In OCCA case No. RE-2015-767, the appellant appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence but ordered the lower court to give her credit for time served in jail. The court also agreed that imposing nine months of supervision after her imprisonment was not appropriate. No judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2015-561, Walter LaCurtis Jones appealed his conviction for three crimes: Feloniously Pointing a Firearm, Possession of a Firearm After Former Felony Conviction, and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences for the first two counts but reversed and dismissed the conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. One judge dissented. Walter Jones was found guilty after a trial without a jury. He received seven years in prison for each of the first two counts, which would be served at the same time, and one year in county jail for the third count. The judge also ordered that he would have one year of supervision after his prison time. Jones raised several arguments in his appeal. He argued that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, claiming he did not use a dangerous weapon and had no intention to hurt anyone. The court agreed with him on this point and reversed that conviction. For the charge of Feloniously Pointing a Firearm, Jones argued that the gun he pointed at someone was not a real firearm because it was missing a part and could not shoot. However, the court found there was enough evidence to support that he pointed a gun designed to shoot, therefore, they upheld that conviction. In the case of Possession of a Firearm After Former Felony Conviction, Jones contended that the gun could not fire, so he should not have been found guilty. The court decided that it was unnecessary for the gun to be able to fire to prove he had possession of it as a felon, thereby upholding this conviction as well. Lastly, Jones claimed he was facing double punishment for the same crime, which the court did not accept because the two charges involved different actions and did not violate any laws regarding double punishment or double jeopardy. Thus, the court confirmed his sentences for the first two counts while reversing the count for Assault and Battery.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-1019, Charles Leonard Bennett, III appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the district court. One judge dissented. Bennett was found guilty after a trial where the judge, not a jury, listened to the case. He received a sentence of fifteen years in prison. Bennett raised several issues on appeal. He first argued that the evidence did not prove he did not act in self-defense. The court found enough evidence that a reasonable person could decide he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This means they believed the victim and the facts presented at the trial supported the conviction. Bennett also wanted to argue other issues that could lead to a new trial. However, he decided to withdraw those arguments and only focus on the issues that might lead to his case being dismissed or his sentence being changed. He signed a document saying he knew what he was doing by waiving those rights. Another issue was about restitution, which is when a person convicted of a crime has to pay the victim for their losses. Bennett contested the court's order for him to pay restitution because the required paperwork showing the victim's losses was not properly presented during the trial. Since no proof of the victim's financial losses was provided, the court agreed that the restitution order was arbitrary and sent the case back to the district court to properly determine the victim's losses. Overall, while Bennett's conviction was upheld, the court required a re-evaluation of the restitution owed to the victim. The case was sent back to the district court for this purpose, but other than that, the court found no significant errors that would change the outcome of the case.
In OCCA case No. C 2014-920, John Edward Oxford appealed his conviction for several serious crimes including robbery, burglary, and conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but also ordered a hearing to review the amount of restitution he was ordered to pay. Oxford was charged with multiple counts and, on July 10, 2014, he entered a blind plea, which means he pleaded guilty without negotiating a deal, to all the charges. The court sentenced him to a total of over 70 years in prison and ordered him to pay about $67,539 in restitution to the victims. After his sentencing, Oxford tried to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he did not understand the charges and was not fully informed about his rights. The trial court held a hearing on this and ultimately denied his request. Oxford then appealed this decision, arguing several points. First, he believed he should not have been sentenced for certain counts because it violated laws against double punishment. However, the court noted that his arguments about double jeopardy were not raised in the earlier stages and thus were not considered. Second, he argued there wasn't enough evidence to support the restitution amount, but again the court found this issue had not been raised before and rejected it. Oxford also claimed he did not receive effective legal help during his plea and the hearing to withdraw it. The court agreed that there were problems with how his attorney handled the restitution order, focusing mainly on the lack of detailed documentation justifying the restitution amount. This lack of evidence meant the restitution order was not valid. While the court found that Oxford's guilty plea was made voluntarily, it did acknowledge inadequate support for the restitution order. Therefore, it denied his appeal regarding the guilty plea but vacated the restitution order, sending the case back to the lower court for a proper review of how much compensation was truly owed to the victims. One judge dissented, noting that the case should have been looked at more closely regarding the earlier claims. So, in summary, the appeal was mainly denied except for the part about restitution, which was sent back to the lower court for further review.
