In OCCA case No. F-2004-1080, Kirk Douglas Byrd appealed his conviction for multiple offenses, including Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug and Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but modified the sentence for the DUI charge to ten years. One judge dissented.
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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the fine.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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to allow Poe to withdraw his plea due to newly discovered evidence.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. C-2003-1334, Rodney Taylor Glenn appealed his conviction for various crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to allow Glenn to withdraw his plea for some charges but affirmed his conviction for others. One judge dissented. Rodney Taylor Glenn was charged with several crimes in Washington County. He made a deal with the State where some charges were dropped in exchange for him accepting a plea of nolo contendere, which means he didn't admit guilt but accepted the punishment. The judge sentenced him to a total of 35 years for some crimes and 20 years for others, with some sentences running consecutively and others concurrently. Glenn later wanted to change his plea, saying he wasn't fully advised of the possible punishments for his actions. He claimed that the court didn't check whether he was mentally fit to plead, and that he received wrong information about the sentencing ranges for some of his charges. He argued that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea since there was no solid factual basis for one of the charges—assault and battery with a deadly weapon. The court looked at Glenn's arguments carefully. They agreed that the trial court had checked enough to see that Glenn was able to plead. However, they found that they could not support the charge of assault and battery with a deadly weapon based on the facts presented. The court also agreed that Glenn had been given wrong information about the possible punishments for his actions. Because of these issues, the court ruled that Glenn could withdraw his plea for the assault and battery with a deadly weapon and a charge related to a firearm, but they upheld the convictions for the other charges. The final decision meant Glenn was allowed to change his plea for some charges, but the original convictions on others were kept. One judge did not agree with the decision to let Glenn withdraw his plea, arguing that Glenn had made a bargain and should not benefit from mistakes made during the process. This dissent highlighted the complexity of plea agreements and the expectation that all parties would honor the deal made.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-1127, Charles Clarence Tiger appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including conspiracy to commit a felony and several burglaries. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss some of the charges while affirming others. One judge dissented on the reversal of the conspiracy conviction. Tiger faced a jury trial where he was found guilty of numerous crimes, including conspiracy to commit burglary, and was sentenced to serve a long time in prison. He later appealed, arguing several points, including that he didn't get a fair and speedy trial, that his lawyer didn't help him properly, and that he was punished too harshly for his crimes. The court reviewed these claims carefully. They agreed that Tiger's right to a speedy trial was not violated and that his lawyer did provide effective legal help. However, they found that two of the charges against him conflicted with each other. They decided that being punished for both burglary and robbery from the same incident was not right, so they reversed the burglary charge related to that. Additionally, the court felt there wasn't enough evidence to support Tiger's conspiracy charge, so that one was also reversed. While some of Tiger's arguments were accepted, others were rejected. The judges agreed that the remaining charges that stayed upheld were fair and within legal limits, meaning he would still have to serve his time for them. In summary, the court decided to dismiss two of the charges and keep the others, showing that while some of Tiger's claims were valid, many were not. One judge disagreed with the court's choice to dismiss the conspiracy charge, believing there was enough proof to uphold it.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-747, John Carl Marquez appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery Upon a Police Officer, Prisoner Placing Bodily Fluids on a Government Employee, and Domestic Abuse, Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Resisting a Police Officer and Domestic Abuse but modified the sentence for the charge of Prisoner Placing Bodily Fluids from life imprisonment to thirty years. One judge dissented regarding the length of the modified sentence. The case involved an incident where Marquez got into a fight with his wife after a night of drinking. His wife called her parents for help, which led to the police being called. When officers arrived at their trailer, Marquez was found in the bathtub and refused to cooperate. After struggling with the officers, he was handcuffed and later spat on one of them. The jury convicted him for several offenses based on this behavior, and the trial court initially sentenced him to one year for the first and third counts and life imprisonment for the second count. During the appeal, Marquez argued that the life sentence was too harsh and that his arrest was illegal. The court found the arrest was lawful, the prosecution’s conduct was acceptable, and the cumulative errors did not deny him a fair trial. However, the court agreed that the life sentence for a non-violent act, such as spitting, was excessive and changed it to thirty years, citing a need for more reasonable sentencing. While the majority of the court upheld most of the trial court's decisions, a dissenting judge expressed that even the thirty-year sentence was excessive compared to the gravity of the crime Marquez committed against his wife, suggesting a need for sentencing reform to ensure fair punishment across similar cases.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-1342, Clifford Feaster appealed his conviction for robbery and other crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Feaster could not withdraw his guilty pleas, but they modified the judgment in one case. One judge dissented. Feaster had pleaded guilty in 1998 to several serious crimes, including robbery. After being sentenced to 45 years in prison, he tried to change his mind about the plea. The trial court initially did not allow him to withdraw it. The appeals court looked at Feaster's reasons for wanting to change his plea and held a hearing to examine the situation. Feaster argued that the trial judge did not provide enough information (a factual basis) for the guilty pleas and that he had not entered the pleas knowingly and voluntarily. However, the appeals court found that there was enough justification for his pleas and that he understood what he was doing when he agreed to plead guilty. In the final decision, the appeals court allowed a small change to the original judgment to make sure it correctly reflected what happened in the case, specifically concerning counts that were dropped. Overall, the appeals court did not find enough reason to let Feaster withdraw his guilty pleas.