Clear and Convincing Evidence

F-2018-336

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-336, Donnie Graham appealed his conviction for first degree rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to include three years of post-imprisonment community supervision but otherwise affirmed the conviction. One judge dissented. The case began when Donnie Graham was found guilty of first degree rape after a jury trial. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and a fine. The case was heard in the District Court of Comanche County. Graham's main argument was about his right to have effective legal help during his trial. He claimed that his lawyer did not investigate earlier rape claims made by the victim and did not present evidence that could have proved those claims were false. He insisted that because of his lawyer's mistakes, he did not get a fair trial. The court looked closely at this claim. They first checked if Graham’s lawyer did not do their job properly according to professional standards. They needed to see if the lawyer's performance was bad enough to have affected the trial's outcome. After reviewing everything, the court decided that Graham did not show enough proof that his lawyer was ineffective. They denied Graham's request for a hearing to further examine his claims. Overall, the court changed his sentence to include three years of supervision after his prison time but upheld the decision regarding his guilt.

Continue ReadingF-2018-336

F-2019-605

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-605, Jerome Matthew McConell appealed his conviction for Obtaining Merchandise by False Pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court, except for certain parts which were stricken. One member of the court dissented. McConell was found guilty after a bench trial in the District Court of McCurtain County. He was sentenced to thirty months in prison, but he argued that his trial was unfair for three main reasons. First, he claimed he was not allowed to confront some witnesses properly because hearsay evidence was permitted. Hearsay is when someone testifies about what another person said outside of court, which usually isn't allowed as direct evidence. However, the court found no real error in this situation because McConell's lawyer brought up the same issues during questioning. Therefore, the court did not see a violation of his rights. Second, McConell argued that evidence from another incident should not have been allowed by the court because the state did not give proper notice about it. However, the court decided that the evidence was relevant and no mistakes were made in permitting it. Lastly, McConell noted that the written sentence and conditions after his trial did not match what was discussed in court. The judge had ordered conditions that he should not enter a casino and also mentioned costs for prosecution that were not allowed under the law. The court agreed that these parts of the judgment were incorrect and decided to strike them from his sentence. In summary, the appeals court did affirm McConell's conviction, meaning they upheld the trial's decision, but they corrected some errors in how his sentence was recorded and ordered the lower court to make those changes.

Continue ReadingF-2019-605

S-2019-242

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2019-242, the State of Oklahoma appealed Wesley Warren Peritt Weaver, II's conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child Under 12. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that denied the State's request to introduce evidence of the defendant's prior sexual offenses as propensity evidence. One judge dissented. This case started on January 5, 2017, when the defendant, Weaver, was charged with sexually abusing his daughter, A.W., from 2011 to 2016. During a preliminary hearing, A.W. claimed that her father abused her and shared this information with her mother. The case involved testimonies from both A.W.'s mother and a forensic interviewer who assessed A.W. The State later sought to present evidence of previous sexual offenses allegedly committed by Weaver against another child, A.A., to demonstrate a pattern of behavior. A.A. testified that Weaver had molested her several years earlier. However, during a hearing, the trial court decided not to allow this evidence, stating that its probative value was less than the potential for unfair prejudice against Weaver. The State of Oklahoma appealed this ruling. They argued that the trial court made an error in not permitting the sexual propensity evidence, which could provide context for Weaver's behavior in the current case. The appellate court looked closely at the details of the case and the rules surrounding the admissibility of such evidence. Ultimately, the appellate court ruled to affirm the trial court's decision, meaning that the prior offense evidence would not be allowed during the trial against Weaver. The court concluded that the trial court's decision was reasonable and did not abuse its discretion. They found solid reasoning in the trial court's assessment of the evidence's relevance versus its potential negative impact on the jury's perception. One judge disagreed with the majority opinion, believing that the trial court had not fully considered the nuances of the sexual propensity laws and had conflated different types of evidentiary standards. This dissenting opinion emphasized the importance of acknowledging the differences between types of evidence when it comes to sexual offenses. In short, the case involved serious allegations against Weaver regarding his daughter, and while the State attempted to build a strong case by including prior incidents, the court ultimately felt that allowing such evidence would not be appropriate during the trial.