In OCCA case No. RE 2014-0777, Rogelio Solis, Jr. appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking his suspended sentence but found merit in his argument regarding post-imprisonment supervision and remanded the case to modify that part. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-79, Walker appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, Resisting an Officer, and Trespassing. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to dismiss Walker's appeal because her application to withdraw her guilty plea was not properly heard by the trial court. One judge dissented, arguing that a hearing had indeed taken place.
In OCCA case No. RE-2012-835, Lon Adam Smith appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, domestic abuse, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the sentences and send them back to the district court for changes. One judge dissented. The case involved three separate convictions against Lon Adam Smith, who had initially entered pleas of no contest to the charges. His sentences were suspended as long as he successfully completed certain rehabilitation programs. However, after some time, the state claimed Smith had not followed through with these programs, which led to a hearing where Smith admitted to the violations. During the revocation hearing, the judge revoked Smith's suspended sentences and imposed longer terms of imprisonment, which raised concerns about whether these new sentences were valid given the original ones. The main issue was that the original sentences had been improperly processed. The judge had not followed the correct procedures for delaying the imposition of sentences as required by law. The court found that Smith's original sentences were improperly extended due to the judge's actions at the revocation hearing. It was determined that since Smith's initial sentences were set on a specific date, any new sentences imposed could not exceed the original terms. Therefore, the court ruled that the revocation sentences needed to start from the date of the original sentences. In the end, the court reversed the judge's decision, which meant that Smith's sentences had to be adjusted to reflect the proper starting dates and terms. The court ordered the district court to amend the sentences accordingly. This decision helps ensure fairness in the legal process and clarifies how long someone can be sentenced for violations of probation.
In OCCA case No. RE-2012-1076, Stacy Gene Bellis appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Stacy Gene Bellis had originally pled guilty to Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and was sentenced to twelve years, with part of the sentence being suspended if he completed a drug treatment program. However, the State then accused Bellis of breaking the rules of his suspended sentence by committing new crimes. A hearing was held to decide the State's accusations. The judge reviewed evidence from a separate trial Bellis had regarding new charges against him. The judge used this evidence to justify revoking Bellis's suspended sentence. Bellis appealed this decision, arguing that it was wrong for the judge to use evidence from his other trial without his agreement. The court agreed with Bellis, stating that it was not proper to take evidence from one case and use it in another without the defendant's permission. As a result, the court reversed the decision to revoke Bellis's suspended sentence and instructed for a new hearing to take place, where proper evidence should be presented. No other actions were ordered, and the judges involved agreed to this outcome, except for one who had a different opinion.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-914, Bradley Joe Raymond appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Domestic Abuse in the Presence of a Minor, and Domestic Abuse by Strangulation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for one count. One judge dissented. Raymond was found guilty of three serious crimes connected with domestic violence. After the trial in McCurtain County, the jury decided that he should spend life in prison for each count. However, the judge decided that Raymond's sentences for two of the counts would be served at the same time, while the sentence for the third count would be served after the first two. Raymond's appeal included questions about whether the jury received the correct instructions regarding his possible punishments given his past crimes and whether certain evidence presented during the trial might have harmed him. The court found that the jury instructions relating to his first and third counts were correct but that there was a mistake concerning the instructions for the second count of Domestic Abuse in the Presence of a Minor. For the second count, the law at the time stated that certain punishments were not allowed if the crime was a second or later offense. Since the sentencing guidelines given to the jury were incorrect, Raymond’s sentence for that count was changed from life in prison to five years in prison, while the sentences for the other counts remained the same. The appeals court also addressed a concern that some evidence presented during the trial might have caused unfair prejudice to Raymond. After reviewing the evidence, the court determined that it did not find any significant error as it did not affect the overall outcome of the case. The court ultimately confirmed the convictions for the first and third counts and changed the sentence for the second count, ensuring that Raymond would serve five years instead of life for that specific offense.
