In OCCA case No. F-2004-1261, Jonathan Dwight Harjo appealed his conviction for rape in the first degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to ten years in prison. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-619, Ralph Emerson Jones, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. Two judges dissented. Ralph Jones was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine and was sentenced to two years in prison. He believed that the evidence against him was not enough to prove he knew he had the drug, claiming that just having drug paraphernalia was not good enough for a conviction. When reviewing the case, the court found that there was a problem during the trial. Jones was only allowed to use three of his five chances to challenge potential jurors, which is not what the law says should happen. This was seen as a violation of his rights, and the court ruled that he should get a new trial. The final decision was to throw out Jones’s conviction and start the trial over again. Two judges disagreed with this decision, arguing that the appeals court should only look at issues that were raised during the trial and that the evidence actually supported Jones’s conviction. They felt that giving him another chance could lead to unnecessary complications since he might not even want to go through a new trial.
In OCCA case No. RE-2004-1033, Wren appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence but modified the length of her imprisonment. One judge dissented. Wren had originally been sentenced to four years in prison, which was suspended based on her agreeing to probation terms after entering a nolo contendere plea. She did not follow the rules of her probation on several occasions, which led to her first violation and a thirty-day jail sentence. Eventually, the state filed a second motion to revoke her suspended sentence after she failed drug tests and did not pay court costs. Even after a treatment program, Wren continued to use methamphetamine. When the court determined that she had broken her probation rules again, it revoked her suspended sentence entirely. However, Wren argued that her full sentence shouldn't be four years since part of it had already been executed with her previous thirty-day incarceration. The court agreed that the final sentence was actually longer than it should have been and modified the length to reflect the time she had already served. In the end, the court affirmed the revocation of her suspended sentence but adjusted the total imprisonment time to account for her earlier time served, confirming that she needs to serve three years and three hundred thirty-five days of her sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-1266, Darrell W. Hogan appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Hogan's conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Hogan was found guilty of killing his cellmate, James Wise, at the prison. On the morning of February 24, 2004, Wise had threatened Hogan with a knife. Later, Hogan killed Wise by choking him with a laundry bag drawstring and then called for help, but Wise died weeks afterward. Hogan confessed to the crime when investigators spoke with him. During his trial, Hogan was supposed to have nine chances to dismiss potential jurors, known as peremptory challenges, but he was only allowed five. He argued that this was unfair and violated his rights. The court agreed with Hogan's argument, stating that denying him the proper number of peremptory challenges was a serious mistake. They ruled that he deserved a new trial where he would have all his legal rights. The dissenting judge felt that the mistake was not harmful and that Hogan did not prove he was disadvantaged by the limited number of challenges, and therefore, the trial's outcome should have been upheld.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-989, John Fitzgerald Kessee appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Kessee was found guilty of robbing someone and had a long history of prior convictions, which led to a heavy sentence of ninety-nine years. He claimed that there wasn’t enough evidence to support his conviction and said that the way he was tried for the second time after a mistrial violated his rights. He also argued that there were mistakes made during the sentencing that should change his punishment. After looking closely at the case and the arguments made, the court found that there was enough proof for the jury to reach a decision about Kessee’s guilt. They decided that the issues surrounding the mistrial didn’t violate his rights. However, they agreed that the way the prosecutor talked about Kessee’s past sentences was wrong and affected his right to a fair trial. As a result, the court decided to lower his sentence to forty-five years in prison instead of ninety-nine. While most judges agreed with the decision, one judge disagreed with changing the sentence, believing the jury's decision should stand as is.
