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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to dismiss Walker's appeal because her application to withdraw her guilty plea was not properly heard by the trial court.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-2013-250, Richard Shane Kuehn appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided that the revocation of seven years of Kuehn's twelve-year suspended sentence was reversed because the judge who decided his case had previously worked as a prosecutor on it. Kuehn claimed he did not get a fair hearing because of this, and the court agreed, stating that judges cannot preside over cases in which they have been involved as attorneys without consent from the parties. Kuehn's other claims were not reviewed since the court found for him on the first point.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-137, Antonio Catalino Myrie appealed his conviction for burglary in the second degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Myrie's conviction but vacated the $10,000 fine imposed. One judge dissented regarding aspects of the sentencing arguments presented at trial. Antonio Myrie was tried and found guilty by a jury. The jury decided that he would spend thirty-five years in prison and pay a fine for the crime. Myrie appealed this decision, claiming several errors during his trial. He argued that the trial court made mistakes by not allowing him to suppress DNA evidence, not giving him more time to prepare his case, and other issues he thought affected his right to a fair trial. The judges reviewed the claims made by Myrie. They explained that the evidence used in his trial, including the DNA, was evaluated carefully. The judges believed that the trial court's decision to admit the DNA evidence was not a mistake. They also felt that Myrie did not show that he would have won his case even if the DNA had been tested differently. Myrie's other claims included that the court made mistakes in admitting hearsay evidence, which means statements made outside of court that shouldn't be used as evidence in court. The judges found that there was no strong reason to believe this would change the outcome of the trial, so they denied this claim as well. One important point was about how the jury was instructed on the consequences of a conviction. Myrie’s lawyers did not object to the jury instructions, and the judges concluded that one instruction wrongly made it sound like the fine was mandatory. They decided to remove the fine based on this mistake. Myrie also argued about misconduct during the trial, specifically that the prosecutor mentioned too many of his previous convictions, which he believed made the jury biased against him. However, the judges thought that while there were errors in how the prosecutor presented this information, it did not affect the fairness of the trial enough to change the outcome. In the end, the judges agreed that Myrie's punishment was justified given his past actions, and they decided to keep the thirty-five-year prison sentence while removing the fine due to a mistake about the jury instruction. One judge disagreed with parts of the decision, particularly about how the prosecutor argued about Myrie's past, stating it should have a different impact on the sentence. Overall, the court upheld the conviction and modified the fine.
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-2013-212, Alvin Lavan Johnson appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Johnson's revocation order and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. In 2003, Johnson was charged with the felony crime of domestic abuse. After pleading guilty in 2004, he received a suspended sentence of seven years. Years later, the State issued a warrant to revoke his suspension. Johnson was arrested and a revocation hearing took place with a judge and a prosecutor who had both been involved in the previous stages of his case. Johnson argued that this created an unfair situation. In his appeal, Johnson raised several points. He claimed that the delay in processing his case required dismissal. He also argued that it was unfair for the same attorney who had defended him to now be prosecuting him, and that the judge who revoked his sentence was involved in the original case. The State admitted errors but thought that a new hearing would be enough to fix the issues. The court agreed with Johnson on two of his claims, stating that the previous judge and prosecutor had conflicts of interest due to their past involvement in the case. Because of this, the court reversed the revocation order and sent the case back for further examination. Johnson will have a chance to present his arguments, including the claim about the delay, in front of a new and impartial judge. The court concluded that the other claims raised by Johnson didn’t need to be discussed at this time.
In OCCA case No. M-2011-1083, the appellant appealed his conviction for resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Franklin Savoy Combs, who was found guilty of resisting an officer after a jury trial. The trial took place in Hughes County, and the appellant received a sentence of ninety days in jail and a fine of $300. Combs later appealed this decision, challenging the way he represented himself in court. In his appeal, Combs argued that the trial court did not properly inform him of the risks of self-representation. The court looked at the records from the trial to see if Combs had knowingly decided to waive his right to have a lawyer. They found that there was not enough evidence to show that he fully understood what he was doing when he chose to represent himself. The court explained that before someone can represent themselves, it is very important that they know what that means and what they might be giving up. If there are doubts about whether a person really understood their rights, those doubts should be viewed in favor of that person. Since the court determined that Combs did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel, they decided that his conviction needed to be reversed. The case was sent back for a new trial where he can have proper legal representation.
