Clarification Archives - OCCA Opinions

RE-2010-0510

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 7, 2010
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2009-0510, the appellant appealed his conviction for domestic abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence and ordered a new hearing. One judge dissented. In this case, the appellant, who had been previously convicted of domestic abuse, was sentenced to five years, with certain conditions. His sentence was largely suspended, meaning he wouldn’t have to serve most of it if he followed the rules set by the court. However, he faced trouble when the state accused him of violating those rules. There were two applications made by the state to revoke his suspended sentence. The first happened in 2007, where a judge found he broke the terms of his probation and took away three and a half years of his suspended sentence. He did not appeal this decision. The second application was filed in 2009, which led to a hearing in May of that year. During this hearing, the judge determined that the appellant had again violated the rules, resulting in a decision to revoke his entire suspended sentence. The appellant claimed he did not have a lawyer during the revocation hearing. He argued that he was not given enough time to find one and that this hurt his case. The state responded that the appellant missed the deadline to apply for a court-appointed lawyer and therefore gave up his right to have legal help. They believed he was trying to delay the hearing. The law states that individuals at revocation hearings should have the right to have a lawyer, but the court can proceed if a person knowingly waives that right. In earlier similar cases, if judges found an individual was just trying to delay things, they ruled that the person voluntarily gave up their right to have a lawyer. In this case, the court found that the appellant's delay of only six days did not show he was deliberately trying to postpone the proceedings. They also noted the lack of a proper review regarding whether he was unable to afford a lawyer. As a result, the appeal had merit, and his claim for lack of counsel was upheld. Since the court noted conflicts in the testimony presented during the hearing, they decided to reverse the revocation of the suspended sentence. They ordered that a new hearing take place, ensuring that the appellant has the chance to be represented by a lawyer or that his waiver of that right is properly recorded. In summary, the court ruled that the process leading to the revocation had issues that warranted a new hearing, ensuring fairness and proper legal representation for the appellant.

F-2006-408

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 7, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-408, Johnny Lee Whitworth appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Whitworth was found guilty of killing someone, but the jury believed he was too drunk to intend to kill, so they convicted him of the lesser charge of manslaughter instead of murder. The jury gave him a sentence of 100 years in prison. Whitworth raised several arguments in his appeal: 1. He argued that the jury instructions didn't mention self-defense as a possible defense to manslaughter. 2. He claimed the evidence was not enough to prove he did not act in self-defense. 3. He complained that the jury was not informed about the 85% Rule, which means a person must serve only a portion of their sentence before becoming eligible for parole. 4. He thought his sentence was too harsh. The court found that the jury instructions were overall fair and included necessary information about his defenses. They also concluded that there was enough evidence for the jury to decide against his claim of self-defense. However, the court noted an error regarding the jury not being informed about the 85% Rule when they asked about the actual time Whitworth would serve. This was an important mistake because it might have led the jury to give a longer sentence than they would have if they had understood how the 85% Rule worked. Given that this error occurred and that Whitworth did not have a criminal record, the court decided to reduce his sentence from 100 years to 50 years. In summary, while the court upheld the conviction, they felt it was fair to change Whitworth's sentence to lesser punishment due to the lack of information given to the jury about his potential time in prison.

F-2001-1061

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 27, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1061, Gibbs appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, Second or Subsequent Offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to eight years in prison. One judge dissented. Gibbs was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to ten years, along with a fine and recommended counseling. Gibbs argued that the evidence against him wasn't enough to convict him. However, the court found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction. Gibbs' defense claimed he wasn’t driving under the influence; he said his car’s accelerator stuck and that someone gave him a ride home. He also stated that his sister saw him drinking at home. The prosecutor, during the trial, made errors when questioning Gibbs about the burden of proof and his rights. Even though there were issues with the prosecutor's comments, the court believed these mistakes did not greatly affect the overall outcome of the case. While the conviction remained, the court decided to lessen Gibbs' sentence due to the errors noted during the trial.