Continue ReadingS-2019-242

F-2018-626

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the case of Carl Douglas Crick, Jr. v. The State of Oklahoma, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma reviewed Crick's appeal following a jury trial that found him guilty of multiple counts of sexual offenses, including first degree rape and lewd acts with a child. Crick received life sentences for certain counts, while others received lesser prison terms. The trial court ordered some sentences to run concurrently and others consecutively. Crick's main contention on appeal was that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically citing his attorney's failure to present certain witnesses and to object to improper testimony from a prosecution witness that allegedly vouched for the credibility of the victim. The court applied the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, which requires the appellant to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that this deficiency prejudiced the outcome of the trial. The court determined that the evidence presented by Crick did not clearly demonstrate a strong possibility that counsel’s performance fell below constitutional standards. As such, Crick's request for an evidentiary hearing to further explore these claims was denied. The court also assessed the claim concerning the prosecution witness's testimony. It concluded that the alleged vouching was not comparable to previous cases that warranted reversal, thus affirming that counsel's choice not to object did not amount to deficiency. Ultimately, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence of the trial court, indicating that Crick had not established a violation of his right to effective counsel. The decision was issued with a note for the mandate to be ordered upon delivery and filing of the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2018-626

F-2018-36

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-36, Robert Eugene Brewer appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child Under 12. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Brewer's conviction. One judge dissented. Brewer was tried in Tulsa County for sexually abusing a child under the age of 12. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to seven years in prison. He was also ordered to serve three years of supervision after his prison term. Brewer appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court made a mistake by allowing evidence related to other crimes that he believed had not been proven. The court reviewed the evidence and arguments presented. The main issue was whether the trial court had the right to let in evidence that showed Brewer had a pattern of behavior related to sexual abuse. This type of evidence is sometimes called propensity evidence. Brewer argued that the trial court should have held a special hearing before allowing this evidence and should have required witnesses to testify in person. However, the court found that the trial judge had done a thorough job. The judge had held multiple hearings and considered the evidence carefully. The judge did not make a mistake by allowing the evidence because they had enough information to decide it was relevant and necessary for the case. Even though Brewer did not object to the evidence when it was presented during the trial, the court considered whether there was a serious mistake that affected the fairness of the trial. After reviewing everything, the court concluded that the trial judge acted correctly. In summary, the court believed that the evidence presented was acceptable and did not harm Brewer's case. Therefore, Brewer’s conviction was upheld, but the court also instructed the district court to make some corrections to its legal documents regarding the correct law that applied to Brewer's actions at the time of the crime. The decision was to keep Brewer's sentence in place while correcting the legal documentation properly.

Continue ReadingF-2018-36

F-2018-92

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. J 2019-0283, D. J., III appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the order granting the imposition of an adult sentence. One judge dissented. D. J., III, who was born on November 1, 2000, faced serious charges after taking part in a hazing incident at school. The state wanted to try him as an adult, which is a significant step for a young person. This happened after a court decided that D. J. could not be helped enough through the juvenile system and that the public needed more protection. The court had a hearing on April 5, 2019, where the judge reviewed evidence and decided that D. J. should face adult charges. The main arguments in the case included whether the earlier ruling was correct and if it used the right laws to make its decision. D. J. argued that the state did not show strong enough evidence to justify moving him to adult court. When D. J. appealed, he claimed two main problems with how the trial was handled. First, he believed the state did not provide clear evidence for why he should be seen as an adult rather than a juvenile. Next, he said that the judge applied the wrong law when making the decision. However, the court found that the judge's decision was reasonable and based on the facts presented during the hearing. The court stated that judges have the right to decide which witnesses to believe and how to weigh their testimonies. The judges on the court agreed that even though there was a mistake in mentioning the wrong law, this did not harm D. J.'s case because both laws were similar. The important aspects of the case were clear, and ultimately, D. J. was seen as not being able to complete rehabilitation in the juvenile system. In the dissenting opinion, the judge expressed concern that the law limits how long juveniles can be kept under the juvenile system, and this may not allow for fair treatment when they are close to being adults. The dissenting judge felt that D. J. still had the potential for rehabilitation and disagreed with moving him to adult court. In summary, the court decided to uphold the decision to treat D. J. as an adult following the state's appeal, while one judge thought this decision should be reconsidered, suggesting changes to juvenile sentencing laws to allow more flexibility for young offenders.

