In OCCA case No. RE-2010-9, Steven B. Baker appealed his conviction for misdemeanor Resisting an Officer and felony Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Possession of a Controlled Drug (Cocaine Base). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences, but recognized that Appellant was entitled to credit for time he had already served. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-399, Jeffery Robert Johnson appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Johnson's conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Johnson was convicted of stabbing his roommate, Maurice Sartor, after a dispute over money. Johnson claimed he was acting to defend his girlfriend, Malinda Brookey, who was being threatened by Sartor. During the trial, there was a disagreement over how the events happened, especially regarding whether Sartor was the aggressor. The key issue in Johnson's appeal was about a mistake in the jury instructions. The trial court gave the jury a modified instruction about the defense of property that led to confusion. This instruction suggested that Sartor had the right to use force to get his property back, which Johnson argued was not true since he believed he was defending his girlfriend from Sartor's aggression. Johnson's lawyer objected to the instruction at the time of the trial, which meant they could raise this issue in the appeal. The higher court found that this error in the jury instructions was significant enough that it likely affected the fairness of the trial. Because of this, they reversed Johnson's conviction and ordered a new trial while not addressing Johnson's other claims or his request for a new trial based on new evidence. This decision means Johnson will get another chance to present his case in front of a new jury, with the hope that the instructions will be clearer and fairer this time. The dissenting judge disagreed with the majority's decision, believing the original instructions were appropriate and did not compromise Johnson's defense.
In OCCA case No. J-2010-839, M.D.M. appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's denial of M.D.M.'s request for juvenile certification, but reversed the order allowing the State to sentence him as an adult. M.D.M. dissented. M.D.M. was charged as a Youthful Offender and requested to be treated as a juvenile instead. The trial court denied his motion, stating that he could be rehabilitated and that the public would be safe if he was treated as a Youthful Offender. The court's decision was based on facts and evidence presented during the hearing. On appeal, M.D.M. argued that the trial court made several mistakes in denying his request. He believed the written order did not match what was discussed in court and that he was not given a fair chance for rehabilitation while being treated as a Youthful Offender. The court ruled that the trial court's initial decision was reasonable and did not abuse its discretion in treating M.D.M. as a Youthful Offender. However, the court also found that the written order mistakenly stated that M.D.M. should be sentenced as an adult. The court clarified that M.D.M. should be treated as a Youthful Offender if convicted. The decision included guidance for the trial court to ensure that M.D.M.'s case is handled appropriately moving forward.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-528, Jimmy Lee Baker appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With A Dangerous Weapon After Two Or More Felony Convictions and Malicious Injury To Property. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Jimmy Lee Baker was found guilty by a jury of two charges. The first charge was about hurting someone with a dangerous weapon after having two or more previous felony convictions. The second charge was related to damaging someone else's property. The jury decided Baker should serve life in prison for the first charge and for the second charge, they gave him a fine but did not suggest a specific punishment. Baker argued several points during his appeal which he believed were unfair to him. Firstly, he claimed he did not get a fair trial because the state did not share important information about the main witness against him. This witness had a past with drugs and a criminal record, which could have shown that he had reasons to lie. Baker’s defense lawyer also did not use this information to help his case. Secondly, Baker felt that his lawyer did not do a good job during the sentencing part of the trial, which led to a harsher punishment than necessary. He thought the lawyer should have done more to defend him. Thirdly, Baker argued that the judge did not explain what counted as a dangerous weapon or give the jury the option of deciding on a lesser charge of simple assault and battery. He believed his lawyer should have asked the judge for these explanations. Lastly, Baker said it was wrong for the court to allow testimony about injuries to someone else that was not related to his charges. He believed this made the jury think badly of him for things he did not do. After reviewing the case, the court found that the state failed to provide Baker with evidence that could have helped his defense, specifically information about the witness that could show bias or dishonesty. Because this information was important and could have changed the outcome of the trial, the court decided to reverse Baker’s conviction and grant him a new trial. Since the court was reversing the conviction based on this issue, they did not need to look at the other arguments Baker made.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-1096, Deon Lamar Nelson appealed his conviction for two counts of Assault and Battery Upon An Officer of State Court. