In OCCA case No. RE-2003-86 and RE-2003-87, Christi Marie Farris appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but remanded the case to the district court to order that the sentences be served concurrently. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-1481, Anthony John Hathcock appealed his conviction for Omitting To Provide For Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new acceleration hearing. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: Hathcock pled no contest to the charges in November 2001 and was given a five-year deferred sentence. This means he didn't go to prison right away but had to follow certain rules, like paying child support. He was supposed to pay $100 a month for current support and catch up on a larger amount he owed. However, the State said he failed to make these payments and asked the court to speed up his sentence, which was called accelerating the sentence. A hearing took place in June 2002 where Hathcock represented himself, meaning he didn't have a lawyer. The judge decided that Hathcock broke the rules of his deferred sentence and sentenced him to one year in prison. Hathcock then appealed this decision, saying three main things. First, he claimed he didn’t effectively waive his right to have a lawyer. Second, he argued that the State didn't provide good evidence to justify speeding up his sentence. Third, he pointed out that it was unclear what his new sentence was supposed to be. The court looked at these claims during the appeal. They agreed with Hathcock that he did not properly waive his right to a lawyer and that this was an important issue. Because of this, the court decided to reverse the earlier decision and send it back to the lower court for a new hearing, ensuring that Hathcock would have legal representation this time. Overall, the court's order was that Hathcock's sentence acceleration was not valid as he was not given proper legal help during the initial proceedings.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-1470, Wafford appealed his conviction for several crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm part of the convictions and reverse one of them. One judge dissented. Michael Orlando Wafford was found guilty by a jury of trafficking in illegal drugs, possession of a firearm while committing a felony, possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, and concealing stolen property. The jury gave him a total of fifty-five years in prison for these crimes. There were several issues that Wafford raised in his appeal. First, he argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to support his conviction for possessing a gun while committing a felony and that the evidence for trafficking was also weak. The court, however, found that the evidence was enough to show that Wafford had control over the drugs found and that there was a connection between the gun and the drug crimes. Next, Wafford pointed out that it was unfair to charge him with two different crimes because of the same gun. The court agreed, sending back instructions to dismiss the conviction for concealing stolen property since it stemmed from the same act of having the gun. Wafford also claimed that some evidence during the trial was unfair to him and that he did not get a fair trial because of it. The court found that the objections raised did not significantly affect the outcome of the trial. Overall, the court upheld the conviction for trafficking and the possession of a firearm while committing a felony, concluding that the evidence supported those charges. However, they also ruled that Wafford's conviction for concealing stolen property was not valid and ordered it to be dismissed.
In OCCA case No. RE 2002-1124, Earnest Williams appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences in three cases but vacated the revocation of one case because it was found that the court did not have the authority to revoke that particular sentence. One judge dissented on part of the decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-537, Andre Lasuan Marshall appealed his conviction for several offenses including shooting with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of the charges and affirm the others. One judge dissented. The case began when Marshall was charged with multiple counts, including three counts of shooting with intent to kill, one count of entering a building with unlawful intent, and one count of possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony. A jury found him guilty on most counts after the trial. He received sentences that the jury recommended, which were to be served at the same time, except for one count. Marshall raised several points for appeal. He argued that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he shot someone with the intent to kill. He also said that the jury should not have been instructed on a lesser charge, that his convictions for possessing a firearm and shooting someone should not count separately, and that some police testimony about gang colors was unfair to him. Marshall believed that the evidence didn’t support one of the building charges and that the jury wasn't given all the necessary instructions. He mentioned that there were problems with what the prosecutor said during the trial and that all of these issues together should lead to his convictions being reversed or his sentences being changed. After reviewing everything, the court agreed some points raised were valid. They decided that Marshall did run from the scene after the shooting and that the evidence showed he was likely the shooter. They did find, however, that it was a mistake to instruct the jury about the lesser charge without a request from the state. Therefore, they reversed that particular conviction related to the shooting but upheld the others. The court concluded that while they were reversing one conviction, the remaining charges were upheld, and Marshall would continue serving his other sentences. One judge disagreed with how the reversal was handled, believing that if a new trial was warranted, it shouldn’t just overturn the charge outright but should instead allow for reconsideration by a jury. So, that’s a summary of the case and what the court decided.
