In OCCA case No. M-2014-235, Donald Wayne Farino appealed his conviction for Obtaining Cash By False Pretenses and Petit Larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and send the case back for a new trial. No one dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-974, Karena L. Gilbreath-Hancock appealed her conviction for Actual Physical Control of a Motor Vehicle under the Influence of Alcohol. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for resentencing but affirmed her original conviction. One judge dissented. Gilbreath-Hancock was found guilty after a jury trial and was sentenced to two and a half years in prison along with a fine. She appealed for two main reasons. First, she claimed that her lawyer had a conflict of interest. However, the court found there was no actual conflict because Gilbreath-Hancock did not object to her lawyer's representation during the trial. The court stated that just because she disagreed with her lawyer's strategy, it did not mean there was a conflict of interest. Second, Gilbreath-Hancock argued that her rights were violated as the trial court failed to give the jury all the possible sentencing options available. The court agreed that the trial court made a mistake and needed to correct it. Because of this, they ordered the case to be sent back for resentencing, making sure that the jury would know all their options. In summary, while the court upheld the conviction of Gilbreath-Hancock, they recognized a mistake in the sentencing process and ordered that it be fixed.
In OCCA case No. M-2013-918, the appellant appealed his conviction for direct contempt of court. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented, stating that while the court's warning was correct, the error in not allowing the appellant a chance to be heard was harmless because the appellant's sentence was later reduced.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-619, Carty appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the restitution order. One judge dissented. Carty was found guilty of using a dangerous weapon during a robbery. He was sentenced to ten years in prison and had to pay $625 in restitution to the victim. Carty thought that the trial court made a mistake when it decided how much he should pay as restitution. He argued that the court did not follow the correct rules when ordering the restitution. The court explained that when a victim suffers financial loss because of a crime, the trial court can order the defendant to pay restitution. However, this amount must be proven with reasonable certainty. This means that the victim needs to provide clear evidence of their financial loss, like how much they spent on medical bills or other costs resulting from the crime. The judges reviewed the records from Carty’s trial. They found that there was no evidence showing how the victim calculated their financial loss, and the victim did not share their losses during the sentencing. Because there was not enough proof provided to establish the victim's economic loss, the court agreed that the trial court made a mistake in deciding the restitution amount. The court ultimately upheld Carty's conviction but ordered that the restitution amount be looked at again to ensure it was determined correctly based on the victim’s actual losses.
In OCCA case No. M 2011-0870 and case No. M 2011-0871, Sherry Kay Taylor appealed her conviction for driving under the influence and other related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and ordered a new trial. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. M 2011-0870 and M 2011-0871, Sherry Kay Taylor appealed her conviction for misdemeanors related to driving under the influence and other offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing her to have a lawyer during her hearings. One judge dissented. Sherry was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol, driving without a license, and improper backing in a case from December 21, 2010. She initially pleaded no contest to driving under the influence and received a six-month deferred sentence. Later, she was charged again for driving under the influence of both drugs and alcohol. In September 2011, Sherry went to a hearing where she was supposed to represent herself because her request for a lawyer was denied. The judge believed she had enough time to find a lawyer but Sherry argued that she didn't understand how to represent herself and didn't want to waive her right to have an attorney. The court looked into whether Sherry had been properly informed about her right to a lawyer and whether she had given up that right knowingly. It was found that there was no clear record showing that she had chosen to represent herself or that she understood the risks involved. Ultimately, the court decided that denying her the help of a lawyer was a mistake and ordered that she should have a new trial and a new hearing to review her sentence in a fair manner.
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. RE-2006-1312, Ronnie Ray Shelton appealed his conviction for Robbery by Force. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Shelton's suspended sentence. One member of the court dissented. Here is what happened: Shelton had been sentenced to ten years in prison for robbing someone, but he only had to serve three years if he followed the rules of his probation. However, on July 3, 2006, the State of Oklahoma said he broke the rules by committing new crimes, including Domestic Assault and Battery, Possession of a Controlled Substance, and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. A hearing took place on December 18, 2006, where Shelton had a lawyer. The judge said Shelton did violate his probation by committing Domestic Assault and Battery, which led to the decision to take away his suspended sentence completely. Shelton was not happy with this decision and decided to appeal it. In court, the judges reviewed if the decision to revoke Shelton's sentence was fair. They explained that to revoke a suspended sentence, there only needs to be enough evidence showing he broke the rules. They found enough evidence that Shelton did commit the necessary crime. The judges decided that taking away Shelton's suspended sentence was the right choice and there was no abuse of discretion in the judge's decision. However, they noted that there was a mistake in the paperwork regarding how long Shelton's sentence was supposed to be. The court said this mistake should be corrected to show his correct sentence. Ultimately, they agreed with the lower court's decision to revoke Shelton's sentence but ordered them to fix the error in the paperwork.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-165, the appellant appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse and Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that while the appellant's argument about multiple punishments was not needed for reversing the conviction, the sentences had to be modified to run concurrently. One judge disagreed with the decision to modify the sentences.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-914, Mark Wayne Johnson appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Mark Wayne Johnson was found guilty of Child Sexual Abuse and sentenced to twenty years in prison along with a fine. He believed that his lawyer did not do a good job during the trial. Johnson pointed out that his lawyer failed to bring in expert witnesses who could have helped his case and also did not challenge important evidence properly. Johnson raised several issues in his appeal. He claimed that the trial judge acted unfairly by scolding his lawyer in front of the jury. This made Johnson feel that he did not get a fair trial. He also argued that important evidence and witness credibility were not handled properly by the trial court, and that numerous mistakes made by his lawyer affected the outcome of the trial. The court reviewed these claims and found that there were many significant errors in how Johnson was represented. The judges said that Johnson's lawyer did not cross-examine witnesses properly or address inconsistencies in the testimonies. They concluded that all these mistakes could have changed the trial's outcome, meaning Johnson did not receive the fair trial he deserved. As a result of these findings, the court reversed Johnson's conviction and ordered a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-1481, Anthony John Hathcock appealed his conviction for Omitting To Provide For Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new acceleration hearing. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: Hathcock pled no contest to the charges in November 2001 and was given a five-year deferred sentence. This means he didn't go to prison right away but had to follow certain rules, like paying child support. He was supposed to pay $100 a month for current support and catch up on a larger amount he owed. However, the State said he failed to make these payments and asked the court to speed up his sentence, which was called accelerating the sentence. A hearing took place in June 2002 where Hathcock represented himself, meaning he didn't have a lawyer. The judge decided that Hathcock broke the rules of his deferred sentence and sentenced him to one year in prison. Hathcock then appealed this decision, saying three main things. First, he claimed he didn’t effectively waive his right to have a lawyer. Second, he argued that the State didn't provide good evidence to justify speeding up his sentence. Third, he pointed out that it was unclear what his new sentence was supposed to be. The court looked at these claims during the appeal. They agreed with Hathcock that he did not properly waive his right to a lawyer and that this was an important issue. Because of this, the court decided to reverse the earlier decision and send it back to the lower court for a new hearing, ensuring that Hathcock would have legal representation this time. Overall, the court's order was that Hathcock's sentence acceleration was not valid as he was not given proper legal help during the initial proceedings.
In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0351, the appellant appealed his conviction for violating probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided in favor of the appellant, agreeing that the trial court made a mistake in ordering sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently. One judge dissented.