In OCCA case No. F 2001-1348, Holly Ann Glasgow appealed her conviction for two counts of Robbery by Force and Fear. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction on Count One and remand it to the district court to change the charge to Receiving Stolen Property with a reduced sentence. The conviction on Count Two was affirmed. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-9, Amy Michelle Green appealed her conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and modify the sentence. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. Amy was found guilty after a trial where the jury decided that she was guilty of having illegal drugs and drug-related items. The jury decided her punishment should be ten years in prison for the drugs and one year for the drug paraphernalia. The judge in the trial court ordered that she serve these sentences one after the other, making it a total of eleven years. Amy argued that there were mistakes made during her trial that made her punishment too severe. One big issue was that a day planner with a graphic photo of her was accepted as evidence, even though it was meant to prove she controlled the hotel room where it was found. She argued that the planner was unfair and should not have been used against her since other personal items also proved her control over the room. The court agreed that the day planner shouldn't have been used to influence the jury because it could lead to unfair judgment against her. They believed that the mistakes in her trial did affect the outcome, leading to an excessive sentence. Therefore, they changed her sentence to six years for the controlled substance charge to be served at the same time as her one-year sentence for the paraphernalia. Overall, the court kept her conviction but lessened the time she had to serve in prison.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-1506, Jose Fajardo appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation and Indecent Proposal to a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Fajardo was found guilty in a trial held in July 2001, where the jury decided he should go to prison for five years for Lewd Molestation and fifteen years for Indecent Proposal, with the sentences to be served one after the other. He appealed these decisions. Fajardo argued nine different reasons why his trial was unfair. He thought the court made mistakes, like not allowing his lawyer to question a juror properly, which he said made it hard for him to get a fair trial. He also said his lawyer didn’t do a good job because important witnesses were not there during the trial. Another point he made was that charging him with two separate crimes instead of one was unfair. After looking at everything, the court decided that one specific mistake was serious enough to warrant a new trial. The court found that a special advocate, who was allowed to help the victim during the trial, should not have been there because there was no law allowing that in this type of case. The special advocate acted in a very active role and helped the prosecution, which made the trial feel unfair to Fajardo. Because this was a big mistake that affected the fairness of the trial, the court ordered a new trial. The other arguments made by Fajardo did not need to be looked at since this one reason was enough to lead to a new trial.
In OCCA case No. FT 2001-668, Richard James Cordon appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Richard Cordon was found guilty of Second Degree Murder after a trial. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Cordon believed he did not get a fair trial because the court refused to give certain jury instructions. These instructions were about statements he made that could show he was innocent, as well as instructions on different types of manslaughter, voluntary intoxication, and self-defense using non-deadly force. After looking carefully at all the evidence and arguments, the court agreed that Cordon’s conviction should be reversed. They felt the trial court made a mistake by not allowing the jury to consider his exculpatory statement, which means a statement that could help prove he was not guilty. The court believed that if the jury had heard this statement, they might have decided Cordon was innocent. The court did not agree with all of Cordon's claims, particularly those about the other types of defenses and instructions he wanted, but they found that the lack of an instruction on his exculpatory statement influenced the trial's fairness. Therefore, the case was sent back for a new trial.
In OCCA case No. RE-2002-174, the appellant appealed her conviction for various crimes related to embezzlement and forgery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began in 1995 when the appellant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment, which was suspended, meaning she would not go to prison immediately if she followed certain conditions. These conditions included paying back over $35,000 to the victim of her crimes as restitution, reporting to a probation officer, and not changing her residence without permission. In 1997, the state said the appellant broke the rules of her probation by failing to report to her probation officer, changing her residence without permission, and not paying her restitution as required. A judge found that she did violate her probation, but there were multiple delays in resolving her punishment, which lasted about four and a half years. In 2001, the appellant missed a court hearing, and the court issued a warrant for her arrest. After her arrest in January 2002, a final hearing took place where the judge ordered her to serve the full five years of her sentences and added extra fees for sheriff's costs. The appellant then appealed this decision, proposing several arguments against the court's order: 1. She argued that the sheriff's fees were imposed unlawfully and violated her rights. 