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-690, Lonny Boyd Jones appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including assaulting a police officer and aggravated trafficking in methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one count against him, affirm the others, and reduce his sentence for aggravated trafficking. One judge dissented. Lonny Boyd Jones was tried in Grady County District Court and found guilty of several charges. He received sentences of five years for assaulting a police officer, two years for possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony, one year with a fine for resisting an officer, and 35 years plus a fine for trafficking methamphetamine. After his conviction, Lonny appealed the decision, arguing many points, including issues with the arrest warrant, double jeopardy, hearsay evidence, and the effectiveness of his counsel. The court reviewed his claims. They found that the arrest warrant was valid despite not being signed properly. Therefore, Lonny's claim regarding the warrant did not hold. They also decided that his conviction for resisting a police officer was too similar to the assault charge, so that conviction was reversed. Regarding the hearsay evidence and jury instructions, the court found that they did not significantly affect the trial's outcome, and his request for instructions on lesser offenses or defenses was denied because the evidence supported his guilt for the charges he faced. Additionally, the court upheld the introduction of a letter he wrote, agreeing that it was authentic. They dismissed claims of prosecutorial misconduct as the comments made during the trial were fair and justified by the evidence. The court acknowledged that the sentencing instructions were mistaken and modified his sentence for trafficking methamphetamine, reducing it from 35 years to 30 years without a fine. In the end, the court's decision affirmed most of Lonny's convictions, changed one, and modified his sentence.
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. C-2003-356, Feaster appealed his conviction for robbery and related charges. In a published decision, the court decided that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and granted his writ for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw guilty pleas. One judge dissented, arguing that the motion to withdraw was filed too late and should be dismissed.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-203, Kristy Ladell Thompson appealed her conviction for robbery with a weapon, conspiracy, and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for robbery with a weapon and conspiracy but reversed the conviction for assault and battery, directing that it be dismissed. One judge dissented regarding the conspiracy conviction, believing there wasn't enough evidence to support it.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-202, Kenneth Glenn Thompson appealed his conviction for robbery with a weapon, conspiracy, and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for robbery with a weapon and conspiracy but reversed the conviction for assault and battery. One judge dissented regarding the conspiracy charge, believing there was not enough evidence to support it.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1243, Michael Gerald Turner appealed his conviction for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm some of Turner's convictions and dismiss others. Specifically, the court upheld his convictions for Assault and Battery Upon a Police Officer, Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, Possession of a Controlled Substance, Driving While Impaired, and Attempted Escape, but reversed and dismissed his convictions for Personal Injury DUI and DUI due to issues with evidence and double jeopardy. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-528, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence, granting a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved the appellant, who was convicted of a serious offense and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. The appellant argued that he did not receive proper help from his lawyer during the trial. He claimed three main errors: first, that his lawyer did not do enough research on the case; second, that he was not allowed to question a witness about a sexual encounter; and third, that his lawyer had a conflict of interest. Upon reviewing the case, the court found that the lawyer's help was indeed lacking. Specifically, the lawyer did not know important details about two witnesses that could have helped the appellant's defense. This failure to prepare affected the case negatively, indicating that the defense was not done well enough. The court also concluded that the trial judge made a mistake by not allowing the appellant to explore certain evidence regarding the witness. However, since the lawyer did not raise the issue correctly, it did not automatically mean there was a problem. In the end, because of the arguments about the lawyer's effectiveness and the problems with how evidence was handled, the court decided that a new trial was necessary. One judge believed that the trial judge had made the right decisions and that everything should remain as it was. The overall outcome was that the original conviction was overturned, and the case was sent back for a new trial so the appellant could have another chance to defend himself.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1165, Shawn R. Chapman appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to modify some of his sentences. One judge dissented. Chapman was found guilty of several serious charges, including first-degree rape, rape by instrumentation, kidnapping, and drug-related offenses in Logan County. He was given lengthy prison sentences, amounting to a total of 480 years. Chapman raised many reasons to challenge his convictions and sentences. He argued that the evidence presented against him was unfairly prejudicial, and he claimed that his lawyer's comments during the trial hurt his case. Chapman also thought that the jury's verdicts for some of the sexual crimes were not allowed under the law because they were too similar. He felt that the trial court did not allow enough time for his lawyer to prepare and that his sentences were too harsh. The court examined all the evidence and arguments. They found no reason to overturn the convictions but decided that some of the sentences should be changed. The judges agreed that the evidence from other crimes was relevant and that it did not unfairly influence the jury. They believed that the sentences for the rape charges were too long and changed them to life imprisonment, while still upholding the other sentences. The court concluded that there were no overall errors that would change the outcome of the trial, and they affirmed most of the decisions made by the lower court. However, one judge disagreed with the modification of the sentences, believing that the jury's decisions on the punishments were justified given the severity of the crimes Chapman committed.
