In OCCA case No. F-2017-1203, Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta appealed his conviction for child neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him, based on a prior ruling regarding Indian territory laws. One judge dissented, expressing concerns about the implications of the ruling and the handling of precedents.
In OCCA case No. C-2013-254, Gina Diane Eslick appealed her conviction for multiple drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her petition for certiorari, meaning they agreed to look at her case closely. The court found that she did not have effective help from her lawyer when she tried to change her guilty plea, as her lawyer had a conflict of interest. The court ordered that her case be sent back to the District Court so she could have a new hearing with a lawyer who did not have a conflict. No one dissented in this decision.
In OCCA case No. RE-2014-743, the appellant appealed his conviction for attempted manufacturing of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine), first-degree arson, and child endangerment. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences for some charges but vacate the revocation for one charge due to a prior dismissal. The case began when the appellant, on November 3, 2010, pleaded guilty to several charges, including attempting to manufacture methamphetamine. He was sentenced to serve time but was given a chance to have his sentences suspended if he followed probation rules. However, in August 2012, the state claimed the appellant violated these rules by not living in a sober facility and testing positive for drugs. The appellant admitted to these violations but was given another chance to comply with the probation terms. Later, the state filed another application to revoke his suspended sentences, alleging he committed new crimes, including kidnapping. A revocation hearing was postponed multiple times, eventually taking place in 2014. The court decided to revoke all of his suspended sentences except for one, which had been dismissed earlier. The appellant raised several arguments in his appeal. He claimed that the court did not have the right to revoke his sentences since the revocation hearing was delayed beyond the allowable time. He also argued that the court should not have revoked his sentence related to the dismissed charge and said he didn’t receive proper help from his attorney. The court found that while the appellant was correct about the dismissal of one charge, the other violations justified the revocation of his sentences. The court determined that the initial confession of violations was enough for the revocation and that the appellant had not shown neglect of care by his attorney on the other claims. As a result, the court affirmed the decision to revoke the sentences for the charges that were still valid but agreed to cancel the revocation related to the dismissed count. The case was sent back to the lower court to correct the record about the dismissed charge. Overall, the court's findings led to a mixed outcome for the appellant, maintaining some penalties while recognizing the error regarding the dismissed charge.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided that the trial court had made a mistake by ruling that the Smiths were not entitled to a court-appointed attorney, which violated their right to legal representation. Consequently, the court reversed their sentences and ordered a new trial. One judge disagreed with the decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and in case No. F-2005-786, Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse their convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Charles Milton Smith, Sr. was charged with manufacturing a controlled substance (methamphetamine), child endangerment, and possession of a controlled substance. Bonnie Smith faced similar charges for manufacturing a controlled substance and child endangerment. During the trial, both were found guilty of the charges against them. The jury recommended sentences that included lengthy prison time and substantial fines. However, they claimed that their rights were violated because they did not have court-appointed lawyers. Initially, they were considered unable to afford an attorney, but after someone paid their bond, the trial court ruled that they were no longer indigent and had to represent themselves, which they argued was not fair. The court looked closely at whether the trial court properly assessed their financial situation before denying them their right to legal representation. They pointed out that just because bond was posted, it does not automatically mean someone can afford a lawyer. The court found that there was no record showing that the trial court had properly checked their financial status or informed them that they might still qualify for a lawyer. Since having a lawyer is essential for a fair trial, the court reversed the Smiths' convictions and ordered a new trial where they would have a chance to properly have legal representation.
In OCCA case No. C-2004-739, Billy Jack Brown, Jr. appealed his conviction for Attempt to Manufacture the Controlled Dangerous Substance Methamphetamine and/or Amphetamine, Child Endangerment, and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance Methamphetamine or Amphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for a writ of certiorari and remand the case for a new hearing on his application to withdraw his plea. One member of the court dissented. Billy Jack Brown pleaded no contest to three charges related to drugs and child endangerment. He was given a long prison sentence and a large fine. After some time, Brown wanted to change his plea. He said he felt pressured to plead guilty, claiming his lawyer told him if he didn’t, his wife wouldn’t be accepted into Drug Court. Brown said he didn't agree with his lawyer on many things and felt that it was hard for him to make a good decision about his plea. During a hearing about his request to change his plea, his lawyer said he was unsure about how to proceed because he couldn’t recommend that Brown change his plea. The court found that because Brown and his lawyer had a conflict of interest, he did not receive effective help, which is a right every person has. The court decided that Brown should have a new hearing so he could properly address his reasons for wanting to withdraw his plea. The decision was made to let Brown have this chance, and the appeals court ordered that the case be sent back for a new hearing to properly look at his request. One judge disagreed with this decision, saying that Brown's statements about being coerced were not supported by the evidence and that he had made a voluntary plea.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-82, Billy Dale Lathrop appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and child endangerment. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for conspiracy, possession of methamphetamine, possession of precursor chemicals, and possession of paraphernalia, but to reverse the convictions for child endangerment. Three judges dissented regarding one of the convictions.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-772, Amy Marie Flippence appealed her conviction for multiple charges, including conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and child endangerment. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some charges but reversed one conviction for possession of a precursor and also reversed the child endangerment convictions, ordering them to be dismissed. One judge dissented regarding the conspiracy conviction.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-86 and RE-2003-87, Christi Marie Farris appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but remanded the case to the district court to order that the sentences be served concurrently. One judge dissented.