experience. However, the judge explained that according to Oklahoma law, the child must either be available to testify or fit certain criteria for hearsay to be considered valid. The State then appealed this decision, and another judge confirmed the initial ruling. Finally, the case was brought to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which reviewed the arguments and the evidence presented. They concluded that the lower court's decision was correct because the magistrate had the right to determine whether the child was available to testify. In the end, the court upheld the initial decisions made by both lower court judges, stating no mistakes were found in their rulings. The final rulings and orders were affirmed, confirming that the hearsay statements from the child could not be used in the case against Sharrock.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-260, Ronnie Lamonte Lister appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, Possession of a Firearm During Commission of a Felony, and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony, but reversed the conviction for Possession of a Firearm During Commission of a Felony with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-848, Marvis Evans appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm after felony conviction, and pointing a firearm at another. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for robbery with a firearm and possession of a firearm but reversed and dismissed the conviction for pointing a firearm. One judge dissented. Marvis Evans was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County for several serious crimes. The jury decided he should spend twenty years in prison for each crime, but some sentences would be served at the same time. Evans argued that he was punished unfairly because of double jeopardy, meaning he did not think he should be tried and punished for the same act in two different ways. He also claimed there wasn't enough proof to prove he committed the crimes. The court looked at Evans's arguments closely. They found that he was guilty of robbery and possession of a firearm, and the law does allow for those two separate charges. However, they agreed that Evans was punished too harshly for pointing a firearm, which they decided to dismiss because it was too similar to the robbery charge. In the end, the court confirmed that he was guilty of robbery and possession of a firearm, but not for pointing a firearm. They ruled that the evidence against him was strong, including being caught shortly after the crime and making incriminating statements to police. Therefore, the court upheld part of his punishment but removed one conviction.