In OCCA case No. F-2015-212, Robert Leroy Gore appealed his conviction for Larceny of an Automobile and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. The court found that there was not enough evidence to show that Gore had properly given up his right to a jury trial. Therefore, the previous trial was not valid, and he will have another chance to present his case. No one dissented in this decision.
In OCCA case No. RE-2014-371, Holland appealed his conviction for Rape in the Second Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation order regarding his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Holland pleaded guilty to a crime and received a sentence that included five years of imprisonment, but with some of that time suspended as long as he followed rules set by the court. However, he did not follow these rules, such as reporting to his probation officer and attending required treatment. Because of this, the court revoked his suspended sentence and ordered him to serve the full five years. Holland felt the punishment was too harsh and claimed he had tried to follow the rules. He argued that he should not have to serve the full five years because only a part of that sentence was supposed to be enforced. The court looked carefully at his claims. They found that Holland had not fully complied with the rules he agreed to follow, and therefore, they believed the judge was correct in deciding to revoke his suspension. However, they agreed that the judge had made an error when stating he had to serve five years in prison since he had already served part of that time. Ultimately, the court decided to change the revocation order so that Holland would only need to serve four years and eleven months, which is the remaining part of his original sentence. The court confirmed their decision and instructed the District Court to make the necessary changes.
In OCCA case No. SR-2013-1187, the State appealed the conviction of Carson for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling. One judge dissented. Carson was charged with six counts of lewd molestation. A jury found him not guilty on three charges and couldn’t make a decision on the other three, which are still unresolved. The appeal centered around whether the district court made the right call when allowing evidence about past sexual abuse involving a different perpetrator. The State argued that this evidence should not have been allowed under a law known as the Rape Shield statute, designed to protect victims by limiting the introduction of their past sexual behavior. The district court, however, let the defense question the victim about these other incidents. The State believed this was a mistake and wanted the court to review the evidence ruling. However, the court decided not to do so. They trust the trial court's judgment on these matters unless there is clear proof of a mistake. The court said the State did not show that the trial court made an error in allowing the evidence. In summary, the OCCA upheld the decision made by the district court, ruling that they acted within their rights, and the case for Carson was allowed to stand as it was.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-480, Huyen Ai Thi Tran appealed his conviction for perjury. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for correcting the fine but otherwise affirmed the conviction. One judge dissented. Ms. Tran was found guilty of perjury by a jury and was sentenced to ten years in prison, with three years to be served. Ms. Tran raised several issues in her appeal. She claimed that evidence from other crimes unfairly influenced the jury, which made her trial unfair. She argued that the trial court mentioned she was in custody for an unrelated matter and that her co-defendant talked about other crimes during the trial. However, the court found these issues did not have significant impact. She also argued that the prosecutor asked questions that brought up evidence about other crimes without proper warning, but the court decided these errors didn’t affect the outcome. Ms. Tran argued that her right to remain silent was violated when the jury heard that she had refused to answer questions in a previous case. The court noted that the trial judge intervened and instructed the jury to ignore that testimony. Another point Ms. Tran made was about her lawyer's failure to challenge a juror who was a police officer. Ms. Tran’s lawyer did not pursue this challenge, but the court found that it was not a serious issue since the juror was not working in law enforcement at the time of the trial. Ms. Tran then pointed out that the fine noted in the final judgment was different from what the court initially stated during sentencing. The court agreed to correct this mistake. Lastly, Ms. Tran suggested that all these issues combined created a harmful effect on her case. However, the court concluded that any significant errors were not enough to change the trial’s outcome due to strong evidence against her. The final decision required the correction of the fine in the records, but the conviction for perjury was largely upheld.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-636, Bryan William Long, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the sentence imposed by the District Court was vacated, and the case was remanded to determine the total number of days served under the original sentence. In C-2007-743, the judgment and sentence for Burglary in the Second Degree was affirmed, but the District Court was directed to correct the journal entry regarding prior felony convictions. #1 dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-691, Cleon Christopher Johnson appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including third-degree arson, robbery with a firearm, accessory after the fact to shooting with intent to kill, and possession of a stolen vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for third-degree arson, but affirmed the convictions for the other charges. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the arson conviction. Johnson was charged with serious crimes in Tulsa County and was found guilty by a jury. They gave him a total of 89 years in prison for his actions. On appeal, Johnson argued that there was not enough evidence for the arson conviction, that the robbery charge was not proven, and that there was misconduct during the trial. The court agreed with Johnson that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he committed arson, as the value of the property burned was not established. They stated that to prove third-degree arson, it's necessary to show the value of the property was at least $50. Since there was no proof of this value, that specific conviction was overturned. However, they found that there was enough evidence to support the robbery conviction. The jury was able to conclude that Johnson played an important role in that crime. On the point of prosecutorial misconduct, the court mentioned that Johnson's attorney did not object at trial, which limited their review. The comments made during the trial were not serious enough to be considered a significant error. So, the final decision was to reverse the third-degree arson conviction and send it back for dismissal, while upholding the other convictions against Johnson. One judge thought that the evidence was strong enough to support the arson conviction and disagreed with the reversal.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-233, Stephen Eldridge Melonakis appealed his conviction for falsely personating another. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to reflect credit for time served awaiting trial. One judge dissented, arguing that the trial court's decision should have been upheld without modification.