Case Remanded

C-2015-1057

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-1057, Steven Casey Jones appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition and allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Here’s a simpler breakdown of what happened in this case: Steven Casey Jones was charged with robbery involving a dangerous weapon. He decided to plead guilty to this charge as part of an agreement, thinking he would get a lighter sentence. However, after he pleaded guilty, he felt that he had been given wrong information about the punishment he could face. Jones said that his attorney told him the minimum punishment was twenty years in prison, but he later found out that it was actually less. Because of this wrong information, he felt he had to plead guilty to a fifteen-year sentence, which was still longer than what it should have been. He later tried to take back his guilty plea, but this was denied. So, he appealed the decision in court, wanting to show that his plea was not made with the correct information. The court reviewed the entire case, including what Jones and his attorney had discussed. It turned out that the attorney's mistake about the punishment range was significant. The State also agreed that this error could have influenced Jones's decision. Due to this mistake, the court decided to let Jones withdraw his guilty plea and go back to the start of his case. This meant he would have another chance to present his arguments about the robbery charge without the misunderstanding affecting him. After considering everything, the court decided to grant Jones's petition, which means they agreed with him and wanted to fix the mistake. The case was sent back to the lower court to allow Jones to withdraw his plea.

Continue ReadingC-2015-1057

C 2014-920

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2014-920, John Edward Oxford appealed his conviction for several serious crimes including robbery, burglary, and conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but also ordered a hearing to review the amount of restitution he was ordered to pay. Oxford was charged with multiple counts and, on July 10, 2014, he entered a blind plea, which means he pleaded guilty without negotiating a deal, to all the charges. The court sentenced him to a total of over 70 years in prison and ordered him to pay about $67,539 in restitution to the victims. After his sentencing, Oxford tried to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he did not understand the charges and was not fully informed about his rights. The trial court held a hearing on this and ultimately denied his request. Oxford then appealed this decision, arguing several points. First, he believed he should not have been sentenced for certain counts because it violated laws against double punishment. However, the court noted that his arguments about double jeopardy were not raised in the earlier stages and thus were not considered. Second, he argued there wasn't enough evidence to support the restitution amount, but again the court found this issue had not been raised before and rejected it. Oxford also claimed he did not receive effective legal help during his plea and the hearing to withdraw it. The court agreed that there were problems with how his attorney handled the restitution order, focusing mainly on the lack of detailed documentation justifying the restitution amount. This lack of evidence meant the restitution order was not valid. While the court found that Oxford's guilty plea was made voluntarily, it did acknowledge inadequate support for the restitution order. Therefore, it denied his appeal regarding the guilty plea but vacated the restitution order, sending the case back to the lower court for a proper review of how much compensation was truly owed to the victims. One judge dissented, noting that the case should have been looked at more closely regarding the earlier claims. So, in summary, the appeal was mainly denied except for the part about restitution, which was sent back to the lower court for further review.

Continue ReadingC 2014-920

F-2013-994

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-994, Horace Joe Bigmedicine appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court but vacated the order of restitution. One judge dissented. Bigmedicine was found guilty in a trial held in Blaine County and was sentenced to thirty years in prison. He raised two main issues in his appeal. First, he argued that misconduct by the prosecutor unfairly influenced the trial. The court stated that it would only grant relief for prosecutorial misconduct if it was very serious and made the trial unfair. The court found the prosecutor's comments were appropriate and did not make the trial unfair, so they did not grant relief on that issue. Second, Bigmedicine claimed that the court did not properly follow the rules when it ordered him to pay $2,000 in restitution. The court pointed out that Bigmedicine did not object to the restitution at the time, so he could not challenge it later unless there was a serious mistake. The law allows a trial court to require a defendant to pay restitution for the victim's financial losses, but these losses must be proven with reasonable certainty. In Bigmedicine’s case, the evidence about the victim’s financial loss was lacking because the victim did not testify about it, and the necessary documents were not presented in court. Therefore, the court ruled that the restitution order was arbitrary and that it had to be canceled. Ultimately, the court affirmed Bigmedicine's conviction but required that the issue of restitution be looked at again in the lower court to make sure it was handled correctly.

