Case Law

S-2010-540

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2010-540, Cavner appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the district court's decision to suppress the evidence. One judge dissented. The case began when the State of Oklahoma charged Cavner with Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol. He argued that the traffic stop was not justified because there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop. The district court agreed to suppress the evidence but did not dismiss the case entirely. On appeal, the State argued that the district court made an error by suppressing the evidence. When reviewing these kinds of cases, the court looks at the facts presented and defers to the trial court's findings unless something is clearly wrong. It was nighttime when Deputy Yarber observed a vehicle in the parking lot of an abandoned grocery store. He noted that the car left the parking lot in a lawful manner as he and another officer approached. The deputy did not mention any specific criminal activity and had no reason to believe something illegal was happening. Another officer had previously looked into possible drug activity in the area, but that had not been reported recently. In such situations, officers are allowed to check on people they find in unusual circumstances. However, since the vehicle drove away from the parking lot before Yarber could approach, he needed to stop it on a highway, which changes the situation from a simple question into a detention, known as a traffic stop. The law requires that a traffic stop must be supported by something more than just a hunch or general suspicion. The court explained that deputies must have reasonable suspicion to make a legal traffic stop. They look for specific facts suggesting that a crime may be occurring, which was not the case here. The deputy did not have enough evidence or reasons to suspect that Cavner was committing a crime simply because he was in the parking lot of an abandoned store late at night. The court referenced a prior case to support its decision, comparing the circumstances to those in a previous ruling where a stop was also deemed unlawful due to lack of reasonable suspicion. In Cavner's case, the court ruled that the officers did not have enough evidence to justify the traffic stop. Ultimately, the court affirmed the district court's order to suppress the evidence gathered during the stop, meaning the evidence could not be used against Cavner. The decision highlighted the importance of having proper legal grounds for police actions, ensuring that citizens' rights are protected under the law.

Continue ReadingS-2010-540

S-2009-944

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-944, the defendant appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling that the amendments to the Sex Offender Registration Act did not apply to the defendant. A dissenting opinion was not stated. The case involved the defendant, who was previously charged under the Sex Offender Registration Act. The key question was whether later amendments to the law should apply to him or not, given that he had entered a plea in 1999 and had complied with the previous legal conditions. The magistrate in the lower court determined that the law changes would be unfair to apply retroactively in the defendant's case. The court explained that new laws usually apply to future actions unless they are explicitly stated to have retroactive effects. They found no clear indication in the legislature's changes to imply that the new requirements should apply to those who had already been sentenced under the old rules. The court confirmed that since the amendments would change the defendant's obligations significantly, these substantive changes should not apply to him. As a result, the decision maintained that the lower court's refusal to move forward on the charge against the defendant could stand, with the matter being sent back to the District Court for any further actions needed, while affirming that the defendant was correct in his assertion that the recent amendments did not apply to him.

Continue ReadingS-2009-944

C-2010-77

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-77, Markeese Kreashawmn Ward appealed his conviction for Trafficking CDS and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his petition for a writ of certiorari and affirmed the trial court's order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Markeese Kreashawmn Ward was in court for committing serious crimes. On December 19, 2007, he said he was guilty to two charges: Trafficking in Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS) and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. Because he was a young adult, the judge decided he could join a special program called the Delayed Sentencing Program for Young Adults. This program was supposed to give him a second chance, and his sentencing was scheduled for a year later, on December 19, 2008. When that day came, the judge decided that Markeese had not done well in the program, so he was punished with five months in jail. After his jail time, he was supposed to go into another program designed to help him. Later, on November 13, 2009, the judge sentenced him to 45 years in prison for Trafficking and 5 years for unauthorized vehicle use, with both sentences running at the same time. Markeese didn't like the sentences he received and wanted to change his mind about pleading guilty. He filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, but the court held a hearing and decided not to allow him to withdraw his plea. Markeese believed there were two main reasons why he should be allowed to change his plea: 1. He claimed that some conditions added by the judge to his plea agreement were unfair because he didn’t agree to them. He thought this broke the rules about how judges and other branches of government should work separately. 2. He argued that the judge didn’t sentence him within the year required by law, making the sentence illegal. As the court reviewed these claims, they decided that the judge had done everything by the rules. First, they found that the judge's notes did not change the original agreement Markeese had made when he pleaded guilty, and he could have refused to accept the new conditions if he wanted. Therefore, his plea was still valid. For the second point, the court noted that even though Markeese thought the judge’s actions were a delay in sentencing, they were not. Instead, the judge was just giving him another chance to succeed in the program. The court pointed out that the judge was following the law properly by looking at Markeese's progress and determining if he deserved to have his sentence delayed further. Eventually, the court realized that the judge’s actions had led to a misunderstanding. To account for it properly, the court determined that Markeese had already been treated as if he had been given a part of his sentence when he was sanctioned to jail time and sent to the aftercare program. However, since Markeese had also been sentenced again later, it was like giving him two different sentences for the same crime, which is not allowed. In summary, the court decided to keep the original decision to deny Markeese's request to withdraw his plea but corrected what would happen next. They asked that his official record reflect that the sentence imposed during the sanction in December 2008 was what he needed to serve, and they mentioned that he should be released from custody. The result was that Markeese's case was somewhat settled, and his future would look different than it may have before, with the court noting a mistake that needed fixing without adding more time to his punishment.