In OCCA case No. RE-2011-562, Jack Joseph Taylor appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided in favor of Taylor, reversing the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Taylor entered a guilty plea in 2001 to arson and conspiracy to commit arson, leading to a ten-year sentence, most of which was suspended under probation conditions. In 2011, the State accused him of violating his probation due to a new charge of child abuse. A different judge held the hearing, during which he checked evidence from Taylor's new case and found that Taylor had violated his probation. However, he postponed deciding on the punishment until after the new trial. The new trial resulted in a conviction for child abuse, with a ten-year sentence. The judge then revoked Taylor's suspended sentence, which led him to appeal. Taylor argued that he did not receive a fair hearing because the judge presiding over the revocation was previously involved as a prosecutor in his original case. The court ruled that it is important for judges to be neutral and not have prior involvement in cases they are deciding. The court found that the judge should have recused himself due to his past connection with Taylor's case, stating that a decisionmaker must be fair and detached according to legal standards. Ultimately, the court determined that the revocation hearing was not handled correctly and ordered a new hearing before a different judge.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-112, Gene Freeman Price appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Gene Freeman Price was found guilty of breaking into a building with the intention of committing a crime. He was given a sentence of twelve years in prison. However, Price argued that he did not fully understand his rights before he decided to represent himself in court instead of having a lawyer help him. The court looked closely at the case. They believed the trial court did not do a good job explaining to Price the risks of going to court alone without a lawyer. This meant that Price could not have truly given up his right to a lawyer because he didn't really understand what that meant. The judges decided that because of this mistake, Price's right to have a lawyer was violated. Since this was such a serious error and affected the whole case, the court said they could not ignore it. They ruled that the earlier decision needed to be thrown out, and Price should get a new trial where he could have a lawyer help him.
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. F-2011-70, Christopher Stinson, Sr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, First Degree Arson, and Manufacturing Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence on the Felony Murder charge and reverse the Manufacturing charge, stating it should be dismissed due to double jeopardy concerns. One judge dissented.
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. M-2010-341, Katherine Denise Burns appealed her conviction for Harassment by Use of an Electronic Device. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and instructed to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. Burns was found guilty in a trial in the District Court of Seminole County, where she was accused of sending harassing text messages to Jennifer Johnson. The court sentenced her to six months in jail, but the sentence was suspended. Burns argued that the way the charges were written (the Information) was not clear enough and that the evidence against her was not strong enough to convict her. During the trial, the State presented evidence that Burns sent three text messages to Johnson. The first message included Johnson's social security number, the second suggested Burns knew personal information about Johnson, and the third revealed Johnson's home address. The State claimed that Burns violated a law that prohibits making electronic communications without disclosing one’s identity in a way that annoys, abuses, threatens, or harasses another person. However, the court found that the messages did not meet the legal requirement because Burns’s cell phone number was visible to Johnson. The court concluded that since Burns's identity was clear, she could not be convicted under the law cited by the State. Ultimately, the court decided that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that Burns committed the specific crime she was charged with, leading them to reverse her conviction and dismiss the case.
In OCCA case No. S 2011-0023, David Franco appealed his conviction for several charges related to using a vehicle in the discharge of a weapon, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, feloniously pointing a firearm, and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling that dismissed some of the charges against him. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. J-2011-462, K.T.L. appealed his conviction for robbery by force/fear and kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the lower court's order denying K.T.L.'s motion to be treated as a juvenile was incorrect and should be reversed. K.T.L. was found to have substantial evidence supporting his request for juvenile treatment, and thus, the court instructed to certify him as a juvenile. One justice dissented, believing that the original decision should be upheld.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-512, Christopher Lee Anthony appealed his conviction for violating his probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of Anthony's suspended sentences and ordered a new hearing. One judge dissented. The case started when Anthony pled guilty to several charges and was given suspended sentences, meaning he wouldn’t serve time if he followed the rules of his probation. However, the State accused him of breaking those rules by not following a court report and not showing up for court. After the State filed to revoke his sentences, Anthony was given an attorney but later posted bail. The judge then told him he needed to either find his own lawyer or represent himself. During the hearing, Anthony didn't have a lawyer and argued his case on his own. The judge found that he had violated probation and took away his suspended sentences. Anthony then appealed, claiming the judge made a mistake by not allowing him a court-appointed attorney just because he posted bail. The court agreed that the judge should have checked to see if Anthony could afford a lawyer and had not properly addressed Anthony's right to counsel. They ruled that the revocation of Anthony's sentences must be undone, and there should be a new hearing with a proper inquiry about his finances and legal representation.