2. She claimed the restitution amount was uncertain and should not be required. 3. She believed the court could not revoke her suspended sentence after such a long time. 4. She felt her due process rights were violated because the imposed punishment was excessive. After reviewing the case, the court agreed with some of the appellant's points. It decided that the sheriff's fees were not legally appropriate because they cannot be added after a sentence has been given. They also found that appellant’s arguments about the restitution were too late because those challenges should have been made back in 1995 when the restitution was set. However, the court did agree with the appellant that it was too long between when she was sentenced and when her probation was revoked; thus, they ordered that her two five-year sentences should run at the same time (concurrently) instead of one after the other (consecutively). In conclusion, the court modified the earlier order by removing the sheriff's fees and adjusted how long the appellant would be imprisoned.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-1375, the individual appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Theft of a Debit Card, Grand Larceny, Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, and others. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but modified the sentence for Grand Larceny in one count due to an error. One member of the court dissented. The case began when the individual pled guilty to several offenses on December 5, 2000. He was given sentences that were mostly suspended, meaning he would not have to serve time unless he broke the rules of his probation. However, on September 25, 2001, the State of Oklahoma said he violated those rules by not reporting to his probation officer and committing another crime, which led to a hearing. During the hearing, the judge decided to revoke his suspended sentences. The appellant argued that his punishment for Grand Larceny was too harsh since it violated the rules for sentencing that say he should not have gotten more than a year in jail for that specific crime. The court agreed that the original sentence was incorrect but also ruled that it did not harm the individual too much since his other sentences were still valid. The individual also claimed that he was unfairly required to pay for restitution he believed he should not have been responsible for, but the court found he did not follow the proper steps to challenge that. Lastly, he argued that his overall sentences were excessive, but the court determined that since the sentences were within a reasonable range and he had indeed violated his probation, there was no unfairness in the judge's decisions. So, the court affirmed most of his sentences and ordered a correction for the incorrect Grand Larceny sentence, which should only require one year of confinement.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-1339, Marlon L. Johnson appealed his conviction for Kidnapping, First Degree Rape, and Forcible Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for First Degree Rape and remand it to the district court for dismissal, while affirming the convictions for Kidnapping and Forcible Sodomy. One judge dissented. The case began when Marlon L. Johnson was found guilty of three serious crimes after a jury trial in Tulsa County. He was sentenced to thirty-five years for each crime, to be served one after the other, totaling a significant amount of time. Johnson claimed that there were many mistakes made during his trial, which he believed should lead to a reversal of his convictions or a new trial. The court looked at the arguments Johnson made. He said the charges were mixed up and that it wasn't clear whether the jury agreed on the specific facts for the rape charge. The court agreed that the jury might have relied on different facts to reach their decision about the rape charge, so they reversed that conviction. However, the court felt that there was enough evidence to support the kidnapping conviction, meaning they believed the jury was right about that part. Johnson also argued that his lawyer didn't do a good job, but the court felt his lawyer performed effectively. Other arguments made by Johnson, like improper statements from the prosecutor and issues with sentencing, were not enough to change the overall decision. The court decided that some mistakes were made, but they were not serious enough to hurt Johnson's chances for a fair trial. In the end, the court confirmed the kidnapping and forcible sodomy convictions because they believed the jury made the right decisions for those charges. However, because they couldn't be sure about the rape charge, they sent it back to be dismissed.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1517, Paul Nathan Johnson appealed his conviction for multiple counts related to drug offenses, including Attempt to Manufacture Methamphetamine and Possession of Methamphetamine Within 1000 Feet of a School. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Johnson's convictions and sentences but vacated the fine imposed for one of the charges. One judge dissented. The case involved Johnson being found guilty of trying to make methamphetamine and having it near a school. He was also charged with having a gun while committing these crimes and having tools used for drug-making. The trial judge gave Johnson a long sentence and hefty fines based on the jury's recommendations. Johnson raised several complaints in his appeal. First, he argued that being convicted for both trying to make meth and having it near a school was unfair. The court decided that both charges were different enough that he could be found guilty of both without it being double punishment. Next, Johnson claimed there wasn't enough proof that he had a gun ready to use while making drugs. However, the court found that there was enough evidence showing he had the gun where he could easily get to it. Johnson also argued that he didn't really start making meth yet. The court disagreed and stated that the evidence showed he was past just planning and was actively attempting to make the drug. Finally, Johnson felt that his sentences were too harsh. The court decided that the judge acted within their rights in giving Johnson the sentences and fines, except for one fine, which they deemed not allowed by the law. In the end, the court confirmed most of Johnson's convictions and sentences but removed the extra fine related to one of the charges.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-999, Eric Jackson Davis appealed his conviction for multiple sexual offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of his convictions but reversed one of them due to lack of sufficient evidence. One member of the court dissented regarding the decision on sentencing. Davis was found guilty by a jury of five counts of First Degree Rape, two counts of Lewd Molestation, and one count of Forcible Oral Sodomy. The trial took place over three days, and the jury decided on punishments ranging from ten to fifty years for the various counts. The judge announced that Davis's sentences would be served one after the other, known as consecutive sentences. Davis raised three main issues on appeal. First, he argued that there was no evidence proving that a sexual act occurred in the case of the Forcible Oral Sodomy charge, and therefore he asked for that conviction to be overturned. Second, he claimed that there was insufficient evidence for one of the rape counts and wanted it dismissed as well. Lastly, he argued that receiving a total of two hundred forty years in prison was too severe. After looking at the facts and evidence from the trial, the court found that most of the convictions were supported by enough evidence. However, they agreed that one rape conviction should be reversed because the prosecution did not present enough proof to support that specific charge. The court did not find merit in the argument about the Forcible Oral Sodomy conviction. Regarding the sentence, the court acknowledged that different factors should be considered when deciding if a sentence is too harsh. While they found the trial judge's refusal to consider running the sentences at the same time was wrong, they stated that the judge's personal views about sex crimes against children influenced that decision. Therefore, the case was sent back to the lower court for resentencing, but the main convictions were upheld. In summary, the court upheld the majority of Davis's convictions and ordered the court below to reconsider how the sentences were issued, while they reversed one specific conviction due to a lack of evidence. One judge disagreed with the need for a new sentencing hearing, believing that the consequences should remain as they are given the serious nature of the crimes.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-947, the appellant appealed his conviction for indecent exposure. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the matter to the District Court of Noble County for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The story begins when the appellant entered a guilty plea for indecent exposure in 1991 and was given a suspended sentence. This means he wouldn't serve time unless he broke the rules of his probation. However, in 1999, the State said he had committed another crime while on probation and wanted to take away his suspended sentence. During the revocation hearing, it was discovered that when the appellant was sentenced, he should not have been given a suspended sentence at all because of his prior convictions. According to Oklahoma law, if someone has three or more felony convictions, they aren't allowed to receive a suspended sentence. The court noted that both the appellant and the State were aware of his criminal history, and no evidence was presented to show that he was eligible for a suspended sentence. In fact, the plea agreement that he entered into was not legal under the law. Because of these issues, the court decided that the appellant's original judgment and sentence should be vacated, meaning it was canceled. This allows the appellant a chance to withdraw his guilty plea, which he can do if he wants to go to trial for the indecent exposure charge again. If he chooses not to withdraw his plea, he will then be sentenced again, but this time, it will be done right and in accordance with the law. Ultimately, the court took this action to ensure that everything was done fairly and legally, giving the appellant a proper opportunity to have his case heard correctly in the District Court. The ruling was important in maintaining the rules around sentencing and ensuring that people with multiple convictions are treated based on the law.