Continue ReadingC-2010-77

S-2009-623

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-623, Walker appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that reduced the charge to a misdemeanor for possession of marijuana. One judge dissented from the decision. Walker was originally charged after police found a small amount of marijuana at his home. A person named Brawdy had earlier told deputies that he bought marijuana from Walker. When the police searched Walker's home, they found a very small quantity of marijuana and no other evidence like cash or scales that would suggest he was selling drugs. Two district judges reviewed the evidence and concluded that it did not support the idea that Walker intended to distribute drugs; they only found evidence that he might have had the marijuana for personal use. The state argued that since Brawdy mentioned buying drugs from Walker earlier, this should mean Walker had intent to sell. However, the court pointed out that without more evidence, like packaging or cash, they could not say Walker intended to sell the drug. The judges decided that the lower court acted correctly in reducing the charge. Therefore, the ruling from the District Court that lowered Walker's charge to a misdemeanor was upheld.

Continue ReadingS-2009-623

C-2006-1154

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-1154, Rayshun Carlie Mullins appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including rape and robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Mullins could withdraw his guilty pleas to many of the charges because he was not informed that he would have to serve 85% of his sentences before being eligible for parole. One judge dissented, arguing that the court should not vacate the pleas since Mullins knew he faced a long prison term when he entered his guilty pleas.

Continue ReadingC-2006-1154

F-2007-381

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-381, the appellant appealed his conviction for child sexual abuse, lewd or indecent proposals, and forcible oral sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand count two while affirming the remaining counts. One judge dissented. Brandon Donell Harris was found guilty of the three offenses in the District Court of Oklahoma County and was given a total of 21 years in prison to serve consecutively. He argued that the state did not provide enough evidence to prove he committed the sexual abuse of a child, that he was wrongfully convicted of lewd acts, that there were issues with the prosecutors' conduct, and that improper comments were made by the trial court during jury selection. The court looked at the evidence and felt that enough was presented to support the sexual abuse conviction, so they upheld that verdict. However, they found that the second count concerning lewd acts required that the child witness the acts, which did not happen in this case. Therefore, they reversed that conviction and instructed for it to be dismissed, while keeping the other convictions intact. For the claims of prosecutorial misconduct and improper trial comments, the court noted that there were no objections made during the trial, so they reviewed these for plain error. They determined that the prosecutor's comments did not significantly impact Harris's right to a fair trial, nor did the trial court's remarks affect the jury's decision. In conclusion, the court reversed the conviction for the lewd acts while affirming the other two convictions and decided that Harris should not be retried on the lewd acts charge. One judge disagreed with the decision to reverse count two, believing the evidence was sufficient to support all charges.