Continue ReadingF-2013-994

F-2012-212

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-212, Bryce Andrew Davis appealed his conviction for Aggravated Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the District Court abused its discretion in ordering restitution, and they remanded the case for modification of the restitution order. One member of the court dissented. The case began when Bryce Andrew Davis entered a plea to the crime of Aggravated Assault and Battery against a minor at a Walmart store. The minor suffered serious injuries, including a crushed cheekbone and an orbital wall fracture, needing significant medical treatment. After Davis completed a rehabilitation program, a hearing was held to determine the amount of restitution he would have to pay to cover the victim's expenses. The court ordered Davis to pay a total of $30,528.43 in restitution, which was meant to cover the victim's medical expenses, lost wages of his parents due to caring for him, travel costs for doctor visits, and fees for copying records. However, Davis argued that the restitution amount was too high and that the court had exceeded its authority by not limiting the amount to the actual economic loss suffered by the victim. The law states that restitution is only supposed to cover actual financial detriment suffered by the victim, meaning help for their real costs like medical bills that have to be paid out of pocket. Davis pointed out that the amount awarded to the victim included expenses that were not certain, such as lost wages for the victim's father and future medical costs. After reviewing the evidence and the court's decisions, the appellate court found that the trial court did not calculate the restitution correctly. They realized that the court had used the total medical bills before insurance adjustments, which was not allowed. Instead, they should have calculated the actual amount paid by the family, which was much lower. The court modified the restitution order to reflect three times the actual economic damage for medical costs, reducing that portion of the restitution significantly. They also struck down the father's lost wages because there was not enough proof to support the amount claimed. The future medical costs award was also removed because they were too uncertain and speculative. The decision outlined the need for a clear basis for any loss that a victim claims, stating that the evidence must be strong enough to establish real losses. The court upheld other parts of the restitution order, which were justified. In summary, the court found that while the victim suffered injuries and needed help, the original calculations for restitution went beyond what was allowed by law, leading to significant modifications in the amount that Davis would have to pay. They ordered adjustments to ensure that restitution reflected actual, proven losses.

Continue ReadingF-2012-212

C-2010-1059

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-1059, Karen Deborah Smith appealed her conviction for Enabling Sexual Abuse of a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her petition and remand the case to the district court for a proper hearing on her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. One judge dissented. Petitioner, Karen Deborah Smith, was charged with two counts of enabling sexual abuse of a minor child in Tulsa County. She entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced to five years in prison, with two years suspended on each count, serving the sentences at the same time. Later, she requested to withdraw her guilty plea, but her request was denied after a hearing. In her appeal, Smith raised several arguments. She claimed she should be allowed to withdraw her plea because there was no strong reason for her to accept it, especially since an 11-year-old was involved, and he was not actually responsible for the care and safety of the children. She argued that she did not have complete understanding of her situation when she entered her plea because she wasn't informed enough about the 85 percent requirement linked to her charges. She said her lawyer didn't properly explain everything to her and that there was a conflict of interests because the same lawyer represented her during both the plea and the withdrawal request. The court looked carefully at her claims and agreed that she might not have received fair legal help when she tried to withdraw her plea because the same lawyer represented her both when she made her plea and when she wanted to change it. The judge recognized that the lawyer might not have done his best job during the withdrawal hearing since he could not argue against his own previous actions. The court decided to grant Smith's request and ordered her case to be sent back to the district court for another hearing. This time, the court instructed that she should have a different lawyer who did not have previous connections to her case, ensuring she would have fair representation. In summary, the court took action to make sure that Smith's rights were protected, and it wanted to ensure she had a fair chance to address her situation properly. The dissenting opinion noted disagreement with the court’s decision, believing that Smith had been properly informed and had made a voluntary decision regarding her plea, and no actual conflict or prejudice had been shown.

Continue ReadingC-2010-1059

C-2006-1192

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-1192, Chad Fourkiller appealed his conviction for attempting to elude a police officer, possession of a sawed-off shotgun, and feloniously possessing a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for writ of certiorari and remand the case for a new hearing on the application to withdraw his guilty plea. One member of the court dissented. Fourkiller had pleaded guilty to three charges, which included trying to escape from a police officer and having illegal weapons. He was sentenced to a total of time in prison, depending on whether he completed a program called Drug Court. After his participation in Drug Court ended, he was formally sentenced. Later, Fourkiller wanted to change his guilty plea and claimed his lawyer did not explain things properly to him. The court did not allow him to withdraw his plea at first. However, during a follow-up hearing, Fourkiller’s lawyer ended up testifying against him. This created a problem since a lawyer should not represent a client and then testify against them in the same case. The court found that Fourkiller did not receive proper legal help, and because of this, they agreed to his request for a new hearing to discuss his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The other arguments Fourkiller made in his appeal about double jeopardy and errors in his sentencing were found to not need a decision since the first issue was enough to allow for a new hearing.

