After Former Conviction of a Felony Archives

C-2015-856

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 2, 2017
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-856, Misty Dawn Smith appealed her conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to deny Smith's petition for a writ of certiorari but modified her post-imprisonment supervision from two years to one year. One judge dissented. Smith was charged with having methamphetamine and entered a guilty plea in December 2012. She was supposed to complete a drug court program which could lead to a lighter sentence. If she did well, her sentence would be a five-year suspended sentence and a fine. If she didn't, she could face ten years in prison and a larger fine. She was taken to a treatment facility and started the drug court program in May 2013. However, in July 2015, the state asked to remove her from this program because she was not following the rules. A judge agreed, and Smith was sentenced to ten years in prison and a fine. Smith wanted to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing that she didn’t understand everything about her plea and the consequences of the drug court program. She also argued that her sentence was too harsh. The court looked at these claims but determined that there was no reason to allow her to change her plea. Her initial plea was considered to be made knowingly and voluntarily. The court found that Smith knew about the difficult nature of the drug court program and that she had many chances to follow the rules. They also stated that she didn’t raise her claim about the excessive sentence in the correct way, and therefore, it could not be considered. The court agreed that the two years of post-imprisonment supervision given to her was incorrect and lowered it to one year, which is what the law allows. The decision was made after reviewing all details and records of the case.

F 2002-772

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 29, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-772, Joseph Alexander Simrak appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Possession of a Firearm after a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was arrested. He was found with methamphetamine and a firearm, which he challenged in court, arguing that the arrest was not lawful. The appellant claimed that because his arrest was unlawful, all the evidence found during the arrest should not have been used against him in court. The court agreed with the appellant and found that the information used to justify his arrest was not reliable. Therefore, the evidence from the unlawful arrest should not have been included in the trial. The jury had previously decided that the appellant should go to prison for ten years for each charge, and those sentences were to be served one after the other. However, since the court found the arrest illegal, both convictions were reversed. The remaining issues raised by the appellant were not considered because the ruling on the arrest was significant enough to change the outcome of the case. Ultimately, the court stated that the appellant would not be punished for these convictions due to the way the evidence was obtained.

F-2001-1445

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 5, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1445, John Wesley Dickson appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, After Former Conviction of a Felony. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the trial court but modified his sentence to twenty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. John Wesley Dickson was found guilty by a jury for having illegal drugs after he had been convicted of a crime before. The jury decided that he should go to prison for forty years. Dickson thought this was too harsh and took his case to a higher court for a review. The higher court looked at all the evidence, including what happened in the original trial. The judges found that while the forty-year sentence was lawful, the remarks made by the prosecutor during the sentencing could have influenced the jury too much. The prosecutor's comments on what they thought was an appropriate punishment were seen as quite problematic. The court believed that the sentence given shocked their sense of fairness, which is a key reason for modifying sentences. Despite being allowed to recommend sentences, the prosecutor should have kept personal views out of their statements to avoid bias in the jury's decisions. Finally, the court decided to change the sentence from forty years to twenty years. They pointed out that the rules at the time of the crime did not allow applying changes in law retroactively to make the punishment lighter. Thus, only the laws that were in place when Dickson committed the crime could be applied to him. In conclusion, the court confirmed Dickson’s conviction but found the original sentence too severe, leading to a new sentence of twenty years in prison. One judge disagreed with the change in sentence, feeling that the jury's and prosecutor’s actions were acceptable.