Continue ReadingF-2007-381

S-2007-31

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2007-31, Riccardo Gino Ferrante appealed his conviction for violating Oklahoma's Peeping Tom statute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order that granted the defendant's motion to quash the charges. One judge dissented. The facts of the case began when Mr. Ferrante was charged with taking inappropriate photographs of a woman in a store without her permission. The law he was charged under says that it is not allowed to use cameras to secretly take pictures of someone in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, like dressing rooms or restrooms. The key issue in this case was whether the woman had a reasonable expectation of privacy when she was in the store. The district court decided that the law did not apply in this situation because the store was not a place where the woman could expect privacy. The State of Oklahoma disagreed and appealed the decision. However, the court agreed with the lower court's analysis, saying that the law is clear and does not include what the defendant did. They explained that they cannot expand the law beyond its clear meaning. Ultimately, the higher court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the case against Ferrante, saying the action he took was not against the law as written. One judge felt strongly that this decision was wrong and pointed out that when someone dresses modestly, they expect their covered body to remain private. This dissent illustrates the concern about privacy rights for individuals in public spaces.

Continue ReadingS-2007-31

F-2006-854

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-854, Delbert L. Gibson appealed his conviction for two counts of lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence to twenty-five years imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently. One judge dissented. Gibson was found guilty of sexually fondling two young girls, aged thirteen and eleven, in September 2002. During the incident, Gibson followed the older girl into a bedroom and began to fondle her. The younger girl was also fondled shortly after. The girls told their mother about the incident and reported it to the police. Gibson raised four main points of error during his appeal. The first claimed he did not receive a speedy trial. The court looked at how long he waited for the trial, why there was a delay, whether he asked for a quick trial, and if the delay harmed his case. Gibson was charged in November 2002 but was not arrested until March 2005, with the trial occurring in June 2006. The court found that even though the delay seemed long, Gibson did not complain about it before the trial, which hurt his argument. Therefore, the court believed he was not denied a speedy trial. Gibson's second point was about other-crimes evidence that was presented during his trial. The state brought up a past incident where Gibson had fondled a ten-year-old girl while working as a school photographer twenty years earlier. The court agreed that this evidence was probably not properly connected to the current case but felt it did not significantly impact the jury’s decision, especially since the two young girls provided strong testimonies. In his third point, Gibson argued the jury was incorrectly instructed on the penalties for his crimes. He believed that the law didn’t support a mandatory life sentence without parole based on the charges brought against him. The court analyzed the laws and determined that the proper penalties did not include mandatory life sentences, leading them to modify his sentence instead. Finally, Gibson claimed that all these problems together denied him a fair trial. Since the court found no major errors, the cumulative effect claim was also denied. Overall, the court upheld Gibson's conviction for molestation, but changed his sentence to a total of twenty-five years in prison instead of life without parole.

Continue ReadingF-2006-854

F-2004-935

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-935, Alfred Junior Mills appealed his conviction for burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirty years to twenty years. One judge dissented. The case involved Alfred Junior Mills, who had been convicted of burglary and was sentenced to thirty years in prison. After his appeal, the court looked at some important issues. One issue was about how much time he would actually have to serve. The appellant's team argued that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule, which means that a person must serve at least 85% of their sentence. This rule was important because it may have changed how the jury decided to sentence him. The court agreed that they should apply this rule to his case because it was decided while his appeal was still going on. They found that the jury might not have given him a thirty-year sentence if they had known he would have to serve at least 85% of that time. So, they reduced his sentence to twenty years instead of thirty. Another part of the appeal was about whether the jury should have considered a lesser crime instead of burglary. The defense had a theory that they believed should have led to a different verdict, but the jury didn't buy it. They thought Mills' story was not believable and gave him a sentence that was much higher than the minimum. The court decided that there was no reason to think the jury would have chosen to give him a lesser charge after they rejected his story so strongly. In conclusion, the court made a significant change to Mills' sentence due to the 85% rule but upheld the conviction for burglary. One judge disagreed with the decision to modify the sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2004-935

RE 2006-0808

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2006-0808, Covey appealed her conviction for revocation of her suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation order and send the case back for a new hearing with counsel present. One judge dissented. Covey had pled guilty to a crime and was given a suspended sentence, meaning she wouldn't serve time unless she broke the rules again. The State thought she had broken the rules and asked the court to take away her suspended sentence. At the hearing, Covey didn’t have a lawyer because she claimed she couldn’t pay for one. The judge said Covey had enough chances to get a lawyer but decided to go ahead without one. However, the court found that there was no clear proof that Covey was okay with not having a lawyer or that she understood the risks of representing herself. This is important because everyone has the right to have a lawyer help them during important hearings like this one. Because the court didn’t follow the proper rules for allowing Covey to go without a lawyer, they reversed the previous decision and said she should have another hearing with a lawyer or a clear agreement that she didn’t want one.