In OCCA case No. F-01-998, Brian Tyrone Scott appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including First Degree Burglary and Forcible Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the kidnapping conviction but affirmed the other convictions. One judge dissented. Scott was found guilty of several serious crimes after a jury trial and was sentenced to many years in prison. He raised five main points in his appeal. First, he argued that his convictions for some crimes were unfair because they punished him twice for the same act. Second, he claimed there wasn’t enough proof that he intended to kidnap the victim. Third, he said he didn’t get a fair trial because he wasn’t allowed to show evidence that the victim might have lied. Fourth, he thought his total sentence was too harsh, and fifth, he wanted his judgement and sentence to correctly show his convictions. After reviewing everything, the court agreed that Scott's kidnapping charge should be dismissed because it conflicted with his current charge of forcible sodomy. However, they found that the other convictions didn’t violate any laws about double punishment. The court also concluded that allowing Scott to introduce the dismissed evidence wouldn’t have helped his case and that it was okay for his sentences to be served one after the other instead of at the same time. In summary, the court affirmed most of Scott's convictions but decided to dismiss the kidnapping conviction. They ordered the district court to correct the records to make sure all information was accurate.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-278, Kirk appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder, Domestic Abuse After Former Conviction of Domestic Abuse, and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided that the convictions for First Degree Murder and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon were affirmed, while the conviction for Domestic Abuse After Former Conviction of Domestic Abuse was reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Kirk was found guilty after an incident on January 24, 2000, where he lived with Reva Gail Sweetin. That night, Kirk's friend, Billy Whiting, visited them. After drinking alcohol, Whiting became very drunk and fell off the couch multiple times. Sweetin tried to help him, but Kirk later emerged with a knife and attacked both Sweetin and Whiting, ultimately fatally stabbing Whiting. Kirk raised several arguments during his appeal. First, he claimed the evidence was not enough to support his convictions, arguing that the witnesses who testified against him were not credible. However, the court found that the evidence supported the jury's decision. Second, Kirk argued that being convicted of both Domestic Abuse and Assault and Battery was unfair because both were for the same action. The court agreed with this point and decided to dismiss the Domestic Abuse conviction. Kirk also claimed that the prosecutor inappropriately vouched for Sweetin's credibility during closing arguments. The court concluded that these comments did not indicate the prosecutor's personal opinion but were a response to the defense's arguments. Another concern raised by Kirk was about other crimes evidence that the prosecutor brought up regarding his ex-wife, but the court determined that the jury was properly instructed to disregard it. Kirk argued that he should have received instructions about the witness's past bad acts. While the court agreed this was a mistake, they believed it did not significantly affect the trial's outcome due to the strong evidence against him. Lastly, Kirk claimed the overall errors during the trial were enough to warrant a new trial. However, since the court had already determined that one of his convictions should be reversed, they found there were no additional grounds for relief. In summary, the court upheld the murder and assault convictions, dismissed the domestic abuse charge, ensuring a focus on the primary acts Kirk committed during the incident.