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Nelson's convictions but modified the sentence for Count I to three years of imprisonment. One judge dissented in part. Nelson was found guilty by a jury for hitting two court officers. He received a longer sentence for the first charge, where he hit one officer, due to the injuries caused. The main arguments he made in his appeal included issues with how the cases were joined together, whether a defense attorney counts as an officer of the court, the admission of certain evidence that he claimed was unfair, and concerns about his competency during the trial. The court held that it was fine to join the two cases together, and they ruled that a defense attorney is indeed considered an officer of the court. Regarding the evidence about the injuries from the assault, the court mentioned that some of it shouldn't have been included since it might have affected the fairness of his sentencing. Although they found error in admitting this evidence, they still believed the overall verdicts and the remaining parts of the trial were fair. Ultimately, the court decided that Nelson's sentence for the first count of assault was too severe due to the improper evidence, and they modified it to three years, while they affirmed the conviction and sentence for the second count. One judge agreed with most of the decision but disagreed with reducing the sentence, stating the injuries were relevant for determining the punishment.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-1182, Bryan Matthew Carroll appealed his conviction for multiple offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse some of his convictions and modify others. One judge dissented. Carroll was found guilty by a jury of several charges. These charges included Assault and/or Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Attempting to Elude a Police Officer, and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, among others. The jury sentenced him to various fines and jail time for these offenses. Carroll argued that he was unfairly punished for some offenses and that there was not enough evidence to support the charges against him, especially for the more serious ones like Assault and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. He claimed his rights were violated and that he did not receive fair representation from his lawyer. In looking at Carroll's appeal, the court decided to dismiss some of the judgments against him, specifically the Assault and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia charges. The court found that the evidence did not convincingly support the Assault charge and there was not enough proof that Carroll was intending to use the paraphernalia for drugs. For the Attempting to Elude charge, the court noted that Carroll was also convicted for not stopping at a stop sign while trying to escape from the police, which should not happen according to legal rules. The court ruled that one of the offenses was covered by the other, and that means Carroll was unfairly charged twice for one action. As for other charges, the court changed the punishment for speeding because the jury was not correctly informed about the possible penalties. They modified Carroll's sentence for that charge but kept the other sentences intact, concluding that they were fair based on what happened. In summary, Carroll's case showed that even when someone is charged with multiple offenses, it's important for the legal system to follow rules to ensure fairness. The court made changes that reflected these principles, showing that justice is essential in every case.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-845, Curtis Randall Foote appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including First Degree Burglary, Intimidation of a Witness, Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery, and Threatening an Act of Violence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for First Degree Burglary, Intimidation of a Witness, Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery, but to reverse the conviction for Threatening an Act of Violence with instructions to dismiss that charge. One judge dissented. Foote had entered a no contest plea in the District Court of Grady County, where the judge sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment. Foote later tried to withdraw his plea, but the court denied his request. He then appealed this denial. The court reviewed the entire case record and considered multiple reasons Foote presented for his appeal. The first issue was whether he truly entered his plea of no contest. The court found that he did intend to plead no contest, so the plea was accepted correctly by the trial court. Foote also argued that he should not have been treated as a habitual offender because his past convictions were not properly documented. While the court found that his maximum sentence was appropriate, they acknowledged an error in the judgment that needed correcting. Foote also claimed that being convicted of both Intimidation of a Witness and Threatening an Act of Violence was unfair, as they were linked. The court agreed and reversed the latter conviction. However, it determined that his other convictions were valid and based on separate actions. The court ruled that the evidence supporting his intimidation charge was sufficient, and his claim of not having proper legal representation was rejected. Ultimately, the court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari, which means they did not find enough reason to change the lower court's decisions aside from the reversal of the Threatening an Act of Violence charge. They ordered some corrections to the written judgment but upheld most of the other convictions.