In OCCA case No. M 2009-1064, Jesse Douglas Stein appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse- Assault and Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the Judgment and Sentence and remand the matter for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jesse Douglas Stein was charged with domestic abuse and had a trial without a jury. He was found guilty and got a sentence that included some jail time and a fine. However, Jesse claimed that he did not properly give up his right to have a jury trial, which is really important. The court found that there was not enough proof that he made this choice in a clear and smart way. During the appeal, the State tried to add more information to the case, but the court decided that this new information did not prove that Jesse had given up his right to a jury trial the right way. Because of this mistake, the court said that they would send the case back for a new trial where Jesse could have a jury. The judges agreed that they needed to reverse the earlier decision because of the issues with the jury trial waiver. They did not need to look at other reasons Jesse gave for appealing since they already decided to reverse the decision and start fresh. In summary, Jesse's conviction was overturned, and he was given another chance for a trial with a jury.
In OCCA case No. S-2009-858, Jeffrey Dale Brumfield appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order suppressing evidence. Margaret Ann Brumfield was also charged with the same crime in a companion case numbered S-2009-862, and the same ruling applied. The case began when Trooper Johnson stopped the vehicle driven by Mr. Brumfield for speeding and discovered he did not have a valid driver's license. Mrs. Brumfield was a passenger in the vehicle. During the stop, the officer suspected Mr. Brumfield was under the influence of a drug, so he had both Brumfields sit in the patrol car while he searched the vehicle. Initially, he found nothing, and he allowed them to leave. However, after listening to a conversation the couple had in the patrol car, he suspected there might be drugs under the passenger seat. When he searched again, he found methamphetamine. The State appealed the district court’s decision, arguing that the officer did have the right to search the vehicle due to Mr. Brumfield’s behavior and suspected drug use. However, the court upheld the lower court's decision, stating that reasonable suspicion (which the trooper had) is not enough for probable cause. The initial search was not justified, leading to the suppression of the evidence found later. Thus, the court's final decision affirmed the district court’s ruling that the search was unreasonable, and therefore, the evidence obtained could not be used in court against the Brumfields.
In OCCA case No. S-2009-1176, Don Wayne Townsend Jr. appealed his conviction for Omission to Provide for Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's dismissal of the case. No one dissented. In this case, Townsend was initially charged with not providing for his child, which was a violation of the law. However, after the state presented its evidence, the trial judge decided that the evidence was not strong enough to continue the trial. The state then sought to appeal this decision, asking if the judge made a mistake in dismissing the case. The court looked carefully at the situation and found that the state's question was not really about the law, but rather about whether the evidence was enough to prove Townsend's guilt. The court explained that proving someone is guilty requires showing they willfully did not support their child for a long time. They also stated that it must be shown that the person had a legal obligation to pay child support. Ultimately, the court agreed with the trial judge's decision and found no error in dismissing the case against Townsend. This means that the matter was closed and he could not be tried again for this charge. The court's decision was recorded, and they indicated that the dismissal order would stand.
In OCCA case No. C-2009-317, Lee Otis Robinson, Jr. appealed his conviction for entering a no contest plea. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Robinson a new hearing to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. Robinson had entered his no contest plea in the Oklahoma County District Court but later wanted to change that decision. He argued that he didn't fully understand what he was doing when he entered the plea and that he had been confused and misled. Additionally, Robinson claimed that he didn't get good help from his lawyer. His lawyer was supposed to represent him during the plea hearing and also during the hearing where Robinson asked to change his plea. However, during the second hearing, the lawyer ended up saying things that were against Robinson’s interests. This created a problem because it meant that Robinson wasn't getting fair help from his lawyer, and he was disadvantaged in his efforts to withdraw his plea. The court found that it was important for Robinson to have a different, unbiased lawyer for a fair hearing. They decided he should be allowed to have a new hearing with a lawyer who had no conflict of interest. The ruling meant that Robinson's case would be sent back to the district court so that the new hearing could take place.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-538, Jerry Johnson appealed his conviction for Robbery by Force. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Johnson did not competently, knowingly, and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial, which means that he deserves a new trial. However, the evidence presented in his bench trial was sufficient to support his conviction, so they remanded the case for a new trial. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. S-2008-53, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction for Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the earlier decisions, meaning they upheld the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to proceed with the trial against the defendant. One judge dissented in this case. The case was about a parent who was accused of child abuse after leaving her two children in a vehicle while she became unconscious. The court looked at whether the parent’s actions met the legal definition of child abuse. A special judge had already decided there wasn’t enough evidence to charge her, and when the State appealed that decision, the district judge agreed. When the case reached the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the justices reviewed the earlier decisions. They listened to arguments from both sides and looked closely at the facts. They saw that the earlier judges had acted reasonably and hadn’t made any mistakes that would change the outcome. Therefore, they decided to keep the original ruling, which meant that the parent wouldn’t have to face trial for the charges brought against her.
