In OCCA case No. F-2013-801, Dotson appealed his conviction for Attempting to Elude a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the term of post-imprisonment supervision to twelve months. One justice dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-916, Andrew Lee Harris appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Substance (Cocaine) after being found guilty by a jury in the District Court of McCurtain County. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirty years to twenty years in prison. One judge dissented. Andrew Lee Harris was found guilty on charges for having cocaine. His punishment was set at thirty years, but he did not agree with the decision and decided to appeal. During the appeal, he argued that: 1. The jury wasn't given the right instructions about possession of paraphernalia, which he thought was unfair. 2. The prosecutor gave improper evidence and made comments that affected the fairness of his sentencing. 3. The trial court did not follow required procedures in his case. The court analyzed these claims carefully. In the first point, they decided that the jury did not need to be told about possession of paraphernalia because it was not a lesser included offense of cocaine possession. This means it was a separate crime, and the judge was right not to give those instructions. In his second point, the court looked at the information that was presented during the trial. They said there were some mistakes with what was allowed as evidence. A former probation officer talked about Harris's past, which shouldn't have been mentioned because it could make the jury think about parole and probation unfairly when deciding his sentence. The court found that this could have influenced the jury, especially since they asked questions about how long Harris would be on parole. Therefore, they decided that because of this, it was necessary to reduce his sentence to twenty years. As for the third point, the court felt that the way the trial judge handled certain procedures was not a problem anymore because they had already decided to change Harris's sentence based on the earlier mistake. In the end, the court agreed with Harris’s reasoning about how he should have been sentenced, leading them to change his punishment. They affirmed his conviction but modified the sentence to twenty years in prison.
In OCCA case No. S-2012-194, Campbell appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling to suppress evidence and dismiss the case, meaning Campbell's charges were dropped. No one dissented. Here’s a summary of what happened: James Monroe Campbell was accused of driving under the influence of alcohol. Before the trial began, he asked the court to dismiss the case by filing a request called a Motion to Dismiss. During a hearing before the trial, the judge decided that the evidence against Campbell should not be used, and this meant the case was dismissed. The State of Oklahoma, unhappy with this decision, decided to appeal, which means they wanted another court to review what happened. They filed their appeal based on certain laws that say they have the right to challenge the dismissal of cases when it involves important evidence being excluded. The State argued two main points in its appeal. First, they claimed the judge made a mistake by dismissing Campbell's case because he believed Campbell broke the law by not staying entirely in one lane while driving. Second, they argued the judge was wrong because the police officer had a good reason to stop Campbell’s car in the first place. To decide if the original judge made a mistake, the court looked at whether the officer had a reasonable suspicion to pull Campbell over. A reasonable suspicion is a legal term meaning the officer had a good reason to believe a law was possibly being broken. The officer in this case stated that he stopped Campbell because he saw Campbell's car touch the line marking the lane. However, when the judge looked closely at the evidence, including a video of the incident, she thought that Campbell was driving pretty straight and did not see enough evidence to support the claim that he was breaking any laws. The judge also mentioned that the officer’s concerns did not seem strong enough to justify the stop. Therefore, she decided to dismiss the case because there was not enough evidence to support stopping Campbell's car. When reviewing the situation, the appeals court sided with the original judge's decision and agreed that there was no abuse of discretion, meaning they believed she made the correct choice based on the information available. The court also stated that since the issue of Campbell possibly driving under the influence wasn't raised during the earlier hearing, they could not consider that during the appeal. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to suppress evidence and dismissed the charges against Campbell, which was a win for him.
In OCCA case No. J 2009-0091, C.C.S. appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order of the lower court that had granted the State's motion to impose an adult sentence on C.C.S. and remanded the case for further proceedings with instructions to sentence C.C.S. as a Youthful Offender if he is convicted of the charged crimes. One judge dissented. C.C.S., who was born on December 28, 1990, faced multiple charges as a Youthful Offender. These included robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number, and obstructing an officer. The State requested that C.C.S. be sentenced as an adult. After a hearing, a judge decided C.C.S. should be tried as an adult for the robbery charge. C.C.S. then appealed, and the case came before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. During a hearing on April 30, 2009, the court listened to arguments and took time to think about the case. The court determined that the trial court had made a mistake by deciding to treat C.C.S. as an adult. The ruling meant that if C.C.S. was found guilty, he should be treated and sentenced as a Youthful Offender according to the law. This result was based on the idea that the law aims to help young people rehabilitate rather than punish them like adults. The judges in the dissent expressed their disagreement with the majority opinion. They believed that the trial judge had made a reasonable decision based on the facts of the case. They felt that the judge had thought carefully about what would be best for C.C.S., considering his age and the nature of the charges against him. The dissenting opinion also pointed out concerns about how the ruling would work, especially because C.C.S. was almost 18 at the time of the decision and nearly 18.5 years old by the time the case was decided. They referred to specific laws about how young offenders should be treated and raised questions about whether C.C.S. would still be eligible for a Youthful Offender program given his age during the legal proceedings. Overall, the court’s decision aimed to ensure that young people like C.C.S. would have the opportunity for rehabilitation instead of simply being punished as adults for their actions. The focus was on providing a chance for a better future rather than imposing adult penalties.