In OCCA case No. J 2002-0247, A.B.H. appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With A Deadly Weapon With Intent To Kill. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order that allowed the State to sentence him as an adult. One judge dissented. A.B.H. was charged as a Youthful Offender and the State wanted him to be tried and sentenced as an adult. There was a hearing to discuss this, and the judge decided to allow the State's request. A.B.H. argued that this was not fair because the judge did not properly consider if he could be rehabilitated as a youthful offender. The court looked at the evidence, including studies that showed A.B.H. could complete a plan for rehabilitation and that the public would be safe if he was treated as a youthful offender. Because the State did not provide strong evidence to support trying him as an adult, the court decided to reverse that decision and send the case back for further action.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-759, Joe Nathan Stargell appealed his conviction for Injury to a Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the matter for a hearing on the Sheriff's Fees. One judge dissented regarding the length of the sentence, suggesting it should be reduced to three years.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-211, Sherl D. Batise appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence, meaning Batise will continue to serve his time in prison. One judge dissented. Batise was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison. He argued in his appeal that he did not have good legal help during his trial, that his punishment was too harsh, and that the court did not properly decide how much money he should pay in restitution to the victim. The court looked closely at Batise's claims. They found that he could not prove that having better legal help would have changed the outcome of his trial. They also thought that a thirty-five-year sentence was appropriate, especially since Batise had prior felony convictions, including serious crimes. The court explained that a long sentence was justified given the severity of his actions, which involved attacking someone with a machete. Regarding the restitution, the court agreed with Batise that the trial judge did not follow the right steps when deciding how much money he should pay to the victim. The judge was supposed to take into account whether Batise could afford to make those payments without causing serious hardship to him or his family, and he also needed clear evidence of how much the victim lost. Since this was not done correctly, the court decided to vacate the restitution order and sent the case back to the trial court for further review. In summary, Batise’s conviction was upheld, meaning he remains in prison, but the order about how much he should pay the victim was canceled, and that will be re-evaluated by the trial court.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-805, Dustin Loy Wells appealed his conviction for several crimes, including Shooting with Intent to Kill and Possession of a Stolen Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one conviction related to assault. One judge dissented on the decision to reverse that conviction. Dustin Loy Wells was tried in a jury trial and found guilty of multiple charges. The trial court then sentenced him to a total of forty-five years in prison and imposed several fines. Wells believed he was unfairly convicted and claimed there were mistakes made during his trial. He raised several points of error on appeal. First, he argued that the trial court should have separated (or severed) his different charges for trial, but the court found that joining them was appropriate. Second, he said there was a mistake when certain identification evidence was allowed. While the court agreed this was an error, it was considered harmless because there was strong other evidence against him. Third, Wells argued that there was not enough evidence to support one of his assault convictions and the court agreed, reversing that specific conviction. Further, he contended that some evidence should not have been admitted at all, but the court found that the trial court had made the right decision. Wells also claimed there was not enough proof that he intended to kill when he shot someone, but the court concluded there was sufficient evidence for the jury to reach that conclusion. Wells pointed to what he believed was prosecutorial misconduct, claiming he did not get a fair trial because the prosecutor had made improper statements about him. However, the court decided that these actions did not change the outcome of the trial. Finally, he claimed that the combined errors were serious enough to warrant a new trial, but the court found that only one conviction needed to be reversed. In summary, while the court upheld most of Wells’s conviction and sentence, it found that one of the assault convictions should be dismissed. One judge disagreed with this part of the decision.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-1157, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case was about a man named Robert G. Kirkpatrick, who was found guilty by a jury. He was working as a security guard when the incident happened. The jury decided he was guilty, but he thought he didn’t do anything wrong. He believed that he was just trying to keep the peace at a dance event, and he said he was acting in self-defense. Kirkpatrick asked the court to review two main points. First, he said that the judge should have explained what a dangerous weapon is and should have told the jury about a less serious crime they could consider. Second, he argued that the judge did not allow the jury to hear about self-defense. After looking carefully at the case, the court agreed that the second point was important. They believed that if the jury had been given the correct information about self-defense, they might not have found Kirkpatrick guilty. The judges explained that Kirkpatrick had the right to use reasonable force to do his job as a security guard, which included keeping people safe and protecting property. The law says that anyone, including security guards, can help maintain law and order. Because of this, the court decided that Kirkpatrick should not have been found guilty. They reversed the decision of the lower court and said the case should be dismissed. However, one judge disagreed with the dismissal. This judge thought that there was enough evidence to suggest that Kirkpatrick might have been acting in self-defense. They believed that the case should go back to court for a new trial where the jury could hear about self-defense properly. So, the main outcome was that Kirkpatrick's conviction was reversed. The case was sent back to the lower court with orders to dismiss the charges. The decision showed that proper instructions and understanding of the law are very important in a trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-55, Lawrence Ray Washington appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana and unlawful possession of money within a penal institute. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana but reversed the conviction for unlawful possession of money and instructed to dismiss that count. One judge dissented. Washington was charged with three counts: possession of marijuana and money while in prison, and assaulting a correction officer. He was found not guilty of assault but guilty on the other two counts. He received a twenty-year sentence for each count, which would be served at the same time. Washington argued that being punished for both possessions was unfair because they were closely related. The court examined the details and decided that having both items at the same time was part of one action, rather than two separate actions. As a result, they thought punishing him for both possessions was against the law. Therefore, they took away the conviction for possession of money but kept the conviction for possession of marijuana. The dissenting judges believed Washington should have been punished for both counts because the law allows for separate punishments for different kinds of contraband items, even if they are found together.