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-444, Eric Anthony Rivera appealed his conviction for Kidnapping and Domestic Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the Kidnapping conviction and instructed to dismiss it, while affirming the conviction for Domestic Abuse. One judge dissented. Eric was tried by a jury and found guilty of two serious charges: Kidnapping and Domestic Abuse. The jury gave him a ten-year prison sentence for Kidnapping and a one-year jail sentence for Domestic Abuse, which will be served at the same time. After reviewing the evidence and arguments from both sides, the appeals court found that there wasn't enough evidence to support that Eric truly intended to kidnap the victim secretly. Because of this, the court said that the conviction for Kidnapping should be reversed, meaning they didn't agree with that part of the trial's decision. They felt Eric didn’t get a fair chance regarding that charge because the evidence didn’t meet the legal requirements. However, they found that the case against him for Domestic Abuse still stood strong and was supported by sufficient evidence, so they kept that conviction in place. The judges on the appeal discussed their different opinions about the case, with one agreeing with the majority, while others felt that the Kidnapping conviction should have stayed based on the evidence presented. In the end, the court's decision meant Eric would no longer be punished for Kidnapping but would still serve his sentence for Domestic Abuse.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-122, Joseph Edward Peyton appealed his conviction for five counts of Robbery With Firearms. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence for Counts I and III, but reverse and dismiss Counts II, IV, and V. One member of the court dissented. Peyton was tried and found guilty of the robbery charges in Tulsa County. The judge sentenced him to ten years for Counts I and III, and five years for Counts II, IV, and V, with the sentences running consecutively. Peyton argued three main points in his appeal. First, he claimed that his statements to the police should not have been used against him because he was not in custody when he made them. The court found that the situation did not need Miranda warnings, so his statements were allowed as evidence. Second, Peyton argued that there wasn't enough evidence for his convictions on Counts II, IV, and V. The court agreed, stating that just being at the crime scene does not automatically make someone guilty. They found that the evidence against Peyton for those specific counts was not solid enough, and they reversed those convictions. Lastly, Peyton argued that his sentence was too harsh. However, the court disagreed, saying the sentence was appropriate and did not shock their conscience. In summary, the court upheld part of the conviction, but also recognized that not all the evidence supported Peyton's guilt on every count. The decisions made reflected careful consideration of what the law required in these types of cases.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-793, Robert Dale Marlow appealed his conviction for three counts of First Degree Rape, Forcible Sodomy, and First Degree Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify one of the convictions to Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation and also modified the sentences for the remaining convictions. One judge dissented. Marlow was found guilty of serious crimes related to sexual offenses. The jury decided to give him a very long punishment of 100 years for each of the five crimes, which they all ran one after the other, making a total of 500 years. In the appeal, Marlow pointed out several issues with his trial. First, he argued that he didn’t get a fair trial because the judge allowed the jury to hear about another crime that wasn’t related to what he was accused of. This might have made the jury think he was a bad person and influenced their decision. Second, he said the jury was not properly instructed about one of the charges. The charge of First Degree Rape by Instrumentation did not include an important detail about “bodily harm.” Because of this, the court acknowledged that he should have been found guilty of a lesser crime instead. They also talked about how the prosecutor brought in information about other incidents that happened at a different time, which they believed could confuse the jury and affect the fairness of the trial. After looking carefully at everything, the court decided that the conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation should be changed to Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation, and they gave him a new sentence of 20 years for this crime. The other convictions were kept but the sentences were reduced to 40 years each for the remaining counts. All of the sentences will still be served one after the other. This review shows how important it is for trials to be fair, with accurate charges and instructions provided to the jury.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-338, Gene Paul Ray appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and ordered a new trial. One judge dissented. Gene Paul Ray was found guilty of two counts of Lewd Molestation but was not guilty on six other related charges. The jury gave him a punishment of ten years for each count, and those sentences would be served one after the other. Ray appealed for many reasons. He first argued that it was wrong for a special advocate to help prosecute him. He believed this went against his rights. The court agreed that this was a mistake because the advocate was not supposed to be involved in his case based on the law. The advocate acted like a second lawyer against Ray, which was unfair. Next, Ray claimed that the court made a mistake by allowing an expert to speak about “child sexual accommodation syndrome” before the victims testified. The court found that this was not done properly and that it could have made the jury more likely to believe the victims’ stories without proper evidence. Ray also said that it was wrong for the court to allow the parents of the child victims to testify about what their children said. This meant the jury heard claims of abuse more times than they should have, making the children's stories seem more believable than