Continue ReadingF-2018-92

C-2018-834

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** FILED JUN 27 2019 **Case No. C-2018-834** **TAMMERA RACHELLE BAKER,** Petitioner, vs. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Respondent. --- **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Tammera Rachelle Baker, Petitioner, entered a blind plea of guilty to first degree manslaughter, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 711, in the District Court of Delaware County, Case No. CF-2017-157. The Honorable Robert G. Haney, District Judge, found Petitioner guilty. The Honorable Barry V. Denny, Associate District Judge, later sentenced Appellant to thirty (30) years imprisonment, with ten (10) years suspended, and a $1,000.00 fine. Petitioner filed an application to withdraw the plea, which was denied. She now seeks a writ of certiorari in the following propositions of error: 1. The plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered into as Petitioner believed the court would not impose more than ten years and relied on misinformation from her attorney regarding witness testimony. 2. Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel during her plea proceedings. 3. The sentence imposed post-plea is shockingly excessive due to improper victim impact statements. Certiorari review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently before a competent jurisdiction, whether the sentence is excessive, whether counsel was constitutionally effective, and whether the State has the power to prosecute. The Court will not review issues not raised in the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. The trial court's ruling on a motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed for an abuse of discretion unless it involves statutory or constitutional interpretation, which is reviewed de novo. **Proposition One**: Petitioner argues her plea was involuntary due to reliance on her attorney's misinformation regarding sentencing expectations. The record refutes this argument, indicating that the plea was voluntary; therefore, no relief is warranted. **Proposition Two**: Petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel and requests an evidentiary hearing. Claims are assessed under the Strickland v. Washington test. Petitioner has not shown clear evidence to support a finding of ineffective assistance, thus this proposition and the request for a hearing are denied. **Proposition Three**: Petitioner claims her sentence is excessive. The Court will only disturb a sentence within statutory limits if it shocks the conscience. The facts of this case do not meet that threshold, so no relief is warranted. **DECISION**: The petition for the writ of certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES:** **TRIAL** Lee Griffin, Attorney for Appellant Kathy Baker, Attorney for Withdrawal **APPEAL** Katrina Conrad-Legler, Attorney for Appellant Nicholas P. Lelecas, Assistant District Attorney for the State **OPINION BY**: LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur --- For full ruling, [click here to download the PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-834_1734180202.pdf).

Continue ReadingC-2018-834

J-2019-2

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

This document is a summary of a court case from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals involving an appeal by B.J.H., a youthful offender, contesting an order that allowed the State of Oklahoma to sentence him as an adult. The case centered around multiple charges, including Assault With a Deadly Weapon, and the court's decision on whether the public would be adequately protected if the appellant were sentenced as a youthful offender. **Key Points:** 1. **Background**: B.J.H. was charged as a youthful offender at the age of 16 for multiple violent offenses. The State filed a motion to sentence him as an adult under Oklahoma law. 2. **Court Proceedings**: Hearings were held to review the motion, where evidence included testimonies and psychological evaluations. The presiding judge, David A. Stephens, granted the State's motion based on findings that the public would not be adequately protected if B.J.H. were sentenced as a youthful offender. 3. **Appellant's Claims**: B.J.H. appealed the decision on four grounds, including claims of abuse of discretion regarding public safety findings, denial of due process, procedural issues related to preliminary hearings, and lack of service notice to his guardians. 4. **Court's Ruling**: The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion or merit in B.J.H.'s claims. The ruling stated that the evidence supported the conclusion regarding public safety. 5. **Dissenting Opinion**: Presiding Judge Lewis dissented, arguing that the overwhelming evidence presented at the hearing indicated that the public would be adequately protected if B.J.H. were sentenced as a youthful offender. He highlighted that the majority’s ruling contradicted the facts presented during the hearings. Overall, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the decision to sentence B.J.H. as an adult despite disagreements on the interpretation of evidence and procedural fairness.