Continue ReadingRE 2006-0808

RE-2006-135

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-135, Misty Dawn Nelson appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her appeal and remand the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Misty Dawn Nelson had originally pleaded guilty to a crime and received a four-year suspended sentence, meaning she wouldn’t have to go to jail unless she broke the rules of her probation. However, the State later claimed she broke the rules by committing new crimes. The judge then revoked two years of her suspended sentence and decided the remaining two years would be on probation. Misty argued that the judge made a mistake by imposing her revoked sentence to run consecutively with another sentence she was serving. This would mean her total time under supervision would last longer than what was originally set. The court agreed with Misty, stating that a judge cannot extend a suspended sentence beyond its original end date. The court found that the revocation order was invalid and needed to be sent back to the District Court to see if the revocation was warranted or not. The court mentioned similar cases where sentences also faced issues of being extended unfairly. In conclusion, Misty's appeal was granted, and the case was returned to the District Court to decide what to do next about the suspended sentence.

Continue ReadingRE-2006-135

S 2005-702

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S 2005-702, Roley appealed his conviction for Child Abuse/Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling. One judge dissented. Michael Ray Roley was charged with child abuse/neglect. This case started in Creek County District Court on November 9, 2004. After some hearings, the judge let Roley go free by granting a motion to quash, which means the charges against him were dismissed before a trial could happen. The State of Oklahoma, which was prosecuting Roley, didn't agree with this decision and decided to appeal it. They brought up three main points they believed were wrong with the judge's ruling. First, they argued that a previous case about a person’s right to confront witnesses didn’t apply to preliminary hearings. They said Roley was claiming a right to confront witnesses too early. Second, the State believed that Roley should not have been allowed to extend this right to preliminary hearings in such a broad way. Finally, they suggested that the court should consider the need to protect the child who was the victim in this case. After thoroughly examining the arguments and evidence, the court agreed with the trial judge’s decision. They highlighted that Oklahoma’s Constitution and laws give a person a right to confront witnesses during preliminary hearings, just like in a full trial. The court also noted that hearsay evidence, or what someone said out of court, could not be used unless the person who made the statement was unavailable. In this case, the children who were supposed to testify did not do so, making what the State presented unacceptable to prove that a crime had happened. The judges deliberated and concluded that the trial judge acted correctly when deciding not to allow the case to proceed based on the evidence presented. Therefore, the court supported the decision of the trial court to grant the motion to quash the charges against Roley, keeping him from being tried. In the end, the court affirmed the lower decision and stated that they would issue a mandate to finalize the ruling. One judge had a different opinion and disagreed, but the majority agreed that the earlier ruling should stand.

Continue ReadingS 2005-702

F-2004-389

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-389, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery by force. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved James Stephen Richardson, who was found guilty of robbery. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison and fined $1500. Richardson argued that his lawyer did not do a good job and that this impacted his defense. He claimed his lawyer failed to challenge a juror, did not question how he was identified by the victims, and did not find evidence that could help prove he was innocent. The court looked into Richardson's claims and decided to hold a special hearing to investigate his last point about ineffective assistance of counsel. During this hearing, it was revealed that there were certain jail policies regarding the clothing of inmates that were not properly investigated by Richardson’s attorney. The evidence showed that the items of clothing could not be released under the jail's rules, which could have helped Richardson’s case. The district court agreed that the lawyer did not conduct a reasonable investigation about this clothing policy. Because of this failure, the judge believed that the defense had a weaker case and that if this information had been presented, the outcome of the trial could have been different. The court decided that Richardson's attorney did not provide adequate legal help, which is why they reversed the original judgment. In summary, Richardson's case was sent back for a new trial because the court found that his lawyer did not do enough to support his defense, particularly regarding important evidence about the clothing policy at the jail.