In OCCA case No. J-2008-02, the appellant appealed her conviction for murder in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her motion to be treated as a youthful offender. One judge dissented. The case involved a young person who was trying to be treated differently under the law because of her age. She argued that she should not face adult sentencing for her crime and provided evidence to support her request. The court looked at this evidence and decided that she had established enough reasons to be classified as a youthful offender. The ruling from the lower court had denied her request, but the appeals court reversed that decision. They instructed the lower court to certify her as a youthful offender, meaning she would be treated more like a minor in terms of sentencing. The dissenting judge believed the initial court hearing was thorough and that the reasons to deny youthful offender status were valid and supported by the facts. This judge argued that the decision to overturn the denial did not stand against the well-reasoned basis that was originally provided.
In OCCA case No. M-2007-192, the appellant appealed his conviction for three counts of Threatening by Telephone or Other Electronic Communication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. The appellant, Robert Eugene Schwab, was found guilty by a jury in Creek County for sending threats through electronic communication. The jury decided his punishment would consist of a short jail time and fines. However, the case raised a significant legal question about whether the appellant's actions were considered a crime at the time he committed them. During the trial, it was discovered that the specific crime Schwab was convicted of was not defined as illegal when he sent the emails in question. After looking into this issue, the State acknowledged this error and agreed that the conviction should be reversed. The court decided that Schwab's actions did not fit into the law as it was understood at that earlier time, which led to the decision to dismiss the charges against him.
In OCCA case No. M-2007-62, Jimmy Dale Luttrell appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery in the Presence of a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Luttrell's conviction due to insufficient evidence. One judge dissented. Luttrell was found guilty by a special judge and was sentenced to one year in jail with the sentence suspended, along with fines and costs. The main issue in the appeal was the lack of evidence against Luttrell. The victim, who was Luttrell's wife, did not testify at the trial. Since the wife did not provide testimony, the judge did not allow police officers to share what she had told them or to show her written statement. This left no evidence that proved Luttrell was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The State tried to argue that even without the victim's testimony, there was enough evidence for a reasonable person to conclude Luttrell was guilty. However, the court found that in previous similar cases, the victim's statements were allowed as evidence. Since Luttrell's case did not have any proof to establish that he committed the crime, the court reversed his conviction. Because of double jeopardy rules, Luttrell cannot be tried again for the same accusation, and the case was sent back to dismiss the charges.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-896, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree arson, assault and battery domestic abuse, assault and battery, and public intoxication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments and sentences for counts I and II but modified the sentences for counts III and IV by vacating the fines imposed on those counts. One judge dissented. Michael Wayne Schulze was found guilty of starting a fire, which was labeled as first-degree arson, along with committing several misdemeanors related to domestic abuse and public intoxication. The jury recommended lengthy prison time and fines for these actions. Schulze argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove his guilt for arson. He also claimed that the instructions given to the jury were misleading regarding his possible sentences and fines. He sought modifications to the imposed fines and sentences, while also asserting that the prosecutor behaved improperly during the trial. The court examined the arguments and determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt for arson. They agreed that the jury was wrongly instructed about potential sentencing for certain charges, which warranted relief by adjusting the fines for the misdemeanor counts. However, they maintained the convictions and sentences for the arson and domestic abuse counts, deciding that the errors in jury instructions did not severely impact the outcome of the case. Overall, the court upheld the majority of the original decisions but aimed to correct parts of the sentencing that were found to be incorrect, ensuring justice was served.