Continue ReadingC-2006-1192

F-2005-1282

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1282, Earl Andrew Dahl, Jr., appealed his conviction for multiple sexual offenses including Rape by Instrumentation, Forcible Oral Sodomy, and Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments of the trial court but remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Dahl was found guilty on fifty counts related to these serious crimes, and the jury recommended various sentences for these counts, which were to be served one after another (consecutively). Dahl argued several points in his appeal, including that the evidence was not strong enough to support his convictions and that the sentences were excessive. He also claimed that the prosecutor asked unfair questions during the trial and that the trial court made errors by not giving certain instructions related to the law. After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that there was enough proof to uphold Dahl's convictions, as the victim's testimony was clear and trustworthy. They also noted that there were certain errors in how the trial was conducted, particularly the failure to provide an important instruction known as the 85% Rule, which affected how the jury decided on the sentencing. Because of this, the court ordered a new sentencing hearing to correct this mistake. Overall, while the convictions were upheld, the court acknowledged that the trial process had flaws, which led to their decision to allow for resentencing for Dahl.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1282

F-2005-829

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-829, Clarence Andre Gatewood appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Gatewood's conviction but remand for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Gatewood was found guilty by a jury of Second Degree Murder after initially being charged with First Degree Murder. He was sentenced to life in prison. During the appeal, he raised several issues, including that the trial court didn't notify his lawyer about a jury note, denied his request for a specific sentencing instruction, and allowed an involuntary confession to be used against him. The court examined these claims. It determined that Gatewood's confession was voluntary since he was aware of his rights, was sober, and spoke to the police without any threats or promises. Therefore, this part of his appeal was denied. However, the court found that Gatewood should have received instructions about parole eligibility, based on a previous case ruling. Since the jury had even asked a question related to the meaning of a life sentence with the possibility of parole, the court felt that this instruction was necessary. Consequently, while Gatewood's conviction stands, his sentence was overturned, and the case was sent back to lower court to determine a new sentence. The court did not consider his claim about the severity of his sentence because the other findings made it unnecessary to address.

Continue ReadingF-2005-829

F-2005-527

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-527, Thomas Terrill appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Thomas Terrill was originally charged with First Degree Murder in a case related to a death. During the trial, the jury found him guilty of the lesser charge of First Degree Manslaughter and suggested a sentence of life in prison. The judge agreed with the jury's recommendation and sentenced Terrell accordingly. Terrill appealed this decision, claiming there were problems with his trial. He argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove he committed manslaughter. He also contended that the prosecutor made unfair comments that likely influenced the jury, and he believed that the sentence given was too harsh. After reviewing all the arguments and the case details, the court found that, despite Terrill's claims of self-defense, there was enough evidence for a reasonable person to decide that he acted in a heat of passion when he caused the victim's death. Therefore, the court did not agree with the claim that the evidence was insufficient for manslaughter. However, the court agreed with Terrill on the other two issues. It found that the prosecutor's comments, which urged the jury to think about the victim's family, were inappropriate, as these feelings should not influence the jurors' decision about the sentence. The court also mentioned that the jury had asked about the parole eligibility during their discussions, but the judge had not given them any additional instructions about this matter. The court pointed out that, based on a previous case, juries need to know relevant information about parole possibilities when deciding on a sentence. Because of these reasons, the decision was made to send the case back for a new sentencing hearing. Although Terrill's conviction for manslaughter was upheld, the previous sentence was set aside to ensure that he is given a fair opportunity during resentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2005-527

F-2002-613

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-613, Muhajir A. Sango appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute, after Former Conviction of Two or More Drug Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reversed the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Sango was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to thirty years in prison and a fine of $10,000. He raised several arguments on appeal. He claimed that evidence showing his gang affiliation was irrelevant and unfairly influenced the jury. He also argued that his lawyer did not properly object to this evidence, which made his legal representation ineffective. Lastly, he believed the jury was given incorrect information about his possible sentence. Upon reviewing the case, the court agreed that there was an error in the jury instructions concerning the punishment range for habitual drug offenders. The court concluded that the jury was mistakenly told that the minimum sentence was twenty years instead of the correct ten years. Despite agreeing with some of Sango's concerns, the court found that the introduction of gang-related evidence did not significantly impact the jury's decision, and the arguments about ineffective assistance did not hold up. As a result, his conviction was upheld, but the court mandated that the sentencing should be redone to correct the earlier mistake.

Continue ReadingF-2002-613