Continue ReadingF-2004-389

M-2004-802

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2004-802, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was stopped by a police officer early in the morning because his car was parked in a lot with its lights on, near a closed restaurant. The officer got suspicious due to a series of burglaries happening in the area recently. When the officer approached the car, it began to move. The officer then decided to stop the vehicle to ask what the appellant was doing there. During the trial, the appellant argued that the stop was illegal. He believed that the officer did not have enough reason to suspect that he was doing something wrong. The officer admitted during the hearing that he did not know for sure if the appellant was involved in criminal activity when he made the stop. The court reviewed the situation and concluded that the officer did not have a good reason to think the appellant was doing anything suspicious. They pointed out that the appellant's actions could easily be seen as innocent. The conclusion was that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion, which is necessary to make a legal stop, and therefore the evidence collected after the stop should not have been used against the appellant. Ultimately, the court reversed the conviction, meaning that the case would not proceed further and the appellant's charges would be dismissed. One judge disagreed with the decision, arguing that the officer had good reasons to make the stop based on the circumstances around the time and location.

Continue ReadingM-2004-802

F-2004-576

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-576, Jimmy Allen Phillips appealed his conviction for two counts of Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modify the sentences to be served concurrently. One judge dissented. Phillips was found guilty after a trial in the Rogers County District Court. The jury recommended that he serve a total of 34 years in prison—12 years for the first count and 22 years for the second count. Phillips argued that he did not get a fair trial because of inappropriate remarks made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. The court examined the entire case, including records and evidence presented. They agreed that some comments made by the prosecutor were improper and potentially harmful. For example, the prosecutor suggested his personal belief in the case and made remarks that tied the actions to a divine judgment, which the court found inappropriate. Despite recognizing these issues, the court concluded that they did not warrant a complete reversal of the convictions. Instead, they determined that Phillips’ sentences should run concurrently, meaning he would serve the time at the same time rather than back-to-back. This decision aimed to address the improper comments while still upholding the jury's verdict.

Continue ReadingF-2004-576

C-2003-1247

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-1247, Robert Hershal Perkis appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, and burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, reverse the kidnapping conviction, and modify the burglary conviction to second-degree burglary. One judge dissented on the kidnapping aspect. Robert Hershal Perkis was charged with three serious crimes: robbery using a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, and first-degree burglary. He pleaded nolo contendere, which means he did not contest the charges. The court sentenced him to a total of 60 years in prison for these crimes, with the sentences running one after the other, and ordered him to pay fines and restitution. Later, Perkis filed an application to withdraw his guilty pleas, stating that his pleas were not supported by enough evidence, that the sentences were too harsh, and that he did not receive good help from his lawyer. The court looked into these claims and first examined if the pleas were based on sufficient evidence. For the robbery charge, the court found that the victim was threatened with a dangerous weapon and had property taken from him, which satisfied the elements of robbery. Thus, the court upheld Perkis' conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In looking at the kidnapping charge, the court considered the facts surrounding the incident. The victim was taken to a field and held there by Perkis and others. The central issue was whether the confinement of the victim could be considered “secret.” The court decided that because the victim was in a public area, it did not meet the legal definition of secret confinement, which led to the reversal of the kidnapping conviction. Regarding the burglary charge, the court found that while there were issues concerning the evidence for first-degree burglary, it chose to modify the conviction to second-degree burglary instead, giving Perkis a shorter sentence for that conviction. Overall, the court's opinion granted some relief to Perkis by reversing one conviction and modifying another, but kept the robbery conviction intact. The dissenting judge felt that the kidnapping conviction should stand, arguing that the facts should be considered as a case of secret confinement.

Continue ReadingC-2003-1247

C 2002-1543

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2002-1543, Jeffrey Ellis Barnett appealed his conviction for second-degree rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for a writ of certiorari. One judge dissented. Barnett had pleaded guilty to second-degree rape in McClain County. He was then sentenced to ten years in prison, with five years of that sentence suspended according to a plea agreement. Later, Barnett wanted to withdraw his guilty plea and filed his own petition to get a new trial. The court looked at this as a motion to withdraw the guilty plea but denied his request. Barnett believed he was not helped properly by his lawyer when he tried to withdraw his guilty plea, which he said was against his right to have legal help. After reviewing the case and comparing it to a similar case from 1995, the court accepted his argument and agreed that he needed better legal representation to help him with withdrawing his plea. As a result, the court decided to send the case back to the trial court. They ordered that Barnett would have a hearing with a different lawyer to help him with his motion to withdraw the guilty plea.

