Claims of Error Archives

C 2014-920

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 27, 2015
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.

F-2012-236

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 5, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-236, #Jonathan Bear Robe Nahwooksy appealed his conviction for #First Degree Rape and Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence. Nahwooksy was originally sentenced to thirty years imprisonment for First Degree Rape and five years for Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation; however, the court changed the thirty-year sentence to twenty years and ordered both sentences to be served at the same time instead of one after the other. During the trial, Nahwooksy was found guilty of raping his second cousin, K.M., who was fourteen at the time. The case revolved around whether the sexual encounter was forced or consensual. The prosecutor's conduct throughout the case led to concerns about the fairness of the trial. Specifically, the prosecutor made inappropriate comments during the trial that seemed to create sympathy for K.M. and portrayed herself and the investigating officer as champions of justice. The court examined the prosecutor's behavior and found that it went beyond acceptable limits, especially when she made personal comments and depicted herself as fighting for victims. While there was enough evidence for the jury to find Nahwooksy guilty, the court believed that the prosecutor's misconduct during closing arguments likely affected the jury's decision on sentencing. In conclusion, while the conviction was upheld, the court decided to reduce Nahwooksy's sentence to ensure fairness in light of the errors made during the trial. #None dissented.

F-2012-437

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 6, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-437, Mark J. Lawler appealed his conviction for rape in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Mark J. Lawler was found guilty of rape in the first degree by a jury and given a sentence of thirty-five years in prison. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes during his trial. First, Lawler thought he should have been allowed to represent himself instead of having a lawyer. He argued that this was his right under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court agreed with him, stating that he had clearly asked to represent himself at least five days before the trial, which was a reasonable request. The court also found that Lawler understood the risks involved in defending himself without a lawyer. The trial court was wrong to deny his request, so that was a significant error. Second, Lawler argued that he did not get a speedy trial, which is another right he had under the law. Although there were delays in the trial, the court found that they were not entirely Lawler's fault. The reasons for the delays included busy courts and other issues that were not intentional. However, the court also decided that Lawler did not show he was hurt by the delay, so they did not agree with his claim on this point. In summary, the court found that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing Lawler to represent himself. Because of this error, they reversed his conviction and sent the case back for a new trial.