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-653, Carole Jean Arnold appealed her conviction for Driving While Under the Influence and Driving While License is Suspended. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Carole Jean Arnold was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Payne County. The jury decided she should spend five years in prison and pay a $500 fine for driving while under the influence. For driving with a suspended license, the jury decided on one year in prison and another $500 fine. The trial judge ruled that the fines would be suspended, but Carole didn't agree with the conviction. In their review, the court looked at several issues that Carole raised. First, she argued that there was not enough evidence to prove she was intoxicated when she was driving. However, the court found that the evidence was strong enough. There were officers who testified that they smelled alcohol on her breath, noticed her speech was slurred, her eyes were bloodshot, and that she was having trouble standing up. Carole admitted to drinking alcohol before driving, which supported the jury's conclusion. Second, Carole claimed the trial court made a mistake by not correctly telling the jury about possible punishments. The court agreed that this was a mistake because the jury should have been aware of more options regarding punishment. Since the defense attorney did not object during the trial, it was still considered a major error that needed to be corrected. Because of this mistake, the court changed Carole's prison sentence to two years instead of the longer one originally given. The third issue Carole had was about a test called the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, which was used to check her level of intoxication. The court agreed that there were rules about when scientific evidence can be used at trials, and those rules were not followed when this test's results were allowed. However, the court also decided that this error was not serious enough to have changed the jury's decision, so it didn’t matter much in the end. Lastly, Carole felt her overall punishment was too harsh. Because the court already changed the length of her sentence due to the earlier mistake, they found that they did not need to make any other changes. In the end, the court upheld Carole's conviction but changed her sentence to two years in prison. One judge disagreed with modifying her sentence, believing the jury's maximum sentence was appropriate and that the results of the test were acceptable in court.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-484, Kevin Eddy Bumgarner appealed his conviction for First-Degree Arson and Attempting to Elude a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided Bumgarner’s sentence was excessive and modified it from 275 years to 45 years imprisonment. One judge dissented, stating that the original sentence reflected the jury's view of Bumgarner's actions.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-785, Sammy Dewain Haas appealed his conviction for Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Driving Under Suspension. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Sammy Dewain Haas faced serious charges for driving while drunk and for driving when his license was suspended. He went to trial in Beckham County, where a jury found him guilty. The punishment was set at ten years in prison and a $10,000 fine for the drunk driving charge, and one year and a $500 fine for the driving under suspension charge. The sentences were to be served at the same time. Haas raised several issues on appeal. First, he pointed out that the prosecutor wrongly argued that the jury should think about what he might do in the future instead of what he did this time. The court did not think this was a serious mistake that required a new trial. Second, he claimed that the jury should have been told about a lesser charge called Driving While Impaired, but the court found that the evidence did not support that. Haas also said the judge should have given instructions about using circumstantial evidence, which is when a conclusion is drawn based on the surrounding facts instead of direct evidence. While the court agreed that the instructions should have been given, they ruled that this mistake didn't affect the overall outcome of the trial. Finally, the court ordered that the official record be changed to correctly state that Haas's sentences were to run together, not one after the other. In the end, the court upheld the trial’s decision, meaning Haas would remain convicted and serve his sentence as planned.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-1652, Shaun Scott Sprowls appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Manufacturing a Precursor Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance but reversed and dismissed the count for Manufacturing a Precursor Substance. One judge dissented. The case began when authorities found evidence suggesting Sprowls was making illegal drugs, which led to his trial. The jury found him guilty and recommended a long prison sentence along with fines. Sprowls argued that this evidence should not have been used because it was collected without a proper search warrant. He also claimed that he was unfairly punished multiple times for the same act, which violated his rights. After reviewing the case, the court agreed that Sprowls was punished twice for the same crime, so they reversed the second conviction and removed the fine associated with it. However, they determined that the evidence for the first charge was enough to support the jury's decision and that his sentence was fair. Ultimately, the court affirmed part of the decision but corrected what they saw as an error in punishing him.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-821, Mitchell Lawrence Rose appealed his conviction for Solicitation of First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but vacate the sentence and remand the case for resentencing. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-152, the appellant, Sidney Leon Crittenden, appealed his conviction for two counts of Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for the first count but reversed and remanded the second count with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Crittenden was charged with serious offenses, including First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. He was found guilty on two counts of Lewd Molestation and sentenced to 45 years in prison for each count, along with a fine. On appeal, Crittenden raised several arguments. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes, such as changing the charges and allowing evidence of other crimes, which he felt unfairly influenced the jury. He also argued that being convicted of two offenses from the same incident was against the rules, and he felt the sentences he received were too harsh. After looking carefully at all the details of the case, the court agreed with Crittenden on one issue—being charged for two separate offenses from one event was not acceptable. They affirmed the first conviction but ordered that the second one be dismissed as there was not enough evidence to support it as a separate act. The court noted that while some evidence suggested there might have been different incidents, it was not strong enough to meet the required level of proof. They concluded that the trial was mostly fair, and the sentences for the first count seemed appropriate. Overall, the decision respected that some of the rules regarding the number of convictions related to a single act were not followed and adjusted the outcome accordingly.