Continue ReadingC 2002-1543

F-2003-673

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-673, Booker James Johnson, Jr., appealed his conviction for procuring a minor to participate in the preparation of obscene material and possession of child pornography. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences. One judge dissented. Johnson was found guilty of two serious crimes by a jury in Tulsa County. The jury decided he should go to prison for twenty years for the first conviction and pay a fine of $25,000 for the second. He didn't agree with this and appealed. Johnson claimed there were several problems during his trial. First, he said it was unfair to make him defend against both charges in the same trial. He believed that separate trials would have been better. He also argued that the instructions given to the jury about how to decide his punishment were wrong because they used the wrong law for his first charge. Johnson said he should only serve ten years for that charge instead of twenty based on this mistake. For the second charge, Johnson claimed he should have been charged under a different statute that better fit the crime. As a result, the fine for this charge should have been lower, at $5,000 instead of $25,000. Johnson also argued that his right to a fair trial was damaged by a statement made by the prosecutor during closing arguments, suggesting that both charges should be considered together. He felt that this was unfair and went against his rights. Additionally, Johnson said his lawyer did not help him enough, which made his trial unfair. Finally, he complained that he did not have access to important evidence needed for his defense. The court reviewed all of Johnson's claims. They decided that it was not a big mistake for the trial judge to keep both charges together. However, they did agree that the jury was instructed incorrectly about the first charge, and thus modified the punishment to ten years. For the second charge, they recognized that Johnson should have been charged under a more specific statute, so they also corrected the fine to $5,000. In the end, the court kept Johnson's conviction for both crimes but changed his sentence to ten years in prison for the first charge and a $5,000 fine for the second charge, with some paperwork corrections needed to officially note these changes.

Continue ReadingF-2003-673

RE-2003-918

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2003-918, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that terminated him from the Drug Court program. One judge dissented. The case began on April 10, 2002, when the appellant pleaded no contest to a DUI charge. He was given a suspended sentence, meaning he would not serve time in prison if he followed the rules. He also had to pay a fine and do community service. Later, he faced another DUI charge. He pleaded guilty again with a promise that if he successfully completed the Drug Court program, he wouldn’t have to face further charges for the first DUI. However, on May 1, 2003, the State accused him of violating the terms of the Drug Court program. The State claimed he had been sanctioned multiple times for not following the rules. On August 5, 2003, the court decided to revoke his suspended sentence and ended his participation in the Drug Court program. The appellant believed the court made a mistake by terminating him from Drug Court based on violations he had already been punished for. He felt this was unfair and argued it amounted to double jeopardy, which means being punished twice for the same offense. The State argued that they were not punishing him again for those violations but believed that the sanctions had not helped him change his behavior. The court examined the situation and found that the appellant had already faced consequences for his earlier violations. It agreed with him that the reasons for his termination were flawed. The judges noted that if prior violations were allowed to be counted again for the same termination, it would be unfair and might discourage other participants in Drug Court. The court decided to remand the case back to the lower court, allowing the appellant to return to the Drug Court program with the original rules he had agreed upon. The judges highlighted that a new violation must occur in order for more severe actions, like termination, to be taken. In summary, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, indicating that the reasons for his termination from Drug Court were not valid, thus restoring his opportunity to complete the program.