In OCCA case No. J 2013-0130, D.I.S. appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order adjudicating D.I.S. as a delinquent child and remand the matter to the District Court with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. This case began when a Juvenile Petition was filed on July 25, 2012, against D.I.S., who was just 14 years old. He was charged with three counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon in Pontotoc County. After a hearing on February 5, 2013, the judge found that D.I.S. had committed the offenses and declared him a delinquent child. He was ordered to stay with his mother under supervision until another court hearing about his situation. D.I.S. appealed this decision, arguing that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he used a dangerous weapon, or that he had intent to cause serious harm. The law requires that to be declared a delinquent child, the evidence must clearly show proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeals court agreed with D.I.S. and said that the evidence was not sufficient to support the idea that he was guilty of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Therefore, they reversed the previous ruling and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case against him. The case was important because it highlighted the need for strong evidence when judging a child in the juvenile justice system. The court made it clear that if the facts aren’t strong enough, they cannot find a child guilty of serious charges. This ruling protects the rights of young people by ensuring they are only judged based on solid evidence.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-877, Dennis Lynn Miller appealed his conviction for multiple offenses, including child sexual abuse, first-degree rape, forcible oral sodomy, attempted first-degree rape, kidnapping, assault with a dangerous weapon, and intimidation of a witness. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for counts one through six and eight, while reversing and remanding count seven for dismissal. One judge dissented. Miller was convicted after a jury trial in Muskogee County, where he faced serious accusations of abusing his adoptive daughter, L.M. The abuse began when L.M. was around thirteen years old, involving both physical violence and sexual acts that lasted for several years. Miller's conduct included threats of violence to control L.M. during these acts, which left her frightened and unwilling to report the abuse. L.M. eventually confided in a friend, and authorities were contacted, leading to a police investigation that confirmed multiple instances of abuse. Although Miller challenged the admissibility of certain evidence related to his past behavior and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, the court determined that the substantial evidence supported the jury's decisions. The court acknowledged that some evidence may not have been properly objected to during trial, but found that the lack of objections by defense counsel did not significantly harm Miller's case, as the victim's testimony was clear and credible. The court ultimately ruled that Miller's conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon should be reversed as the evidence did not support that a dresser was used in a manner that constituted a dangerous weapon. In summary, the court upheld most of Miller's convictions while dismissing one, citing the overwhelming evidence against him and the credibility of the victim's testimony.
In OCCA case No. RE 2011-0359, Lorance Ridell Dever appealed his conviction for a violation of probation after pleading guilty to Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case, meaning they disagreed with the lower court's decision to revoke his suspended sentence. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-945, Hall appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny Hall's petition to withdraw his plea but reversed the conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2011-277, Johnson appealed his conviction for Feloniously Carrying a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated an additional Victim Compensation Assessment. Johnson dissented. The case began when Johnson entered a guilty plea on August 3, 2005, and was sentenced to ten years in prison, with six months of that sentence being served in jail and the rest suspended, meaning he wouldn't have to serve it unless he broke the law again. He was also fined and had to pay a fee for victim compensation to help those who had been hurt by crimes. Later, in November 2005, the State, which is like the government in this case, claimed Johnson broke his probation by getting into trouble again, which included resisting arrest and having drugs. Because of this, on March 10, 2006, the court decided to make him serve eighteen months of his suspended sentence. Johnson continued to have problems. He was charged with more crimes in 2008, including stealing from a house and having drugs. He went through a special program to help people with drug problems and successfully finished it. In June 2010, the court dismissed some applications to revoke his probation because of progress he made. However, on March 1, 2011, the State filed another application saying Johnson broke the rules again, claiming he tried to escape from the police, attacked a police officer, and had more drugs. A hearing was held on March 14, 2011, where the judge decided to revoke ninety months of Johnson's suspended sentence. Johnson argued in his appeal that the judge was wrong to make him pay another victim compensation fee during the revocation hearing. He believed this fee could only be applied when someone was first convicted, and since the revocation wasn't a new conviction, he shouldn’t have to pay it again. The State said it didn’t matter since the record only showed the original fee, but Johnson insisted the extra fee should be removed. The court agreed with Johnson, explaining that a victim compensation fee should only be applied at the time of the original sentencing, not at a revocation hearing. Therefore, the court decided to remove the $200 fee that was added during the revocation. In his final point, Johnson asked the court to lessen the time he had to serve because he had made improvements while on probation. However, the court found that the judge in charge did not abuse his discretion in deciding how long to revoke Johnson's suspended sentence. Overall, the court confirmed the revocation of Johnson’s sentence but dismissed the new Victim Compensation fee.
