In OCCA case No. M-2017-137, Jerrad Sterling Nunamaker appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and speeding in excess of the lawful limit. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Nunamaker's fine for speeding to $20.00 and vacated the victim compensation assessment for that offense. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2018-687, the petitioner appealed his conviction for concealing stolen property and drug-related crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the petition but remanded for further proceedings. One judge dissented. In OCCA case No. C-2018-688, the petitioner also raised issues about his sentences and fines. He argued that the fines were too high, and he expressed concerns about the costs of his incarceration. The court found some merit in his claims, particularly regarding the fines exceeding legal limits and the lack of consideration for his mental health concerning incarceration costs. However, the court did not find that the total sentences were excessively long. The petitioner had previously pleaded guilty to charges and was placed in a program for young adults but later faced new misdemeanor charges, leading to the state seeking to accelerate his sentencing. Ultimately, while the court upheld the denial of his request to withdraw his pleas, it recognized problems regarding the assessment of fines and costs, which warranted a remand for further investigation. Thus, the case will go back to the lower court for resolution of these issues.
In OCCA case No. RE-2009-239, the appellant appealed his conviction for uttering a forged instrument. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the order of revocation to allow for concurrent sentences instead of consecutive sentences. One judge dissented regarding the finding of excessiveness in the revocation order. In the case, the appellant, who was originally given the benefit of a deferred sentence and then suspended sentences, was accused of violating his probation by not reporting to his probation officer. The sentencing judge ultimately revoked his suspended sentences and imposed a total of eight years in prison, which he argued was excessive. The court reviewed the record and statements made by the judge during the revocation hearing. They determined that although the judge had the power to revoke less than the full suspension, the circumstances of the case warranted a modification to allow the sentences to be served concurrently, rather than consecutively as originally ordered. Additionally, the appellant contended that a second assessment for victim compensation was unlawful, as it exceeded the statutory limit. However, the court noted that the compensation assessments were appropriate and not void, concluding that this issue did not affect the validity of the revocation order itself. The final decision directed the district court to change the revocation order to reflect concurrent serving of sentences while affirming the other aspects of the revocation.
In OCCA case No. J-2001-57, J.L.H. appealed her conviction for Public Drunk. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the adjudication of delinquency and disposition of the District Court while modifying the victim compensation assessment. One judge dissented. J.L.H. was found delinquent because she did something that, if she were an adult, would be considered being publicly drunk. This happened in the District Court of Grady County. After the court made its decision, J.L.H. was placed under the care of the Office of Juvenile Affairs and was to live with her grandmother. J.L.H. had three main reasons for her appeal. First, she believed that the court's decision did not match the evidence presented and the court's own conclusions. Second, she thought it was wrong that her treatment plan was not filed on time, as the rule says it should be done in thirty days. Third, she argued that the court should not have made her pay a victim compensation fee because it did not apply to her case. After looking closely at the records, the court found that there was enough proof during the hearing to support the decision made about J.L.H. They decided that the way she was placed with her grandmother was in her best interest and fit with the law's requirements. The court also determined that not filing the treatment plan on time did not harm J.L.H. However, the court agreed with J.L.H. on the issue of the victim compensation fee. They said that the court could not charge her this fee because there was no evidence to support it in her case. So, they decided to cancel the $25 fee. Overall, the court upheld the main decision about J.L.H.'s delinquency and how she would be treated, but they removed the charge for the victim compensation fee.