Continue ReadingJ-2019-2

J-2015-353

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2015-353, E.A.F. appealed his conviction for robbery and attempted robbery. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order to sentence E.A.F. as an adult and instructed for a new hearing to be held before a different judge, only after a psychological evaluation was completed. Two judges dissented.

Continue ReadingJ-2015-353

J-2013-87

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2013-87, J.C.T. appealed his conviction for Robbery With a Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order bridging him to the Department of Corrections and stated that he should be sentenced to twelve years, suspended, and granted credit for time served. One judge dissented. J.C.T. was charged as a youthful offender in 2011 and initially received a twelve-year sentence that was suspended as part of a plea agreement. He was supposed to enter a rehabilitation program. However, after allegations of serious misconduct, the State moved to transfer him to adult custody. A hearing was held to determine whether his actions warranted this change. The court reviewed the evidence and ultimately decided that the state had established a valid reason for transferring J.C.T. to the Department of Corrections. He was found guilty of not complying with the original terms of his sentence. The law allowed for such a transfer based on his behavior while under supervision. During the appeal, J.C.T. raised several issues. He argued that the trial court had misused its discretion by changing the suspension of his sentence to actual time in prison. J.C.T. believed he should only receive the suspended sentence as originally agreed upon. The court had to look at the invalidity of the new sentence imposed and the interpretation of relevant statutes regarding youthful offenders. Ultimately, the OCCA concluded that the district court needed to resentence J.C.T. to follow what was originally agreed—a suspended sentence of twelve years—and provide time served. This ruling was based on the court's interpretation of laws surrounding youthful offenders and the limits on sentencing options upon being bridged to the Department of Corrections. One judge agreed with the majority but argued that the district court had made a correct decision in sentencing J.C.T. to the twelve-year prison term because it reflected a consequence of his violating the terms of his original agreement. However, another judge believed the initial ruling should stand without any changes.

Continue ReadingJ-2013-87

J-2010-839

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2010-839, M.D.M. appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's denial of M.D.M.'s request for juvenile certification, but reversed the order allowing the State to sentence him as an adult. M.D.M. dissented. M.D.M. was charged as a Youthful Offender and requested to be treated as a juvenile instead. The trial court denied his motion, stating that he could be rehabilitated and that the public would be safe if he was treated as a Youthful Offender. The court's decision was based on facts and evidence presented during the hearing. On appeal, M.D.M. argued that the trial court made several mistakes in denying his request. He believed the written order did not match what was discussed in court and that he was not given a fair chance for rehabilitation while being treated as a Youthful Offender. The court ruled that the trial court's initial decision was reasonable and did not abuse its discretion in treating M.D.M. as a Youthful Offender. However, the court also found that the written order mistakenly stated that M.D.M. should be sentenced as an adult. The court clarified that M.D.M. should be treated as a Youthful Offender if convicted. The decision included guidance for the trial court to ensure that M.D.M.'s case is handled appropriately moving forward.