In OCCA case No. J-2005-542, S.H. appealed his conviction for being sentenced as an adult. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the district court's decision, stating that there was not enough convincing evidence to support this adult sentencing. One judge dissented. The court found that S.H. should be sentenced as a youthful offender instead.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-1084, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. In this case, Darrell Robert Johnson was found guilty of trafficking illegal drugs and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. The jury gave him a life sentence without the chance for parole for the first charge, and a fine for the second charge. He was unhappy with the way the trial went and believed mistakes were made that affected the outcome. One of the key mistakes he pointed out was that the jury had trouble reaching a unanimous decision. During their discussions, it became clear that one juror was not convinced of Johnson's guilt. The juror felt pressured by the others to change his mind, which made the situation problematic and unfair. This juror expressed confusion about the deliberation process in notes to the judge, which should have led to clearer instructions being given. The judge talked to the jurors about what deliberation meant but did not provide the specific charge that addresses situations where juries are stuck. This is typically done to ensure jurors understand they shouldn't feel forced to give in just to agree and go home. After discussing their options, the jury still couldn't agree, and the judge sent them back to deliberate further without giving a proper instruction. Eventually, the jury reached a verdict, but one juror said it wasn’t his honest opinion that the defendant was guilty. The judge had to decide if they could accept that verdict or if they needed to keep discussing. The court found that sending the jury back without the proper instruction was a mistake that affected Johnson's right to a fair trial. It was determined that the pressure on the juror likely influenced his decision to agree with the group. In the end, the court decided that because the jury had not been properly instructed, Darrell's convictions should be reversed. The case was sent back for a new trial. This means that the mistakes made during the trial could not be allowed to stand, and Darrell Johnson deserved another chance to prove his side in court. The judges had differing opinions on this decision, with some agreeing and some disagreeing on whether the trial was managed correctly. One judge believed that the trial judge handled the situation well and didn’t see a reason to reverse the ruling. However, the majority of the court found the errors significant enough to require a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-729, Candy Mae Easton appealed her conviction for Manufacturing Methamphetamine and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine but affirmed her conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug. One judge dissented concerning the reversal of the manufacturing charge. Candy Mae Easton was on trial after neighbors reported a strong smell related to methamphetamine coming from the home of her co-defendant. Officers investigating found evidence that suggested meth was being made in the house, including white powder and other materials commonly used to manufacture meth. Easton admitted to using meth, but she said she did not help make it. The court examined whether there was enough proof to show that Easton helped her co-defendant in making the drug. The majority opinion stated that just knowing about the manufacturing and using the drug doesn’t mean she encouraged or assisted in making it. The appellate court mentioned that encouragement must be shown by some action or words, which were not present in Easton’s case. As a result, Easton’s conviction for manufacturing meth was reversed, meaning she was found not guilty of that charge. However, the conviction for unlawful possession was upheld because her sentence and fine were within the legal limits and were not seen as too harsh. The dissenting opinion believed there was enough evidence to support that Easton aided in the manufacturing, and thus would have kept her conviction for that charge. The judges' roles were discussed in terms of assessing evidence and the credibility of decisions made by the trial judge, emphasizing that it isn’t their place to change those factual decisions based on their opinions. Ultimately, the case was sent back to be corrected only in terms of the record regarding the possession conviction, while the manufacturing conviction was dismissed.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-1216, the appellant appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse-Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the fine. One judge dissented. Michael Hodges was found guilty by a jury in a district court. After the trial, he was sentenced to ten years in prison and asked to pay a $10,000 fine. He believed there were mistakes made during his trial and in how he was sentenced. Hodges raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that the punishment given was not right and that the fine should have been lower. Second, he said that his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial, which was unfair. Third, he thought that his sentence was too severe. Finally, he claimed that the court documents did not clearly show the law he had broken. After looking at all the information, the court found that Hodges's sentence was correct but changed his fine from $10,000 to $5,000. They also agreed that the official documents should be updated to correctly show the law he was convicted of breaking. The appeal did not show that he was treated unfairly during his trial, so the main conviction was kept. Overall, the court's main message was that while Hodges's sentence was mostly upheld, they also wanted to make sure he was charged the right amount for his fine and that the records reflected the correct details of his case.