they might be. Ray argued that he was also unfairly treated when the court allowed the prosecution to talk about his past drinking problems to attack his character. The court agreed that this kind of information shouldn’t have been used in that way, especially since the prosecution did not show it related to the case. Finally, Ray argued that all these mistakes added up to make it impossible for him to have a fair trial. The court agreed and decided that the combination of these errors meant he wasn't treated fairly in the trial. In summary, the court decided to reverse Ray's convictions and ordered a new trial so that he could have a fair chance to defend himself in light of the mistakes that were made during the original trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1230, a person appealed his conviction for attempted second-degree burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from thirty years to twenty years. One judge dissented. The person, who was found guilty of trying to break into a garage, admitted to the police that he was looking for tools to fix his car. However, the court determined that this was not a good enough reason to justify his actions in attempting to commit burglary, so the evidence supported his conviction. The appellant raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support the conviction, and claimed that two of his previous convictions, which were used to enhance his sentence, came from the same incident. He also argued that the introduction of some unfair evidence during the trial and the instruction given to the jury resulted in a higher sentence than warranted. Another point of contention was that a new law reducing penalties for certain non-violent offenders should apply to him. However, the court found that this new law could not be applied to his case because it was not stated that it should apply to past cases. Finally, he claimed that the cumulative errors in his trial affected the fairness of the verdict, but the court found that the only issue that warranted a change was the irrelevant evidence that influenced the length of his sentence. In summary, the court agreed that some aspects of the trial weren't fair, leading to a modified sentence of twenty years instead of thirty, but it upheld the conviction itself.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-936, John Edward Schoonover appealed his conviction for Committing or Permitting Child-Abuse Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. John Edward Schoonover and his wife, Gilda, were charged with causing the death of a child they were trying to adopt. The trial revealed that on the day of the incident, both parents were in different locations when the child suffered a fatal injury. They gave unclear accounts about the events leading to the child's death and did not witness the actual injury. The state accused the Schoonovers of child abuse, stating that they had been considering canceling the adoption due to the child’s behavior issues. During the trial, there was a significant focus on a cassette tape that John Schoonover had asked his daughter to keep, which he claimed would prove that Gilda was responsible. The trial court allowed the prosecutor to change the charges, permitting the jury to consider whether the couple committed the murder or simply allowed it to happen. The jury convicted both on the basis of this alternative theory. John Schoonover argued that the trial court made multiple errors, including allowing this change after the evidence was presented. The court found that the evidence did not support the theory that John Schoonover knowingly allowed child abuse to happen. There was no proof that he knew of any potential for harm or that he could have stopped it. Because the jury had to consider multiple theories in their decision without clear evidence supporting one over the others, the court decided it was impossible to determine how the jury reached its conclusion. The final decision was to reverse the conviction and send the case back for a new trial.
In OCCA case No. RE 2001-1070, Billy Joe Baldwin appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, Feloniously Pointing a Weapon, and Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Baldwin's suspended sentences but modified the sentences to one year revoked with the remainder suspended, to run concurrently. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-1120, Mitchell Wayne Pate appealed his conviction for Felony Omission to Provide for a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the partial revocation of his suspended sentence. The State agreed that the appeal had merit, and the court changed the previous decision to state that only one year and six months of Pate's suspended sentence is revoked.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-873, Jerome Wade Hennesy appealed his conviction for Trafficking in a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Cocaine Base). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. In this case, Jerome Wade Hennesy was found guilty of trafficking cocaine by a jury. The jury decided he should serve ten years in prison and pay a fine of $25,000. Hennesy appealed, arguing that the evidence used against him was not strong enough to prove his guilt and that there was unfair evidence related to other crimes. The court agreed with Hennesy on the second point about the unfair evidence, saying it was a serious mistake that affected the trial. The judges mentioned that since the evidence against him was mostly based on circumstances and not very strong, the mistake couldn't be ignored. They decided that Hennesy needed a new trial, so he could have a fair chance to defend himself. The judges noted that the first point about whether the evidence was sufficient to prove his guilt was no longer important because they were giving him a new trial based on the unfair evidence. They expected the state to have stronger evidence if Hennesy was tried again. So, they made the decision to reverse the previous judgment and order a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-558, Medlin appealed her conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree by Heat of Passion. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her judgment and dismiss the case. One judge dissented. The case began when a jury found Medlin guilty of Manslaughter for the shooting death of her husband, Jay Medlin. The jury sentenced her to four years in prison. Medlin argued that the trial court made a mistake by allowing instructions on a lesser charge of Manslaughter since she believed her actions were in self-defense due to previous abuse from her husband. Throughout their marriage, Medlin testified about the many times she and her children had been harmed by Jay. On the night of the shooting, after Jay verbally threatened the family and struck Medlin, she took a gun and shot him multiple times while he was asleep, believing she was defending herself and her children from further harm. At the appeal, the court determined that the evidence did not support a jury instruction on Manslaughter because Medlin had intended to kill her husband. The trial court's instructions to the jury were incorrect because they could only find that she had meant to cause death. Since the evidence only pointed to a conviction for murder, the court concluded that the previous conviction must be dismissed under the law. Thus, the court reversed the conviction and ordered the lower court to dismiss the case entirely, which also meant Medlin could not be tried for First Degree Murder again after the jury had found her not guilty of that charge. The dissenting opinion argued that the judge gave the jury a fair chance to decide based on the evidence presented and that the jury's actions were reasonable based on what they had seen and heard during the trial. In conclusion, the court's ruling in this case emphasized that if there is no substantial evidence showing that a lesser charge could apply, then that instruction should not be presented to the jury.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-651, Vadell Lamont Wright appealed his conviction for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Intentional Discharge of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions. One judge dissented. Wright was found guilty by a jury and received a sentence of twenty years for the unauthorized use of a vehicle and twenty-five years for using a vehicle in connection with the discharge of a firearm, with both sentences to be served one after the other. He decided to appeal his convictions. The court reviewed several claims raised by Wright regarding his trial. The main issues included: 1. Seeing the defendant in handcuffs could have influenced the jury. 2. There was not enough evidence to say that Wright used the vehicle to make the shooting easier. 3. The court did not allow the defendant to explain his belief that he was allowed to use the car, known as a defense of mistake. 4. Evidence about other crimes affected Wright's right to a fair trial. 5. Communication between the jury and the trial judge was improper. 6. The trial court made mistakes regarding immunity for a co-defendant. 7. The jury was not given the option of lesser charges. 8. Overall, multiple errors deprived Wright of a fair trial. Focusing on the second issue, the court noted that Wright used a stolen vehicle to flee from police. He was in the vehicle with another person who fired a gun at an officer during the chase. However, the court found that simply using the car did not meet the legal requirement that it had to help make the shooting occur. There wasn’t enough evidence to show that the act of using the car was linked to the shooting directly. Additionally, in regards to possible mistakes about using the vehicle, the trial court's instructions did not help the jury understand what was being asked about having permission to use the car. Wright believed he had permission from the person who was with him and thought he could use the vehicle, but the trial court did not clearly explain this possibility to the jury. As a result, the court decided to reverse Wright's conviction for shooting from a vehicle and dismissed that charge. They also decided to send the Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle charge back for a new trial, stating that the earlier jury did not get all the right information to make a fair decision. In conclusion, the court found that Wright should not have been convicted based on the evidence presented and that he deserved a chance to argue his case again in a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-655, Robert Leroy Martin appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Robert Leroy Martin was found guilty of serious crimes by a jury. The judge gave him life imprisonment for rape, fifty years for robbery, and twenty years for burglary, and said he had to serve these sentences one after the other. Martin then appealed this decision. During the appeal, the court looked closely at the case and the arguments made. They considered several points raised by Martin. The first point was about the instructions the jury received during the trial about burglary. The court found this was not a mistake that affected the trial unfairly because Martin’s explanation was different from that of another case. The second point Martin made was about the jurors not getting complete information on the punishments they could choose for each crime. However, the court said Martin did not object during the trial, so he couldn’t claim this as an error now. The third and final point discussed was whether the sentences were too harsh. The court agreed that the long sentences felt excessive for the circumstances of the case. In the end, the court said Martin would still be found guilty but changed the way the sentences would be served from one after the other to at the same time. One judge disagreed with changing the sentences, believing the original decision by the trial judge should stand.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-785, Sammy Dewain Haas appealed his conviction for Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Driving Under Suspension. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Sammy Dewain Haas faced serious charges for driving while drunk and for driving when his license was suspended. He went to trial in Beckham County, where a jury found him guilty. The punishment was set at ten years in prison and a $10,000 fine for the drunk driving charge, and one year and a $500 fine for the driving under suspension charge. The sentences were to be served at the same time. Haas raised several issues on appeal. First, he pointed out that the prosecutor wrongly argued that the jury should think about what he might do in the future instead of what he did this time. The court did not think this was a serious mistake that required a new trial. Second, he claimed that the jury should have been told about a lesser charge called Driving While Impaired, but the court found that the evidence did not support that. Haas also said the judge should have given instructions about using circumstantial evidence, which is when a conclusion is drawn based on the surrounding facts instead of direct evidence. While the court agreed that the instructions should have been given, they ruled that this mistake didn't affect the overall outcome of the trial. Finally, the court ordered that the official record be changed to correctly state that Haas's sentences were to run together, not one after the other. In the end, the court upheld the trial’s decision, meaning Haas would remain convicted and serve his sentence as planned.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-378, Phillip Scott Coulter appealed his conviction for three counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Phillip Scott Coulter was found guilty by a jury in a case about serious allegations of wrongdoing involving children. The trial happened in Kingfisher County, and the jury decided to give him a sentence of five years for each count. These sentences would be served one after the other. Coulter did not agree with the decision and asked the court to review the case. He raised several points to argue why the decision should be overturned. First, he said that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to support his conviction. He believed that there wasn’t enough proof that he acted inappropriately with any child. Next, he claimed that the prosecutor used improper tactics during the trial that made it unfair. He also said that his lawyer did not represent him well and this made it harder for him to defend himself in court. Lastly, he pointed out that he was not allowed to properly question one of the witnesses about things that had happened to her before, which he believed was important for his defense. After looking at all these arguments and the evidence presented during the trial, the court agreed that one of Coulter's rights was not respected. Specifically, they ruled that he was not allowed to question the witness in a way that could show whether she was being honest. This was important because it affected the outcome of the trial. Because of this, the court decided to reverse the conviction and said there would have to be a new trial. Since they were reversing the case based on this issue, they did not need to rule on the other arguments Coulter had made. In summary, the court found that Coulter's right to confront and question his accuser was not honored, leading to their decision to grant him a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-264, Gavin Lee Hawkins appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for one count and modify the sentence for the other count. One judge dissented. Gavin Lee Hawkins was found guilty of two counts of lewd molestation in Grady County. The jury sentenced him to serve ten years for the first count and twenty years for the second count, with both sentences to be served one after the other. Hawkins appealed, raising several issues he believed were errors that affected his trial. First, Hawkins argued that the prosecutor made a mistake during her closing arguments, which he thought was serious enough to affect the outcome of the case. The court agreed that the closing argument was improper and decided to change the twenty-year sentence for the second count to ten years. Next, Hawkins claimed that the trial court did not consider all the options when deciding his sentence. However, the court found no evidence that the trial court failed to do its job correctly in this regard. Hawkins also said he should have been allowed to call a witness named Bianca Thomas, but the court decided that the trial judge acted within reason when excluding her from testifying. Lastly, Hawkins felt that his lawyer did not help him properly during the trial. While the court agreed that his lawyer's performance was not up to standard, they concluded that it did not negatively impact Hawkins's case overall. Ultimately, the court affirmed the decision for the first count of lewd molestation and adjusted the sentence for the second count to ten years, while still keeping the sentence structure as ordered by the lower court.