In OCCA case No. M-2002-1146, Michael Lee Vickery appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, and driving under suspension. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to three months of incarceration, giving credit for time served. One judge dissented regarding the modification.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-532, James Jermaine Woodfork appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including Kidnapping, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Domestic Abuse, and other offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold some of his convictions while reversing others and sending them back to the District Court for dismissal. One member of the court dissented. Woodfork had been found guilty of various charges after a jury trial. He received significant sentences for his convictions, including 25 years for Kidnapping and 30 years for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. However, he raised concerns about double jeopardy, arguing that his multiple convictions for similar offenses involving different victims should not have occurred. The court agreed with him on some counts and reversed those convictions. Additionally, the court examined claims of trial errors and prosecutorial misconduct. Even though the prosecutor made some inappropriate comments during the trial, the court concluded that these did not significantly affect the overall fairness of the trial or the jury's decision, so they did not lead to a reversal of the sentence. In summary, some of Woodfork's convictions were upheld, while others were reversed, and he was given a chance for those to be dismissed. This case highlights important legal principles about multiple charges and the rights of defendants in a criminal trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-492, Scott Lee Fox appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill and Injury to a Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions and sentences, but reversed and dismissed the conviction for Injury to a Minor Child. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-108, Ricky Dion Bruner appealed his conviction for multiple crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse two of his kidnapping convictions but affirmed the rest of his sentences. One judge dissented. Ricky Dion Bruner was found guilty of serious crimes, including robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, and rape. A jury decided his punishment, giving him life in prison for several charges and various other sentences for the remaining counts. However, when Bruner appealed, he argued that some of these convictions shouldn't have happened because they violated rules against being tried for the same crime twice and that the evidence didn’t support some of the charges. The court examined these arguments. They agreed that Bruner shouldn’t have been convicted of both kidnapping and robbery in two cases because they happened during the same event and were too closely related. Therefore, they reversed those two kidnapping charges. However, they found enough evidence to support his other convictions, deciding that the jury could have reasonably reached those conclusions. Regarding his sentences, though they were harsh, the court determined they were not so extreme as to be unfair or against the law. So, they upheld most of his sentences but made sure that the two kidnapping convictions were dismissed and sent the matter back to the lower court for further actions.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1444, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (2nd offense) and Driving While Privilege Suspended. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Driving Under the Influence and ordered a new trial with proper instructions. The judgment for Driving While Privilege Suspended was affirmed. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-1497, Michael Keith Brock appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction for one count but affirmed the convictions for the other counts. One judge dissented. Michael Brock was found guilty after a jury trial on several counts including manufacturing methamphetamine and trafficking illegal drugs. The court sentenced him to a total of 40 years in prison and fines totaling $185,000. He appealed the decision, raising multiple issues regarding the legality of his search and seizure, his treatment in court, and the sufficiency of the evidence against him. The court reviewed several arguments from Brock. He claimed that the search was unreasonable and violated his rights, and he argued that he should not have been brought before the jury in jail clothes. He also contended that the affidavit for the search warrant did not give enough reason for the police to search him and that the search of a person not named in the warrant was illegal. The court found that Brock did not properly object to many of the issues he raised during the trial. It ruled that the search and seizure were valid and did not violate his rights. They determined that wearing jail clothing did not prejudice him during his trial. While the court agreed that one of the charges—possession of a precursor substance—was incorrectly charged and reversed that conviction, they upheld the remaining convictions. Ultimately, the decision led to the reversal of one count against Michael Brock while affirming the rest of his convictions.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-493, Donnell E. Williams appealed his conviction for second-degree burglary and knowingly concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modify the sentences to be served concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Williams was found guilty by a jury of breaking into a place that was not his and hiding things that were stolen. The jury recommended a punishment of twenty-five years in prison for each count, with the need to serve all the punishment one after the other. Williams argued several points in his appeal. First, he said that the court did not tell the jury they could consider that he might have had permission to enter the property. Second, he thought the jury should have been told about a lesser crime than burglary. Third, he claimed that the way the prosecutor spoke during the trial was unfair and hurt his chances for a fair trial. Fourth, he felt that his twenty-five-year sentences were too long. Finally, he believed that all the mistakes made during the trial, when added together, meant he did not have a fair chance in court. After looking at everything in the case, the court found that Williams's points for appeal did not require them to change the jury's decision on his guilt. They agreed that the jury did not need information on asking if he had consent or the lesser charge since there was no strong evidence to support his claims. They also concluded that the prosecutor's actions did not prevent Williams from getting a fair trial because there was strong evidence against him. However, the court felt that making Williams serve his sentences one after the other was too severe, especially because he was living in a vacant house and facing challenges like being homeless and struggling with substance use. They decided that twenty-five years was enough time for him to pay for what he did and get the help he might need. In short, the court kept his convictions but changed his sentence so that he would serve his time together rather than separately. This way, he would have a better chance to start again after serving his time. One judge disagreed with the decision to change the sentences to run together, believing the original decision by the trial court was correct given Williams's history of prior convictions.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-356, Heidi Renee Pitt appealed her conviction for Unlawful Possession of Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction. One judge dissented. Heidi Pitt was found guilty by a jury of having methamphetamine. The event took place in Pushmataha County, where she had been sentenced to two years in prison, with the first six months to be served. However, she appealed this decision, arguing that there wasn't enough evidence to prove she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. During the trial, the state did not provide any proof that Heidi knew about the drugs or had control over them. The drugs were actually discovered when her co-defendant threw them on the ground during his arrest. Because there was no indication that Heidi had any knowledge of or control over the drugs, the court found that the evidence was not enough to support her conviction. After looking at all the evidence, the court decided that Heidi's conviction should be overturned and sent back to the lower court with instructions to dismiss the case. One judge disagreed and felt there was enough evidence to support Heidi's conviction.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-175, James Dale Vaughn appealed his conviction for Trafficking Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for one of the counts. One judge dissented. Vaughn was found guilty of several charges after a police search of his home revealed drugs and a firearm. The police had a search warrant based on information from a confidential informant who claimed Vaughn was selling methamphetamine. During the search, officers discovered methamphetamine in various amounts, drug paraphernalia, and a firearm. Vaughn argued that the search warrant was improperly issued because it relied on hearsay from the informant that was not verified. The court found that there was enough information to justify the warrant and allowed the evidence found during the search to be admitted in court. Additionally, Vaughn claimed the trial court should have required the state to reveal the informant's identity. However, the court decided that the informant's identity was not relevant to Vaughn's defense, and so did not need to be disclosed. Finally, Vaughn argued that the jury was not properly instructed on the possible punishment for one of his charges. The court agreed that the instruction was incorrect and reduced the sentence for that particular charge, while upholding the convictions for the other charges. Thus, the overall decision allowed the convictions to stand, but changed the punishment for one count.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-101, Danny Joe Boomershine appealed his conviction for Forcible Sodomy and Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentences should be modified to life.
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. 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-2001-444, 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-2001-793, 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-2001-558, 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-2001-655, 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.