Continue ReadingJ-2010-839

J 2010-0788

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2010-0788, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With A Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that imposed an adult sentence and remand the case for sentencing as a Youthful Offender if the appellant is convicted. One judge dissented. The appellant, who was born on March 12, 1994, faced charges in the District Court of Muskogee County where he was labeled a Youthful Offender. A motion was filed by the State for an adult sentence, while the appellant sought to be treated as a juvenile. The court held a hearing, and the judge denied the appellant's request to be treated as a juvenile. The same judge also granted the State's request for an adult sentence. The appellant raised three main arguments on appeal. First, he claimed the written order for the adult sentence did not match what the judge said during the hearing. Second, he argued that the trial court did not show clear and convincing evidence to justify an adult sentence. Third, he said it was wrong for the court to deny his request to be treated as a juvenile. According to the law, to punish someone as an adult, the court must find strong evidence that the individual could not adequately be rehabilitated or that the public would be at risk. The court found that the trial judge did not make the necessary findings to support an adult sentence and actually believed the appellant could complete rehabilitation and that public safety would not be compromised. Therefore, the court agreed with the appellant that the decision to treat him as an adult was wrong, thus reversing that part of the judgment. However, regarding the second argument about treating him as a juvenile, the court disagreed. The judges felt the trial judge had enough reasons to treat the appellant as a Youthful Offender instead of a juvenile. In conclusion, while the order for an adult sentence was reversed, the court confirmed that the decision to treat the appellant as a Youthful Offender was appropriate. The case was sent back to the lower court to proceed with sentencing as a Youthful Offender if he is found guilty.

Continue ReadingJ 2010-0788

J-2010-653

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2010-653, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including arson and assault on a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the juvenile court's order certifying the appellant as an adult. Two justices dissented. The appellant, who was around seventeen-and-a-half years old at the time of the incidents, faced serious charges, including arson and endangering human life. The state wanted to treat him as an adult, and a judge agreed to this on June 25, 2010. However, the appellant's defense argued that the state did not provide clear and convincing evidence to support this decision. During the appeal, the court examined whether the evidence justified treating the appellant as an adult. The judges noted that the law allows for such decisions only in exceptional cases, where a child is deemed not able to benefit from rehabilitation provided in juvenile programs. The appellant's side argued that he was receptive to treatment, as shown by his actions post-incident. He was receiving proper medical treatment after struggling with prescription medication and alcohol use, and he was advancing in his rehabilitation efforts. The justices found that the evidence presented showed the appellant was amenable to treatment and could be rehabilitated if kept within the juvenile system. The court emphasized that just because the acts committed were serious does not mean the child should be treated as an adult without proper evidence. Ultimately, the appeal resulted in the reversal of the certification order, meaning the appellant should not be treated as an adult and should be retained in the juvenile system. The dissenting opinions raised concerns about the risks of letting the appellant remain a juvenile, suggesting that not treating him as an adult could endanger the community given the serious nature of his actions. They believed that the judge's original decision should have been upheld. In conclusion, the majority opinion favored rehabilitation over punishment as an adult, highlighting the importance of the juvenile justice system's focus on the potential for reform and supervision.

Continue ReadingJ-2010-653

J-2009-0091

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2009-0091, C.C.S. appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order of the lower court that had granted the State's motion to impose an adult sentence on C.C.S. and remanded the case for further proceedings with instructions to sentence C.C.S. as a Youthful Offender if he is convicted of the charged crimes. One judge dissented. C.C.S., who was born on December 28, 1990, faced multiple charges as a Youthful Offender. These included robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number, and obstructing an officer. The State requested that C.C.S. be sentenced as an adult. After a hearing, a judge decided C.C.S. should be tried as an adult for the robbery charge. C.C.S. then appealed, and the case came before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. During a hearing on April 30, 2009, the court listened to arguments and took time to think about the case. The court determined that the trial court had made a mistake by deciding to treat C.C.S. as an adult. The ruling meant that if C.C.S. was found guilty, he should be treated and sentenced as a Youthful Offender according to the law. This result was based on the idea that the law aims to help young people rehabilitate rather than punish them like adults. The judges in the dissent expressed their disagreement with the majority opinion. They believed that the trial judge had made a reasonable decision based on the facts of the case. They felt that the judge had thought carefully about what would be best for C.C.S., considering his age and the nature of the charges against him. The dissenting opinion also pointed out concerns about how the ruling would work, especially because C.C.S. was almost 18 at the time of the decision and nearly 18.5 years old by the time the case was decided. They referred to specific laws about how young offenders should be treated and raised questions about whether C.C.S. would still be eligible for a Youthful Offender program given his age during the legal proceedings. Overall, the court’s decision aimed to ensure that young people like C.C.S. would have the opportunity for rehabilitation instead of simply being punished as adults for their actions. The focus was on providing a chance for a better future rather than imposing adult penalties.