In OCCA case No. C-2004-1018, Eric Poe appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery upon a Police Officer and Public Intoxication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to allow Poe to withdraw his plea due to newly discovered evidence. One judge dissented, arguing that Poe was aware of the evidence before entering his plea.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-197, McNeil appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, resisting an officer, and speeding. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. McNeil was convicted by a jury for three counts: possession of methamphetamine, resisting an officer, and speeding. The judge sentenced him to two years in prison for the drug charge and imposed fines and jail time for the other charges. McNeil believed he did not get a fair trial for several reasons. Firstly, he argued that the jury heard about other crimes that did not relate to the current case, which might have made them think he was a worse person than he actually is. Secondly, he claimed that a police officer made comments during the trial that unfairly influenced the jury against him. In reviewing the case, the court found that one of the officer’s comments was particularly damaging and could have influenced the jury's decision. The judge's warnings to the jury did not fix the problem, and since the evidence against McNeil was not strong, it was decided he deserved a new trial. Because the appeal was successful based on these issues, the court did not need to discuss the other points McNeil raised about his trial. The outcome was that McNeil's conviction was overturned, and the case was sent back for a new trial where he could have another chance to defend himself.
In OCCA case No. M 2004-0742, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicants and failure to wear a seat belt. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the decision and dismiss the case. One judge dissented. The case involved an appellant who was stopped by a police officer for not wearing a seat belt. The officer did not see the appellant driving erratically. However, the officer noticed that the appellant smelled like beer and had bloodshot eyes. The appellant told the officer he had consumed three or more beers, but the officer did not ask how long ago he had been drinking. During the trial, it became clear that the judge did not properly define what under the influence meant according to the law. The judge misunderstood that for someone to be considered under the influence, their ability to drive must be affected. This misunderstanding is very important because it means the trial didn't follow legal rules which are necessary for a fair judgment. Because of the mistake in understanding the law, the court decided that the evidence wasn't enough to support the appellant's conviction for driving under the influence. As a result, they overturned the conviction and directed the lower court to dismiss the case. This means that the appellant's conviction is no longer valid, and there will be no punishment against him for the charges.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-82, Billy Dale Lathrop appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and child endangerment. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for conspiracy, possession of methamphetamine, possession of precursor chemicals, and possession of paraphernalia, but to reverse the convictions for child endangerment. Three judges dissented regarding one of the convictions.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1266, James Michael Hudson appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including manufacturing methamphetamine and unlawful possession of a firearm. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified his sentences to be served concurrently rather than consecutively. One judge dissented on the sentencing issue. Hudson was found guilty of five charges related to drug manufacturing and possession, among others. He was sentenced to a total of over twenty years in prison, which he appealed, arguing that some of his convictions should not stand, and that he did not receive fair treatment during his trial. The court reviewed his claims one by one. They found that the law allowed him to be convicted for both manufacturing and possessing methamphetamine. The search of his home, which was supposed to be within the law, was ruled proper. It was also concluded that Hudson’s statements to police were made without pressure, which meant they were valid as evidence. When looking at the amount of evidence presented at trial, the court determined there was enough for the jury to find him guilty of all counts. They acknowledged that Hudson’s attorney made a mistake by not asking for a new judge who had shown bias against Hudson in a public statement. However, the court believed this did not affect the jury’s decision regarding guilt. Regarding the issue of whether evidence of other crimes should be admitted, the court decided the evidence was related to the charges against Hudson and was rightfully included in the trial. In conclusion, while Hudson's convictions were upheld, the court changed his sentences to be served at the same time, which means he would spend less time in prison overall. The judges agreed on most points, but one judge had a different opinion about the sentencing.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-816, John Carl Fike appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided that his conviction for possession of methamphetamine should be reversed and dismissed, but the convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana were upheld. One member of the court dissented. John Carl Fike was tried and found guilty by a jury for having cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana. He was sentenced to five years in prison for cocaine and methamphetamine, with fines, and six months in jail for marijuana, also with a fine. Fike argued that the roadblock where he was stopped was not legal, that he was held unlawfully, and that evidence against him was not properly handled. He also felt his punishments were too harsh and there were multiple errors during his trial that made it unfair. The court looked at these claims. They determined that the roadblock was done correctly. They said that Fike was not held unlawfully and that the evidence was accepted correctly, so those claims didn't change the outcome. However, they found that Fike could not be punished for both cocaine and methamphetamine under the law, which is called double jeopardy. So, they reversed the conviction for methamphetamine. The other sentences were deemed acceptable by the court, which also said he was treated fairly in regards to his trial. Overall, the court upheld the convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana but ended the conviction for methamphetamine. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing that the stop and search of Fike were not done properly.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1316, Jason Van Dusen appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation and First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modify the sentences to thirty years of imprisonment for each count, to be served one after the other. One judge dissented. Van Dusen was found guilty in Blaine County after a trial. The jury decided on the sentences based on what they heard during the trial. Van Dusen raised concerns about not having a fair sentencing because information was given about parole and the length of the sentences. He also claimed that the prosecutor acted in a way that was unfair, which made his trial not just. The court looked carefully at everything from the trial and the arguments made by both sides. They agreed that the prosecutor should not have mentioned parole in the closing arguments, which is why they decided to change Van Dusen's sentences from seventy-five years to thirty years for each count, making the total time to be sixty years. The judges felt that this was a fair adjustment, considering the improper comments made during the trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-583, Ronald Lee King appealed his conviction for Unlawful Delivery of Cocaine Base, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Ronald King was found guilty of delivering a type of illegal drug. The jury decided that he should go to prison for twenty-five years and pay a fine of $30,000. King thought the trial was unfair for several reasons. First, he argued that the evidence, which was the illegal drug, should not have been used in court. He believed there was not enough proof to show that the drug was really connected to him. However, the court thought that the State had enough proof to say that the evidence was properly linked to King. Second, King said he should have been able to see notes from a police officer who helped in his case. The court found that there was no mistake here because King had everything he needed from the prosecutor's file. Third, King believed his punishment was too harsh and thought the prosecutor said some unfair things during the trial that might have influenced the jury. The court agreed that the sentence was too much in terms of the fine. They lowered the fine from $30,000 to $10,000 but kept the prison sentence the same. In the end, King's prison sentence stands, but the amount he has to pay was reduced.
In OCCA case No. M-2003-784, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Stalking. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the Appellant's judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The Appellant, Bradley Allen Crawford, was initially convicted of Stalking in the District Court of Oklahoma County. He was sentenced to six months in county jail. During his appeal, he argued that he should have been allowed to show that the complaining witness might have had a reason to be biased against him. During the trial, the Appellant wanted to present evidence related to a child custody case that involved the complaining witness. However, the trial court did not permit this information. The Appellant also tried to question the complaining witness about her possible bias during her testimony, but the trial court stopped him, stating that it was related to other domestic issues. After the trial, the Appellant requested a new trial because the judge had not allowed him to present evidence about the witness’s potential bias, but this request was denied. The court noted that it’s important to allow evidence that could show a witness might be biased. It explained that this kind of evidence is usually admissible in court. The appellate court found that the Appellant was not given a chance to show that the complaining witness had motives that could affect her testimony. They pointed out that the witness's credibility was crucial to the trial since everything the police said was based on her accounts. The appellate court decided that the trial court's errors in not allowing the questioning about the witness's bias were significant enough that they could have changed the outcome of the trial. Because of this, the Appellant's original conviction was overturned, and the case was sent back to be tried again.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-364, El Alami El Mansouri appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, attempted robbery, first-degree burglary, and kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some convictions but reversed others. The court found that two of the infractions—kidnapping and pointing a firearm—should be dismissed due to double jeopardy. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-640, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the district court's order revoking the appellant's suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The appellant had a one-year suspended sentence, and the State filed a request to revoke it. The appellant said he did not do anything wrong and pleaded not guilty. A hearing took place, and the court decided to revoke his sentence. The appellant then appealed this decision. Later, the court found that the first court should not have revoked the sentence because of a timing issue. The appellant's waiver to shorten the waiting period was not done on time. Since this was a mistake, the appeals court decided to dismiss the request to revoke his sentence and canceled the earlier decision. As a result, the appellant's original sentence was not revoked, and he was no longer under that revoked sentence.