Continue ReadingRE-2003-918

F-2001-1048

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1048, Wendy Leann Underwood appealed her conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Here’s a simple summary of the case: Wendy Leann Underwood was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine after she had committed other crimes before. The jury decided she should go to prison for 40 years. However, Wendy thought there were problems with how her case was handled, so she asked a higher court to review it. Wendy raised several points for why she believed her conviction and sentence should be changed: 1. She argued that the police search which found the drugs was not done properly, so the drugs should not have been used against her in court. She also said her lawyer did not fight this issue well enough. 2. She thought the trial did not properly explain to the jury that a person who testified against her was an accomplice and that there should have been supporting evidence for what that person said. 3. Wendy pointed out that many of her past criminal cases were actually part of the same situation, so they should not count as multiple offenses. 4. She believed her punishment should have been based on specific drug laws instead of general laws for repeat offenders. 5. Wendy thought she should get a lighter sentence because of new laws that help non-violent offenders. After looking carefully at everything, the court found that the police search was legal and that Wendy's lawyer did not make a mistake by not challenging it. They also decided that the person who testified against Wendy was not someone who required additional proof, so that was fine too. However, the court agreed that too many of Wendy's past convictions were counted, since many of them happened during the same event. Therefore, they decided to change her sentence from 40 years to 30 years. They felt that was fair based on the laws. Regarding the other issues raised by Wendy, the court determined that the punishment was appropriately based on the laws and that the new laws did not apply to her case. Thus, they kept her conviction but made her time in prison shorter. In conclusion, her conviction stood, but her time in prison was reduced to 30 years, with one judge thinking it should be even less.

Continue ReadingF-2001-1048

RE-2001-947

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2001-947, the appellant appealed his conviction for indecent exposure. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the matter to the District Court of Noble County for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The story begins when the appellant entered a guilty plea for indecent exposure in 1991 and was given a suspended sentence. This means he wouldn't serve time unless he broke the rules of his probation. However, in 1999, the State said he had committed another crime while on probation and wanted to take away his suspended sentence. During the revocation hearing, it was discovered that when the appellant was sentenced, he should not have been given a suspended sentence at all because of his prior convictions. According to Oklahoma law, if someone has three or more felony convictions, they aren't allowed to receive a suspended sentence. The court noted that both the appellant and the State were aware of his criminal history, and no evidence was presented to show that he was eligible for a suspended sentence. In fact, the plea agreement that he entered into was not legal under the law. Because of these issues, the court decided that the appellant's original judgment and sentence should be vacated, meaning it was canceled. This allows the appellant a chance to withdraw his guilty plea, which he can do if he wants to go to trial for the indecent exposure charge again. If he chooses not to withdraw his plea, he will then be sentenced again, but this time, it will be done right and in accordance with the law. Ultimately, the court took this action to ensure that everything was done fairly and legally, giving the appellant a proper opportunity to have his case heard correctly in the District Court. The ruling was important in maintaining the rules around sentencing and ensuring that people with multiple convictions are treated based on the law.

Continue ReadingRE-2001-947

F-2000-618

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-618, Keith Avey appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence, After Former Conviction of Driving Under the Influence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Avey's judgment and sentence of eight years imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. However, the court requested a remand for a hearing on restitution. One judge dissented. Avey was found guilty by a jury which heard evidence that he was driving under the influence of alcohol. This included observations of his strong smell of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and unstable walking after a collision. The jury decided to give him a punishment of eight years in prison and a fine, along with restitution payment. During the appeal, Avey argued that the trial court made mistakes. He believed the court should have informed the jury about a lesser charge called Driving While Impaired. However, the appellate court ruled that the evidence against him was strong enough that not giving this instruction was acceptable. Avey also contended that the trial court should have examined the specific losses experienced by the victims before setting the restitution amount. The appellate court agreed that the trial court failed to provide this hearing, stating that the law requires the court to establish the actual losses suffered by the victims. This is why they sent the case back for a restitution hearing. Avey argued that he did not get a fair defense because his attorney didn’t challenge the order of restitution effectively. However, the court disagreed, saying that the attorney did raise objections about the amount of loss and therefore did not provide ineffective assistance. Furthermore, Avey claimed that the evidence presented was not enough to prove he was guilty. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Finally, Avey said that the eight-year sentence was too harsh. The appellate court stated that the sentence was appropriate and in line with the law. In summary, while the appellate court upheld Avey's imprisonment and fine, it required a new examination of the restitution amount due to the trial court's failure to provide proper hearings.

Continue ReadingF-2000-618

F-2000-939

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-939, Tony Guinn appealed his conviction for Workers' Compensation Fraud. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented, arguing that one of the counts should be reversed due to a violation of double jeopardy, stating that there was only one claim for benefits which led to two misrepresentations.

Continue ReadingF-2000-939