Clearly Erroneous Archives

S-2011-0801

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 26, 2012
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S 2011-0801, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Wendel Hughes for preventing a witness from giving testimony, use of a firearm while committing a felony, and false reports of crime. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that dismissed the charges of preventing a witness from testifying and use of a firearm while committing a felony. One judge dissented. Wendel Hughes was charged in Sequoyah County with three serious offenses. During the preliminary hearing, the magistrate determined that there wasn't enough evidence to support the charges of preventing a witness from giving testimony or using a firearm during a felony. The State thought this decision was wrong and appealed the ruling. The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to see if there is likely enough evidence to believe that a crime happened and that the accused person committed it. The court reviewed the case to check if the lower court made a mistake in its decision. They found that the evidence the State provided was not strong enough to show that Hughes committed the crimes. So, they decided not to change the ruling of the lower court. The court affirmed the dismissal of the two counts against Hughes, meaning they agreed with the previous decision. The judge who disagreed with the majority opinion thought that the evidence should have been enough to go to trial. He argued that the evidence suggested Hughes had intentions to stop the witness from providing testimony and that a jury should decide if he was guilty based on all the facts of the case. In summary, Hughes's charges were dismissed because the courts did not find enough evidence of his wrongdoing based on the information presented during the preliminary hearing.

J-2001-80

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 14, 2001
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2001-80, B. D. S. appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the District Court’s order denying his motion for certification as a youthful offender and remand the case for certification. One judge dissented. The case began when B. D. S. was charged as an adult with a serious crime. He wanted to be recognized as a youthful offender instead of being treated like an adult in the legal system. The court had to decide whether he should be classified as a youthful offender, which could mean a different kind of punishment and possible help for rehabilitation. B. D. S. argued that the trial court made mistakes. He said the court did not follow the rules about notifying his family of his rights regarding the case, and he claimed his lawyer did not do enough to defend him by speaking up about this issue. After listening to the arguments, the court found that the trial court did not provide proper notice to B. D. S.’s parents or guardian. This lack of communication meant that he might not have received a fair chance in court. The judges agreed that this was important and decided that B. D. S. should be given another chance to be classified as a youthful offender. The dissenting judge felt differently. This judge believed that the trial court's decision not to classify B. D. S. as a youthful offender was the right choice. This judge thought that the evidence showed B. D. S. had committed a serious crime in a cold and calculated way, and that he had a history of violent behavior, which warranted treating him as an adult. The dissenting opinion emphasized the importance of public safety and questioned whether B. D. S. could be rehabilitated. In summary, the court’s majority agreed that B. D. S. should be treated as a youthful offender for a fresh evaluation, while the dissenting judge maintained that the evidence showed he should remain classified as an adult.