In OCCA case No. M-2003-495, a person appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but noted that there was a mistake in calculating the court costs. The appellant claimed that the court costs were too high and asked to have them changed. The state agreed that an error was made in the amount of costs. The court ordered that the case be sent back to the District Court to fix the court costs. The appellant also argued that the prosecutor did things that were unfair during the trial, but the court found no reasons to change the verdict since there weren’t any objections during the trial. Therefore, the judgment and sentence were upheld.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-87, Claude Thomas Gifford appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for robbery but affirmed the conviction for assault and battery. One judge dissented. Gifford was found guilty of several crimes after a jury trial in Cleveland County. He received a lengthy sentence of 38 years for robbery and 48 years for assault, among other sentences. Gifford believed he was unfairly punished twice for the same incident, as the robbery and the assault were committed against the same victim at the same time. The court agreed that convicting him for both crimes was unfair, as they were not separate acts and violated the law against double punishment. They also found that the other claims made by Gifford did not warrant changes to his convictions or sentences. As a result of the court's review, they reversed the conviction and sentence for robbery and kept the conviction for assault, but adjusted the sentences accordingly.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-1035, Russell DeWayne Dykes appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine), and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance without a Tax Stamp Affixed. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify some of the sentences. One judge dissented. Dykes was found guilty after a bench trial. The trial was held before a judge who decided his fate. Dykes received six years of imprisonment for each of the three counts. These sentences were supposed to run at the same time. Dykes argued several issues in his appeal. First, he said that the evidence against him wasn't handled properly, which made it less reliable, and that he did not get a fair trial because of that. Second, he claimed that the evidence presented by the State did not clearly show that he had the controlled substance, meaning he shouldn’t have been convicted for that crime. Third, Dykes believed that the judge gave him sentences that were longer than the law allowed. He asked for the sentences to be changed or at least reduced. He also thought the judge should have lowered his sentence based on what was said during an earlier part of the trial. Lastly, he argued that the combined effect of all these issues led to an unfair trial. After looking closely at all of Dykes' claims and the court documents, the judges decided that Dykes did not have a strong enough argument about the chain of evidence. They believed that even though Dykes raised questions about how the evidence was handled, there was still enough proof for a reasonable person to believe he was guilty. The court also agreed that although the sentences were initially longer than what was allowed, the errors could be fixed. They decided to lower the sentences: for the assault charge, Dykes would serve five years instead of six, and for the possession charge without a tax stamp, the court changed it to two years. In conclusion, the court affirmed that Dykes was guilty and solidified the evidence used, but they modified two of his sentences to fit what the law allowed.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-912, Jerry Leon McManus, Jr. appealed his conviction for several serious crimes, including Kidnapping, Assault, Rape by Instrumentation, and Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his convictions on two counts to a lesser charge and change the sentences but upheld his other convictions. One judge dissented. The case started in a court in Muskogee County where McManus was accused of multiple crimes against a victim. A trial jury found him guilty of most counts after being directed that he was not guilty of a few charges. Each of the remaining charges led to a life sentence that would run at the same time. On appeal, McManus presented several arguments about why he should not have been convicted. He said the trial court did not explain the rules correctly regarding one type of crime, leading to confusion. He also argued that the court allowed some evidence about past actions of his that were not relevant to the case, and he believed this affected the fairness of the trial. Furthermore, he claimed the prosecutor made improper comments during the trial and said there wasn’t enough evidence to support his convictions for certain crimes. The court reviewed these arguments carefully. It agreed with McManus on one point: the jury should have been instructed properly about the crime of Rape by Instrumentation. Since the jury was incorrectly steered towards a greater charge, the court decided to change McManus's convictions for this specific crime to a lesser offense of Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation and adjusted his sentence to fifteen years for those two counts instead of life imprisonment. However, the court found that even though some evidence from old crimes should not have been shared, it did not change the outcome of the trial. The jury's decision was seen as just because there was enough solid evidence presented against McManus. The court also thought that despite various issues raised during the trial, those did not combine to make the trial unfair or warrant a full reversal of all convictions. In summary, while the court changed some aspects regarding the Rape by Instrumentation, they affirmed the rest of the convictions and sentences for McManus, deciding he would serve a reduced time for the lesser charges but still maintain his convictions for the other serious crimes.