In OCCA case No. F 2010-0888, Eugene Turner appealed his conviction for assault and battery on a police officer, escape from detention/arrest, and domestic assault. In a published decision, the court decided that the District Court did not have the authority to accelerate Turner's deferred sentence for the assault on the police officer because the time limit for filing had already passed. The ruling was based on a prior case, which stated that a deferred sentence starts on the day it is given. Since the State didn’t file their application until after the deadline, Turner's case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-555, Keighton Jon Budder appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape (Counts I and III), Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon (Count II), and Forcible Oral Sodomy (Count IV). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentences for Counts I and III to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. S 2011-0024, Joel Christion Aranda appealed his conviction for multiple charges including Use of a Vehicle in Discharge of a Weapon and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which had dismissed several counts against Aranda. One judge dissented, believing there was enough evidence to proceed with some of the charges.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1129, Julius Jerome Walker appealed his conviction for multiple charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but reversed one count with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Walker was charged in a District Court in Muskogee County with serious crimes including Assault and Battery and Child Abuse. He decided to plead guilty to all the charges. The judge sentenced him to life for each charge, but they would all be served at the same time. After some time, Walker wanted to change his mind and filed a request to withdraw his guilty plea. During the hearing on his request, Walker raised several reasons why he felt he deserved to withdraw his plea. He argued that his lawyer did not help him well enough during the whole legal process, which is known as ineffective assistance of counsel. He also said he was punished too many times for actions that were really just one event, and that his sentences were much too harsh. After looking closely at all of his claims and the case details, the court decided to deny his request to withdraw the plea. However, they agreed with Walker on one point: he had been punished too many times for one part of his actions, so they decided to dismiss one of the counts against him. The court found that Walker’s arguments about ineffective assistance of counsel were not strong enough to change the outcome of the case except for that one count. They explained that his lawyer’s performance did have a small mistake, but most of what his lawyer did was acceptable. Finally, regarding the severity of his sentences, the court did not think they were too extreme, as they were in line with what the law allowed. Thus, they ruled that his punishments were fair based on the circumstances of the case. In summary, Walker did not succeed in changing his guilty plea except for one part of the case. The court maintained most of the convictions and sentences while ensuring that he would not be unfairly punished for the same event more than once.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-322, Kinter appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate his conviction and grant him a new trial. One judge dissented. Silvon Dane Kinter was charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon in 2009. He had trouble paying his lawyer, and she withdrew from the case. Kinter asked for a public defender but was denied. Kinter then pleaded guilty to the charges because he felt pressured and did not want to represent himself at trial. After pleading guilty, Kinter quickly sought to withdraw his plea, claiming he was not given fair legal help. He argued that his rights were violated because he was not allowed to have a lawyer he could trust and that he was forced to plead guilty under pressure. The court found that Kinter did not get a chance for a proper assessment of his financial situation and that the denial of counsel affected his decision to plead guilty. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with Kinter, stating that he was denied a fair right to legal representation. They ruled in his favor, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea and giving him a chance for a new trial. The case highlights the importance of having a lawyer who can represent a defendant without any problems and ensures they understand their rights fully.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-322, Silvon Dane Kinter appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Kinter's request to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his conviction. One judge dissented. Kinter was charged in 2009 and could not afford his attorney, who then moved to withdraw. Kinter wanted to switch to a public defender but was denied. He eventually pleaded guilty to the charges after being pressured by the court, not fully understanding his situation. The court later recognized that he was indigent but did so after Kinter had already entered his guilty plea. The appeals court found that Kinter’s rights were violated when he wasn't properly provided with conflict-free counsel or a chance to adequately present his case, leading to an involuntary plea. Thus, they instructed for further proceedings based on their opinion.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-223, Travis Ray Tiger appealed his conviction for two counts of Assault and Battery With a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences but vacated the restitution order, ordering the trial court to determine a proper amount of restitution. One judge dissented. Travis Ray Tiger was found guilty in a non-jury trial for attacking two victims with a utility knife, inflicting serious injuries. The trial judge sentenced him to 32 years in prison for each count, with additional fees and a large restitution amount. Tiger argued that he acted in self-defense, but the court found that he was the aggressor and had provoked the fight. The evidence presented showed he used deadly force against unarmed victims, which did not justify his actions. Regarding his sentences, Tiger claimed they were too harsh. However, the court ruled that the sentences were within the law's limits and appropriate for the crimes committed. Tiger also challenged the restitution amount, asserting that the trial court did not follow proper procedures. While some evidence of the victims' medical expenses was presented, the court noted that there were gaps in the financial details regarding compensation received from other sources. Therefore, the court vacated the restitution order for a new determination of the amount owed to the victims. In summary, while Travis Ray Tiger's assault conviction was upheld, the court found issues with the restitution process that needed to be resolved, leading to the order for a new hearing on the restitution amount.