In OCCA case No. RE 2003-0857, #Montgomery appealed his conviction for #Burglary, Second Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence, but modified the length of the revocation to three years. #One judge dissented. Montgomery had initially pled guilty to burglary and was given a chance to stay out of prison under certain rules for four years. However, he broke the rules multiple times. The state asked the court to impose his sentence because he did not keep a job, did not pay the money he owed, and committed new crimes like driving without a license. The judge revoked a large portion of his sentence for these reasons. On appeal, Montgomery argued that the judge had no right to take away three and a half years of his sentence and that the punishment was too harsh. The court found that while the judge made a mistake in calculating the time, the decision to revoke the sentence was not seen as overly harsh, so they changed the revocation from three and a half years to three years instead.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-443, Kenneth Linn Walker appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including thirteen counts of First Degree Rape and nine counts of Forcible Oral Sodomy, among others. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one count related to Sexual Exploitation of a Child. One judge dissented. Walker was found guilty after a jury trial held in Oklahoma County. The judge sentenced him to a total of 300 years in prison. Walker raised several arguments in his appeal. First, he claimed that the court did not have the power to charge him because some of the accusations were too old and past the legal time limits for prosecution. The court decided that most of the charges were filed on time, but the one charge related to Sexual Exploitation of a Child was not. Walker also argued that he did not have enough time to prepare a proper defense and that he was not given a fair trial because some evidence was kept from him. However, the court found that the requirements for the charges were clear enough that he could adequately prepare for his defense. Regarding the evidence presented, Walkers’ lawyers contended that the witness testimonies should not have been enough to convict him. Nonetheless, the court ruled that the testimonies were credible and strong enough to support the convictions. In summary, the court upheld the majority of Walker's convictions but found that one charge was incorrectly handled because the legal time limit had passed. As a result, they reversed that specific charge while keeping the rest of the convictions intact.
In OCCA case No. J-2003-1180, T.C.S. appealed his conviction for second-degree burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the District Court's decision and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. T.C.S. was found to be delinquent after a hearing where he was accused of committing burglary when he was 16 years old. The court looked at evidence and decided that the testimony from an accomplice needed to be supported by more evidence to connect T.C.S. to the crime. Since the only supporting evidence showed that T.C.S. was in the same place as the accomplice later that night, it was not enough to prove he committed the burglary. The judges agreed that for a conviction based on an accomplice's testimony, there must be more proof that ties the defendant to the crime. As such, since this was not met, the judges reversed the earlier decision and said T.C.S. deserves a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-505, the appellant appealed his conviction for Maintaining a Place for Keeping/Selling Controlled Substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that a new trial was required because the jury was not properly instructed about the elements necessary for a felony conviction. The appellant argued that the jury was not asked whether he knowingly or intentionally maintained a place for keeping controlled substances, which was important for the severity of the penalty. Thus, the decision to impose a five-year prison sentence and a fine of $10,000 exceeded what the law allowed. Therefore, the court reversed the appellant's conviction and sent the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented from this decision.
In OCCA case No. M-2003-495, a person appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but noted that there was a mistake in calculating the court costs. The appellant claimed that the court costs were too high and asked to have them changed. The state agreed that an error was made in the amount of costs. The court ordered that the case be sent back to the District Court to fix the court costs. The appellant also argued that the prosecutor did things that were unfair during the trial, but the court found no reasons to change the verdict since there weren’t any objections during the trial. Therefore, the judgment and sentence were upheld.