Continue ReadingJ-2009-0091

F-2006-1015

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1015, Earnest Ray Kingery, Jr. appealed his conviction for rape in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Kingery's sentence from seventy years to twenty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Earnest Ray Kingery, Jr. was found guilty of raping a child and was sentenced to a long prison term. He appealed, arguing that several things went wrong during his trial. He said that a witness should not have been allowed to talk about other crimes he allegedly committed, which could have confused the jury. He also claimed the judge pressured the jury into making a decision and that the prosecutor hinted he was guilty for not speaking to the police after a search warrant was served at his home. The court looked closely at Kingery's claims. They agreed that the evidence about the witness's testimony was not appropriate for the jury to hear, as it led to confusion about the other child that was involved in the case. The skills of the forensic interviewer were challenged because it seemed that testimony might have suggested the children were telling the truth without any evidence. Even if the trial court gave special instructions to limit how the jury should view this evidence, it still influenced their decision. However, the court found that the victim's own testimony was strong enough to prove Kingery's guilt. They acknowledged that while the testimonies of the other child were not correctly handled in terms of evidence, the main evidence from the victim was enough for a guilty verdict. In the end, the court decided to modify Kingery’s long sentence to a lesser one. They believed his punishment should still be serious but recognized that the jury might have been adversely influenced by some of the testimony they heard about other crimes. Thus, Kingery's prison time was reduced to twenty-five years. The court affirmed the conviction but made this change to the punishment. One of the judges disagreed with reducing the sentence, insisting that all of the evidence presented was appropriate, and so the original long sentence should have stood. Another judge agreed on the conviction but also dissented regarding the sentence being modified.

Continue ReadingF-2006-1015

J-2005-542

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2005-542, S.H. appealed his conviction for being sentenced as an adult. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the district court's decision, stating that there was not enough convincing evidence to support this adult sentencing. One judge dissented. The court found that S.H. should be sentenced as a youthful offender instead.

Continue ReadingJ-2005-542

J 2002-0247

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2002-0247, A.B.H. appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With A Deadly Weapon With Intent To Kill. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order that allowed the State to sentence him as an adult. One judge dissented. A.B.H. was charged as a Youthful Offender and the State wanted him to be tried and sentenced as an adult. There was a hearing to discuss this, and the judge decided to allow the State's request. A.B.H. argued that this was not fair because the judge did not properly consider if he could be rehabilitated as a youthful offender. The court looked at the evidence, including studies that showed A.B.H. could complete a plan for rehabilitation and that the public would be safe if he was treated as a youthful offender. Because the State did not provide strong evidence to support trying him as an adult, the court decided to reverse that decision and send the case back for further action.

Continue ReadingJ 2002-0247

F 2000-446

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-446, Christopher Edward VanAnden appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Christopher VanAnden was found guilty by a jury of serious charges, including First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. After the trial, he was sentenced to five years for the first charge and three years for the second, with both sentences to be served at the same time. After his conviction, VanAnden argued several points in his appeal. He believed he was unfairly denied the chance to present important witness testimony, that his rights were violated by obtaining an involuntary written statement, that there was not enough evidence to convict him, and that admitting evidence of his other crimes influenced the jury unfairly. The court looked closely at these issues and agreed with VanAnden, deciding that the evidence of other crimes he allegedly committed was particularly problematic. The court pointed out that this evidence was not shown to be connected to the current case in a clear and convincing way, meaning it should not have been allowed at trial. Ultimately, since the court felt that the admission of this other crime evidence was very unfair to VanAnden and could have changed the jury's decision on his guilt, they ordered a new trial. This means that he will have another chance to defend himself against the charges in a new court session, where the jury will hear the case from the beginning without the prejudicial evidence that affected the first trial.

Continue ReadingF 2000-446