In OCCA case No. J-2010-0788, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With A Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that imposed an adult sentence and remand the case for sentencing as a Youthful Offender if the appellant is convicted. One judge dissented. The appellant, who was born on March 12, 1994, faced charges in the District Court of Muskogee County where he was labeled a Youthful Offender. A motion was filed by the State for an adult sentence, while the appellant sought to be treated as a juvenile. The court held a hearing, and the judge denied the appellant's request to be treated as a juvenile. The same judge also granted the State's request for an adult sentence. The appellant raised three main arguments on appeal. First, he claimed the written order for the adult sentence did not match what the judge said during the hearing. Second, he argued that the trial court did not show clear and convincing evidence to justify an adult sentence. Third, he said it was wrong for the court to deny his request to be treated as a juvenile. According to the law, to punish someone as an adult, the court must find strong evidence that the individual could not adequately be rehabilitated or that the public would be at risk. The court found that the trial judge did not make the necessary findings to support an adult sentence and actually believed the appellant could complete rehabilitation and that public safety would not be compromised. Therefore, the court agreed with the appellant that the decision to treat him as an adult was wrong, thus reversing that part of the judgment. However, regarding the second argument about treating him as a juvenile, the court disagreed. The judges felt the trial judge had enough reasons to treat the appellant as a Youthful Offender instead of a juvenile. In conclusion, while the order for an adult sentence was reversed, the court confirmed that the decision to treat the appellant as a Youthful Offender was appropriate. The case was sent back to the lower court to proceed with sentencing as a Youthful Offender if he is found guilty.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-287, Juan Carlos Hernandez-Montanez appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Second Degree Burglary, Kidnapping, and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his ten-year sentence for Second Degree Burglary to seven years but upheld the rest of the convictions and sentencing. One judge dissented regarding the review process. Hernandez-Montanez was initially charged with many serious crimes but agreed to a plea deal that changed the charges. He pleaded guilty to the amended counts and was sentenced to serve a total of time in prison and jail. After a short period, he wanted to take back his guilty plea, claiming it wasn't done correctly. The case was reviewed, and the court looked closely at the reasons Hernandez-Montanez gave for wanting to withdraw his plea. He said his ten-year sentence was too long and that the court did not fully check if he understood his guilty plea. He also claimed he did not get proper help from his attorney during the process. After reviewing everything, the court found that Hernandez-Montanez's arguments did not hold up. They decided that there was a good reason to accept his guilty plea and that he understood what he was doing. The court modified one part of his sentence but left the rest as it was. The judges agreed on most points, but one judge had a different opinion about some legal processes.
In OCCA case No. J-2010-653, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including arson and assault on a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the juvenile court's order certifying the appellant as an adult. Two justices dissented. The appellant, who was around seventeen-and-a-half years old at the time of the incidents, faced serious charges, including arson and endangering human life. The state wanted to treat him as an adult, and a judge agreed to this on June 25, 2010. However, the appellant's defense argued that the state did not provide clear and convincing evidence to support this decision. During the appeal, the court examined whether the evidence justified treating the appellant as an adult. The judges noted that the law allows for such decisions only in exceptional cases, where a child is deemed not able to benefit from rehabilitation provided in juvenile programs. The appellant's side argued that he was receptive to treatment, as shown by his actions post-incident. He was receiving proper medical treatment after struggling with prescription medication and alcohol use, and he was advancing in his rehabilitation efforts. The justices found that the evidence presented showed the appellant was amenable to treatment and could be rehabilitated if kept within the juvenile system. The court emphasized that just because the acts committed were serious does not mean the child should be treated as an adult without proper evidence. Ultimately, the appeal resulted in the reversal of the certification order, meaning the appellant should not be treated as an adult and should be retained in the juvenile system. The dissenting opinions raised concerns about the risks of letting the appellant remain a juvenile, suggesting that not treating him as an adult could endanger the community given the serious nature of his actions. They believed that the judge's original decision should have been upheld. In conclusion, the majority opinion favored rehabilitation over punishment as an adult, highlighting the importance of the juvenile justice system's focus on the potential for reform and supervision.
In OCCA case No. C-2009-1192, Valentine Palos-Tellos appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill and Attempted Kidnapping. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition for a